[ADD OTHER GRANTS AS NECESSARY] Title of Abstract Goes Here – Please Make Sure RTOG and Study Number is Listed in Title E.P. Mitchell,1 K. Winter,2 M. Mohiuddin,3 N. Hanna,3 A. Yuen,2 C. Nichols,4 R. Share,4 C. Hayostek,2 C. Willett 1Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Penn; 2Radiation Therapy Oncology Group, Philadelphia; 3University of Kentucky, Lexington, Ky; 4Reading Hospital, Reading, Penn; 5Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Mass This project was supported by RTOG grant U10 CA21661, and CCOP grant U10 CA37422 from the National Cancer Institute (NCI). This publication’s contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the National Cancer Institute. [ADD OTHER GRANTS AS NECESSARY] ABSTRACT OBJECTIVES RESULTS Background: sample sample sample sample sample sample sample sample sample sample sample sample sample sample sample sample sample sample sample sample sample sample sample sample sample sample sample sample sample sample sample sample sample sample sample sample sample sample sample sample sample sample sample sample sample sample sample sample sample sample sample sample sample sample sample sample sample sample sample sample sample sample sample sample sample sample sample sample sample sample sample sample sample sample sample sample was performed 4–10 weeks following completion of therapy. following completion of therapy. following completion of therapy. following completion of therapy. following completion of therapy. following completion of therapy.. Methods: Patients with tumors Patients with tumors Patients with tumors Patients with tumors Patients with tumors Patients with tumors Patients with tumors Patients with tumors Patients with tumors Patients with tumors. Results: 106 patients were enrolled 106 patients were enrolled 106 patients were enrolled 106 patients were enrolled 106 patients were enrolled 106 patients were enrolled 106 patients were enrolled 106 patients were enrolled 106 patients were enrolled 106 patients were enrolled 106 patients were enrolled 106 patients were enrolled 106 patients were enrolled 106 patients were enrolled 106 patients were enrolled 106 patients were enrolled Conclusion: Both regimens were well tolerated with acceptable Both regimens were well tolerated with acceptable Both regimens were well tolerated with acceptable Both regimens were well tolerated with acceptable Both regimens were well tolerated with acceptable Both regimens were well tolerated with acceptable Both regimens were well tolerated with acceptable Both regimens were well tolerated with acceptable Both regimens were well tolerated with acceptable Both regimens were well tolerated with acceptable Bullet Number One – sample text sample text sample text sample text sample sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text. Bullet Number Two – sample text sample text sample text sample text sample sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text. PATIENTS Bullet Number One – sample text. Bullet Number Two – sample text sample text. Table IV. Patient Accrual sample text sample text sample text 100 90 4 Table VII. Overall sample text sample text sample text 100 Table I. Patient Accrual sample text sample text sample text 100 ELIGIBILITY Bullet Number One – sample text sample text sample text sample text sample sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text. Bullet Number Two – sample text sample text sample text sample text sample sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text. Bullet Number Three – sample text sample text sample text sample text sample sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text Table VIII. Causes of Death sample text sample text sample text 100 SAFETY AND TOXICITY Table V. Pretreatment sample text sample text sample text 100 400 Sample text sample text sample text 100 400 Table II. Pretreatment sample text sample text sample text 100 CONCLUSIONS Sample text Sample text Sample text Sample text Sample text Sample text Sample text Sample text Sample text Sample text Sample text Sample text Sample text Sample text Sample text STUDY DESIGN Figure 1: Treatment Schema. RANDOMIZATION EFFICACY Aim 1 Number One – sample text sample text sample text sample text sample sample text sample text Number Two – sample text sample text sample text sample text sample sample text sample text. Aim 2 BACKGROUND REFERENCES Sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text. Sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text Table III. Pathologic Response sample text sample text sample text 100 Bullet Number One – sample text sample text sample text sample text sample sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text text sample text. Bullet Number Two – sample text sample text sample text sample text sample sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text text sample text. Bullet Number Three – sample text sample text sample text sample text sample sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text sample text text sample text. Table VI. Toxicities sample text sample text sample text 100