ライフサイエンスコーパス: craniospinal

1 eceived radiation therapy: 11 focal and four craniospinal.

2 (RT) was prescribed, either focal (54 Gy) or craniospinal (36 Gy, plus primary boost), depending on a

3 Craniospinal and focal RT subgroups were also examined.

4 x (relative risk [RR] 1.8), radiation to the craniospinal axis (RR 1.6), and relapse of primary disea

5 ed dose was determined to be 25 mg and rapid craniospinal axis distribution was demonstrated.

6 mportance: Postoperative radiotherapy to the craniospinal axis is standard-of-care for pediatric medu

7 e tumors that can develop anywhere along the craniospinal axis.

8 propensity to involve any region within the craniospinal axis.

9 a tendency to involve any region within the craniospinal axis.

10 Because of craniospinal disease involvement, staging and treatment

11 Craniospinal doses ranged from 23.4 to 39.6 Gy, and tota

12 t of chemotherapy (yes vs no) and receipt of craniospinal irradiation (<30 Gy or >30 Gy vs no cranios

13 Two of 3 received craniospinal irradiation (2,560/3,840 cGy) and (3,520/5,

14 Ninety-seven patients received craniospinal irradiation (23.4 Gy) followed by 55.8 Gy t

15 Craniospinal irradiation (24 Gy cranial/15 Gy spinal) wa

16 hosphamide (one to three cycles) followed by craniospinal irradiation (25.2 to 36 Gy) and a boost to

17 To compare quality of survival after craniospinal irradiation (CSI) alone with survival after

18 l study examined the effects of risk-adapted craniospinal irradiation (CSI) dose and the interactions

19 (RT) in 57 (30%), local RT in 87 (45%), and craniospinal irradiation (CSI) in 49 (25%).

20 ed the effect of treatment with reduced-dose craniospinal irradiation (CSI) plus a tumor bed boost ve

21 I trial of temozolomide stratified by prior craniospinal irradiation (CSI).

22 were treated with postsurgical risk-adapted craniospinal irradiation (n = 36 high risk [HR]; n = 90

23 Craniospinal irradiation and chemotherapy were negativel

24 aged 3-16 years in patients (n=215) who had craniospinal irradiation and had been treated with a cur

25 NS relapse, treatment that delays definitive craniospinal irradiation by 6 months to allow for more i

26 The median craniospinal irradiation dose was 23.4 GyRBE (IQR 23.4-2

27 em-cell support after surgical resection and craniospinal irradiation is feasible in newly diagnosed

28 Patients had craniospinal irradiation of 18-36 Gy radiobiological equ

29 y with or without second-look surgery before craniospinal irradiation on response rates and survival

30 ry 4 weeks, after completion of risk-adapted craniospinal irradiation to children with newly diagnose

31 In multivariable models, craniospinal irradiation was associated with a 1.5- to t

32 matter (NWM) related to their treatment with craniospinal irradiation with or without chemotherapy, a

33 treatment groups (no CRT, focal irradiation, craniospinal irradiation) using the chi(2) test.

34 iospinal irradiation (<30 Gy or >30 Gy vs no craniospinal irradiation).

35 Fourteen patients were treated with craniospinal irradiation, and 11 were treated with local

36 patients consisted of surgical resection and craniospinal irradiation, followed by the same chemother

37 ous peripheral blood stem-cell rescue before craniospinal irradiation.

38 consequence of chemotherapy or prophylactic craniospinal irradiation.

39 ed after 12 cycles of chemotherapy and local craniospinal irradiation.

40 nts with CR1 of less than 18 months received craniospinal radiation (24 Gy cranial/15 Gy spinal), whe

41 with a trend for improvement when full-dose craniospinal radiation (36 to 39.6 Gy) was used compared

42 nondisseminated MB treated with reduced-dose craniospinal radiation and chemotherapy.

43 ere treated with postoperative, reduced-dose craniospinal radiation therapy (23.4 Gy) and 55.8 Gy of

44 ring carboplatin as a radiosensitizer during craniospinal radiation therapy (CSRT) to patients with h

45 The results suggest that reduced-dose craniospinal radiation therapy and adjuvant chemotherapy

46 ecan in a 6-week phase II window followed by craniospinal radiation therapy and four cycles of high-d

47 tients who did or did not receive cranial or craniospinal radiation therapy during initial treatment.

48 easing evidence indicates that the amount of craniospinal radiation therapy required for diseases con

49 sive treatment protocols, combining surgery, craniospinal radiation, and high-dose chemotherapy, that

50 aged 3 years or older received postoperative craniospinal radiation.

51 ministering intensive therapy before delayed craniospinal radiation.

52 All patients received risk-adapted craniospinal radiotherapy (23.4 Gy for average-risk dise

53 ave required surgical resection and focal or craniospinal radiotherapy (irradiation of the entire sub

54 treatment is emerging that uses reduced-dose craniospinal radiotherapy followed by platinum-based che

55 We challenge the consensus that craniospinal radiotherapy is the best treatment for loca

56 sseminated medulloblastoma with reduced-dose craniospinal radiotherapy plus adjuvant chemotherapy.

57 Craniospinal radiotherapy plus boost is perceived to be

58 olume radiotherapy plus boost should replace craniospinal radiotherapy when a radiotherapy-only appro

59 emotherapy, dose-escalated hyperfractionated craniospinal radiotherapy, and maintenance chemotherapy.

60 erns of disease relapse and cure rates after craniospinal radiotherapy, reduced-volume irradiation al

61 plus boost was 7.6% compared with 3.8% after craniospinal radiotherapy, with no predilection for isol

62 All had been treated with a reduced-dose craniospinal RT regimen (23.4 Gy to the neuraxis, 32.4-G

63 sive were randomly assigned to receive 35 Gy craniospinal RT with a 20 Gy posterior fossa boost, or c

64 In the craniospinal subgroup, IQ remained stable in both the PB