ライフサイエンスコーパス: induction chemotherapy

1 cally advanced NSCLC underwent surgery after induction chemotherapy.

2 ve a high rate of complete remission (CR) to induction chemotherapy.

3 oncomitant chemoradiotherapy with or without induction chemotherapy.

4 tical data review within 21 days of starting induction chemotherapy.

5 nts could benefit from PIM inhibition during induction chemotherapy.

6 are treated with curative intent and offered induction chemotherapy.

7 ly increased in bone marrow adipocytes after induction chemotherapy.

8 s shows the superiority of Tax-PF over PF as induction chemotherapy.

9 from patients with persistent disease after induction chemotherapy.

10 and 3D measurements) at diagnosis and after induction chemotherapy.

11 group progressed during the fourth cycle of induction chemotherapy.

12 e was controlled after cisplatin-gemcitabine induction chemotherapy.

13 Cytarabine is a key constituent of remission induction chemotherapy.

14 ts when adding gemtuzumab ozogamicin (GO) to induction chemotherapy.

15 r PTCL patients who are chemosensitive after induction chemotherapy.

16 es of complete remission after one course of induction chemotherapy.

17 nts also received intensive or non-intensive induction chemotherapy.

18 ults who are not candidates for conventional induction chemotherapy.

19 atients receiving idiotype vaccination after induction chemotherapy.

20 vaccination regardless of their response to induction chemotherapy.

21 ation based on response to a single cycle of induction chemotherapy.

22 observed with the addition of lintuzumab to induction chemotherapy.

23 ly advanced non-small-cell lung cancer after induction chemotherapy.

24 Forty-two percent of patients responded to induction chemotherapy.

25 ccurs in vivo in human lung cancer following induction chemotherapy.

26 ulness of CRc attained immediately following induction chemotherapy.

27 nd 2300 white) with de novo AML who received induction chemotherapy.

28 One patient was PET-negative after induction chemotherapy.

29 ed randomly to standard- or intensive-timing induction chemotherapy.

30 PBL were initially treated with surgery and induction chemotherapy.

31 emission, or after 42 days from the start of induction chemotherapy.

32 emia frequently have thrombocytopenia during induction chemotherapy.

33 logous stem-cell transplantation (SCT) after induction chemotherapy.

34 He had an incomplete response to induction chemotherapy.

35 ns when assessing for molecular responses to induction chemotherapy.

36 pulation, best predicted patient response to induction chemotherapy.

37 erlying hematological malignancies receiving induction chemotherapy.

38 were recommended before (t0) and after (t2) induction chemotherapy.

39 arabinoside (Ara-C), a primary component of induction chemotherapy.

40 acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) response to induction chemotherapy.

41 ients without minimal residual disease after induction chemotherapy.

42 lete, and sustained molecular response after induction chemotherapy.

43 good histologic response (good response) to induction chemotherapy.

44 -2.00]; p=0.04) and receipt of non-intensive induction chemotherapy (1.97 [1.25-3.10]; p=0.003) were

45 After induction chemotherapy 163 of 189 (84.0%) underwent defi

46 Thirty-nine patients completed induction chemotherapy: 19 had a partial response, seven

47 [78%] vs 422 [76%]; p=0.43) or non-intensive induction chemotherapy (215 [50%] vs 195 [46%]; p=0.18).

48 eater than 50% response at the primary after induction chemotherapy; 43 went on to receive definitive

49 acid groups for patients receiving intensive induction chemotherapy (432 patients [78%] vs 422 [76%];

50 After induction chemotherapy, 54.7% of patients underwent comp

51 iferative neoplasms in blast phase receiving induction chemotherapy (55%), low-intensity therapy (16%

52 At remission, after course 1 induction chemotherapy, a > 3 log reduction in RUNX1-RUN

53 lesions and assessed therapy response after induction chemotherapy according to the Lugano classific

54 Before and after induction chemotherapy, all patients underwent (18)F-DOP

55 vant chemotherapy alone (0.87, 0.68-1.12) or induction chemotherapy alone (0.96, 0.80-1.16).

56 Toxicity was similar to that of standard induction chemotherapy alone.

57 induction chemotherapy or gemcitabine-based induction chemotherapy and 14.9 months for those receivi

58 concomitant chemotherapy (30.8% v 20.8% with induction chemotherapy and 16.9% with RT alone).

59 nts received no therapy or gemcitabine-based induction chemotherapy and 22 received FOLFIRINOX.

60 tion of healthy persons, appeared both after induction chemotherapy and after allogeneic HSCT.

61 same neoadjuvant treatment concomitant with induction chemotherapy and chemoradiation.

62 We evaluated paclitaxel-based induction chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy in patients

63 AML) and developed methods to mimic standard induction chemotherapy and efficiently monitor therapy r

64 ntrol consisted of surgical resection during induction chemotherapy and radiotherapy after last SCT.

65 mic and radiation therapy such as the use of induction chemotherapy and sequential chemotherapy and r

66 between the presence of activated ILCs after induction chemotherapy and the absence of acute graft-ve

67 systemic lymphoma, the low response rate to induction chemotherapy and the significant number of pat

68 approaches (one without fluorouracil) using induction chemotherapy and then definitive chemoradiothe

69 Trials investigating taxane inclusion in induction chemotherapy and trials of epidermal growth fa

70 etween patients with nonresponding tumors to induction chemotherapy and WNT ( P = .143) or MYCC/MYCN

71 ients in our series, 192 (92%) received only induction chemotherapy, and 18 (9%) required additional

72 All patients underwent induction chemotherapy, and 52% received chemoradiation

73 tients with aggressive malignancies received induction chemotherapy, and all patients received conven

74 erebrospinal fluid (CSF) at diagnosis, after induction chemotherapy, and during follow-up.

75 gic subgroup, MYCC/ MYCN status, response to induction chemotherapy, and histologic subtype may serve

76 leukemia cells were incubated with standard induction chemotherapy, and individual cell stiffness wa

77 mphoma with high tumour burden at the end of induction chemotherapy, and it is being evaluated as a p

78 Patients with RS who are sensitive to induction chemotherapy appear to benefit from consolidat

79 rvival, with induction group and response to induction chemotherapy as stratification parameters.

80 (mean age, 50.8 years) treated with standard induction chemotherapy at a single site starting in Marc

81 tocol consisting of dexamethasone-containing induction chemotherapy, autologous stem-cell transplanta

82 Leukemia Group B 39801, we evaluated whether induction chemotherapy before concurrent chemoradiothera

83 l features of early treatment failure during induction chemotherapy before protocol radiation therapy

84 Induction chemotherapy before surgery may yield a surviv

85 10) were reviewed in 29 patients undergoing induction chemotherapy before surgery.

86 atients with ALL showing a rapid response to induction chemotherapy benefit from early intensive post

87 599 newly diagnosed AML patients treated by induction chemotherapy between 2000 and 2009.

88 If there is stable disease after 6 months of induction chemotherapy but unacceptable toxicities, radi

89 ry was achieved in 46% of patients receiving induction chemotherapy, but remissions were not durable

90 The ability to determine response to induction chemotherapy by means of noninvasive monitorin

91 Induction chemotherapy, C/T or C/N, was followed by esca

92 od performance status (PS) were treated with induction chemotherapy (carboplatin area under the curve

93 2-HG decrease was more rapid with induction chemotherapy compared with DNA-methyltransfera

94 th WT1 mutations had an inferior response to induction chemotherapy compared with wild-type cases (co

95 e investigated longitudinally the effects of induction chemotherapy, conditioning radiochemotherapy,

96 Induction chemotherapy consisted of two cycles of carbop

97 BRT or ASCT as consolidation treatment after induction chemotherapy consisting of two cycles of R-MBV

98 in, and ifosfamide [VAI]) after an intensive induction chemotherapy containing vincristine, ifosfamid

99 signed to receive three additional cycles of induction chemotherapy (control group) or one additional

100 one marrow samples obtained after the second induction chemotherapy course.

101 e after completion of a predefined number of induction chemotherapy cycles, has two principal paradig

102 tarting on day 4, patients received standard induction chemotherapy (daunorubicin bolus intravenous i

103 leukemia (AL) patients undergoing intensive induction chemotherapy develop severe gut dysbiosis, pla

104 Toxicity was low, and induction chemotherapy did not preclude delivery of conc

105 re, suggesting that an intervention, such as induction chemotherapy, directed at improving distant co

106 phase 3 trial comparing three cycles of TPF induction chemotherapy (docetaxel 75 mg/m(2), followed b

107 d, diagnosed between 2001 and 2007) received induction chemotherapy, dose-escalated hyperfractionated

108 Following induction chemotherapy, eligible patients underwent a si

109 y have a competitive fitness advantage after induction chemotherapy, expand, and persist long after t

110 ysis of the CGH findings in patients in whom induction chemotherapy failed compared with those in who

111 Induction chemotherapy failed to induce remission in 3 o

112 Moreover, induction chemotherapy failing to restore normal vascula

113 y (control group) or one additional cycle of induction chemotherapy followed by autologous stem-cell

114 rognostic value of metabolic response during induction chemotherapy followed by bimodality/trimodalit

115 i-institutional trial evaluates taxane-based induction chemotherapy followed by CCR for organ preserv

116 In the first trial, patients received induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiation and su

117 nter phase III trial (NCT01107639) comparing induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiation and su

118 Total neoadjuvant therapy, or systemic induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiation, is an

119 ce noted between those patients treated with induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiotherapy and

120 ous phase II study had shown the efficacy of induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiotherapy and

121 ogic response rate at the primary site after induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiotherapy for

122 More patients had febrile neutropenia in the induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiotherapy gro

123 (IQR 39-63), 41 patients had died-20 in the induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiotherapy gro

124 that the three-step strategy of preoperative induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiotherapy res

125 docetaxel, cisplatin, and fluorouracil (TPF) induction chemotherapy followed by concurrent chemoradio

126 using this kind of a sequential schedule of induction chemotherapy followed by concurrent chemoradio

127 We conducted a phase II study of induction chemotherapy followed by concurrent chemoradio

128 aryngeal cancer treated with this regimen of induction chemotherapy followed by definitive chemoradio

129 Thus, induction chemotherapy followed by HCT has the potential

130 Induction chemotherapy followed by high-dose therapy wit

131 tly from the proportions in the groups given induction chemotherapy followed by radiotherapy (75 perc

132 t administration of cisplatin is superior to induction chemotherapy followed by radiotherapy or radio

133 an preservation) to receive either TPF or PF induction chemotherapy, followed by chemoradiotherapy wi

134 ere are data from clinical trials to support induction chemotherapy, followed by radiotherapy (prefer

135 njunction with the first course of intensive induction chemotherapy for acute myeloid leukaemia (excl

136 These may include induction chemotherapy for acute myeloid leukemia (AML),

137 rophylaxis were made for children undergoing induction chemotherapy for ALL, autologous HSCT and allo

138 xis with levofloxacin in children undergoing induction chemotherapy for ALL.

139 o standard 3 + 7 daunorubicin and cytarabine induction chemotherapy for AML resulted in an encouragin

140 eight patients given six cycles of intensive induction chemotherapy for high-risk neuroblastoma were

141 no benefit for patients receiving intensive induction chemotherapy for high-risk neuroblastoma.

142 lidation chemoradiotherapy after a course of induction chemotherapy for locally advanced pancreatic c

143 for use in a phase III comparative study of induction chemotherapy for patients with acute myeloid l

144 d capecitabine-based chemoradiotherapy after induction chemotherapy for patients with locally advance

145 of platelet transfusions; they also received induction chemotherapy for similar durations and had sim

146 compromised woman with neutropenia following induction chemotherapy for treatment of acute myelogenou

147 thoracic radiation therapy (TRT), following induction chemotherapy, for treatment of locally advance

148 During induction chemotherapy, grade 3/4 granulocytopenia occur

149 clearance of their founding AML clone after induction chemotherapy had a concomitant expansion of a

150 of patients had grade 3 or 4 toxicity during induction chemotherapy, half of which was hematologic.

151 PURPOSE Cisplatin plus fluorouracil (PF) induction chemotherapy has been compared with taxane (do

152 efore definitive locoregional management, or induction chemotherapy, has been a theoretically attract

153 f worse outcome with concomitant relative to induction chemotherapy (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.61;

154 samples, 15 with inferior necrosis following induction chemotherapy (Huvos I/II) and 15 with superior

155 /II) and 15 with superior necrosis following induction chemotherapy (Huvos III/IV), was conducted usi

156 on was inversely associated with response to induction chemotherapy (IC) (P = .01), chemotherapy/radi

157 r of infection during acute myeloid leukemia induction chemotherapy (IC) among clinical and microbiom

158 R0331 study sought to evaluate the impact of induction chemotherapy (IC) and concurrent chemoradiothe

159 Induction chemotherapy (IC) before radiotherapy lowers d

160 whether complete clinical response (cCR) to induction chemotherapy (IC) could select patients with H

161 baseline until neutrophil recovery following induction chemotherapy (IC) in 97 AML patients.

162 baseline until neutrophil recovery following induction chemotherapy (IC) in 97 AML patients.

163 This study aimed to assess the role of induction chemotherapy (IC) in guiding definitive therap

164 TAX 324 was a phase III trial comparing induction chemotherapy (IC) with docetaxel, cisplatin, a

165 value of early assessment (after 1 cycle of induction chemotherapy [IC]) with (18)F-FDG PET/CT and d

166 Questions regarding the role of induction chemotherapy (ICT) and a higher radiation dose

167 disease, we conducted a phase II trial with induction chemotherapy (ICT) consisting of six weekly cy

168 Despite decades of research, the role of induction chemotherapy (ICT) in the treatment of locally

169 fractory patients and those who responded to induction chemotherapy identified a single gene, interle

170 s indicate that preleukemic HSCs can survive induction chemotherapy, identifying these cells as a res

171 homa, determine whether additional cycles of induction chemotherapy improve the complete response (CR

172 Dysphagia improved or resolved after induction chemotherapy in 13 (81%) of 16 patients who re

173 efficacy of adding gemtuzumab ozogamicin to induction chemotherapy in adult patients with acute myel

174 rials in which it was combined with standard induction chemotherapy in adults have produced conflicti

175 ence of persistent or relapsed disease after induction chemotherapy in AML necessitates a better unde

176 ive vaccinia virus treatment strategy during induction chemotherapy in an active duty service member

177 ted ABD as a predictor of a poor response to induction chemotherapy in an independent series of patie

178 ternational CRITICS (ChemoRadiotherapy after Induction chemotherapy In Cancer of the Stomach) trial.

179 (18)F-FDG PET for monitoring the response to induction chemotherapy in HNSCC or for assessing treatme

180 correlated with residual viable tumor after induction chemotherapy in locally advanced NSCLC.

181 appropriate for response consolidation after induction chemotherapy in older patients with advanced d

182 appropriate for response consolidation after induction chemotherapy in older patients with advanced d

183 al do not support combining eltrombopag with induction chemotherapy in patients with acute myeloid le

184 predicted an improved outcome with high-dose induction chemotherapy in patients with AML.

185 etic priming with decitabine before standard induction chemotherapy in patients with less-than-favora

186 sidual disease (MRD) detection at the end of induction chemotherapy in pediatric patients with newly

187 he activity of alisertib combined with 7 + 3 induction chemotherapy in previously untreated patients

188 t of 56 patients who underwent imaging after induction chemotherapy in the early posttreatment phase,

189 roach that merits reassessment is the use of induction chemotherapy in the setting of locally advance

190 therapy following primary surgery of OPSCC, induction chemotherapy in the treatment of OPSCC, and th

191 Earlier studies of preoperative (induction) chemotherapy in resectable NSCLC demonstrated

192 Response to induction chemotherapy included partial response rate of

193 relapse after one or two cycles of previous induction chemotherapy, including at least one cycle of

194 However, it remains unknown how induction chemotherapy influences the clonal evolution o

195 Early response to induction chemotherapy is a predictor of outcome in acut

196 results suggest that alisertib combined with induction chemotherapy is active and safe in previously

197 Early response to induction chemotherapy is an important prognostic factor

198 me to clearance of circulating blasts during induction chemotherapy is an independent prognostic mark

199 l transplantation (AHCT) consolidation after induction chemotherapy is often used for eligible patien

200 Resistance to intensive induction chemotherapy is the major cause of death in el

201 Response to induction chemotherapy may affect OS only for continuati

202 nalysis showed that magnitude of response to induction chemotherapy may affect the OS benefit as a re

203 soon after HDT suggest that more aggressive induction chemotherapy may be warranted.

204 Induction chemotherapy may contribute to local failure b

205 rent chemoradiation show that the three-drug induction chemotherapy may improve survival particularly

206 ns of gemtuzumab ozogamicin as an adjunct to induction chemotherapy may yet be a viable option in old

207 All patients were treated with six cycles of induction chemotherapy, myeloablative consolidation, and

208 were evaluated at diagnosis (n = 280), after induction chemotherapy (n = 237), and after an autologou

209 After induction chemotherapy, no evidence of MD of tumor cells

210 o 10(-3) at the end of 4 weeks of multiagent induction chemotherapy now receive intensified treatment

211 Enrolled patients received 7 + 3 induction chemotherapy of continuous infusion of cytarab

212 Patients received up to two 28-day cycles of induction chemotherapy of fluorouracil, leucovorin, and

213 Patients received two 28-day cycles of induction chemotherapy of fluorouracil, paclitaxel, and

214 Grade 3 or 4 toxicities during induction chemotherapy on arm B consisted mainly of neut

215 er way, which use idiotype vaccination after induction chemotherapy; one trial completed accrual in e

216 parameter for treatment stratification after induction chemotherapy or for evaluation of adjuvant new

217 as 11.6 months for participants receiving no induction chemotherapy or gemcitabine-based induction ch

218 We included patients receiving intensive induction chemotherapy or non-intensive treatment.

219 f circulating leukemic blasts in response to induction chemotherapy or prednisone is one of the most

220 nsplantation, hypomethylating agent therapy, induction chemotherapy, or enrollment in a clinical tria

221 sis in patients, show a dramatic response to induction chemotherapy owing to robust activation of the

222 However, it is unclear whether induction chemotherapy per se is effective when compared

223 ed docetaxel plus cisplatin and fluorouracil induction chemotherapy plus chemoradiotherapy had a sign

224 ents who received cisplatin and fluorouracil induction chemotherapy plus chemoradiotherapy.

225 We found that patients after induction chemotherapy plus G-CSF had similar overall su

226 Initial response to induction chemotherapy predicts failure-free survival (F

227 PTCL patients with responsive disease after induction chemotherapy proceeded to AHCT.

228 Complete or partial responders to induction chemotherapy received 54 Gy in 27 fractions, a

229 tients with complete or partial responses to induction chemotherapy received 54 Gy radiation, and 20

230 Adding GO (3 mg/m(2)) to induction chemotherapy reduces relapse risk and improves

231 cutaneous rituximab (1400 mg), stratified by induction chemotherapy regimen (cyclophosphamide, doxoru

232 This intensified induction chemotherapy regimen is feasible and tolerable

233 old with ALL were treated with a four-agent induction chemotherapy regimen.

234 We randomly assigned 302 patients to receive induction chemotherapy regimens consisting of cytosine a

235 ing was a determinant of initial response to induction chemotherapy, relapse after remission, and req

236 The addition of induction chemotherapy remains an appropriate approach f

237 Intensified induction chemotherapy resulted in a high response rate

238 Induction chemotherapy resulted in eight complete and 21

239 nts with acute myelogenic leukemia receiving induction chemotherapy, risks for C. kefyr colonization

240 0) were treated with five to seven cycles of induction chemotherapy (rituximab, MTX, procarbazine, an

241 Taxane-based induction chemotherapy seems promising in phase II studi

242 Patients who are candidates for induction chemotherapy should be treated with TPF.

243 reated with standard-dose daunorubicin-based induction chemotherapy, suggesting that DNMT3A(R882) cel

244 SUVmax) remaining in the primary tumor after induction chemotherapy-%SUVremaining = SUVmax(t2)/SUVmax

245 Twenty-four patients received AML-like induction chemotherapy that resulted in no complete remi

246 After induction chemotherapy, the metabolic change in (11)C-ac

247 AML) whose disease is refractory to standard induction chemotherapy therapy or who experience relapse

248 er with disease controlled after 4 months of induction chemotherapy, there was no significant differe

249 ly salvage surgery after the single cycle of induction chemotherapy, three patients (3%) had late sal

250 The relative efficacy of the addition of induction chemotherapy to chemoradiotherapy compared wit

251 The addition of induction chemotherapy to concomitant neoadjuvant chemor

252 The addition of induction chemotherapy to concurrent chemoradiotherapy a

253 this review we summarise data for the use of induction chemotherapy to define better which patients w

254 undergo a bone marrow biopsy 7-10 days after induction chemotherapy to evaluate treatment effectivene

255 nt failure rates, we added a brief course of induction chemotherapy to TFHX.

256 ndomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to concurrent induction chemotherapy (two cycles of cisplatin [50 mg/m

257 Delaying induction chemotherapy until molecular testing results r

258 Intensive induction chemotherapy using a regimen consisting of car

259 I rectal cancer were assigned to group A for induction chemotherapy using three cycles of fluorouraci

260 icantly improved LFS compared with RT alone (induction chemotherapy v RT alone: hazard ratio [HR], 0.

261 randomly assigned to one of two regimens of induction chemotherapy (vincristine, cisplatin, cyclopho

262 They were treated with 3-drug induction chemotherapy (vincristine, dactinomycin, and d

263 Induction chemotherapy was allowed.

264 e efficacy of lintuzumab in combination with induction chemotherapy was compared with chemotherapy al

265 Induction chemotherapy was generally followed by radiati

266 EP induction chemotherapy was given to 23.1% of high-risk p

267 Response to induction chemotherapy was partial response 52% and comp

268 Venetoclax combined with 5 + 2 induction chemotherapy was safe and tolerable in fit old

269 The addition of lintuzumab to salvage induction chemotherapy was safe, but did not result in a

270 motherapy failed compared with those in whom induction chemotherapy was successful identified the abs

271 Induction chemotherapy was two cycles of cisplatin 100 m

272 onstrating less than complete response after induction chemotherapy were encouraged to undergo second

273 nt and concordant response assessments after induction chemotherapy were evaluated with the Wilcoxon

274 The most common grade 3 events during induction chemotherapy were leucopenia (17 [39%]) and ne

275 Patients received two cycles of induction chemotherapy with 175 mg/m(2) paclitaxel and c

276 ith high-risk neuroblastoma includes initial induction chemotherapy with a 21-day interval between in

277 dard treatment paradigm for AML is remission induction chemotherapy with an anthracycline/cytarabine

278 es from 175 adult AML patients who underwent induction chemotherapy with anthracycline and cytarabine

279 After two cycles of induction chemotherapy with carboplatin-paclitaxel, HART

280 Patients in the control arm received induction chemotherapy with cisplatin and docetaxel, fol

281 Induction chemotherapy with cisplatin plus fluorouracil

282 cell carcinoma of the head and neck compared induction chemotherapy with docetaxel plus cisplatin and

283 udy showed a significant survival benefit of induction chemotherapy with docetaxel, cisplatin, and fl

284 stage IIIA/B NSCLC were randomly assigned to induction chemotherapy with either carboplatin (area und

285 Addition of nivolumab to induction chemotherapy with idarubicin and cytarabine is

286 To establish the safety and efficacy of induction chemotherapy with infusional fluorouracil (FU)

287 improved survival with the addition of GO to induction chemotherapy with little additional toxicity.

288 age 61 to 75 years were randomly assigned to induction chemotherapy with mitoxantrone, cytarabine, an

289 tment consisted of intensive alkylator-based induction chemotherapy with or without autologous bone m

290 Thus, we studied the use of induction chemotherapy with or without conservation lary

291 Induction chemotherapy with PFL followed by concurrent c

292 Patients received induction chemotherapy with R-MPV (five to seven cycles)

293 e the potential benefits of combining CHOP-R induction chemotherapy with RIT consolidation and/or ext

294 Induction chemotherapy with the three-drug regimen docet

295 assigned (in a 1:1 ratio) to receive either induction chemotherapy with three cycles of TPF followed

296 Induction chemotherapy with TPF provides long-term survi

297 Induction chemotherapy with weekly cisplatin 30 mg/m2 an

298 between treatment response assessments after induction chemotherapy with whole-body DW MRI and FDG PE

299 IENTS AND METHODS Patients received the same induction chemotherapy, with random assignment (N = 379)

300 If there is local disease progression after induction chemotherapy, without metastasis, then radiati