1. [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
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
Sample text sample text sample text
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