Current Considerations in Heavy Charged-Particle Radiotherapy: A Clinical Research Trial of the University of California Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Northern California Oncology Group, and Radiation Therapy Oncology Group

1985 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. S263 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. R. Castro ◽  
G. T. Y. Chen ◽  
E. A. Blakely
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Charged Particle ◽  
Radiation Therapy Oncology Group ◽  
University Of California ◽  
Heavy Charged Particle ◽  
Oncology Group ◽  
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory ◽  
Particle Radiotherapy ◽  
Clinical Research Trial ◽  
The University

scholarly journals External evaluation of the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group brachial plexus contouring protocol: Several issues identified

2014 ◽  
Vol 58 (3) ◽  
pp. 360-368 ◽  
Author(s):  
Myo Min ◽  
Daniel Roos ◽  
Elly Keating ◽  
Michael Penniment ◽  
Scott Carruthers ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Brachial Plexus ◽  
Radiation Therapy Oncology Group ◽  
External Evaluation ◽  
Oncology Group

scholarly journals Short Delay in Initiation of Radiotherapy May Not Affect Outcome of Patients With Glioblastoma: A Secondary Analysis From the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Database

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (5) ◽  
pp. 733-739 ◽  
Author(s):  
Deborah T. Blumenthal ◽  
Minhee Won ◽  
Minesh P. Mehta ◽  
Walter J. Curran ◽  
Luis Souhami ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multivariate Analysis ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Treatment Regimen ◽  
Radiation Therapy Oncology Group ◽  
Secondary Analysis ◽  
Time Interval ◽  
Oncology Group ◽  
Survival Times ◽  
Short Delay ◽  
Time To Initiation

Purpose To analyze the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) database of patients with glioblastoma and appraise whether outcome was influenced by time to initiation of radiation therapy (RT). Patients and Methods From 1974 through 2003, adult patients with histologically confirmed supratentorial glioblastoma were enrolled onto 16 RTOG studies. Of 3,052 enrolled patients, 197 patients (6%) were either initially rendered ineligible or had insufficient chronologic data, leaving a cohort of 2,855 patients for the present analysis. We selected four patient groups based on the interval from surgery to the start of RT: ≤ 2 weeks, 2 to 3 weeks, 3 to 4 weeks, more than 4 weeks to the protocol eligibility limit of 6 weeks. Survival times were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Multivariate analysis incorporated variables of time interval, recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) class, and treatment regimen. Results No decrement in survival could be identified with increasing time to initiation of RT. Among our four temporal groupings, median survival time was unexpectedly and significantly greater in the group with the longest interval (> 4 weeks) than in those with the shortest delay (≤ 2 weeks): respectively, 12.5 months versus 9.2 months (P < .0001). On multivariate analysis, with overall survival as the end point, time interval more than 4 weeks and lower RPA class were both significant predictors of improved outcome. Treatment regimen was not a significant factor. Conclusion There is no evident reduction in survival by delaying initiation of RT within the relatively narrow constraint of 6 weeks. An unanticipated yet significantly superior outcome was identified for patients for whom RT was delayed beyond 4 weeks from surgery.

scholarly journals Up Close: Center for Advanced Materials at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory

MRS Bulletin ◽  
1986 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 27-27 ◽  
Author(s):  
John J. Gilman
Keyword(s):  
Materials Science ◽  
Magnetic Moments ◽  
National Laboratory ◽  
National Policy ◽  
Chemical Properties ◽  
Educational Process ◽  
University Of California ◽  
Advanced Materials ◽  
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory ◽  
The University

The boundaries between the present performance of materials and the requirements of device designers have for centuries been moving forward. The steps taken to draw these two together are sometimes large; more often they are small. As they occur, we find materials that are stronger, have larger magnetic moments, have higher electron mobilities, etc. Each time the property profile improves, understanding of the physical and chemical properties advances, and new engineering devices based on the improved profile are invented and developed.The purpose of the Center for Advanced Materials (CAM) at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (LBL) is to enhance the inter-play between advances in the property profiles of materials and advances in the chemical and physical understanding of them. For this purpose, the location of CAM can be described as ideal. The proximity of this national laboratory to the campus of the University of California at Berkeley provides an unusually rich intellectual setting for the Center. It also provides unique opportunities for the University students and faculty who conduct materials-related research. Indeed, the arrangement should be a model for similar organizations, and it represents a solid method for strengthening materials science and technology throughout the nation.National policy in critical materials has given the national laboratories—including LBL—strong direction and incentive to collaborate with industry and the research universities. This incentive led to the establishment of CAM in order to build on the symbiosis between LBL and the University of California at Berkeley. It strives to extend this symbiosis by bringing industry into the ongoing educational process and by making its special facilities more readily available to industrial researchers.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document