ライフサイエンスコーパス: chemoradiation

1 d the confounding impact of radiotherapy and chemoradiation.

2 ncer when given as maintenance therapy after chemoradiation.

3 s were obtained before and after neoadjuvant chemoradiation.

4 eal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) receiving chemoradiation.

5 duction is related to clinical outcome after chemoradiation.

6 ents (total, 220) undergoing chemotherapy or chemoradiation.

7 Subsequently, patients received 5-FU based chemoradiation.

8 after cediranib treatment, unlike that after chemoradiation.

9 ancer patients with a pCR after preoperative chemoradiation.

10 r patients with a pCR following preoperative chemoradiation.

11 onse 3 mo after the completion of concurrent chemoradiation.

12 prior to definitive radiation or concurrent chemoradiation.

13 g interferon-alpha with 5-fluorouracil-based chemoradiation.

14 patients; 79 patients (88%) completed chemo-chemoradiation.

15 with rectal cancer treated with preoperative chemoradiation.

16 aluation of patients for esophagectomy after chemoradiation.

17 problems with re-staging rectal cancer after chemoradiation.

18 in those demonstrating objective response to chemoradiation.

19 18 months among patients given neo-adjuvant chemoradiation.

20 of cisplatin administered during concurrent chemoradiation.

21 e of the situation in vivo during concurrent chemoradiation.

22 timized with the use of concurrent and early chemoradiation.

23 nts had a complete response after concurrent chemoradiation.

24 complete pathologic response to preoperative chemoradiation.

25 resection and adjuvant chemotherapy but not chemoradiation.

26 s performed 4 to 8 weeks after completion of chemoradiation.

27 r of the esophagus treated with preoperative chemoradiation.

28 esophageal carcinoma treated primarily with chemoradiation.

29 were given every 4 weeks after completion of chemoradiation.

30 inoma benefit significantly from neoadjuvant chemoradiation.

31 en in the subgroup that received neoadjuvant chemoradiation.

32 o demonstrate survival benefit from adjuvant chemoradiation.

33 t consisting of transurethral resection with chemoradiation.

34 jected to curable treatment with surgery and chemoradiation.

35 n patients with NSCLC treated by concomitant chemoradiation.

36 ade 3-4 haematological adverse events during chemoradiation.

37 ad total mesorectal excision 6-8 weeks after chemoradiation.

38 d disease, which include chemotherapy and/or chemoradiation.

39 progression-free survival was also seen with chemoradiation (0.61, p<0.0001).

40 nificant increase in the use of preoperative chemoradiation (1% versus 42%, P < 0.001) in the histori

41 Thirty-five patients completed chemoradiation; 16 (46%) experienced grade 3 toxicity.

42 histology (69% vs. 86%); use of neoadjuvant chemoradiation (28% vs. 52%); mean blood loss (677 vs. 3

43 ll or adenocarcinoma and planned neoadjuvant chemoradiation (5- fluorouracil, cisplatin, 40Gy) follow

44 onsecutive patients who received neoadjuvant chemoradiation (5-fluorouracil +/- cisplatin and 4,500-5

45 py, 51% v 71%, respectively; P = .038; after chemoradiation, 75% v 93%, respectively; P = .028) and O

46 n the selection of patients for preoperative chemoradiation, a strategy proven to improve outcomes in

47 without concurrent chemotherapy, or primary chemoradiation according to initial nodal disease burden

48 Liver transplantation with neoadjuvant chemoradiation achieved better survival with less recurr

49 During lethal dosages of chemoradiation, administering a short pulse of R-spondin

50 ance; Phase III Intergroup Trial of Adjuvant Chemoradiation After Resection of Gastric or Gastroesoph

51 carcinoma, previously randomized to adjuvant chemoradiation after surgery or surgery alone, to measur

52 systemic chemotherapy alone (n = 38; 6.5%), chemoradiation alone (n = 261; 44.8%), or both (n = 284;

53 trials of cediranib with chemoradiation vs. chemoradiation alone in nGBM patients.

54 parable survival has been demonstrated using chemoradiation alone, leading to the hypothesis that sur

55 tients, 41.2% (n = 539) received neoadjuvant chemoradiation and 47.2% (n = 618) were cN+.

56 Delivery of mFOLFOX6 after chemoradiation and before total mesorectal excision has

57 r performed, set out to look at the roles of chemoradiation and chemotherapy.

58 Addition of cetuximab to concurrent chemoradiation and consolidation treatment provided no b

59 h esophageal cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation and esophagectomy in the National Cancer

60 adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) after neoadjuvant chemoradiation and esophagectomy is associated with impr

61 AC after neoadjuvant chemoradiation and esophagectomy is associated with impr

62 enefit of systemic therapy after neoadjuvant chemoradiation and esophagectomy is unclear.

63 peutic options will increase the efficacy of chemoradiation and improved the survival of these patien

64 ed by a significant response to preoperative chemoradiation and intersphincteric resection, without c

65 Outcome following neoadjuvant chemoradiation and liver transplantation for perihilar C

66 ellent single-center outcomes of neoadjuvant chemoradiation and liver transplantation for unresectabl

67 rentiated tumors evidencing less response to chemoradiation and more likely to require extended resec

68 fter, a novel protocol combining neoadjuvant chemoradiation and orthotopic liver transplantation was

69 onths, the 3-year overall survival rate with chemoradiation and pancreatectomy was 28%.

70 who received preoperative gemcitabine-based chemoradiation and pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) for stag

71 A recent multicenter study of preoperative chemoradiation and pancreaticoduodenectomy for localized

72 n anoscopy-guided ablation) and anal cancer (chemoradiation and possibly intensity-modulated radiatio

73 ss whether adding cycles of mFOLFOX6 between chemoradiation and surgery increased the proportion of p

74 s with rectal cancers underwent preoperative chemoradiation and surgical resection for curative inten

75 -related complications were evaluated during chemoradiation and the immediate 3- to 4-week postchemor

76 from the anal verge, treated by preoperative chemoradiation and total mesorectal excision from 1998 t

77 ix cycles of mFOLFOX6, respectively, between chemoradiation and total mesorectal excision.

78 t restaging 4 to 6 weeks after completion of chemoradiation and, in the absence of disease progressio

79 nse at 26 weeks and acute toxic effects (for chemoradiation), and progression-free survival (for main

80 c restaging was performed 4 to 7 weeks after chemoradiation, and patients with localized disease unde

81 c restaging was performed 4 to 8 weeks after chemoradiation, and patients with localized disease unde

82 c restaging was performed 4 to 6 weeks after chemoradiation, and patients with localized disease unde

83 advances are with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, chemoradiation, and preventive vaccination.

84 ments over time were calculated for surgery, chemoradiation, and subsequent hospitalizations.

85 Preoperative doxorubicin-based chemoradiation appears safe and feasible.

86 native chemotherapy regimens and neoadjuvant chemoradiation are being investigated to improve outcome

87 y strategies incorporating radiation or even chemoradiation are frequently considered in some cases.

88 either surgery alone (arm I) or preoperative chemoradiation (arm II) with cisplatin 20 mg/m2/d on day

89 Chemoradiation as definitive therapy is the preferred pr

90 herapy alone, firmly establishing concurrent chemoradiation as the standard of care in locally advanc

91 copic biopsies can predict minor response to chemoradiation, as a basis for individualized therapy of

92 Chemoradiation became the standard of care for anal canc

93 eight patients were treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation before surgery.

94 The increased use of preoperative chemoradiation, better preoperative staging, and other t

95 Methods At first recurrence after chemoradiation, bevacizumab-naive patients with glioblas

96 versus 7 patients who received no therapy or chemoradiation but no antiangiogenic agents.

97 disease (MRD; enhancing tumour <2 cm(2) post-chemoradiation by central review), analysed by modified

98 therapy, but the associated toxic effects of chemoradiation can be unacceptable.

99 is unlikely to be beneficial, but definitive chemoradiation can produce significant 5-year survival r

100 Genotoxic cancer therapies, such as chemoradiation, cause haematological toxicity primarily

101 in Carcinoma of the Anal Canal], concurrent chemoradiation (CCR) with fluorouracil (FU) plus mitomyc

102 Neither chemotherapy nor chemoradiation compensates for a margin positive for can

103 Chemoradiation consisted of four weekly infusions of gem

104 Primary chemoradiation consisted of paclitaxel, 30 mg/m(2) deliv

105 Chemoradiation consisted of: cisplatinum, 5-fluorouracil

106 as divided into five phases: preirradiation, chemoradiation, consolidation, maintenance, and continua

107 The Timing of Rectal Cancer Response to Chemoradiation Consortium designed a prospective, multic

108 The identification of patients with a pCR to chemoradiation could potentially spare those patients th

109 rates after sphincter-preserving definitive chemoradiation (CRT) and is typically associated with an

110 gical complete response (pCR) to neoadjuvant chemoradiation (CRT) have favorable outcomes.

111 When nonsurgical approaches are preferred, chemoradiation (CRT) is the standard of care.

112 shown resistance to conventional concurrent chemoradiation (CRT) therapy and carries a relatively po

113 egional failure (LRF) rates after definitive chemoradiation (CRT), associated with anogenital human p

114 lishment of standard of care indications for chemoradiation (CRT).

115 The addition of cetuximab to concurrent chemoradiation did not improve OS.

116 inical and radiologic imaging response after chemoradiation do not require elective neck dissection.

117 l-based study, the addition of postoperative chemoradiation (either sequentially or concomitantly) af

118 We analyzed our chemoradiation experience for patients at highest risk f

119 All patients received chemoradiation (fluorouracil 225 mg/m(2) per day by cont

120 Cisplatin-based concurrent chemoradiation followed by adjuvant chemotherapy is the

121 local excision alone for very early tumors, chemoradiation followed by either local excision of a sm

122 were treated with adjuvant interferon-based chemoradiation followed by gemcitabine.

123 stal rectal cancer treated with preoperative chemoradiation followed by low anterior resection (LAR)/

124 Preoperative gemcitabine-based chemoradiation followed by restaging and evaluation for

125 ded into 2 treatment groups: (1) neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by surgery and (2) surgery alone

126 identified, of whom 539 received neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by surgery and 770 received surg

127 The 3-year OS was better for neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by surgery compared with surgery

128 iews randomized trials and recent studies on chemoradiation for anal cancer.

129 and 2000 (17 published, two unpublished) of chemoradiation for cervical cancer.

130 Patients without response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation for esophageal cancer have no prognostic

131 While neoadjuvant chemoradiation for esophageal cancer improves oncologic

132 eatment is palliative, although fluorouracil chemoradiation for locally advanced and gemcitabine chem

133 review of 27 patients undergoing concurrent chemoradiation for locally advanced laryngeal cancers (8

134 review of 33 patients undergoing concurrent chemoradiation for locally advanced oropharyngeal cancer

135 is morbidity on the delivery of preoperative chemoradiation for pancreatic cancer at a tertiary care

136 Preoperative chemoradiation for pancreatic cancer is associated with

137 and the addition of cetuximab to concurrent chemoradiation for patients with inoperable stage III no

138 ttempting to predict a pCR after neoadjuvant chemoradiation for rectal cancer.

139 lusion Although the addition of cetuximab to chemoradiation for SCCAC was associated with lower LRF r

140 Definitive chemoradiation for squamous cell carcinoma of the anus h

141 Neoadjuvant chemoradiation for stage II/III rectal cancer results in

142 d to improve the reporting of RCTs examining chemoradiation for treatment of patients with squamous c

143 ndomised controlled trials (RCTs) of radical chemoradiation for treatment of squamous cell carcinoma

144 stage II/III NSCLC treated definitively with chemoradiation from June 1992 to June 1998 at the Univer

145 ne and cisplatin chemotherapy in addition to chemoradiation (Gem-Cis-XRT) and pancreaticoduodenectomy

146 achieved with preoperative gemcitabine-based chemoradiation (Gem-XRT) alone.

147 ere significantly greater in the concomitant chemoradiation group than the control group.

148 te toxicity was increased in the concomitant chemoradiation group.

149 Adjuvant chemoradiation had a positive impact on overall survival

150 Preoperative chemotherapy or chemoradiation has been accepted to have a theoretical a

151 Preoperative chemotherapy and chemoradiation have also been explored in several small

152 athological complete response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation have an improved prognosis.

153 s, here we report that CC CSCs, which resist chemoradiation, have higher SUMO activating enzyme (E1)

154 er for cN+ patients who received neoadjuvant chemoradiation (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.42-0.66; P

155 95% CI: 1.15-2.66, P = 0.009), and adjuvant chemoradiation (HR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.42-0.78, P < 0.0001)

156 hemotherapy or postoperative chemotherapy or chemoradiation improves outcomes relative to surgery alo

157 The findings suggest that chemoradiation improves overall survival (hazard ratio 0

158 hether replacing mitomycin with cisplatin in chemoradiation improves response, and whether maintenanc

159 was undertaken to determine whether adjuvant chemoradiation improves survival compared with surgery a

160 , and whether maintenance chemotherapy after chemoradiation improves survival.

161 water ADC before and after chemotherapy and chemoradiation in 14 patients with locally advanced rect

162 mly assigned patients with progression after chemoradiation in a 2:1 ratio to receive lomustine plus

163 nsitizes otherwise resistant cancer cells to chemoradiation in a Bim-dependent manner.

164 ith resistance to cytotoxic chemotherapy and chemoradiation in an understudied phenomenon known as hy

165 table perihilar CCA treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation in anticipation for transplantation betwe

166 The role of adjuvant chemoradiation in esophageal cancer has been underestima

167 seful for predicting significant response to chemoradiation in esophageal cancer.

168 histopathologic non-response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation in esophageal cancer.

169 s article reviews data supporting the use of chemoradiation in NMIBC and discusses emerging biomarker

170 icant implications on the use of neoadjuvant chemoradiation in patients with cN- disease.

171 ied X-rays improves the efficacy of standard chemoradiation in resistant and aggressive head and neck

172 A clinical trial investigating the role for chemoradiation in T1 disease that has recurred is underw

173 ased proportion of patients had preoperative chemoradiation in the last 4 years of the study (59% vs.

174 There is an increasing use of neoadjuvant chemoradiation in this group of patients, especially for

175 e induction of adult stem cells could repair chemoradiation-induced tissue injury and prolong overall

176 Together, our findings indicate that chemoradiation induces tumor antigen-specific T-cell res

177 a survival benefit for chemotherapy but not chemoradiation, irrespective of R0/R1 status.

178 Chemoradiation is an emerging treatment option for selec

179 reas liver transplantation after neoadjuvant chemoradiation is an option for a subset of patients wit

180 done little to improve survival and combined chemoradiation is associated with significant adverse ef

181 Preoperative chemoradiation is being advocated, with seemingly sound

182 Neoadjuvant chemoradiation is currently the preferred management app

183 ntergroup study has shown that postoperative chemoradiation is effective in improving both disease-fr

184 Preoperative paclitaxel-based concurrent chemoradiation is feasible.

185 nts with a complete response to preoperative chemoradiation is frequently reported as a marker of tre

186 Further optimisation of present standard chemoradiation is needed in patients with locally advanc

187 Although chemoradiation is not the standard of care for esophagea

188 An immunotherapy approach integrated with chemoradiation is safe and demonstrates an overall survi

189 Neoadjuvant chemoradiation is safe, effective, and well tolerated.

190 Assessment for residual cancer after chemoradiation is still problematic and hopefully techno

191 agement in patients with rectal cancer after chemoradiation is the inability to identify a pCR preope

192 k areas (esophagus/rectum) where neoadjuvant chemoradiation is used, the incidence of anastomotic lea

193 ive chemoradiation or postoperative adjuvant chemoradiation is widely practiced in major centers.

194 0, OR: 2.2) CONCLUSIONS:: After preoperative chemoradiation, long-term outcomes of esophageal carcino

195 Adjuvant chemoradiation may be offered to patients who did not re

196 The authors hypothesized that preoperative chemoradiation might downstage both T2 and T3 lesions an

197 66), including chemotherapy alone (n = 354), chemoradiation (n = 190, including 99 patients who under

198 The impact of neoadjuvant chemoradiation (nCRT) on LN status remains poorly studie

199 A significant benefit of chemoradiation on both local (odds ratio 0.61, p<0.0001)

200 al excision was performed after preoperative chemoradiation on patients with a complete clinical resp

201 The impact of adjuvant chemotherapy and chemoradiation on survival has been more clearly defined

202 urrently, there is insufficient evidence for chemoradiation only, or nonoperative management (NOM), t

203 patients required hospital admission during chemoradiation or in the postchemoradiation preoperative

204 rformed at least 2 weeks after completion of chemoradiation or on recovery of skin toxicity.

205 In the United States, preoperative chemoradiation or postoperative adjuvant chemoradiation

206 operable stage II or III NSCLC, treated with chemoradiation or with radiotherapy alone, were extracte

207 stage IA to IIIB NSCLC treated with surgery, chemoradiation, or multimodality therapy.

208 ite improvements in survival with aggressive chemoradiation, outcomes for patients diagnosed as havin

209 I trials confirmed the benefit of concurrent chemoradiation over radiation therapy alone, firmly esta

210 suggested an OS advantage for postoperative chemoradiation over surgery alone, although prospective

211 towards studies of adjuvant chemotherapy and chemoradiation, particularly in defining the best regime

212 Multiple concurrent chemoradiation phase III trials were initiated in respon

213 e III and IV toxicities during the induction chemoradiation phase included esophagitis (38%) and neut

214 The gemcitabine-based chemoradiation platform is a reasonable foundation on wh

215 nts with cN- tumors treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation plus surgery do not derive a significant

216 hese reasons, the use of chemotherapy and/or chemoradiation prior to surgery (neoadjuvant therapy) is

217 eatment and then repeated 4 to 6 weeks after chemoradiation, prior to the esophagectomy.

218 carcinoma, comparable with other concurrent chemoradiation programs.

219 Compared with surgery alone, adjuvant chemoradiation provides a survival benefit to ESCC patie

220 urs after chemotherapy (r=-0.67, p=0.01) and chemoradiation (r=-0.83, p=0.001).

221 This chemoradiation regime merits evaluation in phase II-III

222 for patients treated with this preoperative chemoradiation regimen versus surgery alone.

223 se for esophageal carcinoma, recent improved chemoradiation regimens have been reported by the French

224 results seem superior to previously reported chemoradiation regimens in more favorable patients.

225 vorably with AFX-C alone or other concurrent chemoradiation regimens tested by the Radiation Therapy

226 logies, the inclusion of newer agents to the chemoradiation regimens, the use of new hypoxic cell rad

227 titutions are now adding amifostine to their chemoradiation regimens.

228 with rectal cancer following radiotherapy or chemoradiation remains unclear.

229 Chemoradiation represents the standard of care for most

230 Chemoradiation-resistant cancers limit treatment efficac

231 dual population of cells escapes surgery and chemoradiation, resulting in a typically fatal tumor rec

232 Definitive chemoradiation results in high cure rates but causes lon

233 and the presence of human papilloma virus in chemoradiation-sensitive basaloid tumors.

234 ted changes in RNA expression correlate with chemoradiation sensitivity across cancers.

235 e whether the use of AFX-C in the concurrent chemoradiation setting further improves outcome.

236 a taxane followed by radiation or concurrent chemoradiation show that the three-drug induction chemot

237 ychological testing of patients treated with chemoradiation shows significant cognitive deficits that

238 therapy, providing an opportunity to deliver chemoradiation specifically to metastatic disease in col

239 potential target for biomarker discovery or chemoradiation strategies in bladder cancer.

240 growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibition in chemoradiation strategies in the nonoperative treatment

241 from 2010 to 2014, who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiation, surgical resection, and adjuvant therapy

242 Preoperative chemoradiation, surgical resection, and EB-IORT are feas

243 Associations between chemoradiation therapies and survival were performed usi

244 stage I-III NSCLC and candidates for radical chemoradiation therapy (60 Gy in 30 fractions over 6 wk)

245 Endoscopic biopsy after chemoradiation therapy (CRT) for esophageal cancer has b

246 tion on colon cancer cell survival following chemoradiation therapy (CRT).

247 ll lung cancer (NSCLC) undergoing concurrent chemoradiation therapy (CXRT).

248 once per week; n = 221) for 3 weeks prior to chemoradiation therapy and for 12 weeks after chemoradia

249 patients following fluorouracil (5-FU)-based chemoradiation therapy and provide evidence for a functi

250 with two cycles of chemotherapy followed by chemoradiation therapy and two additional cycles of chem

251 ent induction chemotherapy, and 52% received chemoradiation therapy as well for a median of 6 months

252 ts with HNSCC who were treated by concurrent chemoradiation therapy between March 2002 and December 2

253 Adjuvant chemoradiation therapy did not significantly influence l

254 the benefit of cetuximab added to concurrent chemoradiation therapy for patients undergoing nonoperat

255 rior to and following neoadjuvant 5-FU-based chemoradiation therapy in a series of colorectal cancer

256 )F-FLT) before and early after initiation of chemoradiation therapy in patients with squamous cell he

257 y 2000 and August 2002, 22 men completed the chemoradiation therapy protocol.

258 mall-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) during radical chemoradiation therapy using serial PET/CT with (18)F-FD

259 racellular amplification of chemotherapy and chemoradiation therapy via gold nanoparticle- and laser

260 with glioblastoma who had completed standard chemoradiation therapy, adding TTFields to maintenance t

261 risk of recurrence (including chemotherapy, chemoradiation therapy, and molecular targeted therapies

262 not in a teaching hospital, lack of adjuvant chemoradiation therapy, as well as histopathologic facto

263 tient stratification for aggressive adjuvant chemoradiation therapy.

264 hemoradiation therapy and for 12 weeks after chemoradiation therapy.

265 ogic complete response (pCR) to preoperative chemoradiation therapy.

266 3N+ and T4 patients, even with full adjuvant chemoradiation therapy.

267 werful determinant is postoperative adjuvant chemoradiation therapy.

268 nd represents a major obstacle to successful chemoradiation therapy.

269 Future studies should compare primary chemoradiation to chemotherapy in LABC.

270 3 in combination with capecitabine to target chemoradiation to metastatic colorectal cancer.

271 r lenalidomide, and 3 had received intensive chemoradiation to treat other cancers.

272 imen of preoperative staging and neoadjuvant chemoradiation treatment followed by orthotopic liver tr

273 The addition of bevacizumab to standard chemoradiation treatment for patients with nasopharyngea

274 incorporation of cisplatin into the primary chemoradiation treatment of patients with carcinoma of t

275 cts (ten [26%] vs four [12%], p=0.12) during chemoradiation treatment; the most frequent events were

276 rboplatin once a week (AUC 2); 2 weeks after chemoradiation, two cycles of consolidation chemotherapy

277 ced rectal cancer who underwent preoperative chemoradiation using IGRT was performed.

278 This randomized trial of preoperative chemoradiation versus surgery alone for patients with po

279 e phase II clinical trials of cediranib with chemoradiation vs. chemoradiation alone in nGBM patients

280 ival for the 79 patients who completed chemo-chemoradiation was 18.7 months, with a median survival o

281 Chemoradiation was administered concomitantly on days 1

282 Fluoropyrimidine-based neoadjuvant chemoradiation was associated with a complete pathologic

283 Preoperative chemoradiation was associated with a longer survival and

284 f gemcitabine to adjuvant fluorouracil-based chemoradiation was associated with a survival benefit fo

285 Chemoradiation was completed as an outpatient procedure

286 Chemoradiation was completed as outpatient therapy in 31

287 strategy used, while the use of preoperative chemoradiation was the most significant factor associate

288 Preoperative chemoradiation was used in 154 patients with resectable

289 lf of patients with a local recurrence after chemoradiation will be cured with salvage surgery.

290 Adjuvant chemoradiation with 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin significan

291 Chemoradiation with a continuous infusion of fluorouraci

292 Concurrent chemoradiation with a platinum-based agent is the recomm

293 Clinical trials comparing chemoradiation with and without induction three-drug che

294 Purpose Chemoradiation with cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) given once eve

295 ed with an intensive regimen of preoperative chemoradiation with cisplatin, fluorouracil, and vinblas

296 ced rectal cancers may tolerate preoperative chemoradiation with IGRT as well as younger patients.

297 Preoperative chemoradiation with oral UFT plus LV is feasible and wel

298 al etoposide/cisplatin and concurrent AHTRT, chemoradiation with PIEo produced similar median and 2-y

299 urgical resection and completion of standard chemoradiation without progression.

300 esponse to radiation therapy and concomitant chemoradiation would be an important tool to assist the