Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 12, 2026
Proton Therapy Delivery and Its Clinical Application in Select Solid Tumor Malignancies
Published on: February 6, 2019
Optimizing Transmission FLASH Radiation Therapy for Large-Field Postmastectomy Breast Treatment
Ahmal Jawad Zafar1, Sunil William Dutta1, Matthew Joseph Case1
1Department of Radiation Oncology and Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.
Purpose:
We investigated the effect of scanning speed, beam configuration, and dose-rate modeling on the FLASH effect in postmastectomy proton transmission beams planning and evaluated the potential of spot scanning path optimization for enhancing the FLASH effect.
Methods And Materials:
Five patients with left-sided postmastectomy breast cancer (32 Gy/5 fractions) were retrospectively replanned with single-energy (249 MeV) tangential transmission beams, supplemented by a clinical en face beam for dose homogenization. FLASH evaluation employed 2 models: Krieger's FLASH effectiveness model (FEM) and Folkerts' average dose-rate (ADR) framework. Plans were simulated under conventional pencil beam scanning, split-field, and optimized spot sequences (using genetic algorithm [GA]), with vertical scan speeds varied from 10 to 20 mm/ms. FLASH effect in normal tissues was quantified by the percentage of voxels meeting the threshold (≥4 Gy at ≥40 Gy/s). A dose adjustment factor of 0.67 was applied to voxels meeting FLASH criteria to compute FLASH-weighted dose metrics in normal tissues within the chest wall target, whereas the physical dose to tumor cells remained unchanged.
Results:
The FLASH effect showed high sensitivity to scanning patterns and model selection. Increasing vertical scan speed from 10 to 20 mm/ms increased the FLASH in clinical target volume (CTV) by 22% (ADR) and 12% (FEM), whereas in skin, it rose from 41.4% to 58.8% (ADR) and 8.4% to 13.1% (FEM). Split-field delivery improved the temporal distance between the vertical columns of the spot scanning pattern, yielding a superior FLASH effect, which is up to a 9.2 Gy reduction in CTV (FLASH-corrected) Dmean(mean dose) with the ADR model. GA-based optimization shortened scan time and provided FLASH comparable with split-field delivery, with a CTV Dmean reduction of 7.87 Gy (ADR GA), with skin Dmean reductions of 2 to 3 Gy.
Conclusion:
This study demonstrates that FLASH outcomes are highly sensitive to scanning trajectory, scan speed, and model selection. Beyond these parameters, optimizing spot delivery using a path minimizer, such as GA, can further improve the dose-rate distribution in healthy voxels across all scenarios.
