{"doi":"10.3389/fonc.2024.1369065","title":"Feasibility and constraints of Bragg peak FLASH proton therapy treatment planning","abstract":"Introduction FLASH proton therapy (FLASH-PT) requires ultra-high dose rate (≥ 40 Gy/s) protons to be delivered in a short timescale whilst conforming to a patient-specific target. This study investigates the feasibility and constraints of Bragg peak FLASH-PT treatment planning, and compares the in silico results produced to plans for intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT). Materials and method Bragg peak FLASH-PT and IMPT treatment plans were generated for bone (n=3), brain (n=3), and lung (n=4) targets using the MIROpt research treatment planning system and the Conformal FLASH library developed by Applications SA from the open-source version of UCLouvain. FLASH-PT beams were simulated using monoenergetic spot-scanned protons traversing through a conformal energy modulator, a range shifter, and an aperture. A dose rate constraint of ≥ 40 Gy/s was included in each FLASH-PT plan optimisation. Results Space limitations in the FLASH-PT adapted beam nozzle imposed a maximum target width constraint, excluding 4 cases from the study. FLASH-PT plans did not satisfy the imposed target dose constraints (D 95% ≥ 95% and D 2% ≤ 105%) but achieved clinically acceptable doses to organs at risk (OARs). IMPT plans adhered to all target and OAR dose constraints. FLASH-PT plans showed a reduction in both target homogeneity (p < 0.001) and dose conformity (non-significant) compared to IMPT. Conclusion Without accounting for a sparing effect, IMPT plans were superior in target coverage, dose conformity, target homogeneity, and OAR sparing compared to FLASH-PT. Further research is warranted in treatment planning optimisation and beam delivery for clinical implementation of Bragg peak FLASH-PT.","journal":"Frontiers in Oncology","year":2024,"id":436598,"datarank":0.0,"base_score":0.0,"endowment":0.0,"self_citation_contribution":0.0,"citation_network_contribution":0.0,"self_endowment_contribution":0.0,"citer_contribution":0.0,"corpus_percentile":null,"corpus_rank":null,"citation_count":11,"citer_count":0,"citers_with_citation_signal":0,"citers_with_endowment":0,"datacite_reuse_total":0,"is_dataset":false,"is_dataset_confidence":0.8984,"is_data_producer":false,"deposit_databanks":null,"is_oa":true,"file_count":0,"downloads":0,"has_version_chain":false,"published_date":"2024-01-01","fair_score":null,"fair_percentile":null,"algorithm_id":"datarank_citation_only_1hop_v6","ranking_scope":"data_only","authors":[{"id":1244969,"name":"Ingrid Kristensen","orcid":"0000-0002-2742-0887","position":1,"is_corresponding":false},{"id":232794,"name":"Kristoffer Petersson","orcid":"0000-0003-0300-5790","position":2,"is_corresponding":false},{"id":1245444,"name":"Nathalie Lövgren","orcid":null,"position":0,"is_corresponding":true}],"reference_count":34,"raw_metadata":null,"created_at":"2026-07-19T02:00:16.989773Z","pmid":"38737902","pmcid":null,"fwci":null,"citation_percentile":null,"influential_citations":0,"oa_status":null,"license":null,"views":0,"total_file_size_bytes":0,"version_count":0,"fair_f":null,"fair_a":null,"fair_i":null,"fair_r":null,"fair_zscore":null,"fair_rationale":null,"fair_model":null,"fair_agent_version":null,"fair_fulltext_source":null,"fair_has_llm":null,"fair_computed_at":null,"clinical_trials":[],"software_tools":[],"db_accessions":[],"linked_datasets":[],"topics":[]}