| 8 | | - JMcG&KL: Presentation |
| | 10 | - KL: Presentation [raw-attachment: Slides] |
| | 11 | - Radiobiology is a key component throughout the LhARA program |
| | 12 | - Aim for the program to be definitive |
| | 13 | - Must be multi-disciplinary. Have to do the radiobiology but in new ways |
| | 14 | - Multi-national: Need greater expertise |
| | 15 | - Multisource: laser-driven, electrons, X-rays, and gamma-rays for reference sources |
| | 16 | - Multi-messenger: Diverse cell lines, diverse markers (need to integrate automation) |
| | 17 | - Systematic: Same conditions at a variety of sources across borders |
| | 18 | - AI-enabled: Consistent sample handling and irradiation |
| | 19 | - Interpretation: AI as well to develop more on TOPAS and G4DNA |
| | 20 | - JMcG: Presentation [raw-attachment: Slides] |
| | 21 | - Long-term vision of a facility that can support: FLASH, SFRT, Advanced Imaging and Beam Monitoring |
| | 22 | - PoPLaR Current Vision: |
| | 23 | - Improve setup and workflow protocols and instrumentation needed |
| | 24 | - Becomes a comparison against X-ray and cyclotron proton beams |
| | 25 | - Measuring: Clonogenics, Comet assays, Fixed IF (immunofluorescence) imaging |
| | 26 | - Live Cell Imaging: |
| | 27 | - Understand underlying mechanisms in real-time |
| | 28 | - Builds on Tony's SFRT work and FLASH comparisons |
| | 29 | - Biggest limitation on previous fixed IF SFRT work was only able to compare different cell samples at each time point. |
| | 30 | - Live cell imaging would help fix this. |
| | 31 | - General Discussion |
| | 32 | - Strong agreement that comparison between laser-driven and cyclotron is key. |
| | 33 | - Next vary the beam, looking at FLASH and SFRT |
| | 34 | - Agreement that this needs to focus on particular biological hypotheses |
| | 35 | - Need to understand mechanisms being discussed behind both and what the current hypotheses are |
| | 36 | - Review literature |
| | 37 | - Literature review: Mechanisms, challenges and opportunities for FLASH radiotherapy in cancer Marie-Catherine Vozenin 1 2 , Pierre Montay-Gruel 3 4 , Pelagia Tsoutsou 5 6 , Charles L Limoli 7 DOI: 10.1038/s41568-025-00878-9 |
| | 38 | - Invite experts in: Jason et al, Yolanda et al, Dresden group, Maria Catherine at PSI |
| | 39 | - Also, input from Jason, Emma, Marie and Katya (Munich) about what they expect at each stage as the instrumentation and beamline gets better. |
| | 40 | - Identify which hypotheses LhARA is uniquely capable of testing |
| | 41 | - **Josie to coordinate** |
| | 42 | - Strong agreement that it is better to start now so when the beamline is ready the technique is ready to go |
| | 43 | - Warning that if we do not see differences at the cell level does not mean there is no difference at the tissue or for whole organisms |
| | 44 | - Strong agreement that dosimetry must be included from the outset |
| | 45 | |
| | 46 | |
