Prostate cancer radiation dose response: results of the M. D. Anderson phase III randomized trial.
By Gunar, Zagars, G. Starkschall, John, Antolak, Jack Lee, E. Huang, Andrew, von Eschenbach, Deborah and 1 more. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, 2002
1,269 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine, Radiation
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/8e5da2c0d17ddb7a9d708c9b082fe5ce8f39d68f
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine
Citations in the corpus
- Advances in Radiation Therapy: Conventional to 3D, to IMRT, to 4D, and Beyond (2005, background): “3D technology for the last part of treatment (or the “boost” dose).(21) Other studies that have”
- Guideline for the management of clinically localized prostate cancer: 2007 update. (2007, methodology): “Randomized, controlled tri Author Enrollment period Entry criteria, stage Pollack et al.27 1993 to 1998 Stage T1 to T3, NX/N0, M0 70 Gy ( Lukka et al.25 1995 to 1998 Stage T2 to T2, PSA 40 ng/ mL Non-inf long-te over 4 term ( 28 day regime Yeoh et al.34 1996 to 1999 Stage T1 to T2, N0, M0 Conven wit”
- Randomized Trial of a Hypofractionated Radiation Regimen for the Treatment of Localized Prostate Cancer. (2017, neutral): “None 150 (25) 143 (24) 310 (51) 299 (50) 1 273 (45) 272 (46) 162 (27) 165 (28) 2 161 (27) 159 (27) 123 (20) 116 (19) 3 24 (3.”
- Long-term results of the M. D. Anderson randomized dose-escalation trial for prostate cancer. (2008, methodology): “Previously reported results of this study supported dose escalation for patients with pretreatment PSA values >10 ng/ml (1).”
- Comparison of conventional-dose vs high-dose conformal radiation therapy in clinically localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate: a randomized controlled trial. (2005, background): “In the second, a tumor control advantage was seen in men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer.(9) The latter trial contained only a minority of patients with low-risk disease and was not powered to determine the efficacy of dose escalation in this group, which now constitutes, by far, the most com”