Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 112 references

Review of oxygen measurement and relevance to the mechanisms of FLASH radiotherapy

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read In vivo oxygen measurements argue against oxygen depletion as the mechanism of FLASH radiotherapy's normal-tissue sparing.

desk verdict A coherent, self-aware review that makes a plausible case against bulk oxygen depletion as the FLASH mechanism, but the abstract overstates the oxygen-window conclusion and the negative argument rests on bulk-probe, mostly skin gO2 values. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.17974 v1 pith:CY5F4T5M submitted 2026-07-20 physics.med-ph physics.bio-phphysics.optics

Brian W. Pogue , David I. Hunter , Corbin Narita , William S. Thomas , Xu Cao , Harold M. Swartz This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.med-phphysics.bio-phphysics.optics PACS 87.53.-j
keywords FLASHradiotherapyradiolyticoxygenconsumptiondepletionhypothesistissuepO2measurementOxyphorphosphorescenceenhancementratioreactivespeciesultra-highdoserate
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This review argues that FLASH radiotherapy's normal-tissue sparing is not caused by radiolytic oxygen depletion. Direct in vivo measurements with fast oxygen reporters yield consumption values of roughly 0.1–0.5 mmHg per Gray, so a 20 Gy treatment would remove only 2–4 mmHg of tissue oxygen—nowhere near the levels needed to create transient hypoxia. The review instead points to a different picture: the FLASH effect is observed only within an intermediate window of baseline tissue oxygen, and ultra-high dose rates shift radiation chemistry toward more solvated electrons and less hydroxyl-radical damage. If correct, the field should stop treating global oxygen depletion as the mechanism and focus on dose-rate-dependent ROS chemistry, local scavenging, and baseline pO2 as the controlling variables.

What carries the argument

The gO2 value—radiolytic oxygen consumption per unit dose, measured in mmHg per Gray—is the central quantitative object that carries the argument; its small magnitude and its saturation at baseline pO2 above roughly 15–25 mmHg undermine the oxygen-depletion hypothesis. A second load-bearing idea is the pO2 window: FLASH sparing occurs only when baseline tissue oxygen lies in an intermediate range, vanishing under both hypoxia and hyperoxia. The measurement system that makes the central claim possible is oxygen-quenched phosphorescence with molecular reporters, which provides millisecond-resolution, radiation-insensitive, localized pO2 readings before, during, and after UHDR pulses.

What would settle it

An experiment that measures tissue pO2 during a 20 Gy UHDR pulse with an independent fast technique (for instance EPR oximetry or a microelectrode) and finds a transient drop of more than 10 mmHg would contradict the paper's scaling argument. Equally, showing FLASH sparing in clamped hypoxic tissue or in hyperoxic tissue would contradict the pO2-window claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that measured in vivo radiolytic oxygen consumption during ultra-high dose rate irradiation is too small to induce radiobiological hypoxia. Using phosphorescence-lifetime oxygen probes (Oxyphor) in mice, the measured gO2 values of 0.1–0.5 mmHg per Gray imply that a typical 20 Gy FLASH dose depletes tissue oxygen by only 2–4 mmHg, far below the threshold for hypoxic radioprotection. The review also synthesizes oxygen-modulation experiments showing that FLASH sparing appears only at intermediate baseline pO2—disappearing under both clamping-induced hypoxia and hyperoxia—and pairs this with in vitro radiation chemistry showing UHDR shifts radical yields toward solva

Load-bearing premise

The measured gO2 values from Oxyphor probes in skin accurately represent the oxygen consumed in the irradiated tissue volume; if calibration, probe placement, tissue temperature, or non-concurrent measurement bias those numbers, the claim that depletion cannot cause hypoxia loses its foundation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If oxygen depletion is not the mechanism, FLASH studies should pivot to measuring reactive oxygen species, scavenging, and downstream damage pathways rather than searching for transient hypoxia.
  • Baseline tissue pO2 becomes a critical, often unmeasured variable: anesthesia, inspired oxygen fraction, and biological sex can move tissue into or out of the FLASH window and should be controlled and reported.
  • Dose-rate characterization must include pulse structure and total irradiation time, not just mean dose rate, because radiation chemistry completes on nanosecond timescales while mean dose rate is pulse-frequency dominated.
  • Direct intra-irradiation oxygen measurement is feasible and provides one of the only real-time windows into radiation chemistry in vivo, which could be extended into clinical settings.
  • Tumor and normal-tissue responses may diverge under UHDR: tumor control appears hypoxia-independent, suggesting separate mechanisms for tumor killing and normal tissue sparing.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If gO2 is tissue-type independent but baseline dependent, the tumor-versus-normal difference in FLASH response likely comes from the local radical-scavenging pool rather than from oxygen consumption—an inference the paper poses as an open question; a testable prediction is that thiol-rich tissues show smaller effective damage but not smaller ΔpO2.
  • The unresolved mismatch between tiny measured depletion and the 5–10 second oxygen-diffusion timescale of the FLASH effect suggests a microdomain effect—intracellular oxygen near DNA or mitochondria could behave differently from bulk extracellular probe readings; this would be testable with intracellular reporters like protoporphyrin IX.
  • A clinical translation inference: baseline pO2 imaging could become a patient-selection biomarker for FLASH, predicting which tumors or normal tissues will show a meaningful therapeutic window; this is not stated in the paper but follows from the pO2-window claim.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This review surveys in vivo oxygen measurement techniques and their application to FLASH radiotherapy, with emphasis on phosphorescence-based Oxyphor and PpIX probes. It compiles measurements of radiolytic oxygen consumption (gO2) and oxygen-modulation studies, and argues that measured gO2 values of 0.1–0.5 mmHg/Gy imply a 20 Gy dose depletes only 2–4 mmHg, insufficient to produce transient radiobiological hypoxia. The authors propose instead that FLASH sparing depends on an intermediate baseline pO2 window and on dose-rate-dependent ROS chemistry, modulated by tissue scavenging.

Significance. If the central negative claim holds, the oxygen-depletion hypothesis would be excluded as a general mechanism, redirecting the field toward baseline pO2 windows and ROS/scavenger chemistry. The review usefully brings together independent corroborating data (Grilj, Van Slyke, El Khatib, Koch, Montay-Gruel) alongside the authors' own Oxyphor studies, and it explicitly flags many of its own limitations—non-concurrent pO2 measurements, skin-centric data, and the unresolved split-dose timescale discrepancy. The paper is therefore a valuable synthesis, but its load-bearing scaling argument rests on gO2 values that are predominantly extracellular, cutaneous, and volume-averaged, which the authors themselves acknowledge may not capture micro-local heterogeneity.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.4, Fig. 7] The central exclusion of oxygen depletion is a direct scaling ΔpO2 = gO2 × D, with gO2 = 0.1–0.5 mmHg/Gy. This assumes that Oxyphor-derived gO2 values represent radiolytic consumption at the radiobiological target. The paper itself states in Section 3.3 that 'it is not clear whether the lack of tissue dependence was due to the measurement process or is an inherent feature,' and Open Question 1 in Section 3.4 asks whether micro-local heterogeneity could matter. Given intercapillary distances of 100–300 μm (Section 2.2), an extracellular probe averaging over such a scale can miss perivascular gradients and localized depletion. The authors should either provide micro-local measurements or model the effect of heterogeneous oxygen distribution to support the 'no transient hypoxia' conclusion.
  2. [Table 3, Section 4.1] The abstract claims the FLASH effect occurs only at intermediate baseline pO2, yet most studies in Table 3 did not measure pO2 during irradiation, and Section 4.1 explicitly notes the 'absence of real-time tissue pO2 measurements during irradiation.' Hansen et al. used a separate room-air cohort and 25°C water irradiation (Section 4.2). The evidence for a sharp pO2 window is therefore correlative and non-concurrent, and the claim in the abstract is stronger than the data support.
  3. [Conclusions, final paragraph] The paper acknowledges an unresolved discrepancy: split-dose FLASH sparing is preserved on 5–10 s timescales that match oxygen diffusion, which is hard to reconcile with a 2–4 mmHg depletion being biologically irrelevant. Since this timescale is one of the strongest pieces of evidence for a diffusion-resupply mechanism, the authors need to either propose a quantitative explanation that reconciles the small gO2 with the time-window, or explicitly restrict their conclusion to cases where depletion is the sole mechanism.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 2 caption] The caption contains corrupted text '9988/*///8988' that should be removed.
  2. [References] Reference numbering is inconsistent: reference 69 is missing from the list, and ref 117 is cited in Section 1 before many earlier-numbered references.
  3. [Section 2.3, Key Point 4] ΔpO2 is used without definition at first occurrence; define it in Section 2.3 or earlier in Section 3.2 where it is formally introduced.
  4. [Table 2] The Koch et al. values include a footnote about the >30 mmHg plateau region; clarify in the header or footnote whether these are plateau values rather than routine gO2 values.
  5. [Abstract and Conclusions] The abstract uses 'demonstrating that the FLASH effect occurs only at intermediate baseline pO2'; given the limitations acknowledged in the text, 'suggesting' or 'indicating' would be more proportionate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

Review is a synthesis with acknowledged data gaps; central anti-depletion claim is scaled from external and multi-group gO2 measurements, not a circular derivation.

full rationale

This is a narrative review, not a derivation, so most circularity patterns (fitted-input-called-prediction, ansatz via citation, uniqueness imported from authors) do not apply. The paper's central quantitative claim is that measured gO2 values of 0.1–0.5 mmHg/Gy imply only 2–4 mmHg depletion at 20 Gy, which it concludes is insufficient to cause transient hypoxia (Section 3.4, Fig. 7). This is a linear scaling of empirically measured g-values, and the g-values come from multiple independent groups (Grilj, Van Slyke, El Khatib, Koch, Montay-Gruel, Jansen, plus the authors' own Oxyphor studies), not from a parameter fitted within this paper. The paper does rely heavily on the authors' own Oxyphor-based studies for the gO2 vs pO2 curves (Fig. 6, refs. 5, 72, 74–77, 81), and Table 3's pO2-window conclusion leans on Hunter et al. (2026, bioRxiv, self-citation) plus Tavakkoli and Sunnerberg, but corroboration by independent measurements (Grilj et al., El Khatib et al., Van Slyke et al.) means the central claim is externally supported rather than self-referential. The paper repeatedly flags its own limitations: Section 3.3 states 'It is not clear whether the lack of tissue dependence was due to the measurement process or is an inherent feature'; Section 4.1 notes the 'absence of real-time tissue pO2 measurements during irradiation' in modulation studies; Section 4.2 acknowledges Hansen et al. measured oxygen in a separate cohort not matching the irradiation setup; the Conclusions explicitly state the 5–10 s split-dose sparing timescale 'remains unresolved' against the small depletion estimate. These self-identified gaps weaken evidential strength but are not circularity: no claim is equivalent to its inputs by construction, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing argument reduces to an unverified self-citation. The only mild self-citation issue is the central pO2-window figure (Fig. 2b, ref. 116) and the gO2 synthesis being dominated by the authors' group; this is a normal self-citation pattern in a field where they perform the relevant measurements, and it is not the sole support. Score 1 reflects that self-citation is present but not load-bearing in a circular sense.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The review introduces no new fitted parameters; the quantitative claims rest on empirical gO2 values, saturation thresholds, and diffusion timescales inherited from cited primary studies. The main axioms are measurement and extrapolation assumptions: Oxyphor pO2 reports, isolation of oxygen as the modulated variable, transfer of in vitro radiation chemistry to in vivo, and generalization from skin to other tissues. No invented entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Reported gO2 values (radiolytic oxygen consumption per dose) = 0.1–0.5 mmHg/Gy; up to ~0.85 mmHg/Gy in some media
    Reported values from cited primary studies are used to compute that 20 Gy depletes only ~2–4 mmHg; these are empirical inputs, not fitted by this review.
  • gO2 saturation threshold pO2 = ≈15–25 mmHg
    Empirical transition to plateau used to argue oxygen depletion cannot increase indefinitely; varies across studies and is not derived in this paper.
  • Oxygen diffusion/resupply timescale = 5–10 s
    Used in Section 3.2 to justify that ΔpO2 at UHDR measures ROC rather than resupply-convolved values.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Oxyphor phosphorescence lifetime reports local tissue pO2 accurately during UHDR irradiation.
    Section 3.1/Table 1: ΔpO2 and gO2 values are derived from Oxyphor measurements; if probes perturb tissue or lag, the quantitative depletion argument weakens.
  • domain assumption Inhaled-gas and clamping interventions change tissue pO2 without independently altering radiosensitivity.
    Section 4.1/4.2: conclusions about a pO2 window assume these interventions isolate oxygen; paper notes anesthesia and temperature also change pO2.
  • domain assumption In vitro radiation-chemistry measurements (hydrated electron yields, gO2 in BSA solutions) extrapolate to in vivo mechanisms.
    Section 5: the proposed shift from HO• to eaq⁻ damage is supported by in vitro assays and simulations, not direct in vivo ROS measurements.
  • domain assumption Skin oxygen responses are representative of other normal tissues.
    Conclusions admit data are 'largely skin data'; generalization to brain/GI/tumor is asserted but not established.
  • domain assumption A Michaelis-Menten-like saturation of gO2 with pO2 is the correct functional form for ROC.
    Section 3.5 invokes this form via a kinetic model [84]; the exact functional form and parameters are not derived in the review.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Review of oxygen measurement and relevance to the mechanisms of FLASH radiotherapy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CY5F4T5M

@misc{pith2026260717974,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Review of oxygen measurement and relevance to the mechanisms of FLASH radiotherapy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CY5F4T5M}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.17974}
}
read the original abstract

FLASH radiotherapy (FLASH-RT) is the phenomenon of relative sparing of normal tissue when ultra-high dose rates (UHDR) are used compared with conventional dose rates (CDR) as clinically used. Despite extensive investigation, the underlying mechanisms remain unexplained. Among the proposed hypotheses, tissue oxygen has consistently been a central theme because oxygen is the most dominant factor known to modulate radiation-induced damage. The factors implicated in FLASH sparing include the baseline partial pressure of oxygen (pO2), transient radiolytic oxygen consumption (ROC), and oxygen-dependent changes in the chemistry of reactive oxygen species (ROS) that vary with dose rate. This review synthesizes current evidence on in vivo oxygen measurement techniques, highlighting their capabilities and limitations in capturing the spatial and temporal heterogeneity of tissue oxygenation. Key experimental studies in skin are summarized and interpreted by modulating oxygen levels via changes in inspired oxygen gas and vascular clamping interventions, demonstrating that the FLASH effect occurs only at intermediate baseline pO2 (normoxic or slightly hypoxic) values, but not at hypoxia or hyperoxia. Direct measurement of oxygen consumption during UHDR irradiation is possible, providing one of the first in situ measurements of radiation chemistry in patients. In parallel, recent advances in fast in vitro radiation chemistry assays indicate that UHDR irradiation alters radical yields, favoring increased production of solvated electrons and reduced hydroxyl radical mediated damage. Taken together, the available data suggest that the FLASH sparing effect arises from an interplay among the delivered dose and dose rate, local oxygen availability, and radiation chemistry, with tissue-specific variation in scavenging, leading to altered biological responses across the CDR-to-UHDR shift.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.17974 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A conceptual framework for how input radiation delivery parameters (left arrows) influence the output of tissue organ response assays (right arrows) is illustrated. This framework is designed to consider the temporal cascade of radiation-chemistry factors that transition from hydrolysis-derived primary radicals through ROS formation and peroxyl radicals to radical scavenging, ultimately culminating in DNA damage as … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustration (a) of the oxygen partial pressure (pO2) and blood oxygen saturation (SO2) measurement techniques possible, arranged on a level of invasiveness; (b) of the 5 primary in vivo oxygen pO2 measurement devices and their benefits in terms of relative (i) SNR, (ii) lower acquisition time, (iii) smallness of volume of tissue sampled, (iv) in vivo location in terms of intracellular, extracellular or large volume… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. (a) The loss of oxygen comes from several locations in the complex ROS cascade, illustrated in a simplified diagram. (b) Illustration of the acute drop in oxygen, described as ΔpO2, with UHDR electron irradiation followed by oxygen recovery from diffusion in tissue. (c) In vivo measurements of pO2 with Oxyphor, taken over time [76], illustrate the impact of dose rates on fast oxygen measurements: lower dose rates ca… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Data illustrating the oxygen consumption rate has an inverse relationship to incident dose rate, plotting oxygen consumption per unit dose (gO2 values) in water for 225 kV photon irradiation [79] and 224 MeV proton irradiation [79], and in 4% albumin aqueous solution f…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: A summary of in vivo oxygen g-value measurements during UHDR irradiation is plotted to show the established dependence upon initial pO2 value. The lines show results from multiple studies [5,72,74–77,81]. These studies cover electron and proton radiation, intracellular…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of (A) oxygen consumption predicted by the FLASH oxygen depletion hypothesis and (B) measured FLASH oxygen consumption. Measured oxygen consumption is significantly lower at g-values around 0.25 mmHg/Gy than at the g-value predicted by the oxygen depletion h…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Schematic illustration of some of the key influential products from hydrolysis as a function of timescale and chosen based upon their relevance to oxygen and possible subsequent biological toxicity [111]. Key Points 1 Accurate measurement of nearly all highly damaging …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: A fishbone process diagram shows known or hypothesized factors that influence the FLASH sparing effect, with oxygen-related inputs shown in red and downstream oxygen-related parameters in purple. This flow matches the rough timeline from initial water radiolysis throu…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

112 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages

  1. [116]

    Intermediate tissue oxygen level is required to observe murine FLASH skin sparing

    Hunter DI, Sunnerberg JP, Tavakkoli AD, Sloop AM, Allen B, Gui J, Cao X, Zhang R, Swartz HM, Gladstone DJ, Jarvis LA, Hoopes PJ, Pogue BW. Intermediate tissue oxygen level is required to observe murine FLASH skin sparing. bioRxiv [Preprint]. 2025 Oct 7:2025.10.06.680759. doi: 10.1101/2025.10.06.680759

    work page doi:10.1101/2025.10.06.680759 2025

  2. [3]

    Oxygen supplementation in anesthesia can block FLASH effect and anti -tumor immunity in conventional proton therapy

    Iturri L, Bertho A, Lamirault C, Brisebard E, Juchaux M, Gilbert C, et al. Oxygen supplementation in anesthesia can block FLASH effect and anti -tumor immunity in conventional proton therapy. Commun Med. 2023 Dec 15;3(1):183. doi:10.1038/s43856 - 023-00411-9

    doi:10.1038/s43856 2023

  3. [4]

    Anesthetic Oxygen Use and Sex Are Critical Factors in the FLASH Sparing Effect

    Tavakkoli AD, Clark MA, Kheirollah A, Sloop AM, Soderholm HE, Daniel NJ, et al. Anesthetic Oxygen Use and Sex Are Critical Factors in the FLASH Sparing Effect. Adv Radiat Oncol. 2024 Jun 1;9(6):101492. doi:10.1016/j.adro.2024.101492

    arXiv 2024

  4. [6]

    Inspired oxygen level and tension modulate the murine skin sparing FLASH effect in electron ultra - high dose rate irradiations [Internet]

    Hunter DI, Sunnerberg JP, Tavakkoli AD, Sloop AM, Allen B, Gui J, et al. Inspired oxygen level and tension modulate the murine skin sparing FLASH effect in electron ultra - high dose rate irradiations [Internet]. bioRxiv; 2025 [cited 2026 Feb 22]. p. 2025.10.06.680759. Available from: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.10.06.680759v3 doi:10.1101...

    work page doi:10.1101/2025.10.06.680759v3 2025

  5. [7]

    The oxygen puzzle in FLASH radiotherapy: A comprehensive review and experimental outlook

    Scarmelotto A, Delprat V, Michiels C, Lucas S, Heuskin AC. The oxygen puzzle in FLASH radiotherapy: A comprehensive review and experimental outlook. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol. 2024 Nov 1;49:100860. doi:10.1016/j.ctro.2024.100860

    arXiv 2024

  6. [8]

    Model studies of the role of oxygen in the FLASH effect

    Favaudon V, Labarbe R, Limoli CL. Model studies of the role of oxygen in the FLASH effect. Med Phys [Internet]. 2021. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34407219 doi:10.1002/mp.15129

    arXiv 2021

  7. [9]

    Reinventing Radiobiology in the Light of FLASH Radiotherapy

    Limoli CL, Vozenin MC. Reinventing Radiobiology in the Light of FLASH Radiotherapy. Annu Rev Cancer Biol. 2023 Apr;7:1–21. doi:10.1146/annurev -cancerbio-061421-022217 PubMed PMID: 39421564; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC11486513

    doi:10.1146/annurev 2023

  8. [10]

    OH radicals from the indirect actions of X-rays induce cell lethality and mediate the majority of the oxygen enhancement effect

    Hirayama R, Ito A, Noguchi M, Matsumoto Y, Uzawa A, Kobashi G, et al. OH radicals from the indirect actions of X-rays induce cell lethality and mediate the majority of the oxygen enhancement effect. Radiat Res. 2013. p. 514–23. doi:10.1667/RR13368.1

    work page doi:10.1667/rr13368.1 2013

Show all 112 references
  1. [11]

    Oxidative stress, free radicals and protein peroxides

    Gebicki JM. Oxidative stress, free radicals and protein peroxides. Arch Biochem Biophys. 2016 Apr 1;595:33 –9. doi:10.1016/j.abb.2015.10.021 PubMed PMID: 27095212

    2016 doi

  2. [12]

    Pulse Radiolysis Using Very-high -energy Ions for Optimizing Cancer Therapy

    Getoff N. Pulse Radiolysis Using Very-high -energy Ions for Optimizing Cancer Therapy. Vivo Athens Greece. 2016 Apr;30(2):119–21. PubMed PMID: 26912822

    2016

  3. [13]

    Oxygen as a primary species in radiolysis of water

    Daniels M, Wigg E. Oxygen as a primary species in radiolysis of water. Science. 1966 Sep 23;153(3743):1533–4. doi:10.1126/science.153.3743.1533 PubMed PMID: 5331263

    1966

  4. [14]

    Investigating ultra-high dose rate water radiolysis using the Geant4 -DNA toolkit and a Geant4 model of the Oriatron eRT6 electron linac

    Chappuis F, Tran HN, Jorge PG, Zein SA, Kyriakou I, Emfietzoglou D, et al. Investigating ultra-high dose rate water radiolysis using the Geant4 -DNA toolkit and a Geant4 model of the Oriatron eRT6 electron linac. Sci Rep. 2024 Nov 4;14(1):26707. doi:10.1038/s41598-024-76769-0 ...

    2024 doi

  5. [15]

    Historical view of the effects of radiation on cancer cells

    Hazout S, Oehler C, Zwahlen DR, Taussky D. Historical view of the effects of radiation on cancer cells. Oncol Rev. 2025;19:1527742. doi:10.3389/or.2025.1527742 PubMed PMID: 40370490; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC12075557

    2025

  6. [16]

    Oxygen Enhancement Ratio in Radiation-Induced Initial DSBs by an Optimized Flow Cytometry-based Gamma-H2AX Analysis in A549 Human Cancer Cells

    Sunada S, Hirakawa H, Fujimori A, Uesaka M, Okayasu R. Oxygen Enhancement Ratio in Radiation-Induced Initial DSBs by an Optimized Flow Cytometry-based Gamma-H2AX Analysis in A549 Human Cancer Cells. Radiat Res. 2017. p. 591–4. doi:10.1667/RR14824.1

    2017 doi

  7. [17]

    Radiobiological Aspects of FLASH Radiotherapy

    Hageman E, Che PP, Dahele M, Slotman BJ, Sminia P. Radiobiological Aspects of FLASH Radiotherapy. Biomolecules. 2022 Oct;12(10):1376. doi:10.3390/biom12101376

    2022 doi

  8. [18]

    DNA strand break induction of aqueous plasmid DNA exposed to 30 MeV protons at ultra-high dose rate

    Ohsawa D, Hiroyama Y, Kobayashi A, Kusumoto T, Kitamura H, Hojo S, et al. DNA strand break induction of aqueous plasmid DNA exposed to 30 MeV protons at ultra-high dose rate. J Radiat Res. 2022. p. 255–60. doi:10.1093/jrr/rrab114

    2022 doi

  9. [19]

    Biological effects of conventional and ultra high dose rate radiation in human cells

    Ryan TL, Escalona MB, O’Brien K, Tan Y, Kanagaraj K, Taveras M, et al. Biological effects of conventional and ultra high dose rate radiation in human cells. Sci Rep. 2026 Jan 2;16(1):3713. doi:10.1038/s41598-025-33817-7 PubMed PMID: 41484408; PubMed Centra l PMCID: PMC12852176

    2026 doi

  10. [20]

    In vitro oxygen concentration alters reactive oxygen species yields with minor plasmid DNA damage change at ultra-high - dose rate

    Thomas WS, Kulkarni S, Ilina A, Reed M, Pogue BW. In vitro oxygen concentration alters reactive oxygen species yields with minor plasmid DNA damage change at ultra-high - dose rate. Br J Radiol. 2026 Jan 1;99(1177):169 –75. doi:10.1093/bjr/tqaf245 PubMed PMID: 41003674

    2026 doi

  11. [21]

    Molecular biological mechanisms of radiotherapy-induced skin injury occurrence and treatment

    Cui J, Wang TJ, Zhang YX, She LZ, Zhao YC. Molecular biological mechanisms of radiotherapy-induced skin injury occurrence and treatment. Biomed Pharmacother. 2024 Nov 1;180:117470. doi:10.1016/j.biopha.2024.117470

    2024

  12. [23]

    Preclinical quantitative in vivo assessment of skin tissue vascularity in radiation-induced fibrosis with optical coherence tomography

    Demidov V, Zhao X, Demidova O, Pang HYM, Flueraru C, Liu FF, et al. Preclinical quantitative in vivo assessment of skin tissue vascularity in radiation-induced fibrosis with optical coherence tomography. J Biomed Opt. 2018 Oct;23(10):1–9. doi:10.1117/1.JBO.23.10.106003 PubMed ...

    2018 doi

  13. [24]

    Relevance of oxygen in radiation oncology

    Molls M, Stadler P, Becker A, Feldmann HJ, Dunst J. Relevance of oxygen in radiation oncology. Mechanisms of action, correlation to low hemoglobin levels. Strahlenther Onkol Organ Dtsch Rontgengesellschaft Al. 1998 Dec;174 Suppl 4:13–6. PubMed PMID: 9879341

    1998

  14. [25]

    FLASH irradiation induces lower levels of DNA damage ex vivo, an effect modulated by oxygen tension, dose, and dose rate

    Cooper CR, Jones D, Jones GD, Petersson K. FLASH irradiation induces lower levels of DNA damage ex vivo, an effect modulated by oxygen tension, dose, and dose rate. Br J Radiol. 2022. p. 20211150. doi:10.1259/bjr.20211150

    2022 doi

  15. [26]

    Effects of the Oxygen depletion in FLASH irradiation investigated through Geant4 -DNA toolkit

    Farokhi F, Shirani B, Fattori S, Ali Asgarian M, Cuttone G, Jia SB, et al. Effects of the Oxygen depletion in FLASH irradiation investigated through Geant4 -DNA toolkit. Radiat Phys Chem. 2023 Nov 1;212:111184. doi:10.1016/j.radphyschem.2023.111184

    2023

  16. [27]

    Incorporating oxygenation levels in analytical DNA-damage models -quantifying the oxygen fixation mechanism

    Van den Heuvel F, Vella A, Fiorini F, Brooke M, Hill MA, Maughan T. Incorporating oxygenation levels in analytical DNA-damage models -quantifying the oxygen fixation mechanism. Phys Med Biol [Internet]. 2021. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34130265 doi:10....

    2021

  17. [28]

    The oxygen fixation hypothesis: a reevaluation

    Ewing D. The oxygen fixation hypothesis: a reevaluation. Am J Clin Oncol. 1998. p. 355 –

    1998

  18. [29]

    A mechanistic investigation of the oxygen fixation hypothesis and oxygen enhancement ratio

    Grimes DR, Partridge M. A mechanistic investigation of the oxygen fixation hypothesis and oxygen enhancement ratio. Biomed Phys Eng Express. 2015. p. 045209. doi:10.1088/2057-1976/1/4/045209

    2015 doi

  19. [30]

    Impact of oxygen deprivation on the FLASH effect for skin toxicity in a murine model

    Hansen AH, Poulsen PR, Kristensen L, Møller VV, Sinha PM, Johansen JG, et al. Impact of oxygen deprivation on the FLASH effect for skin toxicity in a murine model. Radiother Oncol J Eur Soc Ther Radiol Oncol. 2026 Jan;214:111277. doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2025.111277 PubMed PMID: 41232779

    2026

  20. [31]

    Investigating the oxygen dependence of FLASH -RT using electron paramagnetic resonance imaging

    Waldrop T, Murley G, Velasquez B, Konradsson E, Neill D, Connell L, et al. Investigating the oxygen dependence of FLASH -RT using electron paramagnetic resonance imaging. Radiother Oncol. 2026 Feb 1;215. doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2025.111329 PubMed PMID: 41389858

    2026

  21. [32]

    Prognostic value of tumor oxygenation in 397 head and neck tumors after primary radiation therapy

    Nordsmark M, Bentzen SM, Rudat V, Brizel D, Lartigau E, Stadler P, et al. Prognostic value of tumor oxygenation in 397 head and neck tumors after primary radiation therapy. An international multi-center study. Radiotherapy and oncology. 2005. p. 18 –24

    2005

  22. [33]

    Histograph

    Nozue M, Lee I, Yuan F, Teicher BA, Brizel DM, Dewhirst MW, et al. Interlaboratory variation in oxygen tension measurement by Eppendorf “Histograph” and comparison with hypoxic marker. J Surg Oncol. 1997. p. 30–8. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1096- 9098(199709)66:1<30::AID-JSO7>3.0.CO;2-O [pii]

    1997 doi

  23. [34]

    Measuring Tumor Hypoxia

    Raleigh JA, Dewhirst MW, Thrall DE. Measuring Tumor Hypoxia. Semin Radiat Oncol

  24. [35]

    Oxygen transport in tumors: characteristics and clinical implications

    Vaupel P. Oxygen transport in tumors: characteristics and clinical implications. Adv Exp Med Biol. 1996. p. 341 –51

    1996

  25. [36]

    How best to interpret measures of levels of oxygen in tissues to make them effective clinical tools for care of patients with cancer and other oxygen -dependent pathologies

    Swartz HM, Flood AB, Schaner PE, Halpern H, Williams BB, Pogue BW, et al. How best to interpret measures of levels of oxygen in tissues to make them effective clinical tools for care of patients with cancer and other oxygen -dependent pathologies. Physiol R ep. 2020. p. e14541...

    2020 doi

  26. [37]

    Measuring real levels of oxygen in vivo: opportunities and challenges

    Swartz HM. Measuring real levels of oxygen in vivo: opportunities and challenges. Biochem Soc Trans. 2002. p. 248 –52. doi:10.1042/

    2002

  27. [38]

    Oxygenation of human tumors

    Vaupel P. Oxygenation of human tumors. Strahlenther Onkol. 1990. p. 377–86

    1990

  28. [39]

    Concepts of oxygen transport at the microcirculatory level

    Dewhirst MW. Concepts of oxygen transport at the microcirculatory level. Semin Radiat Oncol. 1998 Jul;8(3):143–50. doi:10.1016/s1053-4296(98)80040 -4 PubMed PMID: 9634491

    1998 doi

  29. [41]

    Pulse oximetry: analysis of theory, technology, and practice

    Wukitsch MW, Petterson MT, Tobler DR, Pologe JA. Pulse oximetry: analysis of theory, technology, and practice. J Clin Monit. 1988. p. 290–301

    1988

  30. [42]

    Measurement of hemoglobin flow and blood flow by near -infrared spectroscopy

    Edwards AD, Richardson C, van der Zee P, Elwell C, Wyatt JS, Cope M, et al. Measurement of hemoglobin flow and blood flow by near -infrared spectroscopy. J Appl Physiol. 1993. p. 1884 –9

    1993

  31. [43]

    Oxygen distributions within R3230Ac tumors growing in dorsal flap window chambers in rats

    Wilson DF, Evans SM, Jenkins WT, Vinogradov SA, Ong E, Dewhirst MW. Oxygen distributions within R3230Ac tumors growing in dorsal flap window chambers in rats. Adv Exp Med Biol. 1998. p. 603–9

    1998

  32. [44]

    Blood flow, oxygen and nutrient supply, and metabolic microenvironment of human tumors: a review

    Vaupel P, Kallinowski F, Okunieff P. Blood flow, oxygen and nutrient supply, and metabolic microenvironment of human tumors: a review. Cancer Res. 1989. p. 6449 –65

    1989

  33. [45]

    Estimation of oxygen distribution in RIF-1 tumors by diffusion model -based interpretation of pimonidazole hypoxia and eppendorf measurements

    Pogue BW, Paulsen KD, O’Hara JA, Wilmot CM, Swartz HM. Estimation of oxygen distribution in RIF-1 tumors by diffusion model -based interpretation of pimonidazole hypoxia and eppendorf measurements. Radiat Res. 2001 Jan;155(1 Pt 1):15 –25. doi:10.1667/0033- 7587(2001)155[0015:e...

    2001 doi

  34. [46]

    Effect of hyperoxia, hypoxia and hypercapnia on O2 supply of malignant tumors in situ

    Vaupel P. Effect of hyperoxia, hypoxia and hypercapnia on O2 supply of malignant tumors in situ. Bibl Anat. 1977. p. 288– 90

    1977

  35. [47]

    Blood flow and oxygenation status of head and neck carcinomas

    Vaupel P. Blood flow and oxygenation status of head and neck carcinomas. Adv Exp Med Biol. 1997. p. 89–95

    1997

  36. [48]

    An integrated approach to measuring tumor oxygen status using human melanoma xenografts as a model

    Menon C, Polin GM, Prabakaran I, Hsi A, Cheung C, Culver JP, et al. An integrated approach to measuring tumor oxygen status using human melanoma xenografts as a model. Cancer Res. 2003. p. 7232–40

    2003

  37. [49]

    Review of methods used to study oxygen transport at the microcirculatory level

    Dewhirst MW, Klitzman B, Braun RD, Brizel DM, Haroon ZA, Secomb TW. Review of methods used to study oxygen transport at the microcirculatory level. Int J Cancer. 2000 Oct 20;90(5):237–55. PubMed PMID: 11091348

    2000

  38. [50]

    Indwelling blood compatible chemical sensors

    Eberhart RC. Indwelling blood compatible chemical sensors. Surg Clin North Am. 1985 Aug;65(4):1025–40. doi:10.1016/s0039 -6109(16)43692-3 PubMed PMID: 3901342

    1985 doi

  39. [51]

    Noninvasive imaging of the distribution in oxygen in tissue in vivo using near-infrared phosphors

    Vinogradov SA, Lo LW, Jenkins WT, Evans SM, Koch C, Wilson DF. Noninvasive imaging of the distribution in oxygen in tissue in vivo using near-infrared phosphors. Biophys J. 1996. p. 1609–17. doi:S0006-3495(96)79764-3 [pii] 10.1016/S0006 -3495(96)79764-3

    1996 doi

  40. [52]

    Measuring oxygen in living tissue: intravascular, interstitial, and “tissue” oxygen measurements

    Wilson DF, Finikova OS, Lebedev AY, Apreleva S, Pastuszko A, Lee WM, et al. Measuring oxygen in living tissue: intravascular, interstitial, and “tissue” oxygen measurements. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2011. p. 53–9. doi:10.1007/978 -1-4419-7756-4_8

    2011 doi

  41. [53]

    In vivo EPR: when, how and why? NMR Biomed

    Gallez B, Swartz HM. In vivo EPR: when, how and why? NMR Biomed. 2004. p. 223 –5. doi:10.1002/nbm.913

    2004 doi

  42. [54]

    A method for measuring oxygen distributions in tissue using frequency domain phosphorometry

    Vinogradov SA, Fernandez-Seara MA, Dupan BW, Wilson DF. A method for measuring oxygen distributions in tissue using frequency domain phosphorometry. Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol. 2002. p. 147 –52. doi:S1095643301005414 [pii]

    2002

  43. [55]

    Oxygen distributions in tissue measured by phosphorescence quenching

    Vinogradov SA, Grosul P, Rozhkov V, Dunphy I, Shuman L, Dugan BW, et al. Oxygen distributions in tissue measured by phosphorescence quenching. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2003. p. 181–5

    2003

  44. [56]

    Development of Ruthenium Nanophotocages with Red or Near -Infrared Light -Responsiveness

    Zhang Z, He M, Wang R, Fan J, Peng X, Sun W. Development of Ruthenium Nanophotocages with Red or Near -Infrared Light -Responsiveness. Chembiochem Eur J Chem Biol. 2023 Dec 14;24(24):e202300606. doi:10.1002/cbic.202300606 PubMed PMID: 37837285

    2023 doi

  45. [57]

    Characterization of a dissolved oxygen sensor made of plastic optical fiber coated with ruthenium-incorporated solgel

    Chu F, Yang J, Cai H, Qu R, Fang Z. Characterization of a dissolved oxygen sensor made of plastic optical fiber coated with ruthenium-incorporated solgel. Appl Opt. 2009 Jan 10;48(2):338–42. doi:10.1364/ao.48.000338 PubMed PMID: 19137045

    2009 doi

  46. [58]

    Photo-controlled targeted intracellular delivery of both nitric oxide and singlet oxygen using a fluorescence -trackable ruthenium nitrosyl functional nanoplatform

    Xiang HJ, An L, Tang WW, Yang SP, Liu JG. Photo-controlled targeted intracellular delivery of both nitric oxide and singlet oxygen using a fluorescence -trackable ruthenium nitrosyl functional nanoplatform. Chem Commun (Camb). 2015. p. 2555–8. doi:10.1039/c4cc09869b

    2015 doi

  47. [59]

    Mitochondrial PO2 measured by delayed fluorescence of endogenous protoporphyrin IX

    Mik EG, Stap J, Sinaasappel M, Beek JF, Aten JA, van Leeuwen TG, et al. Mitochondrial PO2 measured by delayed fluorescence of endogenous protoporphyrin IX. Nat Methods

  48. [60]

    Pressure- enhanced sensing of tissue oxygenation via endogenous porphyrin: Implications for dynamic visualization of cancer in surgery

    Petusseau AF, Ochoa M, Reed M, Doyley MM, Hasan T, Bruza P, et al. Pressure- enhanced sensing of tissue oxygenation via endogenous porphyrin: Implications for dynamic visualization of cancer in surgery. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2024 Aug 20;121(34):e2405628121. doi:10.1073/pna...

    2024 doi

  49. [61]

    doi:10.1097/00000421-199808000-00008

    doi

  50. [62]

    Oxyphor R2 and G2: phosphors for measuring oxygen by oxygen-dependent quenching of phosphorescence

    Dunphy I, Vinogradov SA, Wilson DF. Oxyphor R2 and G2: phosphors for measuring oxygen by oxygen-dependent quenching of phosphorescence. Anal Biochem. 2002 Nov 15;310(2):191–8. doi:10.1016/s0003 -2697(02)00384-6 PubMed PMID: 12423638

    2002 doi

  51. [63]

    protected

    Esipova TV, Karagodov A, Miller J, Wilson DF, Busch TM, Vinogradov SA. Two new “protected” oxyphors for biological oximetry: properties and application in tumor imaging. Anal Chem. 2011. p. 8756–65. doi:10.1021/ac2022234

    2011 doi

  52. [65]

    In vivo mitochondrial oxygen tension measured by a delayed fluorescence lifetime technique

    Mik EG, Johannes T, Zuurbier CJ, Heinen A, Houben -Weerts JH, Balestra GM, et al. In vivo mitochondrial oxygen tension measured by a delayed fluorescence lifetime technique. Biophys J. 2008. p. 3977–90. doi:10.1529/biophysj.107.126094 S0006 -3495(08)78536-9 [pii]

    2008 doi

  53. [66]

    Special article: measuring mitochondrial oxygen tension: from basic principles to application in humans

    Mik EG. Special article: measuring mitochondrial oxygen tension: from basic principles to application in humans. Anesth Analg. 2013. p. 834 –46. doi:10.1213/ANE.0b013e31828f29da ANE.0b013e31828f29da [pii]

    2013 doi

  54. [67]

    Oxyphor 2P: A High-Performance Probe for Deep -Tissue Longitudinal Oxygen Imaging

    Esipova TV, Barrett MJP, Erlebach E, Masunov AE, Weber B, Vinogradov SA. Oxyphor 2P: A High-Performance Probe for Deep -Tissue Longitudinal Oxygen Imaging. Cell Metab

  55. [68]

    Does FLASH deplete oxygen? Experimental evaluation for photons, protons, and carbon ions

    Jansen J, Knoll J, Beyreuther E, Pawelke J, Skuza R, Hanley R, et al. Does FLASH deplete oxygen? Experimental evaluation for photons, protons, and carbon ions. Med Phys

  56. [70]

    Oxygen Monitoring in Model Solutions and In vivo in Mice During Proton Irradiation at Conventional and FLASH Dose Rates

    Van Slyke AL, El Khatib M, Velalopoulou A, Diffenderfer E, Shoniyozov K, Kim MM, et al. Oxygen Monitoring in Model Solutions and In vivo in Mice During Proton Irradiation at Conventional and FLASH Dose Rates. Radiat Res. 2022. p. 181 –9. doi:10.1667/RADE-21- 00232.1

    2022 doi

  57. [71]

    pO(2)-weighted imaging in vivo by delayed fluorescence of intracellular protoporphyrin IX: publisher’s note

    Scholz M, Cao X, Gunn JR, Bruza P, Pogue B. pO(2)-weighted imaging in vivo by delayed fluorescence of intracellular protoporphyrin IX: publisher’s note. Opt Lett. 2020 Feb 1;45(3):664. doi:10.1364/OL.387641 PubMed PMID: 32004278

    2020 doi

  58. [73]

    Quantification of Oxygen Depletion During FLASH Irradiation In vitro and In vivo

    Cao X, Zhang R, Esipova TV, Allu SR, Ashraf R, Rahman M, et al. Quantification of Oxygen Depletion During FLASH Irradiation In vitro and In vivo. Int J Radiat Oncol. 2021 Sep 1;111(1):240–8. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.03.056

    2021 doi

  59. [74]

    Oxygen Monitoring in Model Solutions and In vivo in Mice During Proton Irradiation at Conventional and FLASH Dose Rates

    Van Slyke AL, El Khatib M, Velalopoulou A, Diffenderfer E, Shoniyozov K, Kim MM, et al. Oxygen Monitoring in Model Solutions and In vivo in Mice During Proton Irradiation at Conventional and FLASH Dose Rates. Radiat Res. 2022 Aug 1;198(2):181 –9. doi:10.1667/RADE-21-00232.1 Pu...

    2022 doi

  60. [75]

    Ultrafast Tracking of Oxygen Dynamics During Proton FLASH

    El Khatib M, Van Slyke AL, Velalopoulou A, Kim MM, Shoniyozov K, Allu SR, et al. Ultrafast Tracking of Oxygen Dynamics During Proton FLASH. Int J Radiat Oncol. 2022 Jul 1;113(3):624–34. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2022.03.016

    2022 doi

  61. [78]

    Analysis of the heterogeneity of pO2 dynamics during photodynamic therapy with verteporfin

    Pogue BW, Braun RD, Lanzen JL, Erickson C, Dewhirst MW. Analysis of the heterogeneity of pO2 dynamics during photodynamic therapy with verteporfin. Photochem Photobiol. 2001 Nov;74(5):700–6. doi:10.1562/0031 -8655(2001)074<0700:aothop>2.0.co;2 PubMed PMID: 11723798

    2001 doi

  62. [79]

    Does FLASH deplete oxygen? Experimental evaluation for photons, protons, and carbon ions

    Jansen J, Knoll J, Beyreuther E, Pawelke J, Skuza R, Hanley R, et al. Does FLASH deplete oxygen? Experimental evaluation for photons, protons, and carbon ions. Med Phys. 2021;48(7):3982–90. doi:10.1002/mp.14917

    2021 doi

  63. [80]

    Radiation-Chemical Oxygen Depletion Depends on Chemical Environment and Dose Rate: Implications for the FLASH Effect

    Koch CJ, Kim MM, Wiersma RD. Radiation-Chemical Oxygen Depletion Depends on Chemical Environment and Dose Rate: Implications for the FLASH Effect. Int J Radiat Oncol. 2023 Sep 1;117(1):214–22. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.04.001

    2023 doi

  64. [81]

    Intracellular Oxygen Transient Quantification in vivo During Ultra-High Dose Rate FLASH Radiation Therapy

    Petusseau AF, Clark M, Bruza P, Gladstone D, Pogue BW. Intracellular Oxygen Transient Quantification in vivo During Ultra-High Dose Rate FLASH Radiation Therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol. 2024 Nov 1;120(3):884 –93. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2024.04.068

    2024 doi

  65. [82]

    Ultra-High Dose Rate (FLASH) Radiotherapy: Silver Bullet or Fool’s Gold? Front Oncol

    Wilson JD, Hammond EM, Higgins GS, Petersson K. Ultra-High Dose Rate (FLASH) Radiotherapy: Silver Bullet or Fool’s Gold? Front Oncol. 2020 Jan 17;9. doi:10.3389/fonc.2019.01563

    2020

  66. [83]

    Time Scale of Radiation-Induced Oxygen Depletion and Decay Kinetics of Oxygen-Dependent Damage in Cells Irradiated at Ultrahigh Dose Rates

    Ling CC. Time Scale of Radiation-Induced Oxygen Depletion and Decay Kinetics of Oxygen-Dependent Damage in Cells Irradiated at Ultrahigh Dose Rates. Radiat Res. 1975 Sep;63(3):455. doi:10.2307/3574097

    1975 doi

  67. [84]

    Kinetic model of radiochemical oxygen depletion (ROD) in FLASH radiotherapy

    Seco J, Freitas H. Kinetic model of radiochemical oxygen depletion (ROD) in FLASH radiotherapy. Med Phys. 2026 Apr;53(4):e70383. doi:10.1002/mp.70383

    2026 doi

  68. [85]

    Long - term neurocognitive benefits of FLASH radiotherapy driven by reduced reactive oxygen species

    Montay-Gruel P, Acharya MM, Petersson K, Alikhani L, Yakkala C, Allen BD, et al. Long - term neurocognitive benefits of FLASH radiotherapy driven by reduced reactive oxygen species. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019 May 28;116(22):10943– 51. doi:10.1073/pnas.1901777116 PubMed PMI...

    2019 doi

  69. [86]

    Deep-tissue oxygen monitoring in the brain of rabbits for stroke research

    Khan N, Hou H, Eskey CJ, Moodie K, Gohain S, Du G, et al. Deep-tissue oxygen monitoring in the brain of rabbits for stroke research. Stroke. 2015 Mar;46(3):e62 -66. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.114.007324 PubMed PMID: 25613304; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4342327

    2015 doi

  70. [87]

    Ultrahigh dose-rate FLASH irradiation increases the differential response between normal and tumor tissue in mice

    Favaudon V, Caplier L, Monceau V, Pouzoulet F, Sayarath M, Fouillade C, et al. Ultrahigh dose-rate FLASH irradiation increases the differential response between normal and tumor tissue in mice. Sci Transl Med. 2014 Jul 16;6(245):245ra93. doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.3008973 PubMed...

    2014 doi

  71. [88]

    Design, Implementation, and in vivo Validation of a Novel Proton FLASH Radiation Therapy System

    Diffenderfer ES, Verginadis II, Kim MM, Shoniyozov K, Velalopoulou A, Goia D, et al. Design, Implementation, and in vivo Validation of a Novel Proton FLASH Radiation Therapy System. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2020 Feb 1;106(2):440– 8. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019.10.049 PubMed...

    2020 doi

  72. [89]

    [cited 2026 Jan 23]

    Hypofractionated FLASH-RT as an Effective Treatment against Glioblastoma that Reduces Neurocognitive Side Effects in Mice - PubMed [Internet]. [cited 2026 Jan 23]. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33060122/

    2026

  73. [90]

    Abdominal FLASH irradiation reduces radiation -induced gastrointestinal toxicity for the treatment of ovarian cancer in mice

    Levy K, Natarajan S, Wang J, Chow S, Eggold JT, Loo PE, et al. Abdominal FLASH irradiation reduces radiation -induced gastrointestinal toxicity for the treatment of ovarian cancer in mice. Sci Rep. 2020 Dec 10;10(1):21600. doi:10.1038/s41598 -020-78017-7 PubMed PMID: 33303827;...

    2020 doi

  74. [91]

    Timescale of FLASH Sparing Effect Determined by Varying Temporal Split of Dose Delivery in Mice

    Sunnerberg JP, Hunter DI, Sloop AM, Tavakkoli AD, Bruza P, Zhang R, et al. Timescale of FLASH Sparing Effect Determined by Varying Temporal Split of Dose Delivery in Mice. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2025.09.052

    2025 doi

  75. [92]

    Oxygen Consumption In vivo by Ultra-High Dose Rate Electron Irradiation Depends Upon Baseline Tissue Oxygenation

    Sunnerberg JP, Tavakkoli AD, Petusseau AF, Daniel NJ, Sloop AM, Schreiber WA, et al. Oxygen Consumption In vivo by Ultra-High Dose Rate Electron Irradiation Depends Upon Baseline Tissue Oxygenation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2025 Mar 15;121(4):1053– 62. doi:10.1016/j.ijrob...

    2025 doi

  76. [93]

    In vivo measurements of change in tissue oxygen level during irradiation reveal novel dose rate dependence

    Grilj V, Leavitt RJ, El Khatib M, Paisley R, Franco-Perez J, Petit B, et al. In vivo measurements of change in tissue oxygen level during irradiation reveal novel dose rate dependence. Radiother Oncol J Eur Soc Ther Radiol Oncol. 2024 Dec;201:110539. doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2024....

    2024

  77. [94]

    Anesthetic oxygen use and sex are critical factors in the FLASH sparing effect

    Tavakkoli AD, Clark MA, Kheirollah A, Sloop AM, Soderholm HE, Daniel NJ, et al. Anesthetic oxygen use and sex are critical factors in the FLASH sparing effect. BioRxiv Prepr Serv Biol. 2023 Nov 5;2023.11.04.565626. doi:10.1101/2023.11.04.565626 PubMed PMID: 37961549; PubMed Ce...

    2023 doi

  78. [95]

    Anesthesia is a potent determinant of ultra -high dose rate sparing in the murine total abdominal irradiation model

    Tavakkoli AD, Daley WW, Hunter DI, Allen BA, Carpenter GC, Gladstone DJ, et al. Anesthesia is a potent determinant of ultra -high dose rate sparing in the murine total abdominal irradiation model. Front Oncol. 2025 Sep 1;15. doi:10.3389/fonc.2025.1666489

    2025

  79. [96]

    Ultra- high dose rate carbon-ion irradiation does not preferentially spare normal tissue in the gastrointestinal tract

    Kasamatsu K, Shimokawa T, Masuda T, Tsuruoka C, Morioka T, Imaoka T, et al. Ultra- high dose rate carbon-ion irradiation does not preferentially spare normal tissue in the gastrointestinal tract. Med Phys. 2025 Dec;52(12):e70139. doi:10.1002/mp.70139 PubMed PMID: 41261084

    2025 doi

  80. [97]

    The Constant Low Oxygen Concentration in All the Target Cells for Mouse Tail Radionecrosis

    Hendry JH, Moore JV, Hodgson BW, Keene JP. The Constant Low Oxygen Concentration in All the Target Cells for Mouse Tail Radionecrosis. Radiat Res. 1982;92(1):172–81. doi:10.2307/3575852

    1982 doi

  81. [98]

    Acute Hypoxia Does Not Alter Tumor Sensitivity to FLASH Radiation Therapy

    Leavitt RJ, Almeida A, Grilj V, Montay-Gruel P, Godfroid C, Petit B, et al. Acute Hypoxia Does Not Alter Tumor Sensitivity to FLASH Radiation Therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys

  82. [99]

    The survival of aerobic and anoxic human glioma and melanoma cells after irradiation at ultrahigh and clinical dose rates

    Cygler J, Klassen NV, Ross CK, Bichay TJ, Raaphorst GP. The survival of aerobic and anoxic human glioma and melanoma cells after irradiation at ultrahigh and clinical dose rates. Radiat Res. 1994 Oct;140(1):79 –84. PubMed PMID: 7938458

    1994

  83. [100]

    The FLASH effect depends on oxygen concentration

    Adrian G, Konradsson E, Lempart M, Bäck S, Ceberg C, Petersson K. The FLASH effect depends on oxygen concentration. Br J Radiol. 2020 Feb 1;93(1106):20190702. doi:10.1259/bjr.20190702 PubMed PMID: 31825653; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7055454

    2020 doi

  84. [101]

    Cancer Cells Can Exhibit a Sparing FLASH Effect at Low Doses Under Normoxic In vitro- Conditions

    Adrian G, Konradsson E, Beyer S, Wittrup A, Butterworth KT, McMahon SJ, et al. Cancer Cells Can Exhibit a Sparing FLASH Effect at Low Doses Under Normoxic In vitro- Conditions. Front Oncol. 2021;11:686142. doi:10.3389/fonc.2021.686142 PubMed PMID: 34395253; PubMed Central PMCI...

    2021

  85. [102]

    Multicellular Spheroids as In vitro Models of Oxygen Depletion During FLASH Irradiation

    Khan S, Bassenne M, Wang J, Manjappa R, Melemenidis S, Breitkreutz DY, et al. Multicellular Spheroids as In vitro Models of Oxygen Depletion During FLASH Irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2021 Jul 1;110(3):833– 44. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.01.050 PubMed PMID: 33545301

    2021 doi

  86. [103]

    Mitochondrial Damage Response and Fate of Normal Cells Exposed to FLASH Irradiation with Protons

    Guo Z, Buonanno M, Harken A, Zhou G, Hei TK. Mitochondrial Damage Response and Fate of Normal Cells Exposed to FLASH Irradiation with Protons. Radiat Res. 2022 Jun 1;197(6):569–82. doi:10.1667/RADE -21-00181.1 PubMed PMID: 35290449; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC9241019

    2022 doi

  87. [104]

    Direct Measurements of FLASH-Induced Changes in Intracellular Oxygenation

    El Khatib M, Motlagh AO, Beyer JN, Troxler T, Allu SR, Sun Q, et al. Direct Measurements of FLASH-Induced Changes in Intracellular Oxygenation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2024 Mar 1;118(3):781 –9. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.09.019 PubMed PMID: 37729972; PubMed Central PMCID:...

    2024 doi

  88. [105]

    ROS: Basic Concepts, Sources, Cellular Signaling, and its Implications in Aging Pathways

    de Almeida AJPO, de Oliveira JCPL, da Silva Pontes LV, de Souza Júnior JF, Gonçalves TAF, Dantas SH, et al. ROS: Basic Concepts, Sources, Cellular Signaling, and its Implications in Aging Pathways. Oxid Med Cell Longev. 2022;2022(1):1225578. doi:10.1155/2022/1225578

    2022 doi

  89. [106]

    Review of optical reporters of radiation effects in vivo: tools to quantify improvements in radiation delivery technique

    Sunnerberg J, Thomas WS, Petusseau A, Reed MS, Jack Hoopes P, Pogue BW. Review of optical reporters of radiation effects in vivo: tools to quantify improvements in radiation delivery technique. J Biomed Opt. 2023 Aug;28(8):080901. doi:10.1117/1.JBO.28.8.080901 PubMed PMID: 375...

    2023 doi

  90. [107]

    Hydrated electron yield dependence on instantaneous dose rates with electron ultra-high dose rate (UHDR) irradiation

    Cao X, Parks A, Thomas W, Reed MS, Culberson WS, Pogue BW. Hydrated electron yield dependence on instantaneous dose rates with electron ultra-high dose rate (UHDR) irradiation. Phys Med Biol. 2025 Jun 18;70(12). doi:10.1088/1361 -6560/ade223 PubMed PMID: 40480251

    2025 doi

  91. [108]

    Development of a hydrated electron dosimeter for radiotherapy applications: A proof of concept

    Mégrourèche J, Bekerat H, Bian J, Bui A, Sankey J, Childress L, et al. Development of a hydrated electron dosimeter for radiotherapy applications: A proof of concept. Med Phys. 2023 Nov;50(11):7245 –51. doi:10.1002/mp.16555 PubMed PMID: 37334736

    2023 doi

  92. [109]

    Spin traps: in vitro toxicity and stability of radical adducts

    Khan N, Wilmot CM, Rosen GM, Demidenko E, Sun J, Joseph J, et al. Spin traps: in vitro toxicity and stability of radical adducts. Free Radic Biol Med. 2003. p. 1473–

    2003

  93. [110]

    Guidelines for measuring reactive oxygen species and oxidative damage in cells and in vivo

    Murphy MP, Bayir H, Belousov V, Chang CJ, Davies KJA, Davies MJ, et al. Guidelines for measuring reactive oxygen species and oxidative damage in cells and in vivo. Nat Metab. 2022 Jun;4(6):651 –62. doi:10.1038/s42255-022 -00591-z

    2022 doi

  94. [111]

    Hydrated electron yield dependence on instantaneous dose rates with electron ultra-high dose rate (UHDR) irradiation

    Cao X, Parks A, Thomas W, Reed MS, Culberson WS, Pogue BW. Hydrated electron yield dependence on instantaneous dose rates with electron ultra-high dose rate (UHDR) irradiation. Phys Med Biol. 2025 Jun 22;70(12):125013. doi:10.1088/1361- 6560/ade223

    2025 doi

  95. [112]

    Effect of FLASH dose-rate and oxygen concentration in the production of H2O2 in cellular-like media versus water: a Monte Carlo track-structure study

    D-Kondo JN, Borys D, Ruciński A, Brzozowska B, Masilela TA, Grochowska - Tatarczak M, et al. Effect of FLASH dose-rate and oxygen concentration in the production of H2O2 in cellular-like media versus water: a Monte Carlo track-structure study. Phys Med Biol. 2025;70(2):025014

    2025

  96. [113]

    Modeling ultra-high dose rate electron and proton FLASH effect with the physicochemical approach

    Tan HS, Teo KBK, Dong L, Friberg A, Koumenis C, Diffenderfer E, et al. Modeling ultra-high dose rate electron and proton FLASH effect with the physicochemical approach. Phys Med Biol. 2023;68(14):145013

    2023

  97. [114]

    doi:10.1016/s0891-5849(03)00182-5

    doi

  98. [115]

    A computational model of radiolytic oxygen depletion during FLASH irradiation and its effect on the oxygen enhancement ratio

    Pratx G, Kapp DS. A computational model of radiolytic oxygen depletion during FLASH irradiation and its effect on the oxygen enhancement ratio. Phys Med Biol. 2019;64(18):185005

    2019

  99. [117]

    Lippencott, Williams & Wilkins, June 15, 2011

    Hall, Eric J., Giaccia, Amato J., Radiobiology for the Radiologist, 7 th Ed. Lippencott, Williams & Wilkins, June 15, 2011

    2011

  100. [119]

    Oxygen depletion in FLASH ultra ‑high‑dose‑ rate radiotherapy: A molecular dynamics simulation

    Abolfath R, Grosshans D, Mohan R. Oxygen depletion in FLASH ultra ‑high‑dose‑ rate radiotherapy: A molecular dynamics simulation. Med Phys. 2020 Dec;47(12):6551 –61. doi:10.1002/mp.14548

    2020 doi

  101. [1996]

    p. 37–45. doi:10.1053/SRAO0060037 00600001 [pii]

    doi

  102. [2006]

    p. 939–45. doi:10.1038/nmeth940

    doi

  103. [2019]

    736-744 e7

    p. 736-744 e7. doi:10.1016/j.cmet.2018.12.022

    2018 doi

  104. [2024]

    1493–505

    p. 1493–505. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2024.02.015

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.