<?xml version = '1.0' encoding = 'UTF-8'?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="/rss/styledrssBMC.css" type="text/css"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:extra="http://www.biomedcentral.com/xml/schemas/extra/" xmlns:prism="http://prismstandard.org/namespaces/1.2/basic/" xmlns:cc="http://web.resource.org/cc/">
	<channel rdf:about="http://www.biomedcentral.com/rss">
		<extra:info rdf:parseType="Literal">
			<html:div xmlns:html="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" style="font:14px Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">
				<html:span style="font-weight:bold">This is an RSS newsfeed from BioMed Central</html:span>
				<html:br/>
				<html:span style="font-size: 12px;">It is intended to be used with an RSS reader. For more information about RSS newsfeeds from BioMed Central, visit <html:br/><html:a href="http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/about/rss/" style="color:#3333CC; font-size:12px;">http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/about/rss/</html:a><html:br/>
				</html:span>
			</html:div>
		</extra:info>
		<title>Radiation Oncology - Most viewed articles</title>
		<link>http://www.ro-journal.commostviewed/</link>
		<description>Most viewed articles in last 30 days from Radiation Oncology (ISSN 1748-717X) published by 
				
				BioMed Central
		</description>
        <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/"/>
         <items>
            <rdf:Seq>
            
				    <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.ro-journal.com/content/3/1/21"/>			    
            
				    <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.ro-journal.com/content/1/1/32"/>			    
            
				    <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.ro-journal.com/content/3/1/20"/>			    
            
				    <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.ro-journal.com/content/1/1/20"/>			    
            
				    <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.ro-journal.com/content/3/1/15"/>			    
            
				    <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.ro-journal.com/content/2/1/2"/>			    
            
				    <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.ro-journal.com/content/3/1/3"/>			    
            
				    <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.ro-journal.com/content/3/1/19"/>			    
            
				    <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.ro-journal.com/content/3/1/5"/>			    
            
				    <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.ro-journal.com/content/3/1/7"/>			    
            
            </rdf:Seq>
        </items>
    </channel>
    
		<item rdf:about="http://www.ro-journal.com/content/3/1/21">
            
            <title>Developing and evaluating stereotactic lung RT trials: what we should know about the influence of inhomogeneity corrections on dose</title>
			<description>PurposeTo investigate the influence of inhomogeneity corrections on stereotactic treatment plans for non-small cell lung cancer and determine the dose delivered to the PTV and OARs.Materials and methodsFor 26 patients with stage-I NSCLC treatment plans were optimized with unit density (UD), an equivalent pathlength algorithm (EPL), and a collapsed-cone (CC) algorithm, prescribing 60 Gy to the PTV. After optimization the first two plans were recalculated with the more accurate CC algorithm. Dose parameters were compared for the three different optimized plans. Dose to the target and OARs was evaluated for the recalculated plans and compared with the planned values.
Results:
For the CC algorithm dose constraints for the ratio of the 50% isodose volume and the PTV, and the V20 Gy are harder to fulfill. After recalculation of the UD and EPL plans large variations in the dose to the PTV were observed. For the unit density plans, the dose to the PTV varied from 42.1 to 63.4 Gy for individual patients. The EPL plans all overestimated the PTV dose (average 48.0 Gy). For the lungs, the recalculated V20 Gy was highly correlated to the planned value, and was 12% higher for the UD plans (R2 = 0.99), and 15% lower for the EPL plans (R2 = 0.96).
Conclusion:
Inhomogeneity corrections have a large influence on the dose delivered to the PTV and OARs for SBRT of lung tumors. A simple rescaling of the dose to the PTV is not possible, implicating that accurate dose calculations are necessary for these treatment plans in order to prevent large discrepancies between planned and actually delivered doses to individual patients.</description>
			<link>http://www.ro-journal.com/content/3/1/21</link>		
			<dc:creator>Danny Schuring and Coen W Hurkmans</dc:creator>
			<dc:source>Radiation Oncology 2008, 3:21</dc:source>
			<dc:subject>Number of accesses: 447</dc:subject>
			<dc:date>2008-07-28</dc:date>
			<dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1748-717X-3-21</dc:identifier>
			
			
							
					<prism:publicationName>Radiation Oncology</prism:publicationName>
					
			
							
					<prism:issn>1748-717X</prism:issn>
					
			
							
					<prism:volume>3</prism:volume>
					
			
							
					<prism:startingPage>21</prism:startingPage>
					
			
							
					<prism:publicationDate>2008-07-28</prism:publicationDate>
					

            <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/"/>
        </item>
	
		<item rdf:about="http://www.ro-journal.com/content/1/1/32">
            
            <title>Enhanced radiation sensitivity and radiation recall dermatitis (RRD) after hypericin therapy &#8211; case report and review of literature</title>
			<description>Background:
Modern radiotherapy (RT) reduces the side effects at organ at risk. However, skin toxicity is still a major problem in many entities, especially head and neck cancer. Some substances like chemotherapy provide a risk of increased side effects or can induce a "recall phenomenon" imitating acute RT-reactions months after RT. Moreover, some phototoxic drugs seem to enhance side effects of radiotherapy while others do not. We report a case of "radiation recall dermatitis" (RRD) one year after RT as a result of taking hypericin (St. John's wort).Case reportA 65 year old man with completely resected squamous cell carcinoma of the epiglottis received an adjuvant locoregional RT up to a dose of 64.8 Gy. The patient took hypericin during and months after RT without informing the physician. During radiotherapy the patient developed unusual intensive skin reactions. Five months after RT the skin was completely bland at the first follow up. However, half a year later the patient presented erythema, but only within the area of previously irradiated skin. After local application of a steroid cream the symptoms diminished but returned after the end of steroid therapy. The anamnesis disclosed that the patient took hypericin because of depressive mood. We recommended to discontinue hypericin and the symptoms disappeared afterward.
Conclusion:
Several drugs are able to enhance skin toxicity of RT. Furthermore, the effect of RRD is well known especially for chemotherapy agents such as taxans. However, the underlying mechanisms are not known in detail so far. Moreover, it is unknown whether photosensitising drugs can also be considered to increase radiation sensitivity and whether a recall phenomenon is possible. The first report of a hypericin induced RRD and review of the literature are presented. In clinical practise many interactions between drugs and radiotherapy were not noticed and if registered not published. We recommend to ask especially for complementary or alternative drugs because patients tend to conceal such medication as harmless.</description>
			<link>http://www.ro-journal.com/content/1/1/32</link>		
			<dc:creator>Kurt Putnik, Peter Stadler, Christof Sch&#228;fer and Oliver Koelbl</dc:creator>
			<dc:source>Radiation Oncology 2006, 1:32</dc:source>
			<dc:subject>Number of accesses: 327</dc:subject>
			<dc:date>2006-09-01</dc:date>
			<dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1748-717X-1-32</dc:identifier>
			
			
							
					<prism:publicationName>Radiation Oncology</prism:publicationName>
					
			
							
					<prism:issn>1748-717X</prism:issn>
					
			
							
					<prism:volume>1</prism:volume>
					
			
							
					<prism:startingPage>32</prism:startingPage>
					
			
							
					<prism:publicationDate>2006-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
					

            <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/"/>
        </item>
	
		<item rdf:about="http://www.ro-journal.com/content/3/1/20">
            
            <title>Analysis of health related quality of life (HRQoL) of patients with clinically localized prostate cancer, one year after treatment with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) alone versus EBRT and high dose rate brachytherapy (HDRBT)</title>
			<description>PurposeProstate cancer is the leading form of cancer diagnosed among North American men. Most patients present with localized disease, which can be effectively treated with a variety of different modalities. These are associated with widely different acute and late effects, which can be both physical and psychological in nature. HRQoL concerns are therefore important for these patients for selecting between the different treatment options.Materials and methodsOne year after receiving radiotherapy for localised prostate cancer 117 patients with localized prostate cancer were invited to participate in a quality of life (QoL) self reported survey. 111 patients consented and participated in the survey, one year after completion of their treatment. 88 patients received EBRT and 23 received EBRT and HDRBT. QoL was compared in the two groups by using a modified version of Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) survey instrument.
Results:
One year after completion of treatment, there was no significant difference in overall QoL scores between the two groups of patients. For each component of the modified FACT-P survey, i.e. physical, social/family, emotional, and functional well-being; there were no statistically significant differences in the mean scores between the two groups.
Conclusion:
In prostate cancer patients treated with EBRT alone versus combined EBRT and HDRBT, there was no significant difference in the QoL scores at one year post-treatment.</description>
			<link>http://www.ro-journal.com/content/3/1/20</link>		
			<dc:creator>Kurian Jones Joseph, Riaz Alvi, David Skarsgard, Jon Tonita, Nadeem Pervez, Cormac Small and Patricia Tai</dc:creator>
			<dc:source>Radiation Oncology 2008, 3:20</dc:source>
			<dc:subject>Number of accesses: 291</dc:subject>
			<dc:date>2008-07-15</dc:date>
			<dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1748-717X-3-20</dc:identifier>
			
			
							
					<prism:publicationName>Radiation Oncology</prism:publicationName>
					
			
							
					<prism:issn>1748-717X</prism:issn>
					
			
							
					<prism:volume>3</prism:volume>
					
			
							
					<prism:startingPage>20</prism:startingPage>
					
			
							
					<prism:publicationDate>2008-07-15</prism:publicationDate>
					

            <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/"/>
        </item>
	
		<item rdf:about="http://www.ro-journal.com/content/1/1/20">
            
            <title>Whole brain radiation therapy in management of brain metastasis: results and prognostic factors</title>
			<description>PurposeTo evaluate the prognostic factors associated with overall survival in patients with brain metastasis treated with whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) and estimate the potential improvement in survival for patients with brain metastases, stratified by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) class.Patients and methodsFrom January 1996 to December 2000, 270 medical records of patients with diagnosis of brain metastasis, who received WBRT in the Hospital do Cancer Sao Paulo A.C. Camargo in the period, were analyzed. The surgery followed by WBRT was used in 15% of patients and 85 % of others patients were submitted at WBRT alone; in this cohort 134 patients (50%) received the fractionation schedule of 30 Gy in 10 fractions. The most common primary tumor type was breast (33%) followed by lung (29%), and solitary brain metastasis was present in 38.1% of patients. The prognostic factors evaluated for overall survival were: gender, age, Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS), number of lesions, localization of lesions, primary tumor site, surgery, chemotherapy, absence extracranial disease, RPA class and radiation doses and fractionation.
Results:
The OS in 1, 2 and 3 years was 25, 1%, 10, 4% e 4, 3% respectively, and the median survival time was 4.6 months. The median survival time in months according to RPA class after WBRT was: 6.2 class I, 4.2 class II and 3.0 class III (p &lt; 0.0001). In univariate analysis, the significant prognostic factors associated with better survival were: KPS higher than 70 (p &lt; 0.0001), neurosurgery (p &lt; 0.0001) and solitary brain metastasis (p = 0.009). In multivariate analysis, KPS higher than 70 (p &lt; 0.001) and neurosurgery (p = 0.001) maintained positively associated with the survival.
Conclusion:
In this series, the patients with higher perform status, RPA class I, and treated with surgery followed by whole brain radiotherapy had better survival.This data suggest that patients with cancer and a single metastasis to the brain may be treated effectively with surgical resection plus radiotherapy. The different radiotherapy doses and fractionation schedules did not altered survival.</description>
			<link>http://www.ro-journal.com/content/1/1/20</link>		
			<dc:creator>Elisa Y Saito, Gustavo A Viani, Robson Ferrigno, Ricardo A Nakamura, Paulo E Novaes, Cassio A Pellizzon, Ricardo C Fogaroli, Maria A Conte and Joao V Salvajoli</dc:creator>
			<dc:source>Radiation Oncology 2006, 1:20</dc:source>
			<dc:subject>Number of accesses: 243</dc:subject>
			<dc:date>2006-06-29</dc:date>
			<dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1748-717X-1-20</dc:identifier>
			
			
							
					<prism:publicationName>Radiation Oncology</prism:publicationName>
					
			
							
					<prism:issn>1748-717X</prism:issn>
					
			
							
					<prism:volume>1</prism:volume>
					
			
							
					<prism:startingPage>20</prism:startingPage>
					
			
							
					<prism:publicationDate>2006-06-29</prism:publicationDate>
					

            <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/"/>
        </item>
	
		<item rdf:about="http://www.ro-journal.com/content/3/1/15">
            
            <title>High-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer using daily fiducial marker-based position verification: acute and late toxicity in 331 patients</title>
			<description>We evaluated the acute and late toxicity after high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) with fiducial marker-based position verification for prostate cancer. Between 2001 and 2004, 331 patients with prostate cancer received 76 Gy in 35 fractions using IMRT combined with fiducial marker-based position verification. The symptoms before treatment (pre-treatment) and weekly during treatment (acute toxicity) were scored using the Common Toxicity Criteria (CTC). The goal was to score late toxicity according to the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group/European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (RTOG/EORTC) scale with a follow-up time of at least three years. Twenty-two percent of the patients experienced pre-treatment grade &#8805; 2 genitourinary (GU) complaints and 2% experienced grade 2 gastrointestinal (GI) complaints. Acute grade 2 GU and GI toxicity occurred in 47% and 30%, respectively. Only 3% of the patients developed acute grade 3 GU and no grade &#8805; 3 GI toxicity occurred. After a mean follow-up time of 47 months with a minimum of 31 months for all patients, the incidence of late grade 2 GU and GI toxicity was 21% and 9%, respectively. Grade &#8805; 3 GU and GI toxicity rates were 4% and 1%, respectively, including one patient with a rectal fistula and one patient with a severe hemorrhagic cystitis (both grade 4). In conclusion, high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy with fiducial marker-based position verification is well tolerated. The low grade &#8805; 3 toxicity allows further dose escalation if the same dose constraints for the organs at risk will be used.</description>
			<link>http://www.ro-journal.com/content/3/1/15</link>		
			<dc:creator>Irene M Lips, Homan Dehnad, Carla H van Gils, Arto E Boeken Kruger, Uulke A van der Heide and Marco van Vulpen</dc:creator>
			<dc:source>Radiation Oncology 2008, 3:15</dc:source>
			<dc:subject>Number of accesses: 218</dc:subject>
			<dc:date>2008-05-21</dc:date>
			<dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1748-717X-3-15</dc:identifier>
			
			
							
					<prism:publicationName>Radiation Oncology</prism:publicationName>
					
			
							
					<prism:issn>1748-717X</prism:issn>
					
			
							
					<prism:volume>3</prism:volume>
					
			
							
					<prism:startingPage>15</prism:startingPage>
					
			
							
					<prism:publicationDate>2008-05-21</prism:publicationDate>
					

            <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/"/>
        </item>
	
		<item rdf:about="http://www.ro-journal.com/content/2/1/2">
            
            <title>Bronchiolitis obliterans organizing pneumonia (BOOP) after thoracic radiotherapy for breast carcinoma</title>
			<description>Common complications of thoracic radiotherapy include esophagitis and radiation pneumonitis. However, it is important to be aware of uncommon post-radiotherapy complications such as bronchiolitis obliterans organizing pneumonia (BOOP). We report on two patients with carcinoma of the breast who developed an interstitial lung disease consistent with BOOP. BOOP responds to treatment with corticosteroids and the prognosis is generally good despite of the need for long-term administration of corticosteroids as relapses can occur during tapering of steroids. This report provides guidelines for the evaluation and treatment of patients with pulmonary infiltrates after radiotherapy.</description>
			<link>http://www.ro-journal.com/content/2/1/2</link>		
			<dc:creator>Robin Cornelissen, Suresh Senan, Imogeen E Antonisse, Hauw Liem, Youke KY Tan, Arjan Rudolphus and Joachim GJV Aerts</dc:creator>
			<dc:source>Radiation Oncology 2007, 2:2</dc:source>
			<dc:subject>Number of accesses: 215</dc:subject>
			<dc:date>2007-01-03</dc:date>
			<dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1748-717X-2-2</dc:identifier>
			
			
							
					<prism:publicationName>Radiation Oncology</prism:publicationName>
					
			
							
					<prism:issn>1748-717X</prism:issn>
					
			
							
					<prism:volume>2</prism:volume>
					
			
							
					<prism:startingPage>2</prism:startingPage>
					
			
							
					<prism:publicationDate>2007-01-03</prism:publicationDate>
					

            <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/"/>
        </item>
	
		<item rdf:about="http://www.ro-journal.com/content/3/1/3">
            
            <title>Does Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) prevent additional toxicity of treating the pelvic lymph nodes compared to treatment of the prostate only?</title>
			<description>Background:
To evaluate the risk of rectal, bladder and small bowel toxicity in intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) of the prostate only compared to additional irradiation of the pelvic lymphatic region.
Methods:
For ten patients with localized prostate cancer, IMRT plans with a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) were generated for treatment of the prostate only (plan-PO) and for additional treatment of the pelvic lymph nodes (plan-WP). In plan-PO, doses of 60 Gy and 74 Gy (33 fractions) were prescribed to the seminal vesicles and to the prostate, respectively. Three plans-WP were generated with prescription doses of 46 Gy, 50.4 Gy and 54 Gy to the pelvic target volume; doses to the prostate and seminal vesicles were identical to plan-PO. The risk of rectal, bladder and small bowel toxicity was estimated based on NTCP calculations.
Results:
Doses to the prostate were not significantly different between plan-PO and plan-WP and doses to the pelvic lymph nodes were as planned. Plan-WP resulted in increased doses to the rectum in the low-dose region &#8804; 30 Gy, only, no difference was observed in the mid and high-dose region. Normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) for late rectal toxicity ranged between 5% and 8% with no significant difference between plan-PO and plan-WP. NTCP for late bladder toxicity was less than 1% for both plan-PO and plan-WP. The risk of small bowel toxicity was moderately increased for plan-WP.DiscussionThis retrospective planning study predicted similar risks of rectal, bladder and small bowel toxicity for IMRT treatment of the prostate only and for additional treatment of the pelvic lymph nodes.</description>
			<link>http://www.ro-journal.com/content/3/1/3</link>		
			<dc:creator>Matthias Guckenberger, Kurt Baier, Anne Richter, Dirk Vordermark and Michael Flentje</dc:creator>
			<dc:source>Radiation Oncology 2008, 3:3</dc:source>
			<dc:subject>Number of accesses: 198</dc:subject>
			<dc:date>2008-01-11</dc:date>
			<dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1748-717X-3-3</dc:identifier>
			
			
							
					<prism:publicationName>Radiation Oncology</prism:publicationName>
					
			
							
					<prism:issn>1748-717X</prism:issn>
					
			
							
					<prism:volume>3</prism:volume>
					
			
							
					<prism:startingPage>3</prism:startingPage>
					
			
							
					<prism:publicationDate>2008-01-11</prism:publicationDate>
					

            <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/"/>
        </item>
	
		<item rdf:about="http://www.ro-journal.com/content/3/1/19">
            
            <title>In vitro studies on the modification of low-dose hyper-radiosensitivity in prostate cancer cells by incubation with genistein and estradiol</title>
			<description>Background:
As the majority of prostate cancers (PC) express estrogen receptors, we evaluated the combination of radiation and estrogenic stimulation (estrogen and genistein) on the radiosensitivity of PC cells in vitro.
Methods:
PC cells LNCaP (androgen-sensitive) and PC-3 (androgen-independent) were evaluated. Estrogen receptor (ER) expression was analyzed by means of immunostaining. Cells were incubated in FCS-free media with genistein 10 &#956;M and estradiol 10 &#956;M 24 h before irradiation and up to 24 h after irradiation. Clonogenic survival, cell cycle changes, and expression of p21 were assessed.
Results:
LNCaP expressed both ER-&#945; and ER-&#946;, PC-3 did not. Incubation of LNCaP and PC-3 with genistein resulted in a significant reduction of clonogenic survival. Incubation with estradiol exhibited in low concentrations (0.01 &#956;M) stimulatory effects, while higher concentrations did not influence survival. Both genistein 10 &#956;M and estradiol 10 &#956;M increased low-dose hyper-radiosensitivity [HRS] in LNCaP, while hormonal incubation abolished HRS in PC-3. In LNCaP cells hormonal stimulation inhibited p21 induction after irradiation with 4 Gy. In PC-3 cells, the proportion of cells in G2/M was increased after irradiation with 4 Gy.
Conclusion:
We found an increased HRS to low irradiation doses after incubation with estradiol or genistein in ER-&#945; and ER-&#946; positive LNCaP cells. This is of high clinical interest, as this tumor model reflects a locally advanced, androgen dependent PC. In contrast, in ER-&#945; and ER-&#946; negative PC-3 cells we observed an abolishing of the HRS to low irradiation doses by hormonal stimulation. The effects of both tested compounds on survival were ER and p53 independent. Since genistein and estradiol effects in both cell lines were comparable, neither ER- nor p53-expression seemed to play a role in the linked signalling. Nevertheless both compounds targeted the same molecular switch. To identify the underlying molecular mechanisms, further studies are needed.</description>
			<link>http://www.ro-journal.com/content/3/1/19</link>		
			<dc:creator>Robert Michael Hermann, Hendrik Andreas Wolff, Hubertus Jarry, Paul Thelen, Carsten Gruendker, Margret Rave-Fraenk, Heinz Schmidberger and Hans Christiansen</dc:creator>
			<dc:source>Radiation Oncology 2008, 3:19</dc:source>
			<dc:subject>Number of accesses: 197</dc:subject>
			<dc:date>2008-07-14</dc:date>
			<dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1748-717X-3-19</dc:identifier>
			
			
							
					<prism:publicationName>Radiation Oncology</prism:publicationName>
					
			
							
					<prism:issn>1748-717X</prism:issn>
					
			
							
					<prism:volume>3</prism:volume>
					
			
							
					<prism:startingPage>19</prism:startingPage>
					
			
							
					<prism:publicationDate>2008-07-14</prism:publicationDate>
					

            <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/"/>
        </item>
	
		<item rdf:about="http://www.ro-journal.com/content/3/1/5">
            
            <title>Severe skin reaction secondary to concomitant radiotherapy plus cetuximab</title>
			<description>The therapeutic use of monoclonal antibodies against the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) is specifically associated with dermatologic reactions of variable severity. Recent evidence suggests superiority of the EGFR inhibitor (EGFRI) cetuximab plus radiotherapy compared to radiotherapy alone in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Although not documented in a study population, several reports indicate a possible overlap between radiation dermatitis and the EGFRI-induced skin rash. We here present a case of severe skin reaction secondary to the addition of cetuximab to radiotherapy.</description>
			<link>http://www.ro-journal.com/content/3/1/5</link>		
			<dc:creator>Bernhard Berger and Claus Belka</dc:creator>
			<dc:source>Radiation Oncology 2008, 3:5</dc:source>
			<dc:subject>Number of accesses: 188</dc:subject>
			<dc:date>2008-01-28</dc:date>
			<dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1748-717X-3-5</dc:identifier>
			
			
							
					<prism:publicationName>Radiation Oncology</prism:publicationName>
					
			
							
					<prism:issn>1748-717X</prism:issn>
					
			
							
					<prism:volume>3</prism:volume>
					
			
							
					<prism:startingPage>5</prism:startingPage>
					
			
							
					<prism:publicationDate>2008-01-28</prism:publicationDate>
					

            <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/"/>
        </item>
	
		<item rdf:about="http://www.ro-journal.com/content/3/1/7">
            
            <title>High-dose rate brachytherapy (HDRB) for primary or recurrent cancer in the vagina</title>
			<description>PurposeThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of HDR brachytherapy for primary or recurrent vaginal cancer.
Methods:
Between the years 2000 to 2006, 18 patients with primary or recurrent vaginal cancer were treated with brachytherapy (HDRB). Six patients had primary vaginal cancer (stage II to IVA) while 12 were treated for isolated vaginal recurrence (primary cervix = 4, vulva = 1 and endometrium = 7). Five patients had previous pelvic radiation therapy. All except one patient received external beam radiation therapy to a median dose of 45 Gy (range 31.2&#8211;55.8 Gy). The HDRB was intracavitary using a vaginal cylinder in 5 patients and interstitial using a modified Syed-Nesblett template in 13 patients. The dose of interstitial brachytherapy was 18.75 Gy in 5 fractions delivered twice daily. The median follow-up was 18 months (range 6&#8211;66 months).
Results:
Complete response (CR) was achieved in all but one patient (94%). Of these 17 patients achieving a CR, 1 had local recurrence and 3 had systemic recurrence at a median time of 6 months (range 6&#8211;22 months). The 2-year actuarial local control and cause-specific survival for the entire group were 88% and 82.5%, respectively. In subset analysis, the crude local control was 100% for primary vaginal cancer, 100% for the group with recurrence without any prior radiation and 67% for group with recurrence and prior radiation therapy. Two patients had late grade 3 or higher morbidity (rectovaginal fistula in one patient and chronic vaginal ulcer resulting in bleeding in one patient). Both these patients had prior radiation therapy.
Conclusion:
Our small series suggests that HDRB is efficacious for primary or recurrent vaginal cancer. Patients treated with primary disease and those with recurrent disease without prior irradiation have the greatest benefit from HDRB in this setting. The salvage rate for patients with prior radiation therapy is lower with a higher risk of significant complications. Additional patients and follow-up are ongoing to determine the long-term efficacy of this approach.</description>
			<link>http://www.ro-journal.com/content/3/1/7</link>		
			<dc:creator>Sushil Beriwal, Dwight E Heron, Robert Mogus, Robert P Edwards, Joseph L Kelley and Paniti Sukumvanich</dc:creator>
			<dc:source>Radiation Oncology 2008, 3:7</dc:source>
			<dc:subject>Number of accesses: 147</dc:subject>
			<dc:date>2008-02-13</dc:date>
			<dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1748-717X-3-7</dc:identifier>
			
			
							
					<prism:publicationName>Radiation Oncology</prism:publicationName>
					
			
							
					<prism:issn>1748-717X</prism:issn>
					
			
							
					<prism:volume>3</prism:volume>
					
			
							
					<prism:startingPage>7</prism:startingPage>
					
			
							
					<prism:publicationDate>2008-02-13</prism:publicationDate>
					

            <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/"/>
        </item>
		
	<cc:License rdf:about="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/">
         <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Reproduction"/>
         <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Distribution"/>
         <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#DerivativeWorks"/>
	</cc:License>
</rdf:RDF>
