Search

Your search keyword '"Zaorsky, Nicholas G."' showing total 728 results
Start Over Author "Zaorsky, Nicholas G."
728 results on '"Zaorsky, Nicholas G."'

5. Sequencing of Androgen-Deprivation Therapy of Short Duration With Radiotherapy for Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer (SANDSTORM): A Pooled Analysis of 12 Randomized Trials

Author

Martin, Ting, Sun, Yilun, Malone, Shawn, Roach, Mack, Dearnaley, David, Pisansky, Thomas M, Feng, Felix Y, Sandler, Howard M, Efstathiou, Jason A, Syndikus, Isabel, Hall, Emma C, Tree, Alison C, Sydes, Matthew R, Cruickshank, Claire, Roy, Soumyajit, Bolla, Michel, Maingon, Philippe, De Reijke, Theo, Nabid, Abdenour, Carrier, Nathalie, Souhami, Luis, Zapatero, Almudena, Guerrero, Araceli, Alvarez, Ana, San-Segundo, Carmen Gonzalez, Maldonado, Xavier, Romero, Tahmineh, Steinberg, Michael L, Valle, Luca F, Rettig, Matthew B, Nickols, Nicholas G, Shoag, Jonathan E, Reiter, Robert E, Zaorsky, Nicholas G, Jia, Angela Y, Garcia, Jorge A, Spratt, Daniel E, Kishan, Amar U, and Investigators, on behalf of the Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials in Cancer of the Prostate Consortium

Subjects
Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Clinical Sciences, Oncology and Carcinogenesis, Aging, Clinical Research, Patient Safety, Urologic Diseases, Cancer, Prostate Cancer, Evaluation of treatments and therapeutic interventions, 6.4 Surgery, Good Health and Well Being, Male, Humans, Prostatic Neoplasms, Androgen Antagonists, Androgens, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Prostate-Specific Antigen, Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials in Cancer of the Prostate (MARCAP) Consortium Investigators, Oncology & Carcinogenesis, Oncology and carcinogenesis
Abstract

PurposeThe sequencing of androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) with radiotherapy (RT) may affect outcomes for prostate cancer in an RT-field size-dependent manner. Herein, we investigate the impact of ADT sequencing for men receiving ADT with prostate-only RT (PORT) or whole-pelvis RT (WPRT).Materials and methodsIndividual patient data from 12 randomized trials that included patients receiving neoadjuvant/concurrent or concurrent/adjuvant short-term ADT (4-6 months) with RT for localized disease were obtained from the Meta-Analysis of Randomized trials in Cancer of the Prostate consortium. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was performed with propensity scores derived from age, initial prostate-specific antigen, Gleason score, T stage, RT dose, and mid-trial enrollment year. Metastasis-free survival (primary end point) and overall survival (OS) were assessed by IPTW-adjusted Cox regression models, analyzed independently for men receiving PORT versus WPRT. IPTW-adjusted Fine and Gray competing risk models were built to evaluate distant metastasis (DM) and prostate cancer-specific mortality.ResultsOverall, 7,409 patients were included (6,325 neoadjuvant/concurrent and 1,084 concurrent/adjuvant) with a median follow-up of 10.2 years (interquartile range, 7.2-14.9 years). A significant interaction between ADT sequencing and RT field size was observed for all end points (P interaction < .02 for all) except OS. With PORT (n = 4,355), compared with neoadjuvant/concurrent ADT, concurrent/adjuvant ADT was associated with improved metastasis-free survival (10-year benefit 8.0%, hazard ratio [HR], 0.65; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.79; P < .0001), DM (subdistribution HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.82; P = .0046), prostate cancer-specific mortality (subdistribution HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.16 to 0.54; P < .0001), and OS (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.83; P = .0001). However, in patients receiving WPRT (n = 3,049), no significant difference in any end point was observed in regard to ADT sequencing except for worse DM (HR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.20 to 2.05; P = .0009) with concurrent/adjuvant ADT.ConclusionADT sequencing exhibits a significant impact on clinical outcomes with a significant interaction with field size. Concurrent/adjuvant ADT should be the standard of care where short-term ADT is indicated in combination with PORT.

Published
2023

7. Retrospective comparative effectiveness research: Will changing the analytical methods change the results?

Author

Zaorsky, Nicholas G, Wang, Xi, Lehrer, Eric J, Tchelebi, Leila T, Yeich, Andrew, Prasad, Vinay K, Chinchilli, Vernon M, and Wang, Ming

Subjects
Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Oncology and Carcinogenesis, Breast Cancer, Cancer, Comparative Effectiveness Research, Urologic Diseases, Prostate Cancer, Bias, Humans, Lung Neoplasms, Male, Propensity Score, Retrospective Studies, cohort studies, comparative effectiveness research, propensity score, retrospective, selection bias, Oncology & Carcinogenesis, Oncology and carcinogenesis
Abstract

In medicine, retrospective cohort studies are used to compare treatments to one another. We hypothesize that the outcomes of retrospective comparative effectiveness research studies can be heavily influenced by biostatistical analytic choices, thereby leading to inconsistent conclusions. We selected a clinical scenario currently under investigation: survival in metastatic prostate, breast or lung cancer after systemic vs systemic + definitive local therapy. We ran >300 000 regression models (each representing a publishable study). Each model had various forms of analytic choices (to account for bias): propensity score matching, left truncation adjustment, landmark analysis and covariate combinations. There were 72 549 lung, 14 904 prostate and 13 857 breast cancer patients included. In the most basic analysis, which omitted propensity score matching, left truncation adjustment and landmark analysis, all of the HRs were .05 and/or HRs that were >1 (favoring systemic therapy alone). The use of more statistical methods to reduce the selection bias caused reported HR ranges to approach 1.0. By varying analytic choices in comparative effectiveness research, we generated contrary outcomes. Our results suggest that some retrospective observational studies may find a treatment improves outcomes for patients, while another similar study may find it does not, simply based on analytical choices.

Published
2022

11. Radiation therapy dose and androgen deprivation therapy in localized prostate cancer: a meta-regression of 5-year outcomes in phase III randomized controlled trials

Author

Jiang, Tommy, Markovic, Daniela, Patel, Jay, Juarez, Jesus E, Ma, Ting Martin, Shabsovich, David, Nickols, Nicholas G, Reiter, Robert E, Elashoff, David, Rettig, Matthew B, Zaorsky, Nicholas G, Spratt, Daniel E, and Kishan, Amar U

Subjects
Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Clinical Sciences, Oncology and Carcinogenesis, Cancer, Clinical Trials and Supportive Activities, Clinical Research, Prostate Cancer, Aging, Urologic Diseases, Evaluation of treatments and therapeutic interventions, 6.1 Pharmaceuticals, Good Health and Well Being, Androgen Antagonists, Androgens, Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic, Hormone Replacement Therapy, Humans, Male, Prostatic Neoplasms, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Urology & Nephrology, Clinical sciences, Oncology and carcinogenesis
Abstract

BackgroundWhile multiple randomized trials have evaluated the benefit of radiation therapy (RT) dose escalation and the use and prolongation of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in the treatment of prostate cancer, few studies have evaluated the relative benefit of either form of treatment intensification with each other. Many trials have included treatment strategies that incorporate either high or low dose RT, or short-term or long-term ADT (STADT or LTADT), in one or more trial arms. We sought to compare different forms of treatment intensification of RT in the context of localized prostate cancer.MethodsUsing preferred reporting items for systemic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we collected over 40 phases III clinical trials comparing different forms of RT for localized prostate cancer. We performed a meta-regression of 40 individual trials with 21,429 total patients to allow a comparison of the rates and cumulative proportions of 5-year overall survival (OS), prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM), and distant metastasis (DM) for each treatment arm of every trial.ResultsDose-escalation either in the absence or presence of STADT failed to significantly improve any 5-year outcome. In contrast, adding LTADT to low dose RT significantly improved 5-year PCSM (Odds ratio [OR] 0.34, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.22-0.54, p

Published
2022

12. Delphi consensus on stereotactic ablative radiotherapy for oligometastatic and oligoprogressive renal cell carcinoma—a European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology study endorsed by the European Association of Urology

Author

Marvaso, Giulia, Jereczek-Fossa, Barbara Alicja, Zaffaroni, Mattia, Vincini, Maria Giulia, Corrao, Giulia, Andratschke, Nicolaus, Balagamwala, Ehsan H, Bedke, Jens, Blanck, Oliver, Capitanio, Umberto, Correa, Rohann J M, De Meerleer, Gert, Franzese, Ciro, Gaeta, Aurora, Gandini, Sara, Garibaldi, Cristina, Gerszten, Peter C, Gillessen, Silke, Grubb, William R, Guckenberger, Matthias, Hannan, Raquibul, Jhaveri, Pavan M, Josipovic, Mirjana, Kerkmeijer, Linda G W, Lehrer, Eric J, Lindskog, Magnus, Louie, Alexander V, Nguyen, Quynh-Nhu, Ost, Piet, Palma, David A, Procopio, Giuseppe, Rossi, Maddalena, Staehler, Michael, Tree, Alison C, Tsang, Yat Man, Van As, Nicholas, Zaorsky, Nicholas G, Zilli, Thomas, Pasquier, David, and Siva, Shankar

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

14. Performance of a Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography–Derived Risk-Stratification Tool for High-risk and Very High-risk Prostate Cancer

Author

Xiang, Michael, Martin, Ting, Savjani, Ricky, Pollom, Erqi L, Karnes, R Jeffrey, Grogan, Tristan, Wong, Jessica K, Motterle, Giovanni, Tosoian, Jeffrey J, Trock, Bruce J, Klein, Eric A, Stish, Bradley J, Dess, Robert T, Spratt, Daniel E, Pilar, Avinash, Reddy, Chandana, Levin-Epstein, Rebecca, Wedde, Trude B, Lilleby, Wolfgang A, Fiano, Ryan, Merrick, Gregory S, Stock, Richard G, Demanes, D Jeffrey, Moran, Brian J, Huland, Hartwig, Tran, Phuoc T, Martin, Santiago, Martinez-Monge, Rafael, Krauss, Daniel J, Abu-Isa, Eyad I, Alam, Ridwan, Schwen, Zeyad, Pisansky, Thomas M, Choo, C Richard, Song, Daniel Y, Greco, Stephen, Deville, Curtiland, McNutt, Todd, DeWeese, Theodore L, Ross, Ashley E, Ciezki, Jay P, Boutros, Paul C, Nickols, Nicholas G, Bhat, Prashant, Shabsovich, David, Juarez, Jesus E, Chong, Natalie, Kupelian, Patrick A, Rettig, Matthew B, Zaorsky, Nicholas G, Berlin, Alejandro, Tward, Jonathan D, Davis, Brian J, Reiter, Robert E, Steinberg, Michael L, Elashoff, David, Horwitz, Eric M, Tendulkar, Rahul D, Tilki, Derya, Czernin, Johannes, Gafita, Andrei, Romero, Tahmineh, Calais, Jeremie, and Kishan, Amar U

Subjects
Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Clinical Sciences, Oncology and Carcinogenesis, Biomedical Imaging, Prostate Cancer, Cancer, Clinical Research, Urologic Diseases, Aging, Prevention, Detection, screening and diagnosis, 4.2 Evaluation of markers and technologies, Good Health and Well Being, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Antigens, Surface, Biomarkers, Tumor, Clinical Decision Rules, Follow-Up Studies, Glutamate Carboxypeptidase II, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Neoplasm Staging, Nomograms, Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography, Prognosis, Prostatic Neoplasms, Retrospective Studies, Risk Assessment, SEER Program, Survival Analysis, Biomedical and clinical sciences, Health sciences
Abstract

ImportanceProstate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) can detect low-volume, nonlocalized (ie, regional or metastatic) prostate cancer that was occult on conventional imaging. However, the long-term clinical implications of PSMA PET/CT upstaging remain unclear.ObjectivesTo evaluate the prognostic significance of a nomogram that models an individual's risk of nonlocalized upstaging on PSMA PET/CT and to compare its performance with existing risk-stratification tools.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study included patients diagnosed with high-risk or very high-risk prostate cancer (ie, prostate-specific antigen [PSA] level >20 ng/mL, Gleason score 8-10, and/or clinical stage T3-T4, without evidence of nodal or metastatic disease by conventional workup) from April 1995 to August 2018. This multinational study was conducted at 15 centers. Data were analyzed from December 2020 to March 2021.ExposuresCurative-intent radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), or EBRT plus brachytherapy (BT), with or without androgen deprivation therapy.Main outcomes and measuresPSMA upstage probability was calculated from a nomogram using the biopsy Gleason score, percentage positive systematic biopsy cores, clinical T category, and PSA level. Biochemical recurrence (BCR), distant metastasis (DM), prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM), and overall survival (OS) were analyzed using Fine-Gray and Cox regressions. Model performance was quantified with the concordance (C) index.ResultsOf 5275 patients, the median (IQR) age was 66 (60-72) years; 2883 (55%) were treated with RP, 1669 (32%) with EBRT, and 723 (14%) with EBRT plus BT; median (IQR) PSA level was 10.5 (5.9-23.2) ng/mL; 3987 (76%) had Gleason grade 8 to 10 disease; and 750 (14%) had stage T3 to T4 disease. Median (IQR) follow-up was 5.1 (3.1-7.9) years; 1221 (23%) were followed up for at least 8 years. Overall, 1895 (36%) had BCR, 851 (16%) developed DM, and 242 (5%) died of prostate cancer. PSMA upstage probability was significantly prognostic of all clinical end points, with 8-year C indices of 0.63 (95% CI, 0.61-0.65) for BCR, 0.69 (95% CI, 0.66-0.71) for DM, 0.71 (95% CI, 0.67-0.75) for PCSM, and 0.60 (95% CI, 0.57-0.62) for PCSM (P

Published
2021

15. Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Primary Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Case-Based Radiosurgery Society Practice Guide

Author

Barbour, Andrew B., Upadhyay, Rituraj, Anderson, August C., Kutuk, Tugce, Kumar, Ritesh, Wang, Shang-Jui, Psutka, Sarah P., Fekrmandi, Fatemeh, Skalina, Karin A., Bruynzeel, Anna M.E., Correa, Rohann J.M., Dal Pra, Alan, Biancia, Cesar Della, Hannan, Raquibul, Louie, Alexander, Singh, Anurag K., Swaminath, Anand, Tang, Chad, Teh, Bin S., Zaorsky, Nicholas G., Lo, Simon S., and Siva, Shankar

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

16. A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Local Salvage Therapies After Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer (MASTER)

Author

Valle, Luca F, Lehrer, Eric J, Markovic, Daniela, Elashoff, David, Levin-Epstein, Rebecca, Karnes, R Jeffery, Reiter, Robert E, Rettig, Matthew, Calais, Jeremie, Nickols, Nicholas G, Dess, Robert T, Spratt, Daniel E, Steinberg, Michael L, Nguyen, Paul L, Davis, Brian J, Zaorsky, Nicholas G, and Kishan, Amar U

Subjects
Cancer, Urologic Diseases, Prostate Cancer, Clinical Research, Brachytherapy, Cryotherapy, High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound Ablation, Humans, Male, Neoplasm Recurrence, Local, Prospective Studies, Prostatectomy, Prostatic Neoplasms, Radiation Dosage, Radiosurgery, Salvage Therapy, Meta-analysis, Prostate cancer, Radiorecurrent prostate cancer, Radiation therapy, Salvage therapy, Radical prostatectomy, High-intensity focused, ultrasound, High-dose-rate brachytherapy, High-intensity focused ultrasound, Low–dose-rate brachytherapy, Stereotactic body radiotherapy, Clinical Sciences, Urology & Nephrology
Abstract

ContextManagement of locally recurrent prostate cancer after definitive radiotherapy remains controversial due to the perceived high rates of severe genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity associated with any local salvage modality.ObjectiveTo quantitatively compare the efficacy and toxicity of salvage radical prostatectomy (RP), high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU), cryotherapy, stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), low-dose-rate (LDR) brachytherapy, and high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy.Evidence acquisitionWe performed a systematic review of PubMed, EMBASE, and MEDLINE. Two- and 5-yr recurrence-free survival (RFS) rates and crude incidences of severe GU and GI toxicity were extracted as endpoints of interest. Random-effect meta-analyses were conducted to characterize summary effect sizes and quantify heterogeneity. Estimates for each modality were then compared with RP after adjusting for individual study-level covariates using mixed-effect regression models, while allowing for differences in between-study variance across treatment modalities.Evidence synthesisA total of 150 studies were included for analysis. There was significant heterogeneity between studies within each modality, and covariates differed between modalities, necessitating adjustment. Adjusted 5-yr RFS ranged from 50% after cryotherapy to 60% after HDR brachytherapy and SBRT, with no significant differences between any modality and RP. Severe GU toxicity was significantly lower with all three forms of radiotherapeutic salvage than with RP (adjusted rates of 20% after RP vs 5.6%, 9.6%, and 9.1% after SBRT, HDR brachytherapy, and LDR brachytherapy, respectively; p ≤ 0.001 for all). Severe GI toxicity was significantly lower with HDR salvage than with RP (adjusted rates 1.8% vs 0.0%, p

Published
2021

23. Dose–response with stereotactic body radiotherapy for prostate cancer: A multi-institutional analysis of prostate-specific antigen kinetics and biochemical control

Author

Levin-Epstein, Rebecca G, Jiang, Naomi Y, Wang, Xiaoyan, Upadhyaya, Shrinivasa K, Collins, Sean P, Suy, Simeng, Aghdam, Nima, Mantz, Constantine, Katz, Alan J, Miszczyk, Leszek, Napieralska, Aleksandra, Namysl-Kaletka, Agnieszka, Prionas, Nicholas, Bagshaw, Hilary, Buyyounouski, Mark K, Cao, Minsong, Agazaryan, Nzhde, Dang, Audrey, Yuan, Ye, Kupelian, Patrick A, Zaorsky, Nicholas G, Spratt, Daniel E, Mohamad, Osama, Feng, Felix Y, Mahal, Brandon A, Boutros, Paul C, Kishan, Arun U, Juarez, Jesus, Shabsovich, David, Jiang, Tommy, Kahlon, Sartajdeep, Patel, Ankur, Patel, Jay, Nickols, Nicholas G, Steinberg, Michael L, Fuller, Donald B, and Kishan, Amar U

Subjects
Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Clinical Sciences, Oncology and Carcinogenesis, Clinical Trials and Supportive Activities, Clinical Research, Cancer, Radiation Oncology, Aging, Urologic Diseases, Prostate Cancer, 6.5 Radiotherapy and other non-invasive therapies, Humans, Kinetics, Male, Prospective Studies, Prostate-Specific Antigen, Prostatic Neoplasms, Radiosurgery, Prostate cancer, Stereotactic body radiation therapy, SBRT, Dose-escalation, Dose-response, Biochemical control, Dose–response, Other Physical Sciences, Oncology & Carcinogenesis, Clinical sciences, Oncology and carcinogenesis, Medical and biological physics
Abstract

Background and purposeThe optimal dose for prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is still unknown. This study evaluated the dose-response relationships for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) decay and biochemical recurrence (BCR) among 4 SBRT dose regimens.Materials and methodsIn 1908 men with low-risk (50.0%), favorable intermediate-risk (30.9%), and unfavorable intermediate-risk (19.1%) prostate cancer treated with prostate SBRT across 8 institutions from 2003 to 2018, we examined 4 regimens (35 Gy/5 fractions [35/5, n = 265, 13.4%], 36.25 Gy/5 fractions [36.25/5, n = 711, 37.3%], 40 Gy/5 fractions [40/5, n = 684, 35.8%], and 38 Gy/4 fractions [38/4, n = 257, 13.5%]). Between dose groups, we compared PSA decay slope, nadir PSA (nPSA), achievement of nPSA ≤0.2 and ≤0.5 ng/mL, and BCR-free survival (BCRFS).ResultsMedian follow-up was 72.3 months. Median nPSA was 0.01 ng/mL for 38/4, and 0.17-0.20 ng/mL for 5-fraction regimens (p

Published
2021

24. Impact of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Targeting on Pathologic Upgrading and Downgrading at Prostatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Author

Weinstein, Ilon C., Wu, Xian, Hill, Alexander, Brennan, Donald, Omil-Lima, Danly, Basourakos, Spyridon, Brant, Aaron, Lewicki, Patrick, Al Hussein Al Awamlh, Bashir, Spratt, Daniel, Bittencourt, Leonardo Kayat, Scherr, Doug, Zaorsky, Nicholas G., Nagar, Himanshu, Hu, Jim, Barbieri, Christopher, Ponsky, Lee, Vickers, Andrew J., and Shoag, Jonathan E.

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

28. PD57-04 MAJOR COMPLICATIONS AND ADVERSE EVENTS OF SPACEOAR HYDROGEL: AN ANALYSIS OF THE MANUFACTURER AND USER FACILITY DEVICE EXPERIENCE DATABASE

Author

Millot, Jack C., primary, Arenas-Gallo, Camilo, additional, Silver, Esther, additional, Goldman, Mollie, additional, Picciotto, Shany, additional, Jia, Angela Y., additional, Zaorsky, Nicholas G., additional, Spratt, Daniel E., additional, Fredman, Elisha T., additional, and Shoag, Jonathan E., additional

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

30. Local Failure Events in Prostate Cancer Treated with Radiotherapy: A Pooled Analysis of 18 Randomized Trials from the Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials in Cancer of the Prostate Consortium (LEVIATHAN)

Author

Ma, Ting Martin, Chu, Fang-I, Sandler, Howard, Feng, Felix Y., Efstathiou, Jason A., Jones, Christopher U., Roach, Mack, 3rd, Rosenthal, Seth A., Pisansky, Thomas, Michalski, Jeff M., Bolla, Michel, de Reijke, Theo M., Maingon, Philippe, Neven, Anouk, Denham, James, Steigler, Allison, Joseph, David, Nabid, Abdenour, Souhami, Luis, Carrier, Nathalie, Incrocci, Luca, Heemsbergen, Wilma, Pos, Floris J., Sydes, Matthew R., Dearnaley, David P., Tree, Alison C., Syndikus, Isabel, Hall, Emma, Cruickshank, Clare, Malone, Shawn, Roy, Soumyajit, Sun, Yilun, Zaorsky, Nicholas G., Nickols, Nicholas G., Reiter, Robert E., Rettig, Matthew B., Steinberg, Michael L., Reddy, Vishruth K., Xiang, Michael, Romero, Tahmineh, Spratt, Daniel E., and Kishan, Amar U.

Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

34. High-dose Radiotherapy or Androgen Deprivation Therapy (HEAT) as Treatment Intensification for Localized Prostate Cancer: An Individual Patient–data Network Meta-analysis from the MARCAP Consortium

Author

Kishan, Amar U., Wang, Xiaoyan, Sun, Yilun, Romero, Tahmineh, Michalski, Jeff M., Ma, Ting Martin, Feng, Felix Y., Sandler, Howard M., Bolla, Michel, Maingon, Philippe, De Reijke, Theo, Neven, Anouk, Steigler, Allison, Denham, James W., Joseph, David, Nabid, Abdenour, Carrier, Nathalie, Souhami, Luis, Sydes, Matt R., Dearnaley, David P., Syndikus, Isabel, Tree, Alison C., Incrocci, Luca, Heemsbergen, Wilma D., Pos, Floris J., Zapatero, Almudena, Efstathiou, Jason A., Guerrero, Araceli, Alvarez, Ana, San-Segundo, Carmen Gonzalez, Maldonado, Xavier, Xiang, Michael, Rettig, Matthew B., Reiter, Robert E., Zaorsky, Nicholas G., Ong, Wee Loon, Dess, Robert T., Steinberg, Michael L., Nickols, Nicholas G., Roy, Soumyajit, Garcia, Jorge A., and Spratt, Daniel E.

Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

35. An Expert Review on the Combination of Relugolix With Definitive Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer

Author

Roy, Soumyajit, Zaorsky, Nicholas G., Bagshaw, Hilary P., Berlin, Alejandro, Tree, Alison, Turner, Sandra, Koontz, Bridget, Nguyen, Paul, Chen, Ronald, Dess, Robert T., Jackson, William C., Kishan, Amar U., Stish, Bradley, Nagar, Himanshu, Posadas, Edwin, Tran, Phuoc T., Solanki, Abhishek, Shore, Neal D., Guo, Gordon, Ponsky, Lee, Shoag, Jonathan E., Morgans, Alicia K., Garcia, Jorge A., Showalter, Timothy N., Feng, Felix Y., and Spratt, Daniel E.

Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

37. Epidemiology of bone metastases

Author

Ryan, Casey, Stoltzfus, Kelsey C., Horn, Samantha, Chen, Hanbo, Louie, Alexander V., Lehrer, Eric J., Trifiletti, Daniel M., Fox, Edward J., Abraham, John A., and Zaorsky, Nicholas G.

Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

38. Androgen deprivation therapy use and duration with definitive radiotherapy for localised prostate cancer: an individual patient data meta-analysis

Author

Kishan, Amar U, Sun, Yilun, Hartman, Holly, Pisansky, Thomas M, Bolla, Michel, Neven, Anouk, Steigler, Allison, Denham, James W, Feng, Felix Y, Zapatero, Almudena, Armstrong, John G, Nabid, Abdenour, Carrier, Nathalie, Souhami, Luis, Dunne, Mary T, Efstathiou, Jason A, Sandler, Howard M, Guerrero, Araceli, Joseph, David, Maingon, Philippe, de Reijke, Theo M, Maldonado, Xavier, Ma, Ting Martin, Romero, Tahmineh, Wang, Xiaoyan, Rettig, Matthew B, Reiter, Robert E, Zaorsky, Nicholas G, Steinberg, Michael L, Nickols, Nicholas G, Jia, Angela Y, Garcia, Jorge A, and Spratt, Daniel E

Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

40. Gynecologic Cancers

Author

Trifiletti, Daniel M., Zaorsky, Nicholas G., Grover, Surbhi, Trifiletti, Daniel M., editor, and Zaorsky, Nicholas G., editor

Published
2019
Full Text
View/download PDF

41. Physics and Radiobiology

Author

Trifiletti, Daniel M., Zaorsky, Nicholas G., Schlesinger, David J., Trifiletti, Daniel M., editor, and Zaorsky, Nicholas G., editor

Published
2019
Full Text
View/download PDF

42. Genitourinary Cancers

Author

Zaorsky, Nicholas G., Trifiletti, Daniel M., Tzou, Katherine, Trifiletti, Daniel M., editor, and Zaorsky, Nicholas G., editor

Published
2019
Full Text
View/download PDF

44. Soft Tissue Cancers

Author

Zaorsky, Nicholas G., Trifiletti, Daniel M., Mackley, Heath B., Trifiletti, Daniel M., editor, and Zaorsky, Nicholas G., editor

Published
2019
Full Text
View/download PDF

46. Lung Cancer

Author

Zaorsky, Nicholas G., Trifiletti, Daniel M., Wagner, Henry, Jr, Trifiletti, Daniel M., editor, and Zaorsky, Nicholas G., editor

Published
2019
Full Text
View/download PDF

47. Breast Cancer

Author

Zaorsky, Nicholas G., Trifiletti, Daniel M., Rosenberg, Jennifer, Trifiletti, Daniel M., editor, and Zaorsky, Nicholas G., editor

Published
2019
Full Text
View/download PDF

48. Head and Neck Cancers

Author

Trifiletti, Daniel M., Zaorsky, Nicholas G., Park, Henry S., Trifiletti, Daniel M., editor, and Zaorsky, Nicholas G., editor

Published
2019
Full Text
View/download PDF

49. Hematologic Cancers

Author

Zaorsky, Nicholas G., Trifiletti, Daniel M., Peterson, Jennifer L., Trifiletti, Daniel M., editor, and Zaorsky, Nicholas G., editor

Published
2019
Full Text
View/download PDF

50. Pediatrics Cancers

Author

Zaorsky, Nicholas G., Trifiletti, Daniel M., Hill-Kayser, Christine E., Trifiletti, Daniel M., editor, and Zaorsky, Nicholas G., editor

Published
2019
Full Text
View/download PDF

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results