<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:wikidot="http://www.wikidot.com/rss-namespace">

	<channel>
		<title>Extended Field Radiotherapy for Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer</title>
		<link>http://isocentre.wikidot.com/forum/t-349105/extended-field-radiotherapy-for-locally-advanced-cervical-ca</link>
		<description>Posts in the discussion thread &quot;Extended Field Radiotherapy for Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer&quot; - Is it standard to offer Extended Field (Para-aortic) RT for Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer</description>
				<copyright></copyright>
		<lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Sep 2026 14:28:04 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		
					<item>
				<guid>http://isocentre.wikidot.com/forum/t-349105#post-1133732</guid>
				<title>Re: Extended Field Radiotherapy for Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer</title>
				<link>http://isocentre.wikidot.com/forum/t-349105/extended-field-radiotherapy-for-locally-advanced-cervical-ca#post-1133732</link>
				<description></description>
				<pubDate>Sat, 23 Apr 2011 04:21:08 +0000</pubDate>
				<wikidot:authorName>Nikhilesh Patil</wikidot:authorName>				<wikidot:authorUserId>416151</wikidot:authorUserId>				<content:encoded>
					<![CDATA[
						 <p>In Canada we do 45Gy/25#'s for radiologic evidence of enlarged para-aortic LN. Majority do not treat para-aortic LN unless indicated but there are few enthusiastic guys who do it and justify doing it prophylactically.</p> 
				 	]]>
				</content:encoded>							</item>
					<item>
				<guid>http://isocentre.wikidot.com/forum/t-349105#post-1130641</guid>
				<title>Re: Extended Field Radiotherapy for Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer</title>
				<link>http://isocentre.wikidot.com/forum/t-349105/extended-field-radiotherapy-for-locally-advanced-cervical-ca#post-1130641</link>
				<description></description>
				<pubDate>Tue, 19 Apr 2011 20:07:01 +0000</pubDate>
				<wikidot:authorName>Rohit Malde</wikidot:authorName>				<wikidot:authorUserId>418807</wikidot:authorUserId>				<content:encoded>
					<![CDATA[
						 <p>The first 2 references are for patients with positive para-aortic nodes&#8230;<br /> Third ref, is retrospective review, of 36 pts (including 3 with +ve para-aortic nodes), and the conclusion reads Increased toxicity in patients warrants careful patient selection.</p> <p>And i absolutely agree with their conclusion.<br /> Careful selection would be treat those with positive nodes or PET positive disease, and<br /> omit it for those who have no para-aortic nodes.<br /> Hence no role of treating para-aortic LN routinely as prophylactic intent ..as its too toxic.</p> <p>Interesting fact about the 1st ref:<br /> Damn, RTOG 92-10, how did they deliver 54-58&#160;Gy to para-aortic region in the late 90s (hyperfractionated) with no IMRT ? ? any idea what BED small bowels and spinal cord would get.<br /> No wonder they had 17% Gr IV toxicity. (unacceptable, and we cant tell pts here&#8230; you decide here&#8230;.dont wanna have that conversation with andrew again) &#8230;</p> <p>I wonder in these modern era, even with para-aortic nodes + ve, what experience do our members have of treating para-aortic LN&#8230;. what dose would you go upto ? with concomitant chemoRT of course&#8230;.<br /> Please specify what you ve done or seen in clinical practice, and not what you think or believe&#8230;&#8230; lets be practical.</p> <p>UK practice ..no one has dared to go beyond 50.4&#160;Gy @1.8&#160;Gy / # &#8212;&#8212;&gt; Routine practice (outside clinical trial)<br /> Canadians ?<br /> Australians ?</p> 
				 	]]>
				</content:encoded>							</item>
					<item>
				<guid>http://isocentre.wikidot.com/forum/t-349105#post-1129444</guid>
				<title>Extended Field Radiotherapy for Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer</title>
				<link>http://isocentre.wikidot.com/forum/t-349105/extended-field-radiotherapy-for-locally-advanced-cervical-ca#post-1129444</link>
				<description></description>
				<pubDate>Mon, 18 Apr 2011 17:58:04 +0000</pubDate>
				<wikidot:authorName>Nikhilesh Patil</wikidot:authorName>				<wikidot:authorUserId>416151</wikidot:authorUserId>				<content:encoded>
					<![CDATA[
						 <p>Wanted to know what does the house think about this question.<br /> In the chemoRT era is it standard to offer Extended Field (Para-aortic) RT for Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer ? How many of you routinely prophylactically treat para-aortic LN in absence of para-aortic LN on imaging (CT/MRI/PET) ?</p> <p><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11704321">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11704321</a><br /> <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19010522">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19010522</a> (study closed)<br /> <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19398095">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19398095</a></p> 
				 	]]>
				</content:encoded>							</item>
				</channel>
</rss>