ライフサイエンスコーパス: chemoradiotherapy

1 stance to therapy (i.e., surgical resection, chemoradiotherapy).

2 quate gastrectomy and either chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy.

3 HNSCC, who were treated with cisplatin-based chemoradiotherapy.

4 ed 1-8 mo (median, 4 mo) after completion of chemoradiotherapy.

5 int to assess clinical tumour response after chemoradiotherapy.

6 cinoma of the anus is 26 weeks from starting chemoradiotherapy.

7 rihilar cholangiocarcinoma after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.

8 isease receive perioperative chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy.

9 NSCLC and no contraindication to concomitant chemoradiotherapy.

10 rom rectal cancer patients after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.

11 utcome of an organ-preserving strategy after chemoradiotherapy.

12 sible patients should be given perioperative chemoradiotherapy.

13 one and in combination with standard of care chemoradiotherapy.

14 omarkers for ultimate response to subsequent chemoradiotherapy.

15 alled second-look surgeries, and intensified chemoradiotherapy.

16 (2) VPA use both at start of and still after chemoradiotherapy.

17 ould inform decision making at the outset of chemoradiotherapy.

18 ients with large tumors who are treated with chemoradiotherapy.

19 giogenic agents alone or in combination with chemoradiotherapy.

20 the routine use of induction therapy before chemoradiotherapy.

21 of esophageal cancer (EC) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.

22 age, intended surgery, and randomly assigned chemoradiotherapy.

23 cruited to the trial and started neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.

24 usly received platinum-based chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy.

25 Thirty-seven patients commenced chemoradiotherapy.

26 clinical complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.

27 y and postoperative temozolomide concomitant chemoradiotherapy.

28 50% of patients and 74% received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.

29 exists for patients treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.

30 erapeutic platform to achieve O(2) -evolving chemoradiotherapy.

31 -2, M0) in patients who received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.

32 istula in patients who received preoperative chemoradiotherapy (0% vs 9.2%, P = 0.011).

33 e randomly assigned to receive standard-dose chemoradiotherapy, 121 to high-dose chemoradiotherapy, 1

34 ard-dose chemoradiotherapy, 121 to high-dose chemoradiotherapy, 147 to standard-dose chemoradiotherap

35 rapy (274 patients) or once-daily concurrent chemoradiotherapy (273 patients).

36 y assigned to receive twice-daily concurrent chemoradiotherapy (274 patients) or once-daily concurren

37 y showed improved survival with preoperative chemoradiotherapy (35.2 v 19.8 months; P = .029).

38 ant metastases who had received preoperative chemoradiotherapy (45 Gy in 25 daily fractions with conc

39 s of the same chemotherapy and 133 underwent chemoradiotherapy (54 Gy plus capecitabine).

40 AEs, all of which occurred during concurrent chemoradiotherapy; 98.3% of patients completed the full

41 ated radiotherapy is, along with concomitant chemoradiotherapy, a standard of care for the treatment

42 ) with concomitant or sequential (4 d before chemoradiotherapy) administration of bevacizumab with pr

43 end point and was determined by incidence of chemoradiotherapy adverse events (AEs) and immune-relate

44 7%) of 271 patients received radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy after FOLFIRINOX.

45 ata obtained from the international CRITICS (ChemoRadiotherapy after Induction chemotherapy In Cancer

46 pare chemoradiotherapy plus panitumumab with chemoradiotherapy alone in patients with unresected, loc

47 al near complete response rate compared with chemoradiotherapy alone.

48 2012, 111 patients were randomly assigned to chemoradiotherapy and 109 patients to radiotherapy.

49 assigned; 119 were assigned to preoperative chemoradiotherapy and 127 to immediate surgery.

50 n to treat was 16.0 months with preoperative chemoradiotherapy and 14.3 months with immediate surgery

51 of 72) in patients who received preoperative chemoradiotherapy and 40% (37 of 92) in patients assigne

52 dose chemoradiotherapy, 147 to standard-dose chemoradiotherapy and cetuximab, and 110 to high-dose ch

53 otherapy and cetuximab, and 110 to high-dose chemoradiotherapy and cetuximab.

54 d in 73 HNSCC patients treated by definitive chemoradiotherapy and correlated with survival.

55 d PALN involvement concurrently treated with chemoradiotherapy and extended-field radiotherapy betwee

56 the ability to treat patients with intensive chemoradiotherapy and from potent graft-versus-leukemia

57 gical and functional outcomes of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and local excision for patients with s

58 Clinic, multimodal therapy with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and orthotopic liver transplant has em

59 ies done at our institution (pre-neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and post-neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy

60 3.5-4.8) versus 3.4 months (3.1-4.3) in the chemoradiotherapy and radiotherapy groups, respectively

61 ficacy of induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiotherapy and surgery in patients with IIIA(N2)

62 s underwent imaging analyses 6-8 weeks after chemoradiotherapy and were followed for 5 years.

63 ndications for postoperative radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy, and whether radiotherapy alone is suf

64 al organ-preservation strategy of definitive chemoradiotherapy as a primary treatment for esophageal

65 three timepoints: 11 weeks from the start of chemoradiotherapy (assessment 1), 18 weeks from the star

66 y (assessment 1), 18 weeks from the start of chemoradiotherapy (assessment 2), and 26 weeks from the

67 ssessment 2), and 26 weeks from the start of chemoradiotherapy (assessment 3) as well as the overall

68 t 16.5 months (95% CI, 14.5-18.5 months) and chemoradiotherapy at 15.2 months (95% CI, 13.9-17.3 mont

69 istal rectal cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy at 26 American College of Surgeons Onc

70 underwent esophagectomy with no preoperative chemoradiotherapy at Hong Kong Queen Mary Hospital.

71 ment-modifying decisions during preoperative chemoradiotherapy based on expected response.

72 Chemoradiotherapy before exenteration was associated wit

73 f a pathologic complete response (pathCR) to chemoradiotherapy before surgery for esophageal cancer w

74 otherapy were randomly assigned to receive a chemoradiotherapy boost that was risk adapted to between

75 ssigned to surgery and 80 were assigned to a chemoradiotherapy boost.

76 sion-free survival and overall survival with chemoradiotherapy but at a cost of increased toxicity.

77 could be an efficient prodrug for concurrent chemoradiotherapy by selectively delivering doxorubicin

78 f induction chemotherapy (IC) and concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCR).

79 n before adjuvant radiotherapy or concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) could meaningfully improve 2-y

80 Concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) prevented involvement of the fe

81 l cancer (EC) patients undergoing concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) remains uncertain.

82 us cell carcinoma (LAHNSCC) after concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT).

83 y and 55.8 Gy radiotherapy), and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (chemotherapy and 45 Gy radiotherapy,

84 were surgery alone, radiotherapy (55.8 Gy), chemoradiotherapy (chemotherapy and 55.8 Gy radiotherapy

85 nificant difference in overall survival with chemoradiotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone and t

86 ined slightly lower in patients who received chemoradiotherapy compared with patients who received ra

87 trial to investigate the benefit of adjuvant chemoradiotherapy compared with radiotherapy alone for w

88 Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy consisted of capecitabine (original do

89 ) after treatment with definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CRT) after IC and 54% (95% CI, 44% to

90 Optimal scheduling of preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and chemotherapy remains to be e

91 nger interval between the end of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and surgery is associated with a

92 e of extramural venous invasion (EMVI) after chemoradiotherapy (CRT) by both magnetic resonance imagi

93 monstrated the safety of adjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CRT) for locally advanced or incomple

94 ultimodal, consisting of surgery followed by chemoradiotherapy (CRT) for oral cavity cancers and prim

95 val outcomes associated with use of adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) for patients with resected local

96 nt time points during and after preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in locally advanced rectal cance

97 ic complete response (pCR) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) may be a clinical prognostic mar

98 roup analysis of post-treatment MRIs in post-chemoradiotherapy (CRT) patients, mrTD/mrEMVI status was

99 SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Chemoradiotherapy (CRT) response is a predictor of survi

100 At 1 mo after terminating chemoradiotherapy (CRT), no differences were observed in

101 l patients were treated with curative-intent chemoradiotherapy (CRT).

102 radiotherapy (RT), or combinations of both (chemoradiotherapy, CRT) or surgery alone to identify the

103 imed to assess survival following definitive chemoradiotherapy (DCR) with or without salvage esophage

104 Preoperative chemoradiotherapy did not increase the incidence of surg

105 e when assessed at 11 weeks after commencing chemoradiotherapy do in fact respond by 26 weeks, and th

106 med at baseline, 11 d after the beginning of chemoradiotherapy (early), and before surgery (late).

107 d 162 OPSCC patients treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy, equally divided into separate trainin

108 Many patients treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy exhibit a decline in neutrophil count,

109 d patients with EAC treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by esophagectomy between 1995

110 denocarcinoma (EAC) treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by esophagectomy.

111 Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by liver transplantation subs

112 ticipated, our data suggest that neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by local excision might be co

113 s perioperative chemotherapy or preoperative chemoradiotherapy followed by open transthoracic esophag

114 ps undergoing SALV (n = 308) and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by planned esophagectomy (NCR

115 omly assigned (1:1) patients to preoperative chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery and the remaining

116 Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery establishes a cons

117 hageal adenocarcinoma patients who underwent chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery.

118 nal Cancer Database who received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgical resection were in

119 s with hematopoietic malignancies, involving chemoradiotherapy followed by the introduction of donor

120 al cancer who were treated with preoperative chemoradiotherapy followed by total mesorectal excision

121 Purpose After preoperative chemoradiotherapy followed by total mesorectal excision

122 duction of a clinical complete response with chemoradiotherapy, followed by observation via a watch-a

123 as a strategy for response evaluation after chemoradiotherapy for anal cancer.

124 lticenter analysis of 87 patients treated by chemoradiotherapy for anal squamous cell carcinoma betwe

125 support the view that nCRT according to the Chemoradiotherapy for Esophageal Cancer Followed by Surg

126 collected from 45 patients before and after chemoradiotherapy for esophageal cancer, as well as DNA

127 in blood samples from patients who underwent chemoradiotherapy for esophageal cancer, detection of ct

128 Although postoperative chemoradiotherapy for gastric cancer has been an accepte

129 Biomarkers are needed to risk stratify after chemoradiotherapy for localized esophageal cancer.

130 prognostic factor for patients treated with chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced non-small cell lu

131 Novel agents are needed to improve chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer.

132 sessment of complete clinical response after chemoradiotherapy for patients with squamous cell carcin

133 sease (stage N2 or N3) and who have received chemoradiotherapy for primary treatment is a matter of d

134 dality to improve the outcome of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer treatment, in suppor

135 dality to improve the outcome of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer treatment, in suppor

136 Preoperative chemoradiotherapy for resectable or borderline resectabl

137 tatements, including highlighting the use of chemoradiotherapy for select patients with MIBC and reco

138 uvant chemoradiotherapy and post-neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy) for review.

139 performed when 221 patients died (109 in the chemoradiotherapy group and 112 in the chemotherapy grou

140 50 (45%, 95% CI 36-55) patients in the chemoradiotherapy group and 38 (35%, 26-44) in the radio

141 rol at 2 years was 61% (95% CI 47-72) in the chemoradiotherapy group and 51% (40-62) in the radiother

142 rolled and 150 received treatment (63 in the chemoradiotherapy group and 87 in the panitumumab plus c

143 olled, and 151 received treatment (61 in the chemoradiotherapy group and 90 in the radiotherapy plus

144 oxicity occurred in 38 (36%) patients in the chemoradiotherapy group and in 17 (16%) patients in the

145 e reported in 25 (40%) of 62 patients in the chemoradiotherapy group and in 30 (34%) of 89 patients i

146 e reported in 20 (32%) of 63 patients in the chemoradiotherapy group and in 37 (43%) of 87 patients i

147 mptom scores higher (worse symptoms) for the chemoradiotherapy group compared with radiotherapy alone

148 t 24 months, 48 (25%) of 194 patients in the chemoradiotherapy group reported severe tingling or numb

149 reatment in 309 (94%) of 327 patients in the chemoradiotherapy group versus 145 (44%) of 326 patients

150 re found in 198 (61%) of 327 patients in the chemoradiotherapy group versus 42 (13%) of 326 patients

151 ere reported in 76 (38%) of 201 women in the chemoradiotherapy group versus 43 (23%) of 187 in the ra

152 probability 21.4%; 95% CI 17.3-26.3) in the chemoradiotherapy group versus 98 of 330 (5-year probabi

153 n three women (0.9% [95% CI 0.3-2.8]) in the chemoradiotherapy group versus four (0.9% [95% CI 0.3-2.

154 ps, occurring in 16 (8%) of 201 women in the chemoradiotherapy group versus ten (5%) of 187 in the ra

155 re dysphagia (17 [27%] of 63 patients in the chemoradiotherapy group vs 35 [40%] of 87 in the panitum

156 inflammation (25 [40%] of 62 patients in the chemoradiotherapy group vs 37 [42%] of 89 patients in th

157 t 24 months (25 [10%] of 240 patients in the chemoradiotherapy group vs one [<1%] of 247 patients in

158 One patient in the chemoradiotherapy group was omitted from analysis becaus

159 up vs 35 [40%] of 87 in the panitumumab plus chemoradiotherapy group), mucosal inflammation (15 [24%]

160 therapy group and 87 in the panitumumab plus chemoradiotherapy group).

161 hat required surgery (all in the neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy group).

162 (ileus or obstruction) was reported (in the chemoradiotherapy group).

163 660 were eligible and evaluable (330 in the chemoradiotherapy group, and 330 in the radiotherapy-alo

164 ients had unexpected grade 4 adverse events (chemoradiotherapy group, n=2; neoadjuvant chemoradiother

165 s (chemoradiotherapy group, n=2; neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy group, n=7), including three wound com

166 (43%) of 87 patients in the panitumumab plus chemoradiotherapy group.

167 Neoadjuvant therapy with chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy has supplemented surgery as standard t

168 a clear role for consolidation therapy after chemoradiotherapy; however, consolidation therapy remain

169 ation radiotherapy compared with concomitant chemoradiotherapy (HR 1.22, 1.05-1.42; p=0.0098), with a

170 ge spectrum, adding pazopanib to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy improved the rate of pathological near

171 Concurrent chemoradiotherapy improves cancer-related outcomes but h

172 atment of locally advanced NSCLC, concurrent chemoradiotherapy improves local control and overall sur

173 ct pathologic response following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in esophageal adenocarcinoma because m

174 ccuracy of predicting pathCR to preoperative chemoradiotherapy in esophageal cancer beyond clinical p

175 lue for predicting pathCR after preoperative chemoradiotherapy in esophageal cancer.

176 (DW) MRI for subsequent response to radical chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced head and neck squa

177 ntibodies with radiotherapy (RT) to standard chemoradiotherapy in locoregionally advanced squamous ce

178 ntibodies with radiotherapy (RT) to standard chemoradiotherapy in locoregionally advanced squamous ce

179 ns to optimize administration of TKIs before chemoradiotherapy in oncogene-driven NSCLC.

180 ge disease should be treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy in patients with good performance stat

181 y of adding pembrolizumab to cisplatin-based chemoradiotherapy in patients with LA HNSCC.

182 etween twice-daily and once-daily concurrent chemoradiotherapy in patients with limited-stage small-c

183 a randomized controlled trial of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in patients with resectable stage II-I

184 ntibody against EGFR, plus radiotherapy with chemoradiotherapy in patients with unresected, locally a

185 Here, we compared surgery with definitive chemoradiotherapy in resectable stage III disease after

186 hundred seventy-nine patients (93%) received chemoradiotherapy in the adjuvant setting.

187 Oral mucosal damages triggered by chemoradiotherapy-induced cell apoptosis were further ex

188 inflammatory cascades in the pathobiology of chemoradiotherapy-induced OM and the development of new

189 The biological complexities of chemoradiotherapy-induced OM involve interactions among

190 ontribute to the progression and severity of chemoradiotherapy-induced OM.

191 ction of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) after chemoradiotherapy is associated with risk of tumor progr

192 ally advanced pancreatic cancer, the role of chemoradiotherapy is controversial and the efficacy of e

193 Preoperative chemoradiotherapy is increasingly used in patients with

194 b in combination with weekly cisplatin-based chemoradiotherapy is safe and does not impair delivery o

195 Concurrent chemoradiotherapy is the standard of care in limited-sta

196 Chemoradiotherapy may be offered as an alternative to cy

197 The efficacy of chemoradiotherapy may depend on the impact of treatment

198 Preoperative chemoradiotherapy may improve the radical resection rate

199 Enhanced outcomes with concurrent chemoradiotherapy may result from increased direct killi

200 surgery alone (n=205), radiotherapy (n=17), chemoradiotherapy (n=111), and neoadjuvant chemoradiothe

201 , chemoradiotherapy (n=111), and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (n=196).

202 in the resection specimen after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) and to assess its prognostic va

203 urvival in patients treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) followed by esophagectomy for c

204 Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) followed by surgery has become

205 r junctional cancer who received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) followed by surgery or surgery

206 detecting residual disease after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) for esophageal cancer.

207 prediction of tumor response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) in esophageal cancer (EC) patie

208 ponse evaluations 12-14 wk after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) in esophageal cancer patients.

209 stuzumab and pertuzumab added to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) in patients with EAC.

210 ET and endoscopic assessment postneoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) in predicting complete patholog

211 ly complete response (cCR) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) is being studied.

212 ly complete response (cCR) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) undergoing active surveillance

213 gned to clinical trials using platinum-based chemoradiotherapy (NRG Oncology Radiation Therapy Oncolo

214 oadjuvant therapy (compared with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy), open surgery, and resection before 2

215 s with squamous cell carcinoma, preoperative chemoradiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy without surgery s

216 f patients with adenocarcinoma, preoperative chemoradiotherapy or perioperative chemotherapy should b

217 tive biased coin design to either palliative chemoradiotherapy or radiotherapy alone for treatment of

218 Studies were eligible if patients received chemoradiotherapy or radiotherapy as the main treatment,

219 therapies with or without upfront concurrent chemoradiotherapy or radiotherapy with curative intent.

220 chemotherapies and upfront use of concurrent chemoradiotherapy or radiotherapy.

221 patients might benefit from radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy or resection after FOLFIRINOX.

222 nts who underwent subsequent radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy or resection, were pooled in a random-

223 Adjuvant chemotherapy (OR 0.28) and chemoradiotherapy (OR 0.29) were associated with a reduc

224 Chemoradiotherapy outcome of 74 patients was most strong

225 o demonstrate a survival benefit of adjuvant chemoradiotherapy over radiotherapy.

226 After neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, pCR and ypT1aN0 were seen in a limite

227 We aimed to compare chemoradiotherapy plus panitumumab with chemoradiotherap

228 Detection of ctDNA after chemoradiotherapy preceded radiographic evidence of tumo

229 r consolidation in conjunction with standard chemoradiotherapy prior to surgery.

230 on of patients who underwent radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy ranged from 31% to 100% across studies

231 enhance both staging and survival following chemoradiotherapy, regardless of treatment response, is

232 30 mg/m(2), and should remain the preferred chemoradiotherapy regimen for LAHNSCC in the adjuvant se

233 Clinical outcomes with a de-intensified chemoradiotherapy regimen of 60 Gy intensity-modulated r

234 ocarcinoma) assessed whether a postoperative chemoradiotherapy regimen that replaced FU plus LV with

235 perfractionated radiotherapy and concomitant chemoradiotherapy remains to be specifically tested.

236 , and together, these contribute to improved chemoradiotherapy response in HNSCC.

237 d tumor metabolism are major determinants of chemoradiotherapy response.

238 idation chemotherapy to standard neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy results in a higher pCR rate.

239 ct of salvage esophagectomy after definitive chemoradiotherapy (SALV) on clinical outcome.

240 Persistent cancer after definitive chemoradiotherapy seems to be more biologically aggressi

241 INTERPRETATION: Palliative chemoradiotherapy showed a modest, but not statistically

242 ted that the addition of CRLX101 to standard chemoradiotherapy significantly increased therapeutic ef

243 techniques, and individualised comprehensive chemoradiotherapy strategies.

244 on of patients who underwent radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy, surgical resection after FOLFIRINOX,

245 ensory neuropathy persisted more often after chemoradiotherapy than after radiotherapy alone, with 5-

246 were significantly worse in patients who had chemoradiotherapy than in patients who had radiotherapy.

247 re common in patients who received high-dose chemoradiotherapy than in those who received standard-do

248 s detected in plasma samples collected after chemoradiotherapy than patients without progression (P =

249 arcinoma for patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy that demonstrates that delta SUV of le

250 Because of adverse events during chemoradiotherapy, the dose of capecitabine was reduced

251 matching placebo 1-42 days after concurrent chemoradiotherapy, then every 2 weeks up to 12 months.

252 reated with TNT and n = 891 with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy therapy).

253 Organ preservation with definitive chemoradiotherapy, though proven in the larynx and phary

254 (2:3) by an independent vendor to open-label chemoradiotherapy (three cycles of cisplatin 100 mg/m(2)

255 f cisplatin 100 mg/m(2)) or panitumumab plus chemoradiotherapy (three cycles of intravenous panitumum

256 rognosis, and despite optimal treatment with chemoradiotherapy to the limit of tolerance, many patien

257 the idea of shifting the treatment paradigm (chemoradiotherapy, total mesorectal excision, and adjuva

258 In the chemoradiotherapy-treated HNSCC cohort, mitochondrial-ri

259 im of this study was to establish a standard chemoradiotherapy treatment regimen in limited-stage sma

260 Gy) in 1.8 Gy fractions five times a week or chemoradiotherapy (two cycles concurrent cisplatin 50 mg

261 (2:3) by an independent vendor to open-label chemoradiotherapy (two cycles of cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) d

262 .8 Gy fractions given on 5 days per week) or chemoradiotherapy (two cycles of cisplatin 50 mg/m(2) gi

263 patients according to their tumor location, chemoradiotherapy, type of mesorectal excision and anast

264 e preferred mode of treatment, with adjuvant chemoradiotherapy used for malignant thyroid mesenchymal

265 It is now clear that chemoradiotherapy used prior to alloSCT induces the rele

266 ageal junction adenocarcinoma, postoperative chemoradiotherapy using a multiagent regimen of ECF befo

267 LC), a disease poorly controlled by standard chemoradiotherapy using X-rays.

268 l survival was 81.4% (95% CI 77.2-85.8) with chemoradiotherapy versus 76.1% (71.6-80.9) with radiothe

269 The randomized Adjuvant Chemoradiotherapy Versus Radiotherapy Alone in Women Wit

270 rall survival and failure-free survival with chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone.

271 Chemoradiotherapy was associated with decreased local pr

272 e neutrophil count after starting concurrent chemoradiotherapy was associated with higher rates of lo

273 Preoperative chemoradiotherapy was associated with significantly bett

274 Detection of ctDNA after chemoradiotherapy was associated with tumor progression

275 VPA use at start of chemoradiotherapy was not associated with improved PFS o

276 wth disease-free survival from the date that chemoradiotherapy was started, and secondary endpoints w

277 %]) and neutropenia (five [11%]), and during chemoradiotherapy were dysphagia (four [9%]) and mucosit

278 inistration of bevacizumab with preoperative chemoradiotherapy were included.

279 taking VPA both at start of and still after chemoradiotherapy were not different from those without

280 re randomly assigned to receive preoperative chemoradiotherapy, which consisted of 3 courses of gemci

281 d esophageal adenocarcinoma post-neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy with 2 standardized PET CT studies don

282 T/CT performed during and after preoperative chemoradiotherapy with bevacizumab for the prediction of

283 ival for patients who received postoperative chemoradiotherapy with bolus fluorouracil (FU) and leuco

284 sponse was assessed 3 mo after completion of chemoradiotherapy with clinical examination, MRI, and (1

285 Concurrent chemoradiotherapy with or without surgery are options fo

286 ceiving either DCR (n = 5977) or neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy with planned esophagectomy (NCRS) (n =

287 INTERPRETATION: Chemoradiotherapy with radiation doses reduced by 15-20%

288 We compared chemoradiotherapy with radiotherapy alone for dysphagia

289 We investigated whether chemoradiotherapy with reduced-dose radiation would main

290 ecurrent GBM samples from patients receiving chemoradiotherapy with temozolomide and sequenced approx

291 on of antiepileptic drug use at the start of chemoradiotherapy with temozolomide was performed in the

292 he frequency of GBM driver instability after chemoradiotherapy with temozolomide.

293 was administered concurrently with and after chemoradiotherapy with weekly cisplatin.

294 han oxaliplatin at enhancing the efficacy of chemoradiotherapy, with CRLX101 and 5-fluorouracil produ

295 illance (performed 12 weeks after the end of chemoradiotherapy, with neck dissection performed only i

296 ceived at least two cycles of platinum-based chemoradiotherapy, with no disease progression after thi

297 carcinoma, preoperative chemoradiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy without surgery should be offered.

298 Among patients who received chemoradiotherapy without surgery, combined ctDNA and me

299 Squamous cancers can be treated with primary chemoradiotherapy without surgery, depending on their re

300 er the addition of pazopanib to preoperative chemoradiotherapy would improve pathological near comple