<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: High dosage brachytherapy obtains excellent results in head and neck tumors</title>
	<atom:link href="http://oralcancernews.org/wp/high-dosage-brachytherapy-obtains-excellent-results-in-head-and-neck-tumors/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://oralcancernews.org/wp/high-dosage-brachytherapy-obtains-excellent-results-in-head-and-neck-tumors/</link>
	<description>The Oral Cancer Foundation News Archive</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Apr 2012 04:08:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: hilllaguna</title>
		<link>http://oralcancernews.org/wp/high-dosage-brachytherapy-obtains-excellent-results-in-head-and-neck-tumors/comment-page-1/#comment-212</link>
		<dc:creator>hilllaguna</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Apr 2009 02:54:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://oralcancernews.org/wp/?p=2886#comment-212</guid>
		<description>While this treatment modality has its applications, is it a surprise to anyone that an article which promotes a therapy with positive findings (which are hardly the standard of care from NCCN viewpoint), supports its general beliefs when published in a journal that is the voice of that particular type of therapy?

Here we have an article favoring and advocating a research piece on brachytherapy, and it appears in what else…. published in the latest issue of Brachytherapy, the official journal of the American Society of Brachytherapy. Talk about finding what you are looking for. I would take the use of this treatment modality (and the findings of this article peer reviewed by people who advocate for this modality) in the vast majority of oral cancers with a grain of salt.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>While this treatment modality has its applications, is it a surprise to anyone that an article which promotes a therapy with positive findings (which are hardly the standard of care from NCCN viewpoint), supports its general beliefs when published in a journal that is the voice of that particular type of therapy?</p>
<p>Here we have an article favoring and advocating a research piece on brachytherapy, and it appears in what else…. published in the latest issue of Brachytherapy, the official journal of the American Society of Brachytherapy. Talk about finding what you are looking for. I would take the use of this treatment modality (and the findings of this article peer reviewed by people who advocate for this modality) in the vast majority of oral cancers with a grain of salt.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

