Reshma Jagsi | Searcharxiv

arXiv2025

Optimizing Transmission FLASH Radiotherapy for Large-Field Post-Mastectomy Breast Treatment

We investigated the effects of scanning speed, beam configuration, and dose-rate modeling on the FLASH effect in post-mastectomy proton transmission-beam (TB) planning and evaluated whether optimizing the spot-scanning path can enhance FLASH. Five left-sided post-mastectomy patients (32 Gy in 5 fractions) were replanned with single-energy (249 MeV) tangential TBs plus a clinical en face background beam. FLASH was evaluated with two models: Krieger's FLASH effectiveness model (FEM) and Folkerts' average dose-rate (ADR) framework. Plans used conventional pencil-beam scanning, split-field delivery, and GA-optimized spot sequences, with vertical scan speeds varied from 10 to 20 mm/ms. FLASH in normal tissues was defined as the percentage of voxels meeting the threshold (>= 4 Gy at >= 40 Gy/s); once a voxel met the criterion, a dose-adjustment factor of 0.67 was applied. The FLASH effect was highly sensitive to scanning pattern and model choice. Increasing vertical scan speed from 10 to 20 mm/ms increased FLASH in the CTV by 22% (ADR) and 12% (FEM); in skin it rose from 41.4% to 58.8% (ADR) and from 8.4% to 13.1% (FEM). Split-field delivery increased the temporal separation between vertical spot columns and yielded superior FLASH, including up to a 9.2 Gy reduction in CTV Dmean with ADR. GA-based optimization shortened scan time and achieved FLASH comparable to split-field delivery, with a CTV Dmean reduction of 7.87 Gy (ADR-GA) and skin Dmean reductions of 2-3 Gy. These findings indicate that FLASH outcomes depend strongly on scanning trajectory, scan speed, and model selection. In addition, path-minimizing spot-delivery optimization (e.g., GA) can further improve dose-rate distributions in healthy voxels.

physics.med-ph↗

arXiv2020

Meta-Research: COVID-19 medical papers have fewer women first authors than expected

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in school closures and distancing requirements that have disrupted both work and family life for many. Concerns exist that these disruptions caused by the pandemic may not have influenced men and women researchers equally. Many medical journals have published papers on the pandemic, which were generated by researchers facing the challenges of these disruptions. Here we report the results of an analysis that compared the gender distribution of authors on 1,893 medical papers related to the pandemic with that on papers published in the same journals in 2019, for papers with first authors and last authors from the United States. Using mixed-effects regression models, we estimated that the proportion of COVID-19 papers with a woman first author was 19% lower than that for papers published in the same journals in 2019, while our comparisons for last authors and overall proportion of women authors per paper were inconclusive. A closer examination suggested that women's representation as first authors of COVID-19 research was particularly low for papers published in March and April 2020. Our findings are consistent with the idea that the research productivity of women, especially early-career women, has been affected more than the research productivity of men.

cs.DL↗