Table 1.

Summary of select studies evaluating pelvic ± paraortic nodal irradiation

Author (year reported)	Center/Clinical trial	N	Study arm	RT technique	Duration of AE follow-up (mo)	GI G2+ AEs	GI G3+ AEs	GI G4+ AEs
Jethwa et al (2019)	Present study	110	CholPET guided RT to pelvic ± PA lymph nodes	VMAT/IMRT	14	1%	0%
Picchio et al (2014)9	San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy	83	CholPET guided RT to pelvic ± PA lymph nodes	IMRT	3	4%
Vaugier et al (2019)31	GETUG P07	67	CholPET guided RT to pelvic lymph nodes	IMRT	12	6%	0%	0%
Pilepich et al (1986)13, 14	RTOG 7506	523	Prostate + pelvic ± PA RT	2D	51	5% vs 7%∗	<1%∗
Asbell et al (1988)12, 14	RTOG 7706	445	Prostate ± pelvic RT	3DCRT	84	2% vs 7%∗	0% vs 1%∗
Roach et al (2003)16	RTOG 9413	1323	Prostate ± pelvic RT	3DCRT	60		1% vs 2%
Pommier et al (2007)15	GETUG-01	444	Prostate ± pelvic RT	3DCRT	42	37% vs 43%	11% vs 11%
Rotman et al (1990)17	RTOG 7920	367	Pelvic RT ± PA nodal RT for advanced cervical cancer	3DCRT	60			3% vs 7%
Morris et al (1999)18	RTOG 9001	403	Pelvic + PA RT arm for advanced cervical cancer	3DCRT	43		11%

Abbreviations: 3DCRT = 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy; AE = adverse effects; Chol-PET = ¹¹C-choline-positron emission tomography; IMRT = image modulated radiation therapy; PA = paraortic; RT = radiation therapy; RTOG = Radiation Therapy Oncology Group; VMAT = volumetrically modulated arc therapy.

^∗Only reporting incidence of diarrhea.