What clinical studies have evaluated Flash Burn and what were their primary outcomes?
Executive summary
Clinical research into “Flash Burn” as a named product is not found in the provided sources; instead, the available literature and trial reports refer to FLASH radiotherapy (FLASH‑RT), an ultra‑high dose‑rate radiation technique now entering early human trials and case reports with preliminary safety and feasibility signals [1] [2]. Early clinical activity includes single‑patient reports and small phase I/II programmes for skin and superficial tumours and bone metastases, with outcomes focused on feasibility, safety and normal‑tissue sparing rather than definitive tumour‑control endpoints [2] [1] [3].
1. FLASH‑RT is the clinical topic that appears in the sources—not a “Flash Burn” supplement
Search results returned pages about FLASH radiotherapy — abbreviated FLASH‑RT — and several reviews, trials and conferences devoted to it (FRPT conference pages, clinical reviews) rather than any peer‑reviewed clinical trials of a consumer product called “Flash Burn” [4] [5] [6]. Consumer reviews that call a supplement “Flash Burn” appear in lifestyle and marketing sites but cite small or indirect studies of ingredients rather than clinical trials of a product named “Flash Burn” [7] [8] [9]. The academic and clinical texts focus on radiotherapy delivered at ultra‑high dose rates and the “FLASH effect” [10] [1].
2. Early clinical work: feasibility and safety reports, not large randomized outcomes
Published and registry material shows early clinical translation of FLASH‑RT has emphasized feasibility and safety. A 2021 phase I dose‑escalation trial at Lausanne (for melanoma) and a 2023 phase II trial for non‑melanoma skin cancers are registered and recruiting; preliminary trial data and case reports (including a single patient with CD30+ cutaneous lymphoma at CHUV, and the FAST‑01 proton study in bone metastases) report feasibility and acceptable safety in small numbers [1] [2] [3]. A 2025 phase I protocol for superficial skin tumours was published to estimate safety and healthy‑tissue sparing [2].
3. Primary outcomes reported so far: safety, feasibility, and normal‑tissue sparing
Across the clinical descriptions and reviews, the primary outcomes reported or sought are safety, feasibility of delivery at ultra‑high dose rates, and whether FLASH‑RT spares normal tissue while preserving anti‑tumour effect — the so‑called “FLASH effect.” The literature states preliminary clinical data indicate feasibility and safety, and early reports suggest normal‑tissue protection in specific contexts, but definitive efficacy endpoints such as long‑term local control or survival remain to be established in randomized trials [1] [2] [10].
4. What the single‑patient and small trial reports actually showed
Specific clinical vignettes cited in the sources include a single CHUV patient with multi‑resistant CD30+ cutaneous lymphoma who experienced a favorable outcome after electron FLASH‑RT and the FAST‑01 proton trial reporting feasibility and safety for extremity bone metastases; the 2025 phase I protocol aims to measure safety and healthy‑tissue spare in superficial skin tumours [2] [1]. These are early signals, not definitive proof of superiority over conventional radiotherapy [2] [1].
5. Ongoing randomized and phase II efforts — the field is moving toward comparative trials
A first randomized phase II trial comparing FLASH‑RT to conventional radiotherapy for non‑melanoma skin cancers was announced in 2023, marking a shift from case reports and single‑arm feasibility work to controlled evaluation [3]. Conference programmes and institutional investments — e.g., Institut Curie’s plan for a VHEE platform and the FRPT conference agenda — underline international momentum to test FLASH across modalities, with clinical trials a stated priority [11] [4].
6. Limits of current reporting and remaining uncertainties
Available sources repeatedly note that clinical studies are in their infancy and that underlying physical and biological mechanisms, optimal dose/fractionation and which tissues benefit remain uncertain [1] [12]. Large‑scale randomized outcome data and long‑term toxicity and tumour‑control results are not reported in the provided material; major unknowns remain around reproducibility, device standardization and patient selection [1] [12].
7. Why people may conflate “Flash Burn” supplements with FLASH‑RT research
Consumer sites review a weight‑loss product called Flash Burn and cite small, ingredient‑level studies (e.g., seed extracts, EGCG) but do not provide clinical trials of the product itself; these marketing pieces can create confusion when the scientific literature widely publicizes “FLASH” advances in radiotherapy [7] [9] [8]. The sources do not document clinical trials of a weight‑loss product named “Flash Burn” (available sources do not mention clinical trials of a consumer product called “Flash Burn”).
Summary: If your interest is clinical studies of FLASH radiotherapy, the literature shows early phase I/II studies and case reports emphasizing feasibility, safety and potential normal‑tissue sparing [2] [1] [3]. If you meant a consumer supplement named “Flash Burn,” the supplied sources do not provide clinical trials of that product — only marketing and ingredient‑level claims [7] [8] [9].