Objective: To compare the effects of 2 techniques of semi-hepatic alternating radiotherapy on diffuse hepatic metastasis in patients with breast cancer. Methodology: A total of 68 breast cancer patients with diffuse liver metastasis were randomly divided into Group A (semi-hepatic alternating radiotherapy) and Group B (semi-hepatic sequential radiotherapy). In Group A (semi-hepatic sequential radiotherapy), the liver was divided into the first semi-liver and second semi-liver and alternatively treated with semi-hepatic intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). The interval between the 2 instances of semi-hepatic radiotherapy was 6 h. The average radiotherapy dose to the semi-livers was both 2 Gy/fraction, once a day, 5 times per week, with a total dose of 30 Gy for 15 days. The total radiation therapy time in Group A was 15 days in Group B (semi-hepatic sequential radiotherapy), the livers were divided into the first semi-liver and second semi-liver and treated with semi-hepatic sequential IMRT, The first semi-liver was first treated in the initial stage of radiation therapy, the average radiotherapy dose to the semi-liver was 2 Gy/fraction, once a day, 5 times per week, with a total dose of 30 Gy for 15 days. The second semi-liver was treated next in the second stage of radiation therapy, the average radiotherapy dose to the semi-liver was 2 Gy/fraction, once a day, 5 times per week, with a total dose of 30 Gy for 15 days. The total radiation therapy time in group B was 30 days. Results: The objective response rate (complete response + partial response) of Group A and Group B were 50.0% and 48.5%, respectively (p = .903). The median survival time after metastasis (median survival of recurrence) of Group A and Group B was 16.7 months and 16.2 months, respectively (p = .411). The cumulative survival rates of 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, and 3 years of Group A and Group B were 90.6% (29 of 32) and 84.8% (28 of 33) (p = .478), 65.6% (21 of 32) and 60.6% (20 of 33) (p = .675), 31.2% (10 of 32) and 27.3% (9 of 33) (p = .725), and 15.6% (5 of 32) and 0 (0 of 33) (p = .018), respectively. The differences between the 2 groups showed no statistical significance in terms of cumulative survival rates in 1 year, 2 years, however, the 3-year survival rate was significantly different. The main toxic reactions were digestive tract reactions, abnormal liver functions, and myelosuppression. The incidence of I to II degree gastrointestinal reactions was 78.13% (25 of 32) in Group A and 72.73% (24 of 33) in Group B (p = .614). The incidence of I to II abnormal liver function was 53.13% (17 of 32) in Group A and 48.48% (16 of 33) in Group B (p = .708). The differences between the 2 groups showed no statistical significance. The incidence of I to II myelosuppression was 59.38% (19 of 32) in Group A and 51.52% (17 of 33) in Group B (p = .524), respectively. The differences between the 2 groups showed no statistical significance in terms of adverse effects. Conclusion: Semi-hepatic alternating IMRT was an effective palliative treatment for diffuse liver metastasis in patients with breast cancer. Semi-hepatic alternating radiotherapy showed a trend of prolonged survival time when compared with semi-hepatic sequential radiotherapy. Compared with the former, the latter showed a trend of lower incidences of side effects without any statistical differences. Moreover, the side effects from the 2 radiotherapy techniques can be controlled through appropriate management, which is worthy of further exploration and applications.

1. He, ZY, Wu, SG, Peng, F, et al. Up-regulation of RFC3 promotes triple negative breast cancer metastasis and is associated with poor prognosis via EMT. Transl Oncol. 2017;10(1):1-9.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline2. Onal, C, Guler, OC, Yildirim, BA. Treatment outcomes of breast cancer liver metastasis treated with stereotactic body radiotherapy. Breast. 2018;42:150-156.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline3. Bai, G, Wang, Y, Zhu, Y, et al. Prediction of early response to chemotherapy in breast cancer liver metastases by diffusion-weighted MR imaging. Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2019;18:1533033819842944.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI4. Goldhirsch, A, Gelber, RD, Castiglione, M. Relapse of breast cancer after adjuvant treatment in premenopausal and perimenopausal women: patterns and prognoses. J Clin Oncol. 1988;6:89-97.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline5. Wyld, L, Gutteridge, E, Pinder, SE, et al. Prognostic factors for patients with hepatic metastases from breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 2003;89(2):284-290.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline6. O’Reilly, SM, Richards, MA, Rubens, RD. Liver metastases from breast cancer: the relationship between clinical, biochemical and pathological features and survival. Eur J Cancer. 1990;26(5):574-577.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline7. Goodman, BD, Mannina, EM, Althouse, SK, et al. Long-term safety and efficacy of stereotactic body radiation therapy for hepatic oligometastases. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2016;6(2):86-95.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline8. Bale, R, Putzer, D, Schullian, P. Local treatment of breast cancer liver metastasis. Cancers. 2019;11(9):1341.
Google Scholar | Medline9. Mendez Romero, A, Hoyer, M. Radiation therapy for liver metastases. Curr Opin Support Palliat Care. 2012;6(1):97-102.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline10. Yeung, CSY, Chiang, CL, Wong, NSM, et al. Palliative liver radiotherapy (RT) for symptomatic hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):1254.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline11. Dawson, LA, Ten Haken, RK. Partial volume tolerance of the liver to radiation. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2005;15(4):279-283.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline12. Mazzola, R, Fersino, S, Alongi, P, et al. Stereotactic body radiation therapy for liver oligometastases: predictive factors of local response by (18)F-FDG-PET/CT. Br J Radiol. 2018;91(1088):20180058.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline13. Ji, Y, Si, W, Zeng, J, et al. Niujiaodihuang detoxify decoction inhibits ferroptosis by enhancing glutathione synthesis in acute liver failure models. J Ethnopharmacol. 2021;279:114305.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline14. Liu, M, Zheng, B, Liu, P, et al. Exploration of the hepatoprotective effect and mechanism of magnesium isoglycyrrhizinate in mice with arsenic trioxide-induced acute liver injury. Mol Med Rep. 2021;23(6):438.
Google Scholar15. Gao, Y, Tian, Y, Zhang, X, et al. Magnesium isoglycyrrhizinate ameliorates concanavalin A-induced liver injury via the p38 and JNK MAPK pathway. Immunopharmacol Immunotoxicol. 2020;42(5):445-455.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline16. Lee, DD, Samoylova, M, Mehta, N, et al. The mRECIST classification provides insight into tumor biology for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma awaiting liver transplantation. Liver Transpl. 2019;25(2):228-241.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline17. Eisenhauer, EA, Therasse, P, Bogaerts, J, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2009;45(2):228-247.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI18. Kim, J, Jung, Y. Radiation-induced liver disease: current understanding and future perspectives. Exp Mol Med. 2017;49(7):e359.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline19. Koay, EJ, Owen, D, Das, P. Radiation-induced liver disease and modern radiotherapy. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2018;28:321-331.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline20. Yoo, B, Kavishwar, A, Wang, P, et al. Therapy targeted to the metastatic niche is effective in a model of stage IV breast cancer. Sci Rep. 2017;7:45060.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline21. Franzese, C, Comito, T, Vigano, L, et al. Liver metastases-directed therapy in the management of oligometastatic breast cancer. Clin Breast Cancer. 2020;20(6):480-486.
Google Scholar | Crossref22. Annede, P, Cosset, JM, Van Limbergen, E, et al. Radiobiology: Foundation and new insights in modeling brachytherapy effects. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2020;30:4-15.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline23. Yan, F . Why should no longer use bar field irradiation technology. Chin J Radiat Oncol. 1996;12(1):72.
Google Scholar