Next Article in Journal
Underestimated and Overlooked Factors in PBC Progression: Bacterial and Fungal Infections
Next Article in Special Issue
Pharmacological Ascorbate Restrains Epithelial–Mesenchymal Transition and Invasion in Glioblastoma Cells via Extracellular H2O2 Generation
Previous Article in Journal
Parabacteroides vesiculifaciens sp. nov., a Novel Immunomodulatory, Vesicle-Producing Gut Commensal Isolated from the Human Gut
Previous Article in Special Issue
In Vitro Anti-Glioblastoma Activity of a Novel Pt(IV)-Ganoderic Acid A Conjugate
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJMS
Volume 27
Issue 6
10.3390/ijms27062765
ijms-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Boron Neutron Capture Therapy for High-Grade CNS Tumors: Mechanisms, Carriers, and Clinical Progress: A Narrative Review

by
Tugce Kutuk
1,*,†,
Ece Atak
2,†,
Marshall Harrell
1,
Raju R. Raval
1,
Fatemeh Fekrmandi
1,
Simeng Zhu
1,
Sasha Beyer
1,
Pawan K. Singh
3,
Pierre Giglio
3,
Hamid Mohtashami
3,
Kyle C. Wu
4,
James Bradley Elder
4,
Sean S. Mahase
5,
Raj Singh
6,
Arnab Chakravarti
1 and
Joshua D. Palmer
1
1
Department of Radiation Oncology, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH 43210, USA
2
Department of Radiation Oncology, Basaksehir Cam and Sakura City Hospital, Istanbul 34480, Türkiye
3
Division of Neuro-Oncology, Department of Neurology, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH 43210, USA
4
Department of Neurological Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH 43210, USA
5
Department of Radiation Oncology, Penn State Cancer Institute, Hershey, PA 17033, USA
6
Department of Radiation Oncology, Lynn Cancer Institute, Baptist Health South Florida, Boca Raton, FL 33486, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2026, 27(6), 2765; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms27062765
Submission received: 5 February 2026 / Revised: 4 March 2026 / Accepted: 11 March 2026 / Published: 18 March 2026
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Molecular Targets and Mechanisms of Innovative Therapies and Natural Adjuvants in Glioblastoma Management)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Boron neutron capture therapy (BNCT) is a biologically targeted, high–linear energy transfer radiotherapy that selectively delivers cytotoxic α-particles to boron-loaded tumor cells and has re-emerged with the development of hospital-compatible accelerator neutron sources and improved boron carriers. We performed a structured literature review of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library through October 2025 to summarize the radiobiological rationale, boron delivery strategies, and clinical outcomes of BNCT in glioblastoma (GBM) and other high-grade central nervous system tumors. Eligible clinical and translational studies were screened independently, and data on patient populations, boron agents, neutron source technologies, dosimetry, survival, response, and toxicity were extracted. Contemporary series and phase II trials indicate that BNCT is technically feasible and generally well tolerated, with encouraging survival outcomes in selected newly diagnosed and recurrent GBM, meaningful activity in recurrent high-grade meningiomas, and acceptable safety in limited pediatric cohorts. Current practice relies primarily on second-generation carriers such as boronophenylalanine and sodium borocaptate, while third-generation molecular and nanocarrier platforms remain in preclinical development. Overall, BNCT represents a promising high-LET, pharmacologically targeted modality for heavily pretreated and radioresistant CNS tumors, and ongoing prospective studies are needed to define its comparative effectiveness and optimal integration into patient care.

1. Introduction

Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most common primary malignant central nervous system (CNS) tumor in adults. Following maximally safe resection, fractionated external beam radiotherapy with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide is the current standard of care [1,2]. Subsequently, Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) emerged as the only modality with randomized phase III evidence demonstrating a survival benefit to the aforementioned first-line setting standard of care, extending median overall survival (OS) from 16.0 to 20.9 months [3]. However, five-year OS remains below 10%, underscoring the need for novel therapeutic strategies [4].
Multiple radiotherapeutic strategies were explored in the newly diagnosed and recurrent setting. Despite exploratory signals with dose-escalated proton therapy in NRG-BN001, randomized comparisons failed to demonstrate an OS advantage over photon-based radiotherapy [5]. Notably, secondary analyses suggested a trend toward improved local control and survival in selected subgroups receiving higher biologically effective doses, although these findings were not statistically significant and should be considered hypothesis-generating. In the re-irradiation setting, pulsed-reduced dose-rate (PRDR) radiotherapy demonstrated feasibility and acceptable toxicity in institutional series, with a median 6-month progression-free survival (PFS) [6]. Carbon-ion radiotherapy, primarily evaluated as a boost following photon or proton therapy [7], and salvage strategies including intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT), Cs-131 brachytherapy, and radioligand-based theranostic, predominantly explored in small, single-arm institutional experiences, limits their potential benefits pending further data [8,9].
Among emerging approaches, boron neutron capture therapy (BNCT) is distinguished by its reliance on pharmacologic tumor targeting [10]. Unlike systemic radioligand therapies, BNCT employs non-radioactive 10B-containing compounds that preferentially accumulate within tumor cells, followed by neutron irradiation that triggers the 10B(n,α)7Li reaction, generating ultra-high LET α-particles and 7Li nuclei [11,12]. BNCT offers a non-invasive, high-LET modality selectively targeting infiltrative glioma cells while limiting normal tissue injury. This review provides a synthesis of the radiobiological rationale, delivery strategies, and clinical data analyzing BNCT in GBM and other high-grade CNS malignancies.
A systematic literature search was conducted through October 2025 to identify clinical and preclinical/translational studies reporting outcomes of BNCT in GBM and other high-grade CNS tumors. PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched using combinations of keywords, including “boron neutron capture therapy” OR “BNCT” AND “glioblastoma” OR “high-grade glioma” OR “meningioma” OR “high-grade CNS tumor”. Reference lists of relevant articles and prior reviews were hand-searched to identify additional studies.

2. Mechanism of Action

BNCT is a binary radiotherapeutic modality relying on the preferential accumulation of stable 10B within tumor cells, followed by irradiation with thermal or epithermal neutrons [13]. Neutron capture initiates the 10B(n,α)7Li reaction, generating an α-particle (~1.47 MeV) and a recoiling 7Li nucleus (~0.84 MeV) with short path lengths of approximately 5–9 μm and a mean LET of ~150 keV/μm, a range smaller than the diameter of a typical human cell, thereby producing highly localized, potent high-LET radiation damage confined to boron-containing cells (Figure 1). Therapeutic efficacy depends on neutron fluence, pharmacokinetics, intracellular uptake, and microdistribution of boron carriers. Achieving favorable tumor-to-blood and tumor-to-normal tissue ratios (typically ≥3:1) is essential for an optimal therapeutic index. Competing neutron-capture reactions from biologically abundant nuclei such as 12C, 1H, and 14N are negligible because their thermal-neutron capture cross sections are orders of magnitude lower than 10B [14]. In contrast to proton or carbon-ion therapy, where biological effectiveness is intrinsic to beam properties, BNCT derives its selectivity from biological targeting, creating a unique interdependence between drug delivery and radiation physics. At the cellular level, BNCT induces dense, clustered DNA double-strand breaks, chromosomal aberrations, mitotic catastrophe, and apoptosis, consistent with the ultra-high-LET microdosimetric patterns generated by α-particles and 7Li nuclei [15].

3. Historical Background

The conceptual foundation of BNCT was first proposed by Gordon Locher in 1936, who hypothesized that non-radioactive boron could be used as a neutron-capturing agent to selectively deliver high-LET radiation to tumors (Figure 2) [16,17,18]. The earliest clinical applications in GBM were conducted at Brookhaven National Laboratory and Massachusetts General Hospital in the 1950s, using borax and early inorganic boron salts in conjunction with reactor-based thermal neutron beams [17,18]. While establishing feasibility, these initial trials were limited by the poor tumor selectivity of first-generation boron agents, and suboptimal neutron energy spectra, resulting in inadequate tumor dosing and toxicity. By the late 20th century, these limitations led to declining BNCT interest in North America and Europe. However, Japanese investigators revitalized the field in the 1980s and 1990s with the introduction of boronophenylalanine (BPA) and sodium borocaptate (BSH), which demonstrated significantly improved tumor selectivity, promoting renewed interest in gliomas and head and neck cancers [19,20]. Recently, a major paradigm was promoted by the development of hospital-compatible accelerator-based epithermal neutron sources, eliminating reliance on nuclear reactors and enabling broader clinical adoption [21]. This technological transition, combined with advances in boron carrier chemistry, image-guided treatment planning, and biologically weighted BNCT dosimetry, reignited interest. Presently, BNCT is approved in Japan for treating unresectable, recurrent head and neck cancer [22]. A summary of currently active accelerator-based BNCT centers, their neutron-source technologies, and clinical implementation status is provided in Table 1.

4. Workflow

Patient selection is based on histopathologic confirmation, prior treatments, performance status, and anatomical suitability for neutron irradiation. In the re-irradiation setting, a minimum interval of approximately three months from prior radiotherapy is recommended, along with adequate hematologic parameters and the absence of uncontrolled edema or mass effect. Tumor location, depth, association with skull-base anatomy, and proximity to critical structures are also key determinants of eligibility and achievable dose. A boron-containing compound is administered intravenously. Quantitative 18F-BPA PET is subsequently performed to assess the tumor-to-normal tissue and tumor-to-blood boron concentration ratios, which guide treatment candidacy and inform estimation of the optimal irradiation time window. These pharmacokinetic data are incorporated into image-based treatment planning, with MRI and CT datasets co-registered to PET for accurate delineation of target volumes and organs at risk.
Monte Carlo-based treatment planning systems are used to simulate neutron transport and model the individual contributions of the 10B(n,α)7Li reaction, proton recoil, nitrogen capture, and gamma components. Contemporary platforms increasingly support iterative dose optimization, enabling refinement of beam geometry, irradiation time, and dose constraints to maximize compound biological effectiveness (CBE)- and relative biological effectiveness (RBE)-weighted tumor dose.
Accurate and reproducible patient positioning is a critical determinant of treatment accuracy in BNCT, given the steep dose gradients and dependence on neutron beam geometry. Modern accelerator-based BNCT facilities employ six-axis robotic positioning systems integrated with treatment planning and image-guidance workflows, achieving millimeter-level accuracy, with reported maximum deviations of approximately 2–3 mm in source-to-skin distance and along the treatment surface [23,24,25]. Recent advances in robotic platforms further expanded positioning capabilities, allowing flexible patient orientations, including non-supine and seated treatment positions, to accommodate challenging tumor locations and patient-specific anatomical constraints. Seated positioning has been explored to improve patient comfort, facilitate stable head fixation, and enable more favorable neutron beam geometry, especially in head and neck applications [26,27]. In parallel, surface-guided positioning approaches combining binocular stereo-vision systems with closed-loop robotic corrections demonstrate reliable millimeter-scale accuracy in phantom validation studies. These developments highlight the growing versatility of robotic positioning systems and their potential to provide increasingly individualized treatment plans.
Advances in real-time in vivo dosimetry are an active area of BNCT research. Experimental systems, including i-TED Compton camera arrays, are being developed to detect and image the 478 keV prompt gamma rays emitted during the 10B(n,α)7Li reaction [28,29,30]. Additional approaches, such as prompt gamma-SPECT and silicon/CdTe-based Compton cameras, demonstrated feasibility in preclinical and experimental settings for noninvasive monitoring of boron neutron capture reactions.

5. Boron Delivery Agents

5.1. First Generation

Early BNCT research in the 1950s–1960s at Brookhaven National Laboratory and the MGH/MIT reactor programs evaluated simple inorganic boron compounds including sodium borate formulations and sodium decahydrodecaborate (Na2B10H10) as potential boron carriers. These first-generation compounds exhibited rapid systemic clearance, poor tumor-to-normal tissue concentration ratios, and minimal selective tumor uptake, resulting in unfavorable biodistribution prohibitive of providing a therapeutic benefit, contributing to the discontinuation of U.S. clinical trials [14,31]. In contrast, subsequent Japanese programs advanced more chemically sophisticated boron cluster compounds, including BSH, which demonstrated improved biological behavior suitable for clinical BNCT [32].

5.2. Second Generation

BSH and BPA possessed improved tumor selectivity and higher boron delivery. BSH was the first boron carrier to produce measurable therapeutic benefit in GBM patients [33]. Its high boron density, passive penetration into regions of blood–brain barrier disruption, and distribution throughout the infiltrative extracellular tumor compartment enabled significantly higher intratumoral boron levels (19.9 +/− 9.1 ppm) [34]. However, BSH’s major limitation was insufficient intracellular penetration and only modest tumor-to-normal selectivity. These limitations were addressed by BPA, which exploits the L-type amino acid transporter 1 (LAT1) to achieve active, energy-dependent intracellular uptake, thereby delivering substantially higher boron concentrations directly into tumor cells, producing a more favorable tumor-to-normal tissue ratio [35]. Clinically, BPA is administered as a water-soluble complex with fructose (BPA-f), which significantly improves intravenous delivery and enables the high infusion doses required for BNCT. In addition to its therapeutic role, the radiolabeled analog 18F-BPA serves as a theranostic imaging agent, allowing non-invasive PET assessment of tumor boron uptake, patient selection, and treatment planning. Emerging analogs such as boronotyrosine aim to further improve tumor uptake, retention, and tumor-to-normal tissue ratios. The complementary biological profiles of BPA and BSH, BPA providing high intracellular tumor targeting, and BSH distributing within the extracellular and infiltrative compartments, form the rationale for combined administration [36,37,38]. This strategy improves the spatial homogeneity of boron delivery across heterogeneous glioma tissue and has the potential to optimize BNCT dose effectiveness.

5.3. Third Generation

Third-generation boron delivery agents represent a significant advance in BNCT, leveraging contemporary molecular engineering and nanotechnology to overcome the limited tumor selectivity and suboptimal boron accumulation of earlier compounds like BPA and BSH. These multifunctional platforms integrate tumor-targeting ligands, diagnostic imaging moieties, and high-capacity boron clusters within a single construct, enabling markedly enhanced tumor specificity and more uniform intratumoral boron distribution. Ongoing preclinical development includes antibody-boron conjugates, boron-enriched liposomes and nanoparticles, peptide-targeted boron conjugates, and novel small-molecule carriers, each demonstrating promising potential to increase boron delivery to CNS malignancies [39].
Antibody-boron conjugates (ABCs) represent an emerging third-generation BNCT strategy, combining antigen-specific molecular targeting with substantially higher boron payload capacity than small-molecule carriers [40,41]. HER2-directed boron-loaded immunoliposomes have demonstrated selective tumor uptake and markedly enhanced BNCT cytotoxicity in both in vitro and xenograft models, achieving up to 14-fold greater therapeutic activity compared with the clinical BPA-fructose complex in HER2-overexpressing ovarian cancer cells [42,43]. Similarly, EGFR- and LDLR-targeted antibody-functionalized boron carbide nanoparticles have shown approximately two-fold increased cellular association in receptor-expressing tumor cells, with intracellular boron concentrations reaching 9.58 ± 2.6 mg/L per million cells in high-expressing lines. In parallel, Fc-binding peptide–based targeting systems, such as Z33 peptide–dodecaborate conjugates, have demonstrated effective antibody-mediated, receptor-dependent boron delivery [44]. To date, all ABC research remains preclinical, with no clinical trials currently reported.
Peptide-conjugated boron delivery systems constitute a versatile third-generation BNCT platform designed to enhance tumor specificity and intracellular boron accumulation [45,46]. By coupling boron-rich clusters to peptides that recognize receptors or surface markers overexpressed on cancer cells, these constructs enable active molecular targeting and receptor-mediated endocytosis [46]. Several peptide classes have shown promise: Fc-binding peptides (Z33) for antibody-based targeting, tumor-vasculature-targeted peptides (SP94) achieving tumor-to-blood ratios of 5.92 ± 0.45, receptor-directed ligands such as GRPR agonists with up to 80 boron atoms per molecule while maintaining receptor activation, neuropeptide Y analogs targeting hY1R with maximized carborane loading, ghrelin receptor (GHSR)-targeted peptide conjugates demonstrating receptor-mediated tumor uptake, and cell-penetrating peptides such as octa-arginine (R8), TAT, or angiopep-2 [44,47,48,49]. The angiopep-2 conjugates achieved 86.5% clonogenic cell death in vitro and 62.9% tumor shrinkage in intracranial glioma models, significantly outperforming BPA [49]. GHSR-targeted boron delivery systems represent another emerging peptide-based strategy. GHSR is overexpressed in several malignancies, including glioma, and provides a molecular entry route for receptor-mediated internalization [50,51,52]. Carborane-functionalized ghrelin analogues and related peptide conjugates have demonstrated selective tumor cell uptake and enhanced BNCT cytotoxicity in preclinical models, supporting the feasibility of exploiting the ghrelin axis for targeted boron delivery. These systems demonstrate enhanced cellular uptake, higher intratumoral boron concentrations, and superior BNCT therapeutic efficacy across multiple preclinical models.
Boronated nucleosides and DNA-intercalating compounds were developed to achieve nuclear localization and mitotic trapping, thereby maximizing DNA damage from the 10B(n,α)7Li reaction at its most critical target [53]. Carboranyl thymidine analogs, particularly N5-2OH, demonstrated selective retention by thymidine kinase-1-positive tumors with tumor-to-brain ratios of 8.5 following convection-enhanced delivery. Nucleotide borate esters, such as ATP borate ester, exhibited significantly high radiosensitization values, with tumor boron concentrations comparable to BPA’s [54]. Although in vitro studies demonstrated substantial cytotoxic potential, unfavorable in vivo pharmacokinetics, rapid systemic clearance, and dose-limiting toxicities largely impeded further development [55].
Nanocarrier-based platforms provide an opportunity to deliver high boron payloads with tunable biodistribution, including boron-functionalized nanodiamond constructs and polymer-based nanoparticle systems designed for active tumor targeting [56,57,58]. PEGylated liposomes encapsulating nido-carborane or BSH have shown prolonged circulation times and improved tumor retention, and their further functionalization with folate, transferrin, or other tumor-targeting ligands is under active investigation [56]. Carboranyl-phosphatidylcholine-based liposomes (boronosomes) demonstrated high tumor accumulation and long retention with clear irradiation backgrounds on PET imaging, with further improvements when combined with chemotherapy agents, particularly PARP1 inhibitors. Gadolinium-boron integrated lipid nanocarriers with Angiopep-2 modification enabled both targeted delivery and MRI-guided BNCT, significantly prolonging survival in orthotopic GBM models [59]. Additional nanoformulations including polymeric micelles, dendrimers such as PAMAM, mesoporous silica nanoparticles, and metallacarborane hybrids have demonstrated the capacity to deliver very high boron loads while enabling multivalent tumor targeting and enhanced intracellular uptake [59,60,61]. Although these nanotechnologies show strong preclinical promise, clinical translation will require rigorous standardization, including robust boron-specific dosimetry, comprehensive toxicologic evaluation, and scalable manufacturing quality control.
Recent developments include novel transporter-targeted small molecules that expand BNCT beyond LAT1-dependent BPA. GluB-2, an ASCT2-targeted carrier, achieves tumor boron concentrations exceeding 20 µg/g after both intravenous and intraperitoneal administration, representing the first non-BPA small-molecule carrier to reach therapeutic thresholds, with pronounced tumor suppression in BPA-refractory U87MG xenograft models [62]. Boronotyrosine, a borylated tyrosine analog, demonstrated 2–3 times greater boron delivery in vivo than BPA with superior tumor-to-blood ratios and up to 4 times greater cellular uptake in vitro [63]. Folate receptor-targeted PBC-IP administered via convection-enhanced delivery showed significantly improved survival compared to BPA alone in F98 rat glioma models, with long-term survivors observed only in PBC-IP-treated groups [64].
A concise overview of first-, second-, and emerging third-generation boron delivery strategies including their uptake mechanisms, advantages, and limitations is provided in Table 2.

6. Neutron Sources for BNCT

Historically, reactor-based BNCT relied on nuclear research reactors to generate neutron beams through fission processes. Although these systems provided high neutron flux, they required specialized infrastructure, extensive shielding, and access to dedicated reactor facilities, which limited clinical scalability and regulatory feasibility [12]. In contrast, modern accelerator-based BNCT systems generate neutrons using compact proton accelerators directed at lithium or beryllium targets via the 7Li(p,n)7Be or Be(p,n) reactions [12,25]. The resulting neutrons are subsequently moderated using beam-shaping assemblies to achieve the epithermal energy range optimal for tissue penetration and tumor targeting [28]. These hospital-compatible platforms enable installation within medical centers and support standardized treatment planning, dosimetry, and regulatory integration [65]. Although both approaches rely on the same 10B(n,α)7Li reaction for tumor cell kill, accelerator-based systems represent a major translational advance that has enabled broader clinical implementation. Notably, Japan’s regulatory approval in 2020 of accelerator-based BNCT for unresectable locally advanced or locally recurrent head and neck cancer marked the first worldwide approval of an accelerator-based BNCT system as a medical device.
Broader clinical adoption of BNCT will depend on the continued deployment and standardization of hospital-based accelerator neutron sources. Compact accelerator systems are increasingly favored due to their reduced physical footprint, lower infrastructure requirements, and feasibility for installation within hospitals [66,67,68]. These platforms typically generate epithermal neutrons using low-energy proton or deuteron beams incident on lithium or beryllium targets, with beam-shaping assemblies optimized to meet International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) recommendations [25,69]. Modern designs incorporate modular collimator systems allowing diameter adjustment from 8 to 17 cm to accommodate different tumor sizes and positions, with larger beam diameters delivering higher dose rates and deeper penetration. Recent innovations include dual-port designs with both thermal and epithermal neutron ports for treating superficial and deep-seated tumors, and novel BSA-free approaches using near-threshold proton reactions that may simplify facility design and enable energy-controlled neutron penetration depth [70]. Neutron flux optimization is achieved through careful selection of target materials and beam current parameters, with current systems generating epithermal neutron fluxes of 108–109 n/cm2/s at treatment positions. Standardization of neutron spectra and dose-calculation methodologies across these platforms will be critical for multi-institutional trials.

7. BNCT Compared with Proton and Carbon Ion Radiotherapy

A key distinction between BNCT and other particle therapies lies in the quality, magnitude, and spatial distribution of LET. Proton beams are predominantly low-LET radiation, with mean LET values of approximately 0.5–2 keV/µm, increasing modestly near the Bragg peak. Their relative biological effectiveness (RBE) is typically ~1.1, only slightly greater than photons; however, experimental and modeling studies suggest that RBE may increase toward the distal edge of the Bragg peak, with potential implications for treatment planning and normal tissue toxicity. Thus, the clinical advantages of proton therapy arise primarily from superior physical dose conformality, rather than enhanced radiobiological potency [71]. Carbon ions are high-LET particles, with LET values typically ranging from 40 to 80 keV/µm at the Bragg peak and exceeding 100 keV/µm under certain beam and tissue conditions. Their RBE generally ranges from 2 to 3, depending on tissue type, dose per fraction, and biological endpoint, and reflects dense ionization tracks that induce complex, difficult-to-repair DNA double-strand breaks and enhanced cell-killing efficiency; however, in clinical practice, these theoretical radiobiological advantages have not consistently translated into clearly superior outcomes compared with other advanced radiation modalities [72].
BNCT delivers a pharmacologically localized form of ultra-high LET irradiation. Its microdosimetric precision represents both the principal strength and central challenge of BNCT, as therapeutic efficacy depends critically on selective boron delivery, intracellular uptake, and uniform intratumoral distribution. In contrast, proton and carbon-ion therapies rely primarily on physical dose distribution, with biological effectiveness governed by intrinsic beam properties rather than pharmacologic targeting. A comparative overview of proton therapy, carbon-ion therapy, and BNCT including LET characteristics, RBE, spatial dose behavior, and mechanisms of selectivity is summarized in Table 3.

8. BNCT for CNS Tumors

BNCT applications in the CNS were driven by the need to for options to treat intrinsically radioresistant tumors or upon exhausting conventional therapeutic options. Consequently, early reactor-based clinical experiences were largely confined to high-grade gliomas (HGGs) in the salvage setting, where standard re-irradiation strategies offered limited efficacy and carried substantial risks of normal tissue toxicity. As BNCT technology evolved particularly with the transition to accelerator-based neutron sources, its clinical application expanded beyond salvage therapy.

8.1. Recurrent GBM

Reactor-based BNCT for recurrent GBM was first systematically evaluated in a Swedish cohort of 12 patients treated with a 6 h high-dose BPA infusion, demonstrating median OS of 22.2 months from initial diagnosis, 13.7 months from recurrence, and 8.7 months from BNCT, with preservation of quality of life until shortly before progression and no grade 3–4 acute toxicities [73]. The Osaka group subsequently reported 22 patients with recurrent malignant glioma (19 GBM) treated with BPA and/or BSH, achieving median OS after BNCT of 10.8 months for the full cohort and 9.6 months for recurrent GBM. Among high-risk RPA classes, median OS reached 9.1 months, compared with 4.4 months in the Carson et al. series, suggesting a survival advantage despite the absence of a contemporaneous control arm [74,75].
Accelerator-based BNCT was evaluated in the multicenter phase II JG002 trial, which treated 27 recurrent malignant gliomas (24 GBM) with cyclotron-based SPM-011 (500 mg/kg BPA over 3 h) [76,77]. Extended follow-up data published in 2025 demonstrated a 1-year OS of 79.2% (95% CI: 63.3–88.7) and median OS of 19.2 months (95% CI: 13.1–24.8) in the GBM subset, with 2-year and 3-year OS rates of 33.3% and 20.8%, respectively [78]. This represents substantially higher survival than the 34.5% 1-year OS and 10.5-month median OS reported in the Japanese bevacizumab trial JO22506 [76]. To address concerns about radiation necrosis and pseudoprogression following high-LET re-irradiation, Furuse et al. combined reactor-based BNCT with early, successive bevacizumab (10 mg/kg initiated 1–4 weeks post-BNCT) in 25 patients with recurrent malignant glioma. In the GBM subgroup (n = 14), median OS was 21.4 months (95% CI: 7.0–36.7) and PFS 8.3 months (95% CI: 4.2–12.1), with no cases of pseudoprogression or radiographic radiation necrosis observed during bevacizumab treatment. Grade ≥3 adverse events occurred in six patients [79].
Overall, reactor- and accelerator-based experiences suggests BNCT is technically feasible, generally tolerable, and capable of producing encouraging survival outcomes in recurrent GBM, with median OS after treatment ranging from 8 to 10 months in earlier cohorts to ~19–21 months in more recent, highly selected populations treated with BNCT and/or bevacizumab. However, these findings are derived from non-randomized studies with heterogeneous prior therapies, variable performance status, and frequent bevacizumab use.

8.2. Newly Diagnosed GBM

In a prospective study by Yamamoto et al., 15 patients undergoing debulking surgery followed by single-fraction BPA/BSH-mediated BNCT achieved a median OS of 25.7 months and 1- and 2-year OS rates of 80.0% and 53.3%, respectively. Median time to progression was approximately 12 months, and treatment was generally well tolerated; however, one patient who received frontotemporal irradiation without optimal neutron shielding developed Grade 4 post-epileptic brain swelling requiring surgical intervention [80,81]. Kageji et al. treated 23 newly diagnosed GBM patients using either intraoperative BSH-BNCT or external-beam BNCT with BPA + BSH, reporting a median 19.5 month OS and 2-, 3- and 5-year OS rates of 31.8%, 22.7% and 9.1% with no treatment-limiting adverse events [82]. The Osaka group reported 21 newly diagnosed GBM patients treated with BNCT entailing simultaneous BPA and BSH administration, with median OS of 15.6 months overall and 23.5 months for those receiving BNCT followed by 20–30 Gy external beam radiotherapy [80].
The Studsvik Phase II trial evaluated a prolonged 6 h infusion of BPA-f in 29 newly diagnosed GBM patients. Median OS was 17.6 months from surgery, with a 1-year OS rate of 78.7%, with only 13–14% of patients experiencing severe adverse events. Retrospective comparison using RPA stratification suggested BNCT may achieve outcomes comparable to standard chemoradiation, with greater relative benefit in MGMT-unmethylated tumors (adjusted HR vs. RT/TMZ ≈ 0.68) [83,84].
Accelerator-based BNCT for newly diagnosed GBM is being evaluated in combination with standard therapy. The University of Tsukuba TB-GB-01 trial is the first Phase I study evaluating the combination of accelerator-based BNCT, external beam radiation (40 Gy in 20 fractions), and temozolomide in newly diagnosed GBM [85]. This trial uses dose escalation starting with a BNCT normal brain maximum dose of 7 Gy at D2cc, with the primary endpoint being dose-limiting toxicities and secondary endpoints including adverse event rates, treatment completion rate, response rate, PFS, and OS.
While limited by small cohorts and heterogeneous treatment protocols, these non-randomized institutional experiences support BNCT monotherapy achieving survival outcomes comparable to standard chemoradiation.

8.3. Pediatric HGGs

Clinical experience with BNCT in pediatric high-grade CNS tumors remains limited; Nakagawa et al. treated 23 children younger than 15 years (including 4 patients under 3 years) with malignant gliomas, including GBM, anaplastic astrocytoma, anaplastic ependymoma, and primitive neuroectodermal tumor, using BPA- or BSH-mediated BNCT. BNCT achieved local tumor control across nearly all histologies; however, children with GBM and PNET ultimately died from cerebrospinal fluid and/or CNS dissemination rather than local failure. In contrast, four of six children with anaplastic astrocytoma and one with anaplastic ependymoma remained alive without recurrence. Notably, BNCT was delivered without treatment-limiting acute or late toxicities, long-term survivors maintained preserved neurological function and normal educational development [86].
Chen et al. reported a series in five children with recurrent, previously irradiated GBM, who collectively underwent nine BNCT treatments to ten tumor sites. With a median follow-up of 5.3 months, objective responses were observed in majority lesions (one complete response and three partial responses). The median PFS was 3.8 months, and no severe radiation necrosis or serious BNCT-related complications were noted [87]. Huang et al. treated six children with recurrent, previously irradiated diffuse midline gliomas who received two fractions of BPA-based BNCT. BNCT produced partial radiographic responses in three patients and stable disease in the remaining three with mean post-BNCT OS of 6.39 months and 4.35 months PFS. Treatment was generally well tolerated, with only one case of radiation necrosis in a child who received prior hypofractionated radiotherapy [88].
These pediatric experiences collectively demonstrate BNCT promotes local tumor control with minimal toxicity in carefully selected pediatric patients and could be considered for localized treatment and/or gross tumor/tumor bed boost in conjunction with modalities focused on CSF-dissemination. This approach is particularly rational in a population where conventional high-dose radiotherapy is often avoided because of the risk of severe neurocognitive sequelae.

8.4. Meningiomas

Early translational studies demonstrated meningiomas accumulate therapeutically meaningful intratumoral boron concentrations with both BSH and BPA [89,90]. The first reported clinical case entailed a patient wheelchair-bound due to a recurrent WHO grade 3 papillary meningioma regaining ambulation within a week of BPA + BSH BNCT, with the treated lesion regressing by 50% at 26 weeks. A subsequent BNCT session targeting a second contralateral lesion with high 18F-BPA uptake produced similar radiographic regression [91]. Subsequent reactor-based series from Osaka Medical College expanded these observations to larger cohorts of recurrent WHO grade 2–3 or malignant meningiomas refractory to surgery and conventional radiotherapy [92,93,94]. In series of Miyatake two of three anaplastic meningiomas achieved complete response, all six patients with follow-up imaging showed radiographic improvement, and pre-treatment neurological symptoms such as hemiparesis and facial pain improved in all but one patient [94]. Kawabata et al. reported a mean tumor-volume reduction of 64.5% at 2 months in 20 patients with recurrent high-grade meningioma treated with BPA-based BNCT, further supporting the capacity of BNCT to induce substantial, and often rapid response in this otherwise treatment-refractory population [92]. Takai and colleagues from Osaka retrospectively reviewed 44 patients with recurrent WHO grade 2–3 meningioma treated with BPA-based BNCT with or without BSH between 2005 and 2019 [95]. The median OS after BNCT was 29.6 months (95% CI: 16.1–40.4), with grade-specific outcomes showing median OS of 44.4 months for grade 2 versus 21.55 months for grade 3 disease (p = 0.0009). Follow-up images obtained from 36 cases showed tumor shrinkage in 35 patients during the observation period, occasionally following a short period of pseudoprogression. The median PFS after BNCT was 13.7 months (95% CI: 8.3–28.6), with significantly better outcomes for grade 2 (24.3 months) versus grade 3 (9.4 months) meningiomas (p = 0.0024).
A Taiwanese single-center series of 13 previously irradiated recurrent grade 1–3 meningioma patients (treated with salvage BNCT between 2020 and 2024 associated dose as a critical determinant of treatment response [90]. In this cohort, 5 of 13 patients (38%) met RANO criteria for partial or complete response, with responders receiving a significantly higher mean tumor dose (45.10 GyE vs. 25.85 GyE) than non-responders. Non-skull base tumors, amenable to safely receiving higher BNCT doses due to more favorable beam geometry and greater distance from critical structures, trending toward improved response [96]. No severe acute or late toxicities were reported. This study also introduced the novel use of 18F-Fluciclovine PET as an alternative to 18F-BPA PET for tumor uptake assessment, expanding imaging options for BNCT planning. A recent case report from Taiwan demonstrated successful salvage BNCT for a WHO grade 3 malignant meningioma with skull bone and scalp invasion, achieving near-total regression with two courses of BNCT (mean tumor doses 41.52 and 50.22 GyE) without significant toxicity [97].
In the phase II jRCT2051190044 study published in January 2026, Kashiwagi and colleagues randomized patients with refractory recurrent WHO grade 2–3 meningiomas after prior photon radiotherapy to BNCT plus best supportive care (BSC) versus BSC alone (2:1 allocation; 18 patients analyzed) [98]. The trial met its primary endpoint: independently assessed median PFS was 14.4 months in the BNCT arm versus 1.4 months in the BSC arm (95% CI: 7.9–26.4 vs. 1.0–9.0; p = 0.0157), and investigator-assessed PFS showed similar benefits (14.7 vs. 1.5 months, p = 0.0002). The objective response rate in the BNCT arm was 27.3%. One- and two-year OS rates in the BNCT arm approached 100% and 90%, respectively, although OS interpretation is limited by cross-over to “rescue BNCT” in five of six control patients. Safety findings were consistent with earlier series, with predominantly manageable alopecia and radiation-related edema.
Taken together, that the aforementioned studies support BPA/BSH-based BNCT biological activity and clinically utility in heavily pretreated grade 2–3 meningiomas. To provide a structured overview of the current clinical evidence base, published and ongoing clinical studies of BNCT in central nervous system tumors are summarized in Table 4.

9. Limitations

The majority of clinical BNCT data entail single-arm, non-randomized studies with small cohorts. These heterogeneous series often include patients with diverse tumor histologies, variable prior treatments, inconsistent boron-carrier protocols (BPA, BSH, or combinations), and evolving neutron-source technologies (reactor- vs. accelerator-based systems), limiting the ability to draw comparative conclusions. Interpretation of survival outcomes is confounded by frequent use of concurrent or sequential therapies, particularly bevacizumab, which can substantially alter PFS, reduce radiation-related edema, and obscure attribution of treatment effects. Additionally, boron pharmacokinetics, intratumoral distribution, and cellular microheterogeneity remain major sources of biological variability. Most clinical reports lack standardized quantification of boron concentration or spatial distribution, and differences in infusion protocols, PET imaging, and boron carriers complicate cross-study comparison. These factors are especially relevant for infiltrative gliomas, where non-uniform boron uptake may limit therapeutic coverage. Methodological inconsistencies, including variable definitions of progression, differences in imaging follow-up protocols, and the lack of centralized radiologic review, impair the reliability of PFS and response assessments. High-LET-related phenomena such as pseudoprogression and radiation-induced edema further complicate radiographic interpretation. Finally, long-term toxicity data, particularly for AB-BNCT and pediatric patients, remain sparse. Although early reports suggest favorable neurocognitive profiles and acceptable safety, follow-up durations are short, and late effects including radionecrosis, neurocognitive decline, or vascular injury cannot yet be fully characterized.

10. Conclusions

BNCT has progressed substantially from its early reactor-based origins where limited boron selectivity and suboptimal neutron spectra constrained therapeutic benefit to an increasingly refined, clinically feasible modality enabled by modern accelerator technology. Current clinical data, particularly from phase II trials and large institutional series, demonstrate encouraging survival outcomes in recurrent HGGs and high-grade meningiomas, with a favorable safety profile despite prior irradiation in most patients. In this context, BNCT appears particularly well suited as a salvage strategy for patients with limited remaining local treatment options, where its pharmacologically localized, ultra-high LET mechanism may offer meaningful cytoreduction. Beyond salvage, emerging exploratory analyses suggest that BNCT may hold a niche role in biologically aggressive subgroups, including MGMT-unmethylated glioblastoma, in which resistance to alkylating chemotherapy limits the efficacy of standard chemoradiation. While BPA remains the cornerstone boron carrier in current clinical practice, ongoing advances in boron-carrier chemistry, including third-generation antibody, peptide, and nanocarrier platforms, offer the potential to improve tumor specificity and overcome intratumoral heterogeneity. In parallel, the expanding availability of hospital-compatible accelerator-based BNCT systems is expected to improve accessibility, standardize treatment workflows, and facilitate multicenter collaboration. Ultimately, definitive integration of BNCT into the neuro-oncology treatment paradigm will require prospective, randomized clinical trials to clarify its comparative efficacy, optimal sequencing, and patient selection relative to established radiotherapy and systemic approaches.

Author Contributions

Conception and design: T.K. and E.A.; Provision of study materials or patients: T.K., E.A. and J.D.P.; Collection and assembly of data: E.A. and T.K.; Data analysis and interpretation: T.K., E.A. and J.D.P.; Manuscript writing: T.K., E.A., M.H., R.R.R., F.F., S.Z., S.B., P.K.S., P.G., H.M., K.C.W., J.B.E., S.S.M., R.S., A.C. and J.D.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Acknowledgments

Figures were created using BioRender (BioRender.com). The authors reviewed and edited all graphical content and take full responsibility for the accuracy and integrity of the figures presented in this publication.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

BNCT—Boron Neutron Capture Therapy, GBM—Glioblastoma, HGG—High-Grade Glioma, HGM—High-Grade Meningioma, CNS—Central Nervous System, LET—Linear Energy Transfer, RBE—Relative Biological Effectiveness, CBE—Compound Biological Effectiveness, BPA—Boronophenylalanine, BSH—Sodium Borocaptate, LAT1—L-type Amino Acid Transporter 1, GHSR—Growth Hormone Secretagogue Receptor, GRPR—Gastrin-Releasing Peptide Receptor, hY1R—Human Neuropeptide Y Receptor 1, EBRT—External Beam Radiotherapy, TMZ—Temozolomide, OS—Overall Survival, PFS—Progression-Free Survival, TTP—Time to Progression, PR—Partial Response, SD—Stable Disease, RPA—Recursive Partitioning Analysis, DLT—Dose-Limiting Toxicity, TTFields—Tumor Treating Fields, BBB—Blood–Brain Barrier, IAEA—International Atomic Energy Agency, EPR—Enhanced Permeability and Retention.

References

  1. Stupp, R.; Mason, W.P.; van den Bent, M.J.; Weller, M.; Fisher, B.; Taphoorn, M.J.; Belanger, K.; Brandes, A.A.; Marosi, C.; Bogdahn, U.; et al. Radiotherapy plus concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide for glioblastoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 2005, 352, 987–996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Singh, S.; Dey, D.; Barik, D.; Mohapatra, I.; Kim, S.; Sharma, M.; Prasad, S.; Wang, P.; Singh, A.; Singh, G. Glioblastoma at the crossroads: Current understanding and future therapeutic horizons. Signal Transduct. Target. Ther. 2025, 10, 213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Stupp, R.; Taillibert, S.; Kanner, A.; Read, W.; Steinberg, D.; Lhermitte, B.; Toms, S.; Idbaih, A.; Ahluwalia, M.S.; Fink, K.; et al. Effect of Tumor-Treating Fields Plus Maintenance Temozolomide vs Maintenance Temozolomide Alone on Survival in Patients With Glioblastoma: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 2017, 318, 2306–2316, Erratum in JAMA 2018, 319, 1824. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.18718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Ostrom, Q.T.; Price, M.; Neff, C.; Cioffi, G.; Waite, K.A.; Kruchko, C.; Barnholtz-Sloan, J.S. CBTRUS Statistical Report: Primary Brain and Other Central Nervous System Tumors Diagnosed in the United States in 2016–2020. Neuro Oncol. 2023, 25, iv1–iv99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Mehta, M.P.; Pugh, S.; Mahajan, A.; Shih, H.A.; Tsien, C.; Chenevert, T.; Gilbert, M.; Omuro, A.; Aldape, K.; Teo, B.K.K.; et al. Signal-Seeking P2R Trial of Proton or IMRT Dose Intensification in GBM: NRG-BN001. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2025, 123, 1204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Kutuk, T.; Tolakanahalli, R.; McAllister, N.C.; Hall, M.D.; Tom, M.C.; Rubens, M.; Appel, H.; Gutierrez, A.N.; Odia, Y.; Mohler, A.; et al. Pulsed-Reduced Dose Rate (PRDR) Radiotherapy for Recurrent Primary Central Nervous System Malignancies: Dosimetric and Clinical Results. Cancers 2022, 14, 2946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Koosha, F.; Ahmadikamalabadi, M.; Mohammadi, M. Review of Recent Improvements in Carbon Ion Radiation Therapy in the Treatment of Glioblastoma. Adv. Radiat. Oncol. 2024, 9, 101465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Palavani, L.B.; de Barros Oliveira, L.; Reis, P.A.; Batista, S.; Santana, L.S.; de Freitas Martins, L.P.; Rabelo, N.N.; Bertani, R.; Welling, L.C.; Figueiredo, E.G.; et al. Efficacy and Safety of Intraoperative Radiotherapy for High-Grade Gliomas: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Neurosurg. Rev. 2024, 47, 47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Wernicke, A.G.; Taube, S.; Smith, A.W.; Herskovic, A.; Parashar, B.; Schwartz, T.H. Cs-131 brachytherapy for patients with recurrent glioblastoma combined with bevacizumab avoids radiation necrosis while maintaining local control. Brachytherapy 2020, 19, 705–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Malouff, T.D.; Seneviratne, D.S.; Ebner, D.K.; Stross, W.C.; Waddle, M.R.; Trifiletti, D.M.; Krishnan, S. Boron Neutron Capture Therapy: A Review of Clinical Applications. Front. Oncol. 2021, 11, 601820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Punshon, L.D.; Fabbrizi, M.R.; Phoenix, B.; Green, S.; Parsons, J.L. Current Insights into the Radiobiology of Boron Neutron Capture Therapy and the Potential for Further Improving Biological Effectiveness. Cells 2024, 13, 2065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Barth, R.F.; Vicente, M.G.; Harling, O.K.; Kiger, W.S., 3rd; Riley, K.J.; Binns, P.J.; Wagner, F.M.; Suzuki, M.; Aihara, T.; Kato, I.; et al. Current status of boron neutron capture therapy of high grade gliomas and recurrent head and neck cancer. Radiat. Oncol. 2012, 7, 146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Coderre, J.A.; Morris, G.M. The radiation biology of boron neutron capture therapy. Radiat. Res. 1999, 151, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Beck-Sickinger, A.G.; Becker, D.P.; Chepurna, O.; Das, B.; Flieger, S.; Hey-Hawkins, E.; Hosmane, N.; Jalisatgi, S.S.; Nakamura, H.; Patil, R.; et al. New Boron Delivery Agents. Cancer Biother. Radiopharm. 2023, 38, 160–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Mechetin, G.V.; Zharkov, D.O. DNA Damage Response and Repair in Boron Neutron Capture Therapy. Genes 2023, 14, 127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Locher, G.L. Biological effects and therapeutic possibilities of neutron. Am. J. Roentgenol. 1936, 36, 1–13. [Google Scholar]
  17. Farr, L.E.; Sweet, W.H.; Robertson, J.S.; Foster, C.G.; Locksley, H.B.; Sutherland, D.L.; Mendelsohn, M.L.; Stickley, E.E. Neutron capture therapy with boron in the treatment of glioblastoma multiforme. Am. J. Roentgenol. Radium Ther. Nucl. Med. 1954, 71, 279–293. [Google Scholar]
  18. Goodwin, J.T.; Farr, L.E.; Sweet, W.H.; Robertson, J.S. Pathological study of eight patients with glioblastoma multiforme treated by neutron-capture therapy using boron 10. Cancer 1955, 8, 601–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Takahashi, Y.; Imahori, Y.; Mineura, K. Prognostic and therapeutic indicator of fluoroboronophenylalanine positron emission tomography in patients with gliomas. Clin. Cancer Res. 2003, 9, 5888–5895. [Google Scholar]
  20. Aihara, T.; Hiratsuka, J.; Morita, N.; Uno, M.; Sakurai, Y.; Maruhashi, A.; Ono, K.; Harada, T. First clinical case of boron neutron capture therapy for head and neck malignancies using 18F-BPA PET. Head Neck 2006, 28, 850–855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Matsumura, A.; Asano, T.; Hirose, K.; Igaki, H.; Kawabata, S.; Kumada, H. Initiatives Toward Clinical Boron Neutron Capture Therapy in Japan. Cancer Biother. Radiopharm. 2023, 38, 201–207, Correction in Cancer Biother. Radiopharm. 2023, 38, 273. https://doi.org/10.1089/cbr.2022.0056.correx. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Hu, N.; Tanaka, H.; Kakino, R.; Yoshikawa, S.; Miyao, M.; Akita, K.; Aihara, T.; Nihei, K.; Ono, K. Improvement in the neutron beam collimation for application in boron neutron capture therapy of the head and neck region. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 13778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Chen, J.; Teng, Y.C.; Shu, D.; Gong, Q.; Xie, Q.; Liu, Y.H. Automated robotic-assisted patient positioning method and dosimetric impact analysis for boron neutron capture therapy. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 28995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Chen, J.; Xie, Q.L.; Ping, J.J.; Hou, T.T.; Liu, Y.H. Development and evaluation of surface-guided patient position system for boron neutron capture therapy. Sci. Rep. 2026, 16, 5818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Porra, L.; Wendland, L.; Seppala, T.; Koivunoro, H.; Revitzer, H.; Tervonen, J.; Kankaanranta, L.; Anttonen, A.; Tenhunen, M.; Joensuu, H. From Nuclear Reactor-Based to Proton Accelerator-Based Therapy: The Finnish Boron Neutron Capture Therapy Experience. Cancer Biother. Radiopharm. 2023, 38, 184–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Kakino, R.; Hu, N.; Isohashi, K.; Aihara, T.; Nihei, K.; Ono, K. Comprehensive evaluation of dosimetric impact against position errors in accelerator-based BNCT under different treatment parameter settings. Med. Phys. 2022, 49, 4944–4954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Sato, H.; Takata, T.; Sakurai, Y. Investigation of the usability of cone-beam computed tomography images using digital radiography equipment for boron neutron capture therapy treatment planning in the sitting position. Appl. Radiat. Isot. 2023, 196, 110793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Torres-Sanchez, P.; Lerendegui-Marco, J.; Balibrea-Correa, J.; Babiano-Suarez, V.; Gameiro, B.; Ladarescu, I.; Alvarez-Rodriguez, P.; Daugas, J.M.; Koester, U.; Michelagnoli, C.; et al. The potential of the i-TED Compton camera array for real-time boron imaging and determination during treatments in Boron Neutron Capture Therapy. Appl. Radiat. Isot. 2025, 217, 111649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kobayashi, T.; Sakurai, Y.; Ishikawa, M. A noninvasive dose estimation system for clinical BNCT based on PG-SPECT--conceptual study and fundamental experiments using HPGe and CdTe semiconductor detectors. Med. Phys. 2000, 27, 2124–2132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Sakai, M.; Tamaki, S.; Murata, I.; Parajuli, R.K.; Matsumura, A.; Kubo, N.; Tashiro, M. Experimental study on Compton camera for boron neutron capture therapy applications. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 22883, Correction in Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 3154. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-53559-2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Hawthorne, M.F. The Role of Chemistry in the Development of Boron Neutron Capture Therapy of Cancer. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 1993, 32, 950–984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Barth, R.F.; Gupta, N.; Kawabata, S. Evaluation of sodium borocaptate (BSH) and boronophenylalanine (BPA) as boron delivery agents for neutron capture therapy (NCT) of cancer: An update and a guide for the future clinical evaluation of new boron delivery agents for NCT. Cancer Commun. 2024, 44, 893–909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Soloway, A.H.; Hatanaka, H.; Davis, M.A. Penetration of brain and brain tumor. VII. Tumor-binding sulfhydryl boron compounds. J. Med. Chem. 1967, 10, 714–717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Hideghéty, K.; Sauerwein, W.; Wittig, A.; Götz, C.; Paquis, P.; Grochulla, F.; Haselsberger, K.; Wolbers, J.; Moss, R.; Huiskamp, R.; et al. Tissue uptake of BSH in patients with glioblastoma in the EORTC 11961 phase I BNCT trial. J. Neurooncol. 2003, 62, 145–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Järvinen, J.; Pulkkinen, H.; Rautio, J.; Timonen, J.M. Amino Acid-Based Boron Carriers in Boron Neutron Capture Therapy (BNCT). Pharmaceutics 2023, 15, 2663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Yokoyama, K.; Miyatake, S.; Kajimoto, Y.; Kawabata, S.; Doi, A.; Yoshida, T.; Asano, T.; Kirihata, M.; Ono, K.; Kuroiwa, T. Pharmacokinetic study of BSH and BPA in simultaneous use for BNCT. J. Neurooncol. 2006, 78, 227–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Miyatake, S.; Kawabata, S.; Kajimoto, Y.; Aoki, A.; Yokoyama, K.; Yamada, M.; Kuroiwa, T.; Tsuji, M.; Imahori, Y.; Kirihata, M.; et al. Modified boron neutron capture therapy for malignant gliomas performed using epithermal neutron and two boron compounds with different accumulation mechanisms: An efficacy study based on findings on neuroimages. J. Neurosurg. 2005, 103, 1000–1009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Barth, R.F.; Yang, W.; Rotaru, J.H.; Moeschberger, M.L.; Boesel, C.P.; Soloway, A.H.; Joel, D.D.; Nawrocky, M.M.; Ono, K.; Goodman, J.H. Boron neutron capture therapy of brain tumors: Enhanced survival and cure following blood-brain barrier disruption and intracarotid injection of sodium borocaptate and boronophenylalanine. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2000, 47, 209–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Dymova, M.A.; Taskaev, S.Y.; Richter, V.A.; Kuligina, E.V. Boron neutron capture therapy: Current status and future perspectives. Cancer Commun. 2020, 40, 406–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Kawasaki, R.; Oshige, A.; Yamana, K.; Hirano, H.; Nishimura, K.; Miura, Y.; Yorioka, R.; Sanada, Y.; Bando, K.; Tabata, A.; et al. HER-2-Targeted Boron Neutron Capture Therapy with Carborane-integrated Immunoliposomes Prepared via an Exchanging Reaction. Chem. Eur. J. 2023, 29, e202302486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Rudawska, A.; Szermer-Olearnik, B.; Szczygiel, A.; Mierzejewska, J.; Wegierek-Ciura, K.; Zeliszewska, P.; Kozien, D.; Chaszczewska-Markowska, M.; Adamczyk, Z.; Rusiniak, P.; et al. Functionalized Boron Carbide Nanoparticles as Active Boron Delivery Agents Dedicated to Boron Neutron Capture Therapy. Int. J. Nanomed. 2025, 20, 6637–6657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Yamana, K.; Kawasaki, R.; Kondo, K.; Hirano, H.; Kawamura, S.; Sanada, Y.; Bando, K.; Tabata, A.; Azuma, H.; Takata, T.; et al. HER-2-targeted boron neutron capture therapy using an antibody-conjugated boron nitride nanotube/β-1,3-glucan complex. Nanoscale Adv. 2023, 5, 3857–3861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Wei, Q.; Kullberg, E.B.; Gedda, L. Trastuzumab-conjugated boron-containing liposomes for tumor-cell targeting; development and cellular studies. Int. J. Oncol. 2003, 23, 1159–1165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Nakase, I.; Aoki, A.; Sakai, Y.; Hirase, S.; Ishimura, M.; Takatani-Nakase, T.; Hattori, Y.; Kirihata, M. Antibody-Based Receptor Targeting Using an Fc-Binding Peptide-Dodecaborate Conjugate and Macropinocytosis Induction for Boron Neutron Capture Therapy. ACS Omega 2020, 5, 22731–22738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Michiue, H.; Kitamatsu, M.; Fukunaga, A.; Tsuboi, N.; Fujimura, A.; Matsushita, H.; Igawa, K.; Kasai, T.; Kondo, N.; Matsui, H.; et al. Self-assembling A6K peptide nanotubes as a mercaptoundecahydrododecaborate (BSH) delivery system for boron neutron capture therapy (BNCT). J. Control. Release 2021, 330, 788–796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Hoppenz, P.; Els-Heindl, S.; Kellert, M.; Kuhnert, R.; Saretz, S.; Lerchen, H.G.; Kobberling, J.; Riedl, B.; Hey-Hawkins, E.; Beck-Sickinger, A.G. A Selective Carborane-Functionalized Gastrin-Releasing Peptide Receptor Agonist as Boron Delivery Agent for Boron Neutron Capture Therapy. J. Org. Chem. 2020, 85, 1446–1457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Yoneyama, T.; Hatakeyama, S.; Yoneyama, M.S.; Yoshiya, T.; Uemura, T.; Ishizu, T.; Suzuki, M.; Hachinohe, S.; Ishiyama, S.; Nonaka, M.; et al. Tumor vasculature-targeted (10)B delivery by an Annexin A1-binding peptide boosts effects of boron neutron capture therapy. BMC Cancer 2021, 21, 72, Erratum in BMC Cancer 2021, 21, 105. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-020-07760-x. [Google Scholar]
  48. Worm, D.J.; Hoppenz, P.; Els-Heindl, S.; Kellert, M.; Kuhnert, R.; Saretz, S.; Kobberling, J.; Riedl, B.; Hey-Hawkins, E.; Beck-Sickinger, A.G. Selective Neuropeptide Y Conjugates with Maximized Carborane Loading as Promising Boron Delivery Agents for Boron Neutron Capture Therapy. J. Med. Chem. 2020, 63, 2358–2371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Xiang, J.; Ma, L.; Tong, J.; Zuo, N.; Hu, W.; Luo, Y.; Liu, J.; Liang, T.; Ren, Q.; Liu, Q. Boron-peptide conjugates with angiopep-2 for boron neutron capture therapy. Front. Med. 2023, 10, 1199881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Worm, D.J.; Els-Heindl, S.; Kellert, M.; Kuhnert, R.; Saretz, S.; Koebberling, J.; Riedl, B.; Hey-Hawkins, E.; Beck-Sickinger, A.G. A stable meta-carborane enables the generation of boron-rich peptide agonists targeting the ghrelin receptor. J. Pept. Sci. 2018, 24, e3119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Farhat, S.; Shuaib, A.; Bukhari, S.M.S.; Shah, F.A.; Naseeb, I.K.; Ahmad, S.; Alamoudi, M.K.; Shah, M. Ghrelin's modulation of growth hormone secretagogue receptors in primary glioblastoma and meningioma: A comprehensive in-vitro study. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2025, 751, 151397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Okada, Y.; Sugita, Y.; Ohshima, K.; Morioka, M.; Komaki, S.; Miyoshi, J.; Abe, H. Signaling of ghrelin and its functional receptor, the growth hormone secretagogue receptor, promote tumor growth in glioblastomas. Neuropathology 2016, 36, 535–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Khalil, A.; Adam, M.S.S. Nucleoside Scaffolds and Carborane Clusters for Boron Neutron Capture Therapy: Developments and Future Perspective. Curr. Med. Chem. 2024, 31, 5739–5754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Wang, M.; Tong, Y.; Luo, Q.; Hu, S. Comparative Study on Neutron Irradiation Sensitization Effects of Nucleotide Borate Esters and Several Other Boron Agents. Radiat. Res. 2020, 193, 249–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Liu, L.; Barth, R.F.; Tjarks, W.; Soloway, A.H.; Anisuzzaman, A.K. In vitro and in vivo evaluation of carboranyl uridines as boron delivery agents for neutron capture therapy. Anticancer Res. 1996, 16, 113–120. [Google Scholar]
  56. Lee, W.; Sarkar, S.; Ahn, H.; Kim, J.Y.; Lee, Y.J.; Chang, Y.; Yoo, J. PEGylated liposome encapsulating nido-carborane showed significant tumor suppression in boron neutron capture therapy (BNCT). Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2020, 522, 669–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Wu, F.; Sun, P.; Guo, X.; Zhang, Y.; Meng, X.; Li, X.; Li, J.; Chen, N.; Pei, P. Nanocarrier-driven neutron capture therapy: Strategies and perspectives. Acta Biomater. 2025, 203, 78–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Nishikawa, M.; Yu, J.; Kang, H.G.; Suzuki, M.; Komatsu, N. Rational Design, Multistep Synthesis and in Vitro Evaluation of Poly(glycerol) Functionalized Nanodiamond Conjugated with Boron-10 Cluster and Active Targeting Moiety for Boron Neutron Capture Therapy. Chem. Eur. J. 2023, 29, e202302073, Erratum in Chem. Eur. J. 2024, 30, e202304048. https://doi.org/10.1002/chem.202302073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Qin, Y.; Sun, X.; Zhang, Z.; Yang, Y.; Dai, Q.; Tan, X.; Jiang, R.; Bao, X.; Wu, L.; Geng, C.; et al. Dual-Functional Nanoliposome with High BPA Loading for Targeted MRI-Guided BNCT of Glioblastoma. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2025, 17, 52474–52487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Fu, W.Y.; Chiu, Y.L.; Huang, S.C.; Huang, W.Y.; Hsu, F.T.; Lee, H.Y.; Wang, T.W.; Keng, P.Y. Boron Neutron Capture Therapy Enhanced by Boronate Ester Polymer Micelles: Synthesis, Stability, and Tumor Inhibition Studies. Biomacromolecules 2024, 25, 4215–4232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Tang, H.; Wang, Z.; Hao, H.; Luo, W.; Yang, J.; Li, M.; Yang, M.; Chen, Z.; Yan, R.; Li, H.; et al. Boron-Containing Mesoporous Silica Nanoparticles with Effective Delivery and Targeting of Liver Cancer Cells for Boron Neutron Capture Therapy. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2024, 16, 22934–22945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Miura, K.; Araki, T.; Morita, T.; Nishimura, K.; Okada, S.; Suzuki, M.; Nakamura, H. Alanine-serine-cysteine transporter-targeted small-molecule boron carriers for neutron capture therapy of L-4-boronophenylalanine-refractory tumors. J. Control. Release 2026, 390, 114566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Raitano, A.; Martin, T.; Zhang, C.; Malinao, M.C.; Capo, L.; Ikeura, M.; Carroll, R.; Quintana, J.C.; Dlamini, S.; Kulenovic, L.; et al. Boronotyrosine, a Borylated Amino Acid Mimetic with Enhanced Solubility, Tumor Boron Delivery, and Retention for the Re-emerging Boron Neutron Capture Therapy Field. J. Med. Chem. 2023, 66, 13809–13820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Tsujino, K.; Kashiwagi, H.; Nishimura, K.; Fujikawa, Y.; Kayama, R.; Fukuo, Y.; Hiramatsu, R.; Nonoguchi, N.; Takata, T.; Tanaka, H.; et al. Nonclinical pharmacodynamics of boron neutron capture therapy using direct intratumoral administration of a folate receptor targeting novel boron carrier. Neurooncol. Adv. 2024, 6, vdae062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Zheng, D.; Han, G.; Lemus, O.D.M.; Podgorsak, A.; Webster, M.; Li, F.; Zhou, Y.; Jung, H.; Yoon, J. Boron Neutron Capture Therapy: A Technology-Driven Renaissance. Cancers 2026, 18, 498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Shuai, H.; Dian, E.; Mezei, F.; Sipos, P.; Czifrus, S. Optimization of a collimator design for an epithermal neutron source based on 7Li (p,n) Be reaction and 2.5 MeV protons for BNCT. Appl. Radiat. Isot. 2025, 226, 112230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Shuai, H.; Dian, E.; Mezei, F.; Sipos, P.; Czifrus, S. An accelerator-based neutron source design with a thermal neutron port and an epithermal neutron port for boron neutron capture therapy. Appl. Radiat. Isot. 2025, 217, 111647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Torres-Sanchez, P.; Porras, I.; Ramos-Chernenko, N.; de Saavedra, F.A.; Praena, J. Optimized beam shaping assembly for a 2.1-MeV proton-accelerator-based neutron source for boron neutron capture therapy. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 7576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Green, S.; Phoenix, B.; Nakamura, S.; Liu, Y.H.; Shu, D.; Hu, N.; Suzuki, S.; Koivunoro, H.; Kumada, H.; Tanaka, H. Accelerator neutron sources for BNCT: Current status and some pointers for future development. Appl. Radiat. Isot. 2025, 217, 111656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Verdera, A.; Praena, J. Study on novel neutron irradiation without beam shaping assembly in Boron Neutron Capture Therapy. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 22434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Paganetti, H.; Niemierko, A.; Ancukiewicz, M.; Gerweck, L.E.; Goitein, M.; Loeffler, J.S.; Suit, H.D. Relative biological effectiveness (RBE) values for proton beam therapy. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2002, 53, 407–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Tinganelli, W.; Durante, M. Carbon Ion Radiobiology. Cancers 2020, 12, 3022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Pellettieri, L.; H-Stenstam, B.; Rezaei, A.; Giusti, V.; Sköld, K. An investigation of boron neutron capture therapy for recurrent glioblastoma multiforme. Acta Neurol. Scand. 2008, 117, 191–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Miyatake, S.; Kawabata, S.; Yokoyama, K.; Kuroiwa, T.; Michiue, H.; Sakurai, Y.; Kumada, H.; Suzuki, M.; Maruhashi, A.; Kirihata, M.; et al. Survival benefit of Boron neutron capture therapy for recurrent malignant gliomas. J. Neurooncol. 2009, 91, 199–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Carson, K.A.; Grossman, S.A.; Fisher, J.D.; Shaw, E.G. Prognostic factors for survival in adult patients with recurrent glioma enrolled onto the new approaches to brain tumor therapy CNS consortium phase I and II clinical trials. J. Clin. Oncol. 2007, 25, 2601–2606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Kawabata, S.; Suzuki, M.; Hirose, K.; Tanaka, H.; Kato, T.; Goto, H.; Narita, Y.; Miyatake, S.I. Accelerator-based BNCT for patients with recurrent glioblastoma: A multicenter phase II study. Neurooncol Adv. 2021, 3, vdab067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Nagane, M.; Nishikawa, R.; Narita, Y.; Kobayashi, H.; Takano, S.; Shinoura, N.; Aoki, T.; Sugiyama, K.; Kuratsu, J.; Muragaki, Y.; et al. Phase II study of single-agent bevacizumab in Japanese patients with recurrent malignant glioma. Jpn. J. Clin. Oncol. 2012, 42, 887–895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Kawabata, S.; Goto, H.; Narita, Y.; Furuse, M.; Nonoguchi, N.; Shidoh-Kazuki, R.; Eza, K.; Hirose, K.; Ohno, M.; Kondo, N.; et al. Extended follow-up of recurrent glioblastoma patients treated with boron neutron capture therapy (BNCT): Long-term survival from a Phase II trial (JG002) using Cyclotron Neutron Source and Boronophenylalanine. Appl. Radiat. Isot. 2025, 226, 112118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Furuse, M.; Kawabata, S.; Wanibuchi, M.; Shiba, H.; Takeuchi, K.; Kondo, N.; Tanaka, H.; Sakurai, Y.; Suzuki, M.; Ono, K.; et al. Boron neutron capture therapy and add-on bevacizumab in patients with recurrent malignant glioma. Jpn. J. Clin. Oncol. 2022, 52, 433–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Yamamoto, T.; Nakai, K.; Kageji, T.; Kumada, H.; Endo, K.; Matsuda, M.; Shibata, Y.; Matsumura, A. Boron neutron capture therapy for newly diagnosed glioblastoma. Radiother. Oncol. 2009, 91, 80–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Yamamoto, T.; Nakai, K.; Tsurubuchi, T.; Matsuda, M.; Shirakawa, M.; Zaboronok, A.; Endo, K.; Matsumura, A. Boron neutron capture therapy for newly diagnosed glioblastoma: A pilot study in Tsukuba. Appl. Radiat. Isot. 2009, 67, S25–S26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Kageji, T.; Nagahiro, S.; Mizobuchi, Y.; Matsuzaki, K.; Nakagawa, Y.; Kumada, H. Boron neutron capture therapy (BNCT) for newly-diagnosed glioblastoma: Comparison of clinical results obtained with BNCT and conventional treatment. J. Med. Investig. 2014, 61, 254–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  83. Skold, K.; Gorlia, T.; Pellettieri, L.; Giusti, V.; H-Stenstam, B.; Hopewell, J.W. Boron neutron capture therapy for newly diagnosed glioblastoma multiforme: An assessment of clinical potential. Br. J. Radiol. 2010, 83, 596–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Henriksson, R.; Capala, J.; Michanek, A.; Lindahl, S.A.; Salford, L.G.; Franzen, L.; Blomquist, E.; Westlin, J.E.; Bergenheim, A.T. Boron neutron capture therapy (BNCT) for glioblastoma multiforme: A phase II study evaluating a prolonged high-dose of boronophenylalanine (BPA). Radiother. Oncol. 2008, 88, 183–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Nakai, K.; Kumada, H.; Matsumoto, Y.; Baba, K.; Murakami, M.; Ishida, T.; Saito, T.; Nakamura, M.; Numajiri, H.; Mizumoto, M.; et al. Boron neutron capture therapy (BNCT) phase I clinical trial for newly diagnosed glioblastoma by newly developed accelerator at University of Tsukuba. Appl. Radiat. Isot. 2025, 226, 112152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Nakagawa, Y.; Kageji, T.; Mizobuchi, Y.; Kumada, H.; Nakagawa, Y. Clinical results of BNCT for malignant brain tumors in children. Appl. Radiat. Isot. 2009, 67, S27–S30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Chen, Y.-W.; Lan, T.-L.; Lee, Y.-Y.; Lin, K.-H.; Liang, M.-L.; Chen, H.-H.; Pan, P.-S.; Chang, F.-C.; Wu, C.-C.; Lin, S.-C.; et al. Using precise boron neutron capture therapy as a salvage treatment for pediatric patients with recurrent brain tumors. Ther. Radiol. Oncol. 2020, 4, 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Huang, W.H.; Huang, T.Y.; Lin, C.M.; Mu, P.F.; Lee, Y.Y.; Liu, S.H.; Hsu, S.M.; Chen, Y.W. Salvage boron neutron capture therapy for pediatric patients with recurrent diffuse midline glioma. Child’s Nerv. Syst. 2023, 39, 1529–1536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Nakahara, Y.; Ito, H.; Masuoka, J.; Abe, T. Boron Neutron Capture Therapy and Photodynamic Therapy for High-Grade Meningiomas. Cancers 2020, 12, 1334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Lan, T.L.; Lin, C.F.; Lee, Y.Y.; Chang, F.C.; Lin, S.C.; Chou, F.I.; Peir, J.J.; Pan, P.S.; Chen, J.K.; Lai, L.H.; et al. Recurrent meningioma treated with boron neutron capture therapy: A feasibility study with dosimetric and clinical correlates. J. Neurooncol. 2025, 175, 879–886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Tamura, Y.; Miyatake, S.-I.; Nonoguchi, N.; Miyata, S.; Yokoyama, K.; Doi, A.; Kuroiwa, T.; Asada, M.; Tanabe, H.; Ono, K. Boron neutron capture therapy for recurrent malignant meningioma: Case report. J. Neurosurg. 2006, 105, 898–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Kawabata, S.; Hiramatsu, R.; Kuroiwa, T.; Ono, K.; Miyatake, S.-I. Boron neutron capture therapy for recurrent high-grade meningiomas: Clinical article. J. Neurosurg. 2013, 119, 837–844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Takeuchi, K.; Kawabata, S.; Hiramatsu, R.; Matsushita, Y.; Tanaka, H.; Sakurai, Y.; Suzuki, M.; Ono, K.; Miyatake, S.I.; Kuroiwa, T. Boron Neutron Capture Therapy for High-Grade Skull-Base Meningioma. J. Neurol. Surg. Part B Skull Base 2018, 79, S322–S327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Miyatake, S.-I.; Tamura, Y.; Kawabata, S.; Iida, K.; Kuroiwa, T.; Ono, K. Boron neutron capture therapy for malignant tumors related to meningiomas. Neurosurgery 2007, 61, 82–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Takai, S.; Wanibuchi, M.; Kawabata, S.; Takeuchi, K.; Sakurai, Y.; Suzuki, M.; Ono, K.; Miyatake, S.I. Reactor-based boron neutron capture therapy for 44 cases of recurrent and refractory high-grade meningiomas with long-term follow-up. Neuro Oncol. 2022, 24, 90–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Lan, T.L.; Lin, C.F.; Lee, Y.Y.; Lin, K.H.; Chang, F.C.; Lin, S.C.; Lee, J.C.; Chou, F.I.; Peir, J.J.; Liu, H.M.; et al. Advances in Boron Neutron Capture Therapy (BNCT) for Recurrent Intracranial Meningioma. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24, 4978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Lin, L.C.; Chow, W.H.; Wu, Y.J.; Wu, Y.H.; Shen, W.L.; Chang, C.H.; Ho, S.Y. Salvage boron neutron capture therapy for recurrent intracranial malignant meningioma: Case report and literature review. Medicine 2025, 104, e43743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Kashiwagi, H.; Wanibuchi, M.; Ikeda, N.; Nonoguchi, N.; Furuse, M.; Kawabata, S.; Nihei, K.; Hu, N.; Akita, K.; Ono, K.; et al. Investigator-led clinical trial of boron neutron capture therapy system for recurrent high-grade meningiomas after radiation therapy: Randomized phase II study. Neuro Oncol. 2026, 8, noaf279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ijms 27 02765 g001
Figure 1. Schematic of the 10B(n,α)7Li reaction in BNCT. Thermal neutron capture by 10B produces an α-particle and 7Li nucleus, whose ultra-high LET emissions deposit energy over a 5–9 μm range, confining cytotoxicity to boron-loaded tumor cells. Created in BioRender. Atak, E. (2026) https://BioRender.com/xypznkw.
Figure 1. Schematic of the 10B(n,α)7Li reaction in BNCT. Thermal neutron capture by 10B produces an α-particle and 7Li nucleus, whose ultra-high LET emissions deposit energy over a 5–9 μm range, confining cytotoxicity to boron-loaded tumor cells. Created in BioRender. Atak, E. (2026) https://BioRender.com/xypznkw.
Ijms 27 02765 g001
Ijms 27 02765 g002
Figure 2. Historical milestones in the development of BNCT. Key advances include Locher’s original conceptualization in 1936, early clinical use of borax and boric acid in the 1950s, introduction of BSH (1968) and BPA (1987), development of epithermal neutron beams in the 2000s, the first clinical trial using an accelerator-based neutron source in 2012, and the first regulatory approval of BNCT for unresectable head and neck cancer in 2020.
Figure 2. Historical milestones in the development of BNCT. Key advances include Locher’s original conceptualization in 1936, early clinical use of borax and boric acid in the 1950s, introduction of BSH (1968) and BPA (1987), development of epithermal neutron beams in the 2000s, the first clinical trial using an accelerator-based neutron source in 2012, and the first regulatory approval of BNCT for unresectable head and neck cancer in 2020.
Ijms 27 02765 g002
Table 1. Operational accelerator-based BNCT centers worldwide, including neutron source type and current clinical status.
Table 1. Operational accelerator-based BNCT centers worldwide, including neutron source type and current clinical status.
CenterCountrySource Type (Accelerator + Target)Neutron EnergyCurrent Status
Kansai BNCT Medical Center (Osaka Medical and Pharmaceutical University)JapanCyclotron (HM-30, Sumitomo Heavy Industries) → Be~30 MeVRoutine clinical treatment; BNCT approved in Japan (2020) and reimbursed by National Health Insurance
Southern Tohoku BNCT Research Center (NeuCure BNCT30)JapanCyclotron (HM-30) → Be~30 MeVRoutine clinical treatment; active treatment of head and neck cancer and other malignancies
National Cancer Center Hospital -Division of BNCT Medical ResearchJapanRFQ Accelerator → solid Li ~2.5 MeVPhase I/II clinical trials; vertical downward neutron beam configuration
University of Tsukuba HospitalJapanAccelerator-based system → Li~2.5 MeVPhase I clinical trials, including newly diagnosed GBM
Helsinki University HospitalFinlandElectrostatic Cockcroft–Walton proton accelerator (nuBeam) → Li~2.6 MeV (≈30 mA)Clinical trials; first European accelerator-based BNCT facility
Xiamen Humanity HospitalChinaTandem electrostatic accelerator (NeuPex platform) → Li~2.5 MeVEarly clinical research/limited patient treatments reported; peer-reviewed data remain limited
Table 2. Representative boron delivery compounds and nanoplatforms evaluated for boron neutron capture therapy (BNCT), summarizing their mechanisms of tumor uptake, key advantages, and current limitations or developmental status.
Table 2. Representative boron delivery compounds and nanoplatforms evaluated for boron neutron capture therapy (BNCT), summarizing their mechanisms of tumor uptake, key advantages, and current limitations or developmental status.
Compound/PlatformMechanism of Tumor UptakeAdvantagesLimitations/Status
First generation
Borax, simple boron saltsPassive, non-specific distributionProof of concept in early trialsPoor tumor selectivity; systemic toxicity; abandoned
Sodium decahydrodecaborate (Na2B10H10)Non-specific distributionHigh boron contentUnfavorable biodistribution; discontinued
Second generation
BSH (sodium borocaptate)Predominantly extracellular; accumulation in BBB-disrupted regionsHigh boron density; clinical experienceLimited intracellular uptake; modest tumor:normal ratio
BPA (boronophenylalanine; BPA-fructose)LAT1 transporter-mediated cellular uptake; PET-quantifiableGold standard; intracellular delivery; supports 18F-BPA PET planningHeterogeneous distribution; LAT1 dependence
Third generation (preclinical/translational)
Boronated nucleosides/DNA-intercalatorsNuclear targeting; mitotic trappingDirect DNA targeting; high biological effectivenessPreclinical only; toxicity/dosimetry under investigation
Antibody-boron conjugates (ABC)Antigen-specific binding (e.g., EGFR, HER2)High specificity; large boron payloadComplex synthesis; immunogenicity; preclinical only
Antibody-functionalized nanoparticles/immunoliposomesReceptor-mediated uptake via antibody targetingCombines high payload with active targetingTumor penetration heterogeneity; preclinical only
Peptide-conjugated boron clusters (e.g., GRPR, hY1R)Peptide ligands for tumor cell surface receptorsEnhanced selectivity; modular designPreclinical only; pharmacokinetics not yet standardized, variable receptor expression
Tumor vasculature-targeted peptides (e.g., SP94, Annexin A1)Vascular/microenvironment targetingHigh tumor–blood ratios in modelsTarget heterogeneity; preclinical only
Cell-penetrating/BBB-penetrating peptides (R8, TAT, Angiopep-2)Cellular penetration or transcytosisImproved intracellular and CNS deliverySafety optimization needed
Boron-rich liposomes/nanoparticlesEnhanced permeability and retention (EPR); targeted modifications (e.g., folate, transferrin)High boron payload; potential for controlled releaseHeterogeneous tumor penetration; clinical translation pending
Boronosomes (carboranyl lipid vesicles)Lipid-based tumor accumulationLong tumor retention; imaging compatibilityHeterogeneous penetration; preclinical only
Theranostic Gd-B nanocarriersTargeted delivery with MRI guidanceImage-guided BNCT potentialComplex design; regulatory hurdles
Transporter-targeted small molecules (e.g., GluB-2/ASCT2)Alternative amino-acid transporter uptakeActive in BPA-refractory modelsEarly-stage; preclinical only
Table 3. Comparison of proton therapy, carbon-ion therapy, and boron neutron capture therapy (BNCT) with respect to LET, RBE, range, mechanisms of selectivity, and key radiobiological features.
Table 3. Comparison of proton therapy, carbon-ion therapy, and boron neutron capture therapy (BNCT) with respect to LET, RBE, range, mechanisms of selectivity, and key radiobiological features.
ModalityProton TherapyCarbon-Ion TherapyBoron Neutron Capture Therapy
LET (keV/µm)~0.5–2 (low-LET; modest rise at Bragg peak)~50–80 at Bragg peak (high-LET)~150 (ultra–high LET for α and 7Li)
RBE~1.12–3 (tissue/endpoint dependent)Variable; high (effective only within boron-containing cells)
Range in tissueSeveral cm (beam penetration; depth dose conformality)Several cm (Bragg peak range)5–9 µm (cellular diameter)
Mechanism of selectivityPhysical dose distribution (Bragg peak)Physical + radiobiological (high-LET effect in target volume)Biological selectivity via boron compound uptake
Key FeaturesConformal dose shaping; no significant intrinsic radiobiological advantageDense ionization, complex DNA damage; effective in radioresistant tumorsUltra-localized cell kill; efficacy determined by boron delivery and microdistribution
Table 4. Selected clinical studies of BNCT in CNS tumors (published and ongoing).
Table 4. Selected clinical studies of BNCT in CNS tumors (published and ongoing).
StudyDesignPopulationNBoron AgentNeutron SourceKey Outcomes
Yamamoto et al. [80,81]Pilot study (2 protocols)Newly diagnosed GBM15BSH (all); BSH + BPA (protocol-2 only)Reactor (epithermal)Median OS 25.7 mo; TTP 11.9 mo; 1-year OS 80%, 2-year OS 53.3%
Kageji et al. [82]RetrospectiveGBM (newly diagnosed and recurrent)23BSH ± BPAReactorMedian OS 19.5 mo; 2-year OS 26.1%; 5-year OS 5.8%
Sköld et al. (Studsvik) [83,84]Phase IINewly diagnosed GBM29BPA-fructose (6-hr infusion)Reactor (epithermal)Median OS 17.6 mo; comparable to RT alone; possible advantage in MGMT unmethylated
TB-GB-01 (Tsukuba) [85]Phase I (ongoing)Newly diagnosed GBM12–18 (target)BPA + EBRT (40 Gy) + TMZAcceleratorDose-escalation; primary endpoint DLT
Miyatake et al. [74]RetrospectiveRecurrent malignant glioma22 (19 GBM)BPA ± BSHReactor (epithermal)Median OS 10.8 mo (all MG); 9.6 mo (GBM); High-risk RPA 9.1 mo vs. 4.4 mo historical
JG002 [76,78]Phase IIRecurrent GBM24BPAAccelerator (cyclotron)Median OS 19.2 mo; 1-year OS 79.2%; 2-year OS 33.3%; 3-year OS 20.8%
Furuse et al. [79]RetrospectiveRecurrent malignant glioma25 (14 primary GBM, 11 non-primary)BPA + BSHReactorPrimary GBM: median OS 21.4 mo, PFS 8.3 mo; non-primary: median OS 73.6 mo, PFS 15.6 mo
Huang et al. [88]Case seriesRecurrent pediatric DMG6BPAReactor (Tsing Hua)3 PR, 3 SD; OS 6.39 mo; PFS 4.35 mo; low toxicity
Osaka Medical College series [95]RetrospectiveRecurrent/refractory HGM46BPA ± BSHReactorFavorable outcomes in refractory cases
Lan et al. [90]Retrospective feasibilityRecurrent meningioma (1 grade 3, 6 grade 2, 6 grade 1)13BPAReactor (Tsing Hua)Response rate 38%; responders had higher tumor dose (45.10 vs. 25.85 GyE, p = 0.003)
Kashiwagi et al. [98]Phase II RCT (2:1)Recurrent HGM after RT18 (12 BNCT, 6 control)BPAAccelerator (cyclotron)Median PFS 14.4 mo (BNCT) vs. 1.4 mo (control), p = 0.0157; ORR 27.3%
BNCT, boron neutron capture therapy; GBM, glioblastoma; HGM, high-grade meningioma; DMG, diffuse midline glioma; BPA, boronophenylalanine; BSH, sodium borocaptate; EBRT, external beam radiotherapy; TMZ, temozolomide; OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival; TTP, time to progression; PR, partial response; SD, stable disease; RPA, recursive partitioning analysis; DLT, dose-limiting toxicity; RT, radiotherapy; MGMT, O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase; mo, months.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kutuk, T.; Atak, E.; Harrell, M.; Raval, R.R.; Fekrmandi, F.; Zhu, S.; Beyer, S.; Singh, P.K.; Giglio, P.; Mohtashami, H.; et al. Boron Neutron Capture Therapy for High-Grade CNS Tumors: Mechanisms, Carriers, and Clinical Progress: A Narrative Review. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2026, 27, 2765. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms27062765

AMA Style

Kutuk T, Atak E, Harrell M, Raval RR, Fekrmandi F, Zhu S, Beyer S, Singh PK, Giglio P, Mohtashami H, et al. Boron Neutron Capture Therapy for High-Grade CNS Tumors: Mechanisms, Carriers, and Clinical Progress: A Narrative Review. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2026; 27(6):2765. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms27062765

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kutuk, Tugce, Ece Atak, Marshall Harrell, Raju R. Raval, Fatemeh Fekrmandi, Simeng Zhu, Sasha Beyer, Pawan K. Singh, Pierre Giglio, Hamid Mohtashami, and et al. 2026. "Boron Neutron Capture Therapy for High-Grade CNS Tumors: Mechanisms, Carriers, and Clinical Progress: A Narrative Review" International Journal of Molecular Sciences 27, no. 6: 2765. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms27062765

APA Style

Kutuk, T., Atak, E., Harrell, M., Raval, R. R., Fekrmandi, F., Zhu, S., Beyer, S., Singh, P. K., Giglio, P., Mohtashami, H., Wu, K. C., Elder, J. B., Mahase, S. S., Singh, R., Chakravarti, A., & Palmer, J. D. (2026). Boron Neutron Capture Therapy for High-Grade CNS Tumors: Mechanisms, Carriers, and Clinical Progress: A Narrative Review. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 27(6), 2765. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms27062765

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop