In Response to Dr. Ten Haken Et Al
Guo-Liang Jiang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.08.007
2006-01-01
Abstract:I greatly appreciate Dr. Ten Haken’s comments on our article recently published in IJROBP, and understand his concerns. I would like to answer his questions as follows. First, regarding the definition of normal liver volume, in the Michigan study normal liver was defined as liver tissue exclusive of gross tumor volume, but in our study, it was total liver volume minus planning target volume (PTV). The reason why we did so was based on the following considerations. One of the goals of our study was to determine hepatic tolerance dose in terms of dosimetric parameter. As in our study, median total dose to tumor was 54 Gy delivered in a median fraction size of 4.6 Gy. The normal liver tissue, which was inside the PTV, had been irradiated to over 50 Gy. According to our previous experience and also our estimation, the normal liver inside the PTV had probably lost its ability to proliferate and to repopulate. Thus, this part of normal liver would not contribute to compensation and maintenance of liver function. Maintenance of liver function would rely on the normal liver outside of the PTV. Therefore, we thought that the mean dose to normal liver (MDTNL) that received low doses was critical. Of course, if we calculated MDTNL, dose–volume histogram, and other factors according to the Michigan definition, MDTNL would be a higher dose, and dose–volume histogram shape would be changed too. Second, it would be ideal to convert three-dimensional dose distribution values to normalized isoeffective doses by the linear-quadratic model, as Dr. Ten Haken did. In some circumstances, it could be done, e.g., for spinal cord, or for some tumors in which we know their kinetics of irradiation damage repair and tumor proliferation using the linear-quadratic model or extended linear-quadratic model. However, in the situation of liver irradiation for localized hepatocellular carcinoma, the dose that normal liver received by three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy was inhomogeneous. It was certain that some part of the normal liver had received a large fraction of irradiation, and other parts, a small fraction or even no irradiation at all. Therefore, fraction sizes given to different parts of liver vary significantly. I am afraid that it seems like meaningless to standardize different fraction sizes to 2 Gy per fraction. Of course, in our study, hypofractionated irradiation had been used with a median fraction size of 4.6 Gy, 3 fractions per week, whereas in the Michigan study hyperfractionation was given with two fractions daily with 1.5–1.65 Gy/fraction. We think that the radiation injury by hypofractionation should be more severe than that by hyperfractionation. Even though knowledge of the kinetics of sublethal damage repair and repopulation in normal liver is absent, we believe that biologic effects are different between hyperfractionation and hypofractionation. Therefore, Dr. Ten Haken’s concerns are correct. We cannot directly use the Michigan model for such largely different schemes without adjustment. However, the adjustment seems quite difficult. To avoid misunderstanding, we would like to emphasize again that the Lyman model as well as the hepatic tolerance doses in our study derived from hepatocellular carcinoma patients with hepatic cirrhosis and irradiated with a hypofractionated scheme (1Liang S.X. Zhu X.D. Xu Z.R. et al.Radiation-induced liver disease in three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy for primary liver carcinoma.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006; 65: 426-434Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (211) Google Scholar). Also we would like to remind our colleagues that the Michigan Lyman model is appropriate for the prediction of radiation-induced liver disease (RILD) in patients without severe hepatic cirrhosis who received hyperfractionation, but is probably not very good to predict the incidence of RILD for hepatocellular carcinoma patients who are treated by hypofractionated irradiation. Hypofractionated irradiation has actually been used for hepatocellular carcinoma quite often in China. Third, the definition of RILD used in our study was proposed by Lawrence et al. (2Lawrence T.S. Ten Haken R.K. Kessler M.L. et al.The use of 3-D dose volume analysis to predict radiation hepatitis.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1992; 23: 781-788Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (307) Google Scholar). As stated in our article, all patients diagnosed with RILD had evidence of either elevation of alkaline phosphatase or elevation of transaminases. We defined patients associated with significant elevations of alkaline phosphatase as having classic RILD, and those with elevated transaminases mainly, as having nonclassic RILD. Besides nonmalignant ascites, we also noticed several other symptoms, including jaundice, hepatomegaly, encephalopathy, and upper quadrant abdominal pain, some of which probably related to hepatic function failure. Finally, I would like to thank Dr. Ten Haken again for his comments on our article. It is certainly right to make comparisons of toxicity and normal tissue complication under identical situations. However, there are always different views on irradiation fractionation, definition of toxicity, prognostic factors, and so forth. Therefore, it will be wise, when drawing conclusions, to declare the preconditions on which they are based. Prediction of radiation-induced liver disease by Lyman normal-tissue complication probability model in three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy for primary liver carcinoma: In regards to Xu et al. (Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006;65:189–195)International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, PhysicsVol. 66Issue 4PreviewWe have several concerns regarding the data analysis in the recent article by Xu and coworkers (1) and the comparisons made with the University of Michigan data (2) for radiation induced liver disease (RILD). Full-Text PDF