Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Editorial Policies
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
    • Special Issues
  • Journal Metrics
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
    • 2008 Nobel Laureates
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics

User menu

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Anticancer Research
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Anticancer Research

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Editorial Policies
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
    • Special Issues
  • Journal Metrics
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
    • 2008 Nobel Laureates
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Visit us on Facebook
  • Follow us on Linkedin
Research ArticleClinical Studies

Comparison of Two Radiotherapy Regimens for Metastatic Spinal Cord Compression: Subgroup Analyses from a Randomized Trial

DIRK RADES, ANTONIO J. CONDE-MORENO, JON CACICEDO, BARBARA ŠEGEDIN, KARMEN STANIC, MICHAELA METZ, VOLKER RUDAT and STEVEN E. SCHILD
Anticancer Research February 2018, 38 (2) 1009-1015;
DIRK RADES
1Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: rades.dirk{at}gmx.net
ANTONIO J. CONDE-MORENO
2Department of Radiation Oncology, Consorcio Hospital Provincial de Castellón, Castellón, Spain
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
JON CACICEDO
3Department of Radiation Oncology, Cruces University Hospital, Barakaldo, Spain
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
BARBARA ŠEGEDIN
4Department of Radiotherapy, Institute of Oncology Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
KARMEN STANIC
4Department of Radiotherapy, Institute of Oncology Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
MICHAELA METZ
5Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
VOLKER RUDAT
6Department of Radiation Oncology, Saad Specialist Hospital, Al-Khobar, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
STEVEN E. SCHILD
7Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ, U.S.A.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Figure 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1.

    Patients with poor survival prognoses: Comparison of 5×4Gy and 10×3Gy for the effect on motor function (improvement, no further progression, deterioration) directly (A), at 1 month (B), at 3 months (C), and at 6 months (D) after radiotherapy.

  • Figure 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2.

    Patients with poor survival prognoses: Comparison of 5×4Gy and 10×3Gy for local progression-free survival (top) and survival (bottom).

  • Figure 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 3.

    Patients with intermediate survival prognoses: Comparison of 5×4Gy and 10×3Gy for the effect on motor function (improvement, no further progression, deterioration) directly (A), at 1 month (B), at 3 months (C), and at 6 months (D) after radiotherapy.

  • Figure 4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 4.

    Patients with intermediate survival prognoses: Comparison of 5×4Gy and 10×3Gy for local progression-free survival (top) and survival (bottom).

Tables

  • Figures
  • Table I.
  • Table II.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Anticancer Research
Vol. 38, Issue 2
February 2018
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Ed Board (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Anticancer Research.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Comparison of Two Radiotherapy Regimens for Metastatic Spinal Cord Compression: Subgroup Analyses from a Randomized Trial
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Anticancer Research
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Anticancer Research web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
5 + 2 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Comparison of Two Radiotherapy Regimens for Metastatic Spinal Cord Compression: Subgroup Analyses from a Randomized Trial
DIRK RADES, ANTONIO J. CONDE-MORENO, JON CACICEDO, BARBARA ŠEGEDIN, KARMEN STANIC, MICHAELA METZ, VOLKER RUDAT, STEVEN E. SCHILD
Anticancer Research Feb 2018, 38 (2) 1009-1015;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Reprints and Permissions
Share
Comparison of Two Radiotherapy Regimens for Metastatic Spinal Cord Compression: Subgroup Analyses from a Randomized Trial
DIRK RADES, ANTONIO J. CONDE-MORENO, JON CACICEDO, BARBARA ŠEGEDIN, KARMEN STANIC, MICHAELA METZ, VOLKER RUDAT, STEVEN E. SCHILD
Anticancer Research Feb 2018, 38 (2) 1009-1015;
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Patients and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

  • Independent Validation of a Risk Stratification Model Predicting Survival in Elderly Patients Irradiated for Bone Metastases
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Real-world Delivery and Outcomes of Intravesical BCG for Non–muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer
  • Early Progressive Disease Predicts Poor Outcomes of Second-line VEGFR Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor Therapy After First-line Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab in Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma
  • Evaluation of Quality Metrics for Dose Assessment in Field Overlap Regions of VMAT-Based Craniospinal Axis Irradiation
Show more Clinical Studies

Keywords

  • Metastatic spinal cord compression
  • radiotherapy
  • randomized trial
  • survival prognosis
  • subgroup analyses
  • treatment outcomes
Anticancer Research

© 2026 Anticancer Research

Powered by HighWire