Work

Re: Simulation analysis for tumor radiotherapy based on three‐component mathematical models

Year: 2019
Type: letter
Abstract: a = 0.653, b = 0.0719 P12 = 0.1, P21 = 0.1, P13 = 0.05, P23 = 0.05, η = 0.2 a = 0.837, b = 0.081 P12 = 0.1, P21 = 0.1, P13 = 0.05, P23 = 0.05, η = 0.2 Finally, we feel the urgency to comment on the mathematical formulation of the three-compartment model. First, there are discrepancies in the representation of the Gompertzian model. While the Gompertzian model is in correct mathematical form, the authors' interpretation of tumor volume, T, diverges from the usual unitless number (tumor volume divided by carrying capacity volume), which one can apply the natural logarithm to. Furthermore, the authors define the carrying capacity (K) as being dependent on the initial tumor volume (T0), which does not follow traditional applications of ecological and population-based modeling. Additionally, and perhaps most crucially to the target audience, the implementation of the Linear-Quadratic (LQ) model is not intuitive. Traditionally, the LQ model is described in terms of the dose, (D), dependent survival fraction, , which would be the ratio of T/T0 using the author's nomenclature. Most radiation modeling literature implements the effect of radiation in a piece-wise fashion.7-11 The way in which radiation is modeled is mathematically incorrect, and disagrees with the shapes of the presented simulation curves. In summary, we believe that the questions Hong & Zhang are exploring are interesting. However, due to the reasons presented in this letter, the authors' conclusions are not substantiated by the presented results. We feel that the manuscript is blurring the contributions that integrated mathematical oncology offers to radiation oncology. The authors have no conflict of interest to report. The authors do not have anyone else they would like to acknowledge.
Language: English
Open Access status: gold
Estimated APC paid: $600
OpenAlex ID: W2947365940
Cites: 11
Cited by: 1
Related to: 10