Kinetics of recovery from sublethal radiation damage

We acknowledge with interest the letter from Drs Guttenberger and Thames commenting on our re-analysis of data on the kinetics of repair of sublethal radiation damage (Hopewell & van den Aardweg, 1988). We welcome this opportunity to respond since the topic has important implications for clinical radiotherapy. Reference to this very recently submitted letter was made in two previous publications by one of the authors (Thames, 1989; Thames et al, 1989). Before discussing the important points raised by their letter, it is first essential to correct an unjustified assertion made in the above-mentioned publications (Thames, 1989; Thames et al, 1989), namely that any analyses based on plots of the percentage unrepaired dose are hampered by the selective exclusion of data points, specifically those with the longer interfraction intervals, and that this biases the results. In the studies carried out on pig skin, no data points were excluded or repeated to obtain a favourable result.