text:
A Neutral Look at Operating Systems/Linux

Linux®, sometimes called GNU/Linux, is a free and open source operating system developed by a loosely knit collection of developers around the world. The Linux kernel was first created in 1991 by Linus Torvalds, a Finnish college student. It was built on top of the GNU tools which gave the GNU/Linux OS commonly called Linux. It was designed to imitate the behavior and inner workings of UNIX® while remaining free to all to use.

Linux appears in many commercial operating systems like Red Hat and Novell's SUSE, and also in many non-commercial varieties, like Debian, Gentoo, Knoppix and others. In all, there are hundreds of "distributions", or Linux based operating systems, available for download on the internet, free of charge. Some are discussed in more detail below. If you find a distribution that's not listed below, check if it's based on one that is. These derivatives generally have one or more areas they are intended to be different, but otherwise they will be similar. An extensive timeline graphic for currently functioning distributions and also for those which are no longer active can be found here: futurist.se/gldt.

Linux®
Linux is the leading UNIX clone. The system generally consists of the Linux Kernel, User interface, development tools, Office Software and other utilities.

Linux consists of Open Source software. This means users have the right to receive the source code of the operating system. They are also free to study, modify and redistribute the source code. The GNU Public License is used for about 2/3 of a typical Linux system.

Linux is a result of sustained effort of a huge community of programmers all over the world. Many of them are volunteers working on various projects in their free time. A number of companies also pay developers to work on the software. Linux is available in a variety of different distributions (flavors) including Ubuntu, Redhat, Slackware, Gentoo, SUSE, Mandriva and Debian.

One of the keys to the success of Linux is its open development model. This allows the users to contribute to improving the Operating System. The code submitted by individual developers undergoes a rigorous peer review process. This allows only high quality code into the OS. This review process weeds out bugs and security holes. The huge community of programmers (about a million) are able to fix bugs very quickly. Because of this, Linux is considered a very secure and high quality OS.

Linux is easily the most versatile operating system in the world. In addition to desktop computers, Linux is used in tiny, all sorts of network equipment, large servers and even in super computers. In all these environments Linux provides robust performance, powerful networking, and a high degree of reliability. Linux is in general considered more secure than the Windows alternatives. Viruses, worms, trojans etc. are not as prevalent in Linux environments. This is because of a secure design which does not allow any single user/virus to disrupt the whole system. All normal Linux distributions come with solid firewall abilities. Users generally don't have to install anti-virus software.

Traditionally, Linux desktops have not been considered very user friendly. In recent time Linux desktops have significantly improved. GNOME and KDE are two very popular Linux desktops that feature a very user-friendly environment and plenty of useful software. Some distributions come with all the software that a typical user will ever use packaged with the operating system itself, eliminating the need to purchase extra software as one must do for typical proprietary operating systems. Maintaining and managing Linux desktops can also be very simple.

Linux is free to download in most cases. Product support is available from the commercial Linux vendors and others. Linux often has low TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) because of its increased reliability, low software costs, and low administrative costs. This is particularly true for small businesses that are unable to negotiate low Windows costs, and for the very large businesses that can devote people to taking advantage of Linux. However, Linux is also the subject of a very complex copyright dispute. Service disruptions from viruses and annoyances from spyware are almost unheard of for Linux users.

In recent times Linux has proliferated to cell phones, telecom equipment, data centers and biometrics computation. Linux is expected to become the operating system of choice for consumer electronics and entertainment industries in future.

Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds.

Live CDs / Live USB
People who are entirely new to Linux should try a distribution (ISO image) on a LiveCD or Live USB which is a full Linux system with video, ethernet and Wifi networking, web browser, flash player and sound that will run entirely from the CD/USB and will not modify their current operating system. These live CDs/USBs often run slowly but they will give the user an indication of whether that distribution will run on his/her machine, and the user is likely to see that Linux is a user friendly environment with high quality applications, multimedia functions, and network access.

This helps new users to test out how Linux looks before installing it into their system. These live CD also make excellent emergency boot disks, if the system using some other operating systems does not boot up correctly. Many can even install a complete Linux system while running the live CD, making the installation very simple.

For this, open an ISO image with UltraISO or similar choose 'Bootable'- 'Write disk image' to burn onto a bootable USB / CD-DVD.

Knoppix
Knoppix was one of the first live CDs. It has better hardware detection than most distributions, and many Linux users keep a Knoppix disk since it makes a nice rescue and demo system. Knoppix also allows you to test-drive several popular desktop environments, including KDE, IceWM, Window Maker, Fluxbox, Lars, TWM and Xfce. The book Knowing Knoppix/Knoppix for the first time has more details.

Fedora
Fedora distributes a popular live CD that uses GNOME and another one that uses KDE.

Ubuntu
The standard "desktop version" of Ubuntu is a LiveCD. The book Using Ubuntu Linux/Live Boot has more details.

Distributions for New Users
People who have chosen to use Linux and need a desktop distribution should try a Live distro (Live DVD/USB) and easy-to-use. Each of the following distros help new users by providing a lot of hand-holding. In fact, the default installation will install and configure software such that any new user can immediately become productive.

Fedora
Fedora is a fast paced development that is updated every six months with new version, although the previous version is kept updated for the following 18 months. The Fedora system is tightly connected with RPM packages, and many open-source programs come ready made for Fedora (such as Mplayer, Gnutella etc...) Fedora is a completely free Linux distribution, meant to be developed with the most cutting edge versions of programs, that are updated with either Yum or Red Hat Networks. Users can choose between the GNOME desktop and the KDE desktop at login time.

Mandriva Linux
Mandriva Mandriva Linux was the first distro to focus on ease of use.

Puppy Linux
Puppy Linux is for beginners and runs fast on old hardware. It also takes up little space on the CD, DVD, or USB flash drive. It makes it easy to modify and add to the basic distribution. When one is combined into a disk image it is called a puplet. Users can upload their puplets to the project's website.

Puppy is a single-user system. That is, the user always has root privileges. This is the same poor security model that gets Windows 9x users in so much trouble.

A slightly more difficult distribution that also has low system requirements is Damn Small Linux. DSL has a better security model than Puppy.

Ubuntu Linux
Ubuntu is based on Debian and produces a new release every 6 months rain or shine. Ubuntu provides free Ubuntu Linux CDs to anyone who asks for them, which makes Ubuntu free-as-in-pizza even if you don't have a high-speed Internet connection. In the default configuration, you cannot log in as root, or use the "su" command to become the root user. Instead of the traditional root superuser, Ubuntu uses sudo to give certain users administrative privileges. Although one may enable the root account, it is not recommended .

Ubuntu only officially supports a subset of the packages in Debian, but you can access the rest of the packages with a little work. The default setup includes GNOME, but there's also a KDE version of the distribution called Kubuntu.

There are also other versions of Ubuntu available such as Edubuntu (suited for educational use) and the lightweight versions (in early development) Xubuntu and UbuntuLite. Even though the different Ubuntu versions are available as different installations, the only difference between them is what software they have included. So basically they are all the same distribution, and they all have the same software packages available on-line.

openSUSE
openSuSE is focused on desktop Linux for Business users. Most of the configuration is done YaST, an open source tool.

Moblin
Moblin ("mobile Linux internet") is a project developing a version of Linux and applications for netbooks and mobile internet devices.

Distributions for Power Users
Regular users of Linux, generally called power users, may prefer distributions like Debian or Slackware to the others due to the easy customization and power these distributions give. Due to this, they also make excellent distributions for servers. New users are encouraged to read the extensive documentation available before trying to use these two distributions unless they have some one who is nearby to help them in case of trouble, or if they have some experience in Linux and want to learn more. Both Debian and Slackware have many derivatives, some of which are also for advanced users. Users considering either one should look into the derivatives as well.

Debian GNU/Linux
Debian is a non-commercial distribution known for its package management system and strict requirements of its packages and releases.

Debian comes in three branches: stable, testing and unstable. New packages to be included in the distribution are initially pushed to the unstable branch. Once the package has been shown not to cause too many crashes it is pushed to testing where it will stay for several months while thousands of users test it and work out bugs. Once most release critical bugs are solved, the package will be a candidate for the stable branch.

An advantage is that the Debian stable branch is very stable indeed and almost bug free but at the price of being a bit outdated. Debian stable often does not include support for the latest hardware and software features desktop users like to see. Therefore, most desktop users of Debian prefer some kind of mix of Stable, Testing and sometimes even Unstable for their final desktop configuration.

Debian also has a very good package management system, quite possibly THE best package management system of any OS in the world.

Debian is also known for being a completely free (as in freedom) operating system, and unless you include the 'non-free' branch in your sources file, everything will be Free Software. The word Free does not pertain to cost (you can sell these things) but to freedom: every package in Debian gives you the right to use, distribute, and modify the software (even for money).

See Using Debian in a Graphic environment.

Slackware
Slackware is one of the oldest distributions. Its emphasis is on simplicity of design and following Unix conventions. The result of this focus on design simplicity is that configuration is often left to the user. (development source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slackware)

Arch
Arch tries to provide a stable and functional minimal core of software and then provide a lot of flexibility for users to customise on top of this. Arch operates a "rolling release" policy, so you can install once and then keep up to date, rather than having to wait for periodical releases and then doing a major upgrade.

Source-based Distributions
Some distributions allow you to build a Linux system starting with just source code. These distributions are not recommended for new computer users, since it is more complicated and everything has to be compiled. Installation is slow, but some people find it worth the trouble, as when installation is completed you are left with a powerful, high-performance system. Additionally it is a great learning experience.

Gentoo
The aim of Gentoo is to provide an up-to-date, customizable, and high performance GNU/Linux distribution.

Gentoo is a non-commercial source-based distribution, which means that when installing programs for Gentoo, scripts will download the source code for the program and then compile it to fit your computer configuration (CPU optimizations). Gentoo uses Portage, a very sophisticated and advanced package manager, to achieve all of this. The inspiration for Portage came from the BSD Ports packaging system.

Installing a complete system can take quite some time, so it is also possible to install Gentoo with pre-compiled packages, at the cost of some speed optimizations. Gentoo users claim that the optimizations and configuration options (USE flags) make their computers noticeably faster, but critics of Gentoo argue that the optimizations are overrated and that the increased speed from optimizations are lost when you consider the amount of time the computer has to spend compiling programs. Also, excessive optimization can lead to instability.

Compared to other distros, Gentoo software tends to be more bleeding edge, which means it is newer and has more features, but is less stable.

Linux From Scratch
Linux From Scratch is not a distribution at all. Instead, it is an online book that guides a user through the process of downloading, compiling, installing, and configuring each component of a typical GNU/Linux system. Although it tends to be impractical for most desktop users, setting up a Linux from Scratch system can be a great learning experience.

SourceMage
SourceMage is derived from Sorcerer, probably the first source-based distribution with a good package manager. It uses Sorcery, a powerful package manager with full dependency resolution and featuring a lot of innovative features, completely written in bash.

Perhaps the main difference between Gentoo and SourceMage is the ease of use and installation, which is faster because of the project's emphasis on speed.

It's mainly targeted at Linux From Scratch users bored from the process of maintaining their systems manually, and will look somewhat familiar for Debian users, as its package manager shares some concepts with Apt, but is far more flexible. Also, SourceMage has a Social Contract similar to the Debian Social Contract.


text: Template:How To Assemble A Desktop PC/Contents

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
User:Yayyak

Hi, im Yayyak. I like Debian, BlitzBasic, C programming, and Canoe Polo.

title: User:Yayyak


text:
5 in a Row/Wuziqi

Description: Wuziqi is the Chinese name for the board game known as ../Gomoku/ in Japanese, although the board doesn't have to be 15x15 (it could be infinite).

Aim: to get five of one's pieces in a row

Rules: Players alternate turns, players may not make more than one move in one turn, players may skip their move during their turn.

Gameplay: Either Black or White may make the first move (This decision is up to the players).

title: 5 in a Row/Wuziqi


text:
Talk:5 in a Row

I'm not exactly sure what wu zi qi 'is' (even though that's the game I've probably played the most during my life so far!) Ah well, I'll try and look at various sources to see if there are any rules specific to this game (but it seems to me that "no rules" is the guideline for playing wuziqi!) Any comments/info/links would be appreciated.. :)? -- Yesitsapril

title: Talk:5 in a Row


text:
5 in a Row/Renju

Description:

What you need to play

Renju is played on a grid of black lines (usually 19×19) which is a classic Go grid. Game pieces, called stones, are played on the lines' intersections.

Aim:
 * Black: to get exactly 5 pieces in a row, without making any forbidden moves
 * White: to get 5 or more pieces in a row, or to force Black to make a forbidden move

Rules: players alternate turns, players may not make more than one move in one turn, players may skip their move during their turn.

Gameplay:

Opening sequence:
 * 1) The Black player plays the first three moves. They do this by placing the first black piece, then they (still the black player) place the first white piece, then the second black piece.
 * 2) The current White player then is permitted to choose to become the new Black player, if he or she finds the opening situation particularly disadvantageous for White. (Note: This ensures the original Black player does not intentionally play a poor first move for White.)
 * 3) The new White player (and the White player for the rest of the game) places the second white piece on the board.
 * 4) The new Black player (and the Black player for the rest of the game) places two black pieces on the board. White is essentially given a choice between two potential black moves. White chooses which of the two moves the Black player may make, and the rejected potential move is removed from the board.
 * 5) White plays his or her next move, and the game continues as in the rules above.
 * 1) The new Black player (and the Black player for the rest of the game) places two black pieces on the board. White is essentially given a choice between two potential black moves. White chooses which of the two moves the Black player may make, and the rejected potential move is removed from the board.
 * 2) White plays his or her next move, and the game continues as in the rules above.
 * 1) White plays his or her next move, and the game continues as in the rules above.
 * 1) White plays his or her next move, and the game continues as in the rules above.

title: 5 in a Row/Renju


text:
5 in a Row/Pente

Description: Pente is unlike a lot of n in row games in that it also involves capturing pieces

Aim: to get five of ones pieces in a row OR to capture 5 sets of opponent pieces

Rules: During their turn, a player places a stone of their color onto the board. If the stone is horizontally, vertically or diagonally adjecent to an opponent's stone and is opposite of a corresponding stone, the opponent's stone is captured.

Gameplay: White moves first (unlike ../Gomoku/ and ../Renju/), and players alternate turns.

Variations of Pente
Pente+/-

When a player captures a set of pieces, they may choose to add this to their set of captured pieces or subtract the capture from their opponent's set of captures.

title: 5 in a Row/Pente


text:
Talk:5 in a Row/Pente

About the variations of Pente section here (on Pente+-), I'm not sure if a player can have a negative integer value of captures or not.. yet! jen

title: Talk:5 in a Row/Pente


text:
Blender 3D: Noob to Pro/Your first test

Next page: Blender 3D: Noob to Pro/Form: Accuracy And Precision Previous page: Blender 3D: Noob to Pro/The Game Engine -- Back to Index

We will teach you to make a realistic ball rolling down the hill using Blender's game engine.

First, make a plane. Subdivide it a few times and scale it up a lot. Now, make a sphere. It can be any kind except meta. With the sphere selected, go to the game engine settings. (It is the little purple Pacman-icon.) You will see something that says Actor. Press it. Now press Dynamic. You will see a bunch of settings available now. Change Size to 1.4. Also enable Rigid body. This will let the ball roll. Edit the plane, pulling vertices up or down. For this example, make it look like a canyon. Put the ball at the start point and press the P-Key. You will see the ball fall in, and roll. If it doesn't go the way you wanted, Pull some vertices of the canyon downwards. Incline your plane to let the ball roll. If you just see white, don't worry. Press escape to exit the game mode. Press Z key. Go back into game mode and it will look like wireframe. the ball will roll through the canyon. Well done! You should give it finishing touches, like effects, color, etc. And that's it.

Next page: Basic Animation Previous page: Intermediate Textures and Materials -- Back to Index

title: Blender 3D: Noob to Pro/Your first test


text:
Introduction to Art/References

Books on contemporary art, theory, and its predecessors:

Relational Aesthetics by Nicolas Bourriaud

The Return of the Real: Art and Theory at the End of the Century (October Books) by Hal Foster

Six Years: The Dematerialization of the Art Object from 1966 to 1972 : A Cross-Reference Book of Information on Some Esthetic Boundaries : Consisting of a biblio by Lucy R. Lippard

Theory in Contemporary Art since 1985 Edited By: ZOYA KOCUR, New York University SIMON LEUNG, University of California, Irvine

title: Introduction to Art/References


text:
Movie Making Manual/CUS Casting

Since we only had a limited number of people in our 'talent pool', we had to mix and match for the best match of character to actor. While this meant that sometimes the preferred act was not provided, it meant that we would be able to film without constantly reusing actors in main roles.

General Casting
The general casting period was more or less finding out who would be willing and interested in joining in such an undertaking. Fortunately, the number of volunteers that were found numbered almost enough to cover all roles that were needed. It was at this period that specific characters were considered for each actor.

Dividing Potentials
A side effect of casting in this way meant that most of the cast and crew would know each other. This meant that when shortlisting actors for specific characters, we could typecast into who we thought would be the most successful at portraying a character.

title: Movie Making Manual/CUS Casting


text:
User:01mf02

I'm mainly working on the Blender 3D: Noob to Pro book. If you want to know more about me (don't think so :-), go to Wikipedia and look for information about 01mf02.

title: User:01mf02


text:
Perl Programming/GUI programming

=GUI and desktop programming=

There are several GUI widget sets available as additions to Perl, though the most common is probably Perl/Tk.

 * Gtk uses Gtk+, the Gimp Toolkit.
 * Gtk2 uses Gtk+ 2.x.
 * Gtk3 uses Gtk+ 3.x.
 * Prima uses its own toolkit.
 * Perl Tk (sometimes pTk or ptk) is a collection of modules and code that attempts to wed the simple Tk widget set to perl 5.
 * Tcl::Tk same as perlTk, but uses existing Tcl/Tk via Tcl, so allowing Tcl widgets
 * Tkx a different, lightweight, access to Tk via Tcl.
 * Qt uses the Qt toolkit.
 * Wx uses the platform independent wxWidgets toolkit.

Links

 * The comp.lang.perl.tk FAQ

title: Perl Programming/GUI programming


text:
Italian/Grammar/Prepositions

Prepositions / Preposizioni
The "standard" prepositions that are taught at school are
 * di ('of', 'belonging to'; used in place of the English genitive)
 * a ('to')
 * da ('from', 'by')
 * in ('in', 'on' with abstract nouns)
 * con ('with')
 * su ('on')
 * per ('for', 'in order to')
 * tra ('among', 'between')
 * fra ('among', 'between')

Remember that the above translations into English are only approximate. bravo in matematica obviously translates into English as good at mathematics and not good in mathematics.

When prepositions are used together with definite articles, the preposition and the article are sometimes condensed into a single word. For example, "of the student" becomes "dello studente" and not "di lo studente".

More specifically, the following table lists all the possible combinations (except those not in common use today).

Please note that using these combinations (except those with con) is mandatory: you cannot choose to use plain preposition + article instead. With con, it's possible to use both the combination or the separated words: col or con il and so on. Per, tra/fra and all other prepositions don't have contracted forms, they simply use preposition + article. Originally con and per also had contracted forms (col, collo, etc. and pel, pella, etc.) but these are never used anymore (with the exception col (= con + il) which is still occasionally found).

The prepositions di and da may take an apostrophe and become  d'  before a vowel. Examples where this is the rule, and not simply a matter of personal preference, are
 * d'altra parte, lit. "from other side", meaning "on the other hand"
 * d'altro canto, lit. "from other place", as above
 * d'altri, "of others" (but di altri is acceptable)
 * d'oro, "made of gold", "golden"
 * d'argento, "made of silver"
 * d'oltreoceano, d'oltralpe, etc.

For euphonic reasons, the proposition a usually becomes ad before a vowel, though this is not mandatory. When the vowel following the preposition is another 'a', using ad can probably be considered mandatory. Examples: ad altri (to others), ad essere or a essere (to be), ad oltranza or a oltranza (ad libitum).

Historically, per has been a combinable preposition (with combined forms pel, pello, pella, pei, pegli, pelle), but this usage is never encountered in contemporary prose, even though it is still present in the dialects of Tuscany.

Italiano/Preposiciones

title: Italian/Grammar/Prepositions


text:
Italian/Grammar/Verb Conjugation Reference

Presente
It indicates that the subject is doing something. For example: guardante (from the verb guardare=to watch)means that the subject is watching. But this tense is almost never used.

Presente
Italiano/Referencia de conjugación de verbos


text:
Italian/Vocabulary/Computing

=Hardware=

 * il computer
 * il mouse
 * il monitor
 * lo schermo monitor
 * il modem
 * lo scanner
 * la stampante printer
 * il disco disk, disc
 * il dischetto diskette
 * il masterizzatore CD/DVD burner

=Software=

 * il programma program
 * il file
 * la directory
 * la cartella folder
 * il filesystem
 * il sistema operativo operating system
 * il compilatore compiler
 * l'editor
 * il word processor
 * il foglio elettronico spreadsheet
 * il browser

=Interface=

 * l'interfaccia grafica graphical interface
 * la console
 * il comando command
 * la finestra window
 * la finestra di dialogo dialog window
 * il menu
 * il pulsante button
 * la barra di scorrimento scrollbar
 * il puntatore pointer
 * il cursore cursor
 * le impostazioni settings

Italià/Vocabulari/Informàtica Italiano/Vocabulario/Computación

title: Italian/Vocabulary/Computing


text:
Italian/Vocabulary/Symbols

=Punctuation=

 * . punto
 * , virgola
 * : due punti
 * ; punto e virgola
 * ! punto esclamativo
 * ? punto interrogativo, punto di domanda
 * " virgolette / doppi apici
 * ’ apice / singolo apice, usato per elementi letterali (used for literal elements, i.e.: '?')
 * - trattino (to separate a subphrase, i.e.: this topic - as far as I know - has not been fully explained)
 * ( parentesi tonda aperta
 * ) parentesi tonda chiusa
 *  parentesi tonde, mettere una o più parole fra parentesi tonde (to put one or more words in round brackets)
 * … 3 puntini (horizontal ellipsis / three dots symbol)
 * ... 3 puntini (alternative representation using three single dots)

=Diacritics=

 * ` accento grave
 * ´ accento acuto
 * ^ accento circonflesso
 * ~ tilde
 * ¨ dieresi (umlaut)

=Misc Symbols=

 * % percento
 * ‰ permille / per mille
 * & "e" commerciale (ampersand)
 * @ chiocciola (at sign)
 * * asterisco
 * # cancelletto

=Mathematics=

 * + più
 * - meno
 * × per
 * * per (alternative symbol, used in formulas, computer expressions, etc.)
 * ÷ diviso, 10 ÷ 5 = 2
 * : diviso (alternative symbol), 10 : 5 = 2
 * / diviso (alternative symbol), 10 / 5 = 2
 * = uguale
 * < minore
 * <= minore uguale / minore o uguale
 * > maggiore
 * >= maggiore uguale / maggiore o uguale
 * ( parentesi tonda aperta
 * ) parentesi tonda chiusa
 *  parentesi / mettere un'espressione fra parentesi, (3 + 2) (to put an expression in round brackets)
 * [ parentesi quadra aperta
 * ] parentesi quadra chiusa
 * [ ] parentesi quadre
 * { parentesi graffa aperta
 * } parentesi graffa chiusa
 * { } parentesi graffe
 * π PI greco
 * √ radice (root)
 * √2 radice quadrata (square root): √2 25 = 5
 * √3 radice cubica (cubic root): √3 125 = 5
 * n2 numero, valore elevato al quadrato / alla seconda (potenza): 52 = 25
 * n3 numero, valore elevato al cubo / alla terza (potenza): 53 = 125
 * n4 numero, valore elevato alla quarta (potenza): 54 = 625

Italiano/Vocabulario/Símbolos

title: Italian/Vocabulary/Symbols


text:
User:Mrnoj

City Of Heroes

If you want to talk to me, the link would be here, otherwise, click on the CityOfHeroes link above and check it out, lacking content, but I'm working on it... hopefully you are too.

title: User:Mrnoj


text:
Talk:East Asian Calligraphy/The dot

Untitled
It would be really great if somebody could hand-write these characters and scan them in.
 * That's a great idea... unfortunately I don't have a scanner, so I'll make an attempt with my digital camera and see how things go. -- Ran 03:59, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's too hard to get the thickness difference with anything but a calligraphy brush. I've already tried pencil, ballpoint (:|), fountain pen, and marker. Unfortunately I don't have a calligraphy brush. -- Ran 17:22, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I've taken the next-best-plan: find handwriting-based font, type out in word, then print screen. -- Ran 18:27, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:East Asian Calligraphy/The dot


text:
Dichotomous Key/Acari

1

 * Trichobothria
 * Present - ../Acariformes/
 * Not present - 2

2: Anactinotrichida

 * Free coxae
 * Present - ../Parasitiformes/
 * Not present - ../Opilioacariformes/

Dichotomický klíč/Acari

title: Dichotomous Key/Acari


text:
Cookbook:Gado-gado (Indonesian Salad with Peanut Sauce)

| Indonesian Cuisine

Gado-gado is a vegetable salad with a peanut sauce dressing.

Peanut sauce

 * 1 g terasi (fermented prawn paste)
 * Vegetable oil
 * 300 g peanuts
 * Fresh or dried chile pepper
 * 1 clove garlic
 * Salt
 * 125 g gula jawa (Indonesian palm sugar)
 * 4 shallots
 * Sugar
 * Fresh lime juice or rice vinegar

Salad

 * Hard-boiled eggs, sliced
 * Whole potatoes, steamed or boiled
 * Mixed vegetables (e.g. cabbage, bean sprouts, cucumber, chayote, water spinach, asparagus bean, spinach)
 * Deep fried soybean cake
 * Deep fried tempeh
 * Deep fried kerupuk (fish or prawn crackers)
 * Deep fried shallot

Peanut sauce

 * 1) Fry prawn paste with vegetable oil until fragrant.
 * 2) Fry the peanuts until golden brown. Remove from the pan and leave to cool, then drain off all but a little of the excess oil.
 * 3) Grind the peanuts to a paste.
 * 4) Add ground chili pepper, garlic, salt, sugar, and prawn paste to the peanut paste. Grind to mix.
 * 5) Put peanut paste in a pan, add some water to dissolve (use coconut milk for a richer taste).
 * 6) Add additional sugar into the peanut sauce to taste, and bring to the boil.
 * 7) Simmer peanut sauce until thick, and season with the lime juice or vinegar.

Salad

 * 1) Remove the skin from the boiled potatoes. Deep fry the potatoes until golden brown, then slice.
 * 2) Wash, shred, or chop cabbage, spinach, and water spinach.
 * 3) Boil water in a pan. Add cabbage, and cook until tender. Drain.
 * 4) Use strained boiling water to boil the spinach and water spinach, one after another. Drain.
 * 5) Blanch bean sprouts for about 30 seconds. Drain.
 * 6) Peel chayote, wash, slice, and boil until tender.
 * 7) Wash and slice cucumber.
 * 8) Place the salad, sliced potatoes, fried tofu, fried tempeh, and eggs in a large plate, either randomly or in layers.
 * 9) Pour the peanut sauce over the salad.
 * 10) Spread deep fried shallots on top, and serve with kerupuk.

Notes, tips, and variations

 * Prawn crackers are non-vegetarian. You can substitute them with kerupuk sayur or emping if you wish this dish to be completely vegetarian.
 * Add some kecap manis (Malay/Indonesian sweet soy sauce) to taste.
 * You may substitute the peanut sauce recipe for the procedure here.
 * cashew nuts is secret ingredient to make peanut sauce tastes richer.
 * Some cooks like to blanche or steam the cabbage, cauliflower, and carrots rather than serve them raw.
 * Use chunky peanut butter as substitute for ground peanuts.
 * Use chili sauce to substitute fresh or dried chili pepper.
 * Cauliflower, green beans, watercress, carrots, tomatoes, or peas are sometimes included but less common.

id:Resep:Gado Gado


text:
Dichotomous Key/Parasitiformes

1

 * Latigynial plates and palpal tarsus
 * Both reduced - 2
 * Neither reduced - 3

2: Ixodida

 * Attachment to host
 * Remain attached for long periods - ../Ixodidae/
 * Do not remain attached long - ../Argasidae/

Could also be the poorly-known Nuttalliellidae

3

 * Diet
 * Scavenger - Holothyrida
 * Other - Mesostigmata

title: Dichotomous Key/Parasitiformes


text:
Talk:The Unofficial Enlightenment User's Manual

Name of this wikibook
I'm starting to have second thoughts about this wikibook's name...it might be too long/cumbersome, but if we change it we should do so soon before people begin linking. I wouldn't mind removing the apostrophe from the name as well. jxn 05:32, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * It's quite a long title. I suggest Enlightenment. There's currently nothing there. --Snaxe920 04:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Content Layout
I am looking for input and ideas on the layout for this wikibook. Should it be multiple pages? Should there be separate subsections for installation? Should different OS's each have separate installation instruction pages? What should the first page include? Do we need a Table of Contents? Please give me some ideas. jxn 05:20, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have been using e for nearly 4 years - basically as long as I've been using GNU/Linux, and am excited to discover this user's manual. My feelings are that we certainly should go for multiple pages. Perhaps the main page should have an introductory section (like it already has), and then a series of headings and links to help people quickly find the sort of information they are looking for. I think that the main page should not be too long.Latch.r 01:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

DR16.999
I was under the impression DR16.999 was the development version of DR17. Bawolff 22:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


text:
Talk:American Government/Political Parties

The end section (starting at "Decisive Moments") is not only difficult to comprehend, it suggests bias (i.e., the arbitrary selection of "low points" in American politics). Should it be removed?

--

"The U.S. Constitution makes no mention of political parties. This was a smart move; it would be anti-Constitutional to show any preference to any political party."

So...if the U.S. Constitution made mention of parties..it would be anti-constitutional... what kinda crack are you on?

Linked in to Bookshelf
Ok, I've added this to the Political Science Bookshelf. Can we remove the notice now? Chadlupkes 02:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

 * To remove the notice, just edit the page and delete the cleanup-link tag found at the top of the page, like I have now done. --Kernigh 04:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

How about some mention of the real power behind politics in America, big money, and its effects on our system. That would be a good start. Then maybe touch on how the two party system is monopolistic and other ways in which real democracy is stifled in this country. This article reads like the bullshit propaganda I was fed in elementary school.

 * I have added some more material to the page, especially drawing out the item on the '48 election. I concur these pages must be written as neutral as possible. In terms of sources, I refer you to the Truman autobiography, especially volume 1. I would hesitate to refer to "parliament" without making a section that compares the US Senate and House with the UK House of Lords and Commons. Some comment asbout "checks and balances" may also be useful. Perhaps even a digression to why people feel the need to identify with any party at all. Also no discussion of "party less" people, the so called independent voters who are largely responsible for shifts in the political spectrum rather than third parties. Finally, is the "Taxed Enough Already Party" really the Federalist Party by any other name.Kerojack (discuss • contribs) 21:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


text:
Radiation Oncology/Head & Neck/Nasopharynx

Nasopharyngeal Cancer

 * Staging
 * Overview
 * Early Stage
 * Advanced_Stage


text:
Radiation Oncology/Head & Neck/Post-op

Postoperative RT

Surgical Technique

 * No universally accepted definition of "resectable" vs "unresectable" tumor
 * Lymph node dissection classification (PMID 12117328)

Classification of Neck Dissection

 * Radical neck dissection : all ipsilateral cervical LN groups from inferior border of mandible superiorly to clavicle inferiorly and from lateral border of sternohyoid muscle/hyoid bone/contralateral anterior belly of digastric muscle anteriorly to anterior border of trapezius posteriorly. All lymph nodes from Level I - V. Spinal accessory nerve, internal jugular vein, and sternocleidomastoid muscles are removed. No removal of suboccipital, periparotid, buccal, retropharyngeal, and paratracheal lymph nodes
 * Modified radical neck dissection : excision of all lymph nodes routinely removed by radical neck dissection with preservation of one or more nonlymphatic structures, ie, spinal accessory nerve, internal jugular vein, and/or sternocleidomastoid muscle.
 * Selective neck dissection (SND): cervical lymphadenectomy with preservation of 1 or more of the lymph node groups that are routinely removed in the radical neck dissection. The lymph node groups removed are based on the patterns of metastases, which are predictable relative to the primary site of disease
 * Supraomohyoid neck dissection: SND I-III. Oral cavity cancers. In case of oral tongue, some recommend SND I-IV. For cancers involving midline, bilateral SND I-III
 * Lateral neck dissection: SND II-IV. Oropharyngeal, hypopharyngeal, and laryngeal cancers. If retropharyngeal LNs, they can be dissected as well
 * Posterolateral neck dissection: SND II-V. Cutaneous melanoma
 * Anterior neck dissection: SND VI. Thyroid, larynx, hypopharynx
 * Extended neck dissection : removal of 1 or more additional lymph node groups or nonlymphatic structures, or both, not encompassed by the radical neck dissection. Examples of lymph node groups include the parapharyngeal (retropharyngeal), superior mediastinal, perifacial (buccinator), and paratracheal lymph nodes. Examples of nonlymphatic structures include the carotid artery, hypoglossal nerve, vagus nerve, and paraspinal muscles.

Selective neck dissection

 * Goettingen, Germany, 2001 (1986-1997) PMID 11226954 -- "Efficacy of selective neck dissection: a review of 503 cases of elective and therapeutic treatment of the neck in squamous cell carcinoma of the upper aerodigestive tract." (Ambrosch P, Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2001 Feb;124(2):180-7.)
 * Retrospective. 503 patients, selective neck dissection. pN0 49% vs pN+ 51%. Postop RT pN0 14% vs. pN+ 62%. Median F/U 3.4 years
 * Outcome: 3-year RR pN0 5% vs. pN1 5% vs. pN2 12%. RT marginal benefit for pN1 and significant benefit for pN2 or ECE
 * Conclusion: Results achieved with selective neck dissection compare favorably with reported modified radical neck dissection

Cricopharyngeal myotomy

 * RTOG 85-30 (1989-1994)
 * Randomized. 125 patients. Arm 1) standard surgery vs. Arm 2) surgery + cricopharyngeal myotomy
 * 1999 PMID 10488976 -- "Failure of cricopharyngeal myotomy to improve dysphagia following head and neck cancer surgery." (Jacobs JR, Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1999 Sep;125(9):942-6.)
 * Outcome: No difference in oropharyngeal swallowing efficiency at 6 months
 * Conclusion: No benefit for cricopharyngeal myotomy

Surgery + Post-op RT vs Primary RT

 * RTOG; 1993 (1985-1990) PMID 8262821 — "Is a surgical resection leaving positive margins of benefit to the patient with locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: a comparative study using the intergroup study 0034 and the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group head and neck database." Laramore GE et al. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1993 Dec 1;27(5):1011-6.
 * Compared pts treated on a prospective Intergroup study (surgical group) with pts from a historical database who received RT alone, matched for similar characteristics. 109 pts in the surgical group had positive margins and most received post-op RT.
 * 4-yr LRC 44% (positive margins) vs 24% (RT). No difference in MS or 4-yr OS.
 * Conclusion: incomplete surgery (+adjuvant RT) affords improved local control compared to RT alone

Surgery + RT vs. Primary Chemo-RT

 * Singapore (1996-2000)
 * Randomized. Stopped early due to slow accrual. 199 patients, resectable Stage III/IV SCHNC excluding NPC and salivary glands (larynx 32% (supraglottis 23%), oral cavity 27%, oropharynx 21%, hypopharynx 12%). T4 56%. Arm 1) surgery + adjuvant RT 60/30 vs. Arm 2) RT 66/33 + concurrent cisplatin 20 mg/m2 + 5-FU 1000 mg/m2 x2 cycles. 90% received at least 1 cycle of chemo
 * 2005 PMID 16012523 -- "Surgery and adjuvant radiotherapy vs concurrent chemoradiotherapy in stage III/IV nonmetastatic squamous cell head and neck cancer: a randomised comparison." (Soo KC, Br J Cancer. 2005 Aug 8;93(3):279-86.) Median F/U 6 years
 * Outcome: 3-year DFS: S+RT 50% vs. chemo-RT 40% (NS). Organ preservation (larynx/hypopharynx 68%, oropharynx 55%, oral cavity 21%, paranasal sinus 0%). Chemo-RT group had poor surgical salvage of 47%, with no long-term survivors
 * Conclusion: Chemo-RT not superior to surgery+RT, but can be attempted for organ preservation in larynx, hypopharynx, and oropharynx

Pre-op RT vs Post-op RT

 * Historically, pre-op RT was favored since it facilitated regression of tumor, and improved LRC over surgery alone
 * However, morbidity of this approach lead to greater emphasis on post-op RT in 1960's and 1970's (see Fletcher PMID 13403033 (1957), PMID 4190460(1970))
 * Randomized trial RTOG 73-03 demonstrated significantly better LRC for post-op RT
 * Please see discussion tab for more trials

 * RTOG 73-03 (1973-1979)
 * Randomized. 320 patients. Operable stage T2-T4 any N (but not fixed); oral cavity, oropharynx, supraglottic larynx, hypopharynx, or maxillary sinus. Arm 1) Pre-op RT 50 Gy vs. Arm 2) Post-op RT 60 Gy. In addition, OC and OP lesions may be randomized Arm 3) definitive RT 65-70 Gy, with surgery reserved for salvage (n=43).
 * 5-years; 1987 PMID 3449477 — "Combined radiation therapy and surgery in the management of advanced head and neck cancer: final report of study 73-03 of the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group." (Kramer S et al. Head Neck Surg. 1987 Sep-Oct;10(1):19-30.) Median F/U 5 years
 * Outcome: LRC post-op 65% vs pre-op 48% (SS). Higher rate of persistent disease and recurrence in pre-op. Trend toward improved survival, 38% vs 33% (p=0.1).
 * Toxicity: Complication rate similar.
 * Definitive RT arm: For OC and OP lesions (three-arm randomization), 4-yr OS pre-op 30% vs post-op 36% vs definitive 33% (NS), and LRC 43% vs 52% vs 38% (NS); however total number of patients was small
 * Conclusion: Post-op RT superior to pre-op RT
 * 10-years; 1999 PMID 1993628 — "Randomized study of preoperative versus postoperative radiation therapy in advanced head and neck carcinoma: long-term follow-up of RTOG study 73-03." (Tupchong L et al. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1991 Jan;20(1):21-8.)
 * Only pre-op vs. post-op subset (n=277). Oral cavity (14%), oropharynx (17%), hypopharynx (43%), supraglottic larynx (26%)
 * Outcome: LRC pre-op 58% vs. post-op 70% (SS), <2 years no difference (failures 59% vs. 58%), but marked >2 years (failures 27% vs 8%); OS no difference due to late (>2 years) deaths from DM and from second primaries
 * Supraglottic larynx: LRC pre-op 53% vs. post-op 77% (SS); 78% failures <2 years
 * Toxicity: no difference
 * Conclusion: Post-op RT better for LRC (especially in SGL), but no impact on OS due to distant failure and second primaries
 * Comment: some argument for definitive chemoRT instead of surgery and post-op RT since after 2 yrs, distant mets are primary cause of failure resulting in similar 10 OS in this trial. LRC still better for post-op vs definitive RT alone. Also, different doses used, at the time believed equivalent given the setting

 * Univ. Florida; 1989 (1964-84) - PMID 2912947 — "Postoperative irradiation for squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: an analysis of treatment results and complications." (Amdur RJ, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1989 Jan;16(1):25-36.)
 * Retrospective. 134 patients, 96% Stage III-IV.
 * Outcome: 5-year OS 33%. SM- 37% vs. SM+ 17% (SS); LRC SM- 81% vs. SM+ 53% (SS)

Resectable Cancers of Head and Neck

 * SWOG 8006 (1980-1985) -- Induction chemo vs. standard surgery + RT
 * Randomized. 158 patients. Stage III-IV, resectable HNSCC (oral cavity, oropharynx, hypopharynx, larynx). Arm 1) Surgery + post-op RT vs. Arm 2) Induction cisplatin 50 mg/m2 + MTX + vincristine + bleomycin
 * 1988 PMID 3054373 -- "Preoperative chemotherapy in advanced resectable head and neck cancer: final report of the Southwest Oncology Group." (Schuller DE, Laryngoscope. 1988 Nov;98(11):1205-11.) Median F/U 5 years
 * Outcome: median OS induction chemo 1.5 years vs. control 2.5 years (NS)
 * Conclusion: No benefit for induction chemo
 * Chinese Trial; Zhong et al. 2013 PMID: 23129742-- "Induction chemo+/-RT vs. standard surgery + RT"
 * Population: Single centre, RCT, Stage III-IVA resectable oral squamous cell cancers; 256 pts randomised
 * Intervention group: Induction Chemotherapy with TCF (Docetaxel, Cisplatin and 5FU)followed by surgery and post-op RT
 * Control Group: Upfront Surgery with Post-operative radiotherapy. In both arms, Post-op RT was 54 to 60 Gy EBRT, those with high risk features (defined as positive margins, ECE and vascular invasion) were given 66 Gy of EBRT(no chemoradiation was given)
 * Conclusion: Similar outcome.Response rate: 80.6% ; pCR rate:?;Toxicity:None with Grade III or IV;Post-op Complications: Similar; Recurrence Rate: Similar; Survival: DFS and OS are similar.

Surgery alone vs Postop RT

 * For patients with locally advanced disease, surgery + postop RT has been widely practiced since Maccomb and Fletcher publication in 1957
 * Two small randomized trials suggested improvement in LRC for postop RT over surgery alone. Similarly, several single institution retrospective series showed benefit for improved LRC
 * SEER analysis suggests that postop RT in patients with LN+ results in 5-year CSS/OS increase by 10%. Surgery alone cures a third of patients, adjuvant RT adds 10% survival benefit, although this varies dramatically by site and nodal stage
 * Current indications include pT3-T4, pN2-N3 disease, nodal disease in Levels IV-V, PNI+, or LVI+

 * Mt. Sinai/SEER analysis (1988-2001)
 * Overall; 2008 PMID 18076014 -- "Adjuvant radiotherapy improves overall survival for patients with lymph node-positive head and neck squamous cell carcinoma." (Lavaf A, Cancer. 2008 Feb 1;112(3):535-43.)
 * Population based SEER analysis. 8795 patients, HNSCC, treated with surgery, pN+. excluded nasopharynx. Use of chemo not tracked, but trials showing benefit not published until 2004. Median F/U 4.7 years
 * Outcome: Adjuvant RT used in 84% (preop 7%, postop 89%). 5-year OS surgery alone 33% vs. surgery + RT 43% (SS); 5-year CSS 42% vs. 51% (SS)
 * Conclusion: Adjuvant RT improved 5-year CSS and OS by 10%
 * By site; 2008 PMID 18164833 -- "Adjuvant radiotherapy and survival for patients with node-positive head and neck cancer: an analysis by primary site and nodal stage." (Kao J, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008 Jun 1;71(2):362-70. Epub 2007 Dec 31.)
 * Population based SEER analysis. 5297 patients, HNSCC, treated with surgery, pN+
 * Outcome: Adjuvant RT 81%. 5-year OS surgery 35% vs. surgery + RT 46% (SS)
 * By nodal stage: 5-year OS N1 44% vs. 52% (SS); N2a 28% vs. 44% (SS); N2b 18% vs. 42% (SS); N2c-N3 22% vs. 34% (SS)
 * By primary site: 5-year OS oral cavity 30% vs. 34% (NS); oropharynx 53% vs. 62% (SS); larynx 31% vs. 43% (SS); hypopharynx 24% vs. 39% (SS)
 * Multivariate predictors: adjuvant RT, age, primary site, nodal stage, tumor stage, marital status
 * Conclusion: Adjuvant RT significantly improves overall survival; all stages including N1 appear to benefit

 * Mayo Clinic; 1998 (1974-1990) PMID 9486600 -- "Combined neck dissection and postoperative radiation therapy in the management of the high-risk neck: a matched-pair analysis." (Lundahl RE, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1998 Feb 1;40(3):529-34.)
 * Retrospective, matched pair. 95 patients with pN+ who underwent postop RT (N1 17%, N2 80%, N3 3%). Median RT dose 55 Gy. Compared with previously published 284 patients treated with neck dissection alone, as matched pairs. Median F/U 5.3 years
 * Outcome: Relative risk for dissected neck recurrence 5.8, any neck recurrence 4.7, cancer related death 2.2, and any death 1.7.
 * Conclusion: Postop RT for high-risk neck can reduce negative outcomes

 * Orissa, India -- surgery +/- postop RT
 * 1996 PMID 8903493 -- "Post-operative radiotherapy in carcinoma of buccal mucosa, a prospective randomized trial." (Mishra RC, Eur J Surg Oncol. 1996 Oct;22(5):502-4.)
 * Randomized. Locally advanced SCC of buccal mucosa. Arm 1) surgery only vs. Arm 2) postoperative RT
 * Outcome: DFS surgery alone 38% vs. postop RT 68% (SS)
 * Conclusion: Postop RT improves DFS in SCC of buccal mucosa

 * City of Hope (1981-1984) -- surgery +/- postop RT
 * Randomized. Stopped early due to lack of benefit at interim analysis. 51 patients, stage III-IV SCC of oral cavity, pharynx, or larynx. Arm 1) surgery alone vs. Arm 2) surgery + postop RT
 * 1988 PMID 3288812 -- "Postoperative radiation as adjuvant treatment for carcinoma of the oral cavity, larynx, and pharynx: preliminary report of a prospective randomized trial." (Kokal WA, J Surg Oncol. 1988 Jun;38(2):71-6.) Median F/U 2.5 years
 * Outcome: Recurrence rate surgery alone 56% vs. postop RT 37% (NS); trend due to higher recurrence rate in contralateral nonoperated neck (5% vs. 15%). No difference in DFS or OS
 * Conclusion: Adjuvant postop RT doesn't improve DFS or OS; trend toward better control
 * Comment: Lack of benefit ascribed to low dose of RT prescribed (see PMID 9486600 for discussion)

 * MD Anderson; 1957 PMID 13403033 -- "Planned combination of surgery and radiation in treatment of advanced primary head and neck cancers." (Maccomb WS, Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther Nucl Med. 1957 Mar;77(3):397-414.)

Post-op Chemotherapy + Radiation

 * Historically, resectable locally advanced HNSCC were treated with surgery + adjuvant RT. Unfortunately, recurrence rates were ~30%, DM rates ~25%, and 5-year OS was ~30%. Majority of recurrences were loco-regional. Patients with SM+ did particularly poorly
 * RTOG 85-03(1992,IJROBP)evaluated sequential post-op cisplatin/5-FU followed by RT. There was no benefit in loco-regional control or overall survival
 * Meanwhile, early randomized data from Yale (1993,IJROBP) showed an LRC and DFS benefit for concurrent mitomycin C. The LRC and DFS benefit, though without impact on OS, was confirmed in a study from Slovenia evaluating adjuvant mitomycin C and bleomycin
 * An early randomized French trial (Bachaud, 1996, IJROBP) demonstrated a survival benefit with concurrent cisplatin
 * Concurrent cisplatin with RT was subsequently evaluated in two large randomized trials in US (RTOG 95-01) and Europe (EORTC 22931). The EORTC trial showed significantly better LRC, DFS and OS; the RTOG trial showed significantly better LRC and DFS without impact on OS. Patients had "high-risk" features, which variously included SM+, LN+, ECE, PNI+, LVI+, and T3-4 disease. Joint analysis showed significant benefit for ECE+ or SM+ disease
 * Current NCCN recommendations (v2.2008) specify ECE+ or SM+ for concurrent chemo-RT; patients with pT3-T4, pN2-N3, nodal disease in levels IV-V, PNI+ or LVI+ may be treated with RT alone or considered individually for chemo-RT
 * However, concurrent cisplatin may be reasonably toxic and a concurrent carboplatin was evaluated. Two trials were closed early due to slow accrual; analysis of the smaller data sets revealed no impact on DFS or OS
 * to be continued ...

Post-op Sequential Chemo + RT

 * RTOG 85-03 / Intergroup 0034 (1984-1989) -- cisplatin/5-FU
 * Randomized. 442 patients. Completely resected tumors of oral cavity, oropharynx, hypopharynx, or larynx. R2 excision not allowed. Arm 1) Post-op RT alone vs Arm 2) Post-op chemotherapy (cisplatin/5-FU x 3 courses q3wk) followed by RT. RT dose 50-54 Gy; boost to 60 Gy for close margins (<5mm) or ECE.
 * 1992 PMID 1618662 — "Adjuvant chemotherapy for resectable squamous cell carcinomas of the head and neck: report on Intergroup Study 0034." (Laramore GE, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1992;23(4):705-13.) Median F/U 3.8 years
 * Outcome: 4-year OS RT 44% vs. chemo-RT 48% (NS); DFS 38% vs. 46% (NS); LRC 70% vs. 74% (NS); reduced first failure in neck 10% vs. 5% (SS), DM 23% vs. 15% (SS)
 * Subgroup analysis of high-risk group (margins < 5mm, CIS at margin, ECE) showed a trend to improvement in LC with chemo. So it may be important to select high-risk group to see a benefit from chemo.
 * Conclusion: No benefit for adjuvant sequential chemo-RT over RT alone

 * RTOG 81-16 -- cisplatin/5-FU
 * Phase I/II. Sequential chemotherapy. Two studies (A&B): A) Induction cisplatin/5-FU + surgery + RT (42 patients); B) surgery + sequential cisplatin/5-FU x3 cycles + RT (29 patients)
 * 1989 PMID 2499175 — "Chemotherapy following surgery for head and neck cancer. A Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Study." (Jacobs JR, Am J Clin Oncol. 1989 Jun;12(3):185-9.)
 * Conclusion: Sequential post-op chemo-RT is feasible
 * 1991 PMID 1998567 -- "5-year results of cisplatin and fluorouracil infusion in head and neck cancer." (Jacobs JR, Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1991 Mar;117(3):288-91.)
 * Outcome: median OS induction group 1.7 years, adjuvant group 2.6 years. 65% of induction chemo group didn't undergo surgery as planned. 5-year OS no difference 27% vs. 23%

 * Loma Linda (1979-1983) -- induction/sequential adjuvant MTX
 * Randomized. 55 patients. Potentially resectable SCCHN. Arm 1) Surgery + RT vs. Arm 2) Induction MTX x4 doses then surgery then MTX x4 doses then RT then MTX x8 doses. RT 60 Gy or 65 Gy with close SM
 * 1987 PMID 3806169 -- "Adjuvant methotrexate escalated to toxicity for resectable stage III and IV squamous head and neck carcinomas--a prospective, randomized study." (Rentschler RE, J Clin Oncol. 1987 Feb;5(2):278-85.)
 * Outcome: No difference in DFS or OS (numbers not given); no difference in sites of recurrence
 * Conclusion: No benefit for sequential MTX

Post-op Concurrent Chemo-RT

 * RTOG H-0024 (2001-3) - early chemo followed by chemo/RT
 * Phase II. 70 pts. Taxol (80 mg/m2) weekly x 3, beginning postop day 7-14. RT begins the following week (i.e. during week 5-6). Dose: 60 Gy (range 58-66 Gy), 2Gy/fx. During last 3 weeks, cisplatin (20 mg/m2) + taxol (30 mg/m2) weekly.
 * 2009 PMID 19720915 -- "Early postoperative paclitaxel followed by concurrent paclitaxel and cisplatin with radiation therapy for patients with resected high-risk head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: report of the phase II trial RTOG 0024." (Rosenthal DI, J Clin Oncol. 2009 Oct 1;27(28):4727-32.)
 * Median f/u 3.3 yrs. Compared with historical control of RTOG 95-01, LRC, DFS, and OS are improved.
 * Early post-operative chemo and chemo/RT is feasible and tolerable.

 * Slovenia (1997-2001) -- mitomycin C and bleomycin
 * Randomized. 114 patients, Stage III-IV SCCHN (oral cavity, oropharynx, hypopharynx, larynx). Primary curative surgery. Arm 1) Post-op RT (56 Gy if R0, 66-70 Gy if R1-2) vs. Arm 2) Same RT + concurrent mitomycin C and bleomycin. Stratified in regular risk and high risk (ECE, PNI, LVI, R1-2)
 * 2-years; 2003 PMID 12829141 -- "Postoperative concomitant irradiation and chemotherapy with mitomycin C and bleomycin for advanced head-and-neck carcinoma." (Smid L, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003 Jul 15;56(4):1055-62.) Median F/U 2.7 years
 * Outcome: 2-year LRC chemo-RT 86% vs. RT alone 69% (SS); DFS 76% vs. 60% (NS); OS 74% vs. 64% (SS). Benefit in high risk patients
 * Conclusion: Concomitant chemo-RT with mitomycin C and bleomycin improves LRC and OS
 * 5-years; 2007 PMID 17197122 -- "Patterns of failure in patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer treated postoperatively with irradiation or concomitant irradiation with Mitomycin C and Bleomycin." (Zakotnik B, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007 Mar 1;67(3):685-90. Epub 2006 Dec 29.)
 * Outcome: 5-year LRC chemo-RT 88% vs. RT alone 65% (SS), DFS 53% vs. 33% (SS), OS 55% vs. 37% (NS). No difference in DM rate (20% vs. 22%, NS). Second malignancy chemo-RT 8% vs. RT 34% (SS)
 * Toxicity: Grade 3+ chemo-RT 26% vs. RT 19% (NS), thyroid dysfunction 56% vs. 36% (NS)
 * Conclusion: Concomitant chemo-RT improves LRC and DFS; second primaries less frequent

 * Multi-Institutional -- Carboplatin
 * Randomized. (Pittsburgh, Michigan, Cinncinati). Closed early due to slow accrual. 72 patients. Macroscopically resected, Stage III/IV SCCHN, high risk features (SM+, >= 3 LN+, ECE, PNI, LVI). Arm 1) post-op RT alone vs. Arm 2) post-op RT + concurrent carboplatin 100 mg/m2 QW. RT 59.4/33. Median F/U 5.3years
 * 2007 PMID 18091334 -- "Long-Term Results of a Phase III Randomized Trial of Postoperative Radiotherapy With or Without Carboplatin in Patients With High-Risk Head and Neck Cancer." (Argiris A, Laryngoscope. 2007 Dec 12 [Epub ahead of print])
 * Outcome: 5-year DFS RT alone 53% vs. RT + carboplatin 41% (NS); OS 47% vs. 41% (NS)
 * Toxicity: Infrequent in both arms
 * Conclusion: No benefit with addition of carboplatin, possibly due to small sample size. Well tolerated.

 * ARO 96-3 (Germany)(1997-2004) -- cisplatin + 5-FU
 * Randomized. 440 patients with high-risk SCCA (3+ LN, ECE, SM+). Arm 1) RT alone vs. Arm 2) RT with concurrent cisplatin/5-FU. RT 66/33. Chemo cisplatin 20 mg/m2 and 5-FU 600 mg/m2 both day 1-5 and 29-33
 * 5-years; 2006 ASCO Abstract -- "Postoperative concurrent radiochemotherapy versus radiotherapy in high-risk SCCA of the head and neck: Results of the German phase III trial ARO 96-3." (Fietkau R, Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2006 ASCO Annual Meeting Proceedings Part I. Vol 24, No. 18S (June 20 Supplement), 2006: 5507)
 * Outcome: 5-year LRC RT 72% vs. chemo-RT 89% (SS); PFS 50% vs. 62% (SS); OS 49% vs. 58% (NS)
 * Toxicity: Grade 3+ mucositis RT 13% vs. 21% (SS)
 * Conclusion: Post-op concurrent chemo-RT improves LRC and PFS

 * RTOG 95-01 / Intergroup (1995-2000) -- cisplatin
 * Randomized. 416 patients. Oral cavity, oropharynx, larynx, hypopharynx. Macroscopically complete resection. High risk (2 or more positive lymph nodes, or ECE, or SM+). Arm 1) RT alone vs RT with concurrent cisplatin (100 mg/m2 Q3W x 3 cycles). RT 60/30 plus optional boost to 66/33 high-risk areas. High risk groups: 81% with 2+ LN or ECE+; 19% with positive margins. Primary endpoint LRC.
 * 2-years; 2002 Abstract #903, ASCO 2002 - Cooper et al. Video webcast Video webcast: Discussion Median F/U 2.2 years
 * Outcome: 2-year LRC chemo-RT 79% vs. RT 74% (NS); DFS 63% vs. 442% (SS), OS 63% vs. 57% (NS)
 * Toxicity: 2% treatment-related deaths from chemo/RT.
 * 2-years; 2004 PMID 15128893 — "Postoperative concurrent radiotherapy and chemotherapy for high-risk squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck." (Cooper JS et al. N Engl J Med. 2004 May 6;350(19):1937-44.). Median F/U 3.7 years
 * Outcome: 2 year LRC chemo-RT 82% vs. RT 72% (SS), DFS significantly increased with a HR of 0.78 (2-year estimates not reported), but OS not significantly different.
 * Toxicity: acute Grade 3+ chemo-RT 77% vs. RT 34% (SS); late effects 21% vs. 17% (NS); 2% treatment-related death, all in chemo-RT group
 * Conclusion: In high risk patients, postop concurrent chemo-RT improves LRC and DFS. Toxicity is substantially higher
 * Comment: Higher percentage of patients with oropharynx primaries than EORTC trial, which may explain why radiation alone arm did better compared to EORTC.
 * Also see below for combined EORTC/RTOG analysis

 * EORTC 22931 (1994-2000) -- cisplatin
 * Randomized. 334 patients. Oral cavity, oropharynx, hypopharynx, or larynx. T3-4 any N with negative margins (except T3N0 of larynx); T1-2 N2-3; T1-2 N0-1 with high-risk features (ECE, SM+, PNI, LVI); or oral cavity/oropharynx with LN+ at levels IV or V. Arm 1) RT alone vs. Arm 2) RT + concurrent cisplatin 100 mg/m2 Q3W. RT dose 54/27 + boost to 66 Gy high risk areas. High risk groups: 56% with 2+ LN; 26% with positive margins; 53% with extracapsular extension. Primary end-point PFS.
 * 5-years; 2004 PMID 15128894 - "Postoperative irradiation with or without concomitant chemotherapy for locally advanced head and neck cancer." (Bernier J, N Engl J Med. 2004 May 6;350(19):1945-52.) Median F/U 5 years
 * Outcome: 5-year PFS chemo-RT 47% vs RT 36% (SS); OS 53% vs 40% (SS); LRC 82% vs 69% (SS). No difference in DM rate (21% vs. 25%, NS).
 * Toxicity: minor differences
 * Conclusion: Post-op concurrent cisplatin with RT is more efficacious in locally advanced H&N, without significantly more complications
 * Comment: Patients selected on basis of both pathologic factors (surgical margin, extracapsular extension) and clinical factors (T-stage and N-stage). Very high risk patients (T3-T4 with SM+) were excluded.
 * Also see below for combined EORTC/RTOG analysis

 * France (1994-2002) -- carboplatin
 * Randomized. Stopped early after publication of a French trial (Bachaud). 144 patients, oropharynx (49%), hypopharynx (29%), larynx (22%), T1-4N0-3, macroscopic resection. Surgery + neck dissection. Arm 1) RT vs. Arm 2) RT + concurrent carboplatin 50mg/m2 BIW. RT 54 Gy if R0, 72 Gy if R1, bilateral neck 54 Gy, ECE boost 9 Gy.
 * 2008 PMID 18222010 -- "Randomized clinical trial of post-operative radiotherapy versus concomitant carboplatin and radiotherapy for head and neck cancers with lymph node involvement." (Racadot S, Radiother Oncol. 2008 Jan 24 [Epub ahead of print]). Median F/U 8.8 years
 * Outcome: 2-year LRC RT alone 68% vs. chemo-RT 73% (NS), worse for oropharynx vs. larynx; OS 55% vs. 58% (NS)
 * Conclusion: Concurrent carboplatin BIW showed no benefit

 * RTOG 88-24 (1989-1990) -- cisplatin
 * Phase II. 51 patients. Resectable, Stage III-IV HNSCC (oral cavity, oropharynx, hypopharynx, larynx). Stage IV 84%, SM+ 53%. RT 60/30 with concurrent cisplatin 100 mg/m2 q3weeks.
 * Compared results with historic data of sequential chemo/RT (INT 0034). No significant difference in survival compared with INT 0034.
 * 1997 PMID 9128951 -- "Postoperative radiotherapy with concurrent cisplatin appears to improve locoregional control of advanced, resectable head and neck cancers: RTOG 88-24." (Al-Sarraf M, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1997 Mar 1;37(4):777-82.)
 * Outcome: 3-year OS 48%, LRC 81%, DM-free 57%
 * Toxicity: Grade 3 20%, Grade 4 12%
 * Conclusion: Post-op concurrent cisplatin with RT may improve LRC

 * France (1984-88) -- cisplatin
 * Randomized. Closed early due to slow accrual due to increasing use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. 83 patients. Stage III-IV oral cavity, oropharynx, hypopharynx, larynx, or unknown primary, LN+ with ECE. Arm 1) RT alone vs. Arm 2) RT + cisplatin 50 mg/m2 QW. RT 65-70 Gy (1.7 Gy/fx), neck 54 Gy
 * 1996 PMID 8985019 — "Combined postoperative radiotherapy and weekly cisplatin infusion for locally advanced head and neck carcinoma: final report of a randomized trial." (Bachaud JM et al. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1996 Dec 1;36(5):999-1004.)
 * Outcome: LRF RT alone 41% vs. chemo-RT 23% (p=0.08), similar DM rate, 2-year OS 46% vs. 72% (SS), 5-year OS 13% vs. 36% (SS)
 * Severe late toxicity: RT alone 15% vs. chemo-RT 20%
 * Conclusion: Improved survival with concurrent cisplatin

 * Yale (1980-92) -- Mitomycin C
 * Randomized. 2 consecutive randomized trials. 113 patients, treated with surgery. Arm 1) RT vs. Arm 2) RT with concurrent Mitomycin C 15 mg/m2 x 1-2 doses. Second trial: Arm 1) RT vs. Arm 2) RT + Mitomycin C with dicoumarol.
 * 5-years; 1993 PMID 7691784 -- "Mitomycin C as an adjunct to postoperative radiation therapy in squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: results from two randomized clinical trials." (Haffty BG, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1993 Sep 30;27(2):241-50.) Median F/U 7.7 years
 * Outcome: LRC mitomycin C 87% vs. control 67% (SS), DFS 67% vs. 44%, OS 56% vs. 41% (NS). No local failures in Mitomycin C arm vs. 12 in RT alone
 * Conclusion: Concurrent Mitomycin C with RT results in improved DFS, and LRC benefit

Pending

 * RTOG 02-34 (ongoing) - A phase II randomized trial of surgery followed by chemoradiotherapy plus C225 (cetuximab) for advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck.

 * RTOG 09-20 (ongoing) - A phase III randomized trial of surgery followed by radiotherapy  (IMRT) +/- cetuximab  for intermediate risk HN SCCA

Pathologic N1 Disease

 * Louvain, Belgium; 2009 (1990-2002) PMID 18648835 -- "Results of selective neck dissection in the primary management of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma." (Schmitz S, Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2009 Mar;266(3):437-43. Epub 2008 Jul 22.)
 * Retrospective. 146 patients, unilateral/bilateral selective neck dissection in 249 necks. Median F/U 3.1 years
 * Outcome: 25% cN0 patients were pN+. Regional recurrence 3% overall, dissected 2% and undissected 1%. pN0 failure rate 1%. pN1 failure rate without PORT 9% vs with PORT 5%. ECE in 16%, almost all treated with PORT, but failure rate still 22%
 * Conclusion: Selective node dissection reliable to stage cN0 neck, and as definitive operation for pN0, most pN1 and pN2b necks. PORT not justified for pN1 but justified for pN2b and ECE

 * Gottingen, Germany; 2008 (1986-2002) PMID 18302275 -- "Value of postoperative radiotherapy in patients with pathologic N1 neck disease." (Jackel MC, Head Neck. 2008 Jul;30(7):875-82.)
 * Retrospective. 118 patients, H&N cancer, curative surgery, pN1 disease without ECE. Majority had selective neck dissection (Level II-III 63%, Level I-III 19%, Level II-IV 15%). Postop RT in 20%, postop chemo-RT 19%; less postop therapy since 1995.
 * Outcome: Regional control: Isolated nodal failure 7% (surgery 10% vs. postop RT 2%), all nodal failures 16% (21% vs. 9%). 3-year neck reccurence rate surgery alone 11% vs. postop RT 3% (NS)
 * Conclusion: Data suggest a trend to improved regional control for pN1 with postop RT

High-risk groups
Recommendations for postoperative RT or chemo/RT:
 * NCCN v2011.2
 * Lip:
 * Postoperative RT: multiple positive nodes, PNI or LVI. (Optional RT if 1 LN+.)
 * Postoperative chemoRT: ECE, positive margin
 * Oral cavity:
 * Postoperative RT: pT3 or pT4, N2 or N3, nodal disease in levels IV or V, PNI or LVI. (Optional RT if 1 LN+.)
 * Postoperative chemoRT: ECE, positive margin
 * Oropharynx:
 * Postoperative RT: positive margin, pT3 or pT4, N2 or N3, nodal disease in levels IV or V, PNI or LVI. (Optional RT if 1 LN+.)
 * Postoperative chemoRT: ECE (any); or positive margin (only if T3-T4 or N2-3)
 * Hypopharynx:
 * Postoperative RT: pT3 or pT4, N2 or N3, PNI or LVI.
 * Postoperative chemoRT: ECE, positive margin
 * Larynx, glottic:
 * Postoperative RT: pT4, N2 or N3, PNI or LVI.
 * Postoperative chemoRT: ECE, positive margin
 * Supraglottic larynx:
 * Postoperative RT: positive margin, pT4, N2 or N3, PNI or LVI. (Optional RT if 1 LN+, Optional RT for T3N0-1)
 * Postoperative chemoRT: ECE, positive margin

 * Historical risk factors: Primary disease site (PMID 5014916), surgical margins (PMID 755803), perineural invasion (PMID 476992), number and location of positive nodes (PMID 1015542), extracapsular extension (PMID 7316852)
 * Peters: Risk factors included oral cavity, close or positive margins, nerve invasion, 2 or more positive nodes, largest node > 3 cm, extracapsular extension, Zubrod score 2 or more, delay in starting radiotherapy of more than 6 weeks.
 * Intermediate risk - 1 risk factor, excluding ECE
 * High risk - 2 or more factors, or ECE
 * Joint RTOG 85-03 and 88-24 analysis:
 * Intermediate risk - extracapsular extension or 2+ involved lymph nodes
 * High risk - positive surgical margin
 * Joint EORTC/RTOG analysis:
 * High risk - Extracapsular extension or positive surgical margin
 * Treatment recommendations:
 * NCCN v1.2010
 * Postoperative RT: pT4, N2-N3, nodal disease in Levels IV or V, perineural invasion, lymphovascular invasion
 * Postoperative chemo-RT (cisplatin 100 mg/m2 Q3W): extracapsular extension, positive surgical margins, also consider based on clinical data for patients as above for postop RT
 * NCCN v2.2008
 * Postoperative RT: pT3-pT4, N2-N3, nodal disease in Levels IV or V, perineural invasion, lymphovascular invasion
 * Postoperative chemo-RT (cisplatin 100 mg/m2 Q3W): extracapsular extension, positive surgical margins, also consider based on clinical data for patients as above for postop RT
 * Perez & Brady (5th ed):
 * Postoperative RT: close/positive margins, >1cm subglottic extension, cartilage invasion, perineural invasion, lymphovascular invasion, extension of primary into soft tissues of the neck, multiple positive nodes, extracapsular extension, control of subclinical disease in opposite neck
 * UpToDate (2010):
 * Postoperative RT: Advanced T stage (T3/T4), positive or close margins (no consensus on definition, but at least included true positive margin and CIS at the margin, with consideration for tumor <5mm, and premalignant change at margin), lymph node involvement, extracapsular nodal extension, involvement of bone, perineural involvement, lymphovascular invasion, cartilage invasion

 * Intermediate Risk Group:
 * RTOG 0920 - Eligibility: T1N1-2, T2-3N0-2 (site: OC, OP, Larynx)
 * Have at least 1 intermediate risk factor: PNI, LVI, ≥2 positive LNs, single lymph node > 3 cm, close surgical margins (<5 mm), T3 or T4a (microscopic) primary, T2 oral cavity tumor with >5 mm depth of invasion. Cannot have: positive margins, ECE, or gross residual disease.
 * This subgroup of pts with intermediate risk is predicted to have a LRF rate of 15-35% with post-op RT only.
 * Phase III. RT (60-66 Gy) +/- cetuximab (concurrent, plus 4 weeks post-RT)

 * EORTC / RTOG Joint Analysis; 2005 PMID 16161069 — "Defining risk levels in locally advanced head and neck cancers: a comparative analysis of concurrent postoperative radiation plus chemotherapy trials of the EORTC (#22931) and RTOG (# 9501)." (Bernier J, Head Neck. 2005 Oct;27(10):843-50.)
 * Retrospective subgroup analysis of combined data from postop chemo-RT trials EORTC 229131 and RTOG 9501. Both trials concomitant cisplatin 100 mg/m2 Q3W and RT 60-66 Gy. Difference in "high-risk": EORTC SM+, ECE, clinical involvement of Level IV-V from oral cavity/oropharynx primary, perineural disease, or vascular embolism vs. RTOG SM+, ECE, 2+ LN. Difference in endpoints: EORTC PFS vs RTOG LRC. Difference in dose: EORTC 66 Gy in 91% vs RTOG 66 Gy in 13%.
 * Risk factors: ECE or SM+ had negative impact on OS. No other factors (2+ lymph nodes, PNI+, LVI+, Stage III-IV disease) showed difference
 * LRC: Pooled risk reduction 42% (SS). If SM+/ECE+, risk reduction 48%. If other factors, reduction not significant (EORTC 58%, p=0.1; RTOG 18%, p=0.5)
 * DFS: Pooled risk reduction 23% (SS). If SM+/ECE+, risk reduction 30%. If other factors, reduction not significant (EORTC 25%, p=0.3; RTOG 8%, p=0.7)
 * OS: Pooled risk reduction 28% (SS). If SM+/ECE+, risk reduction 30% (SS). If other factors, reduction not significant (EORTC 25%, p=0.06; RTOG 6%, p=.07)
 * Conclusion: Significant benefit for chemo-RT over RT in patients with extracapsular extension or SM+, but benefit not significant for 2+ lymph nodes, PNI+, LVI+ or Stage III-IV disease

 * RTOG 8503/8824 Joint Analysis - PMID 9744457 — "Precisely defining high-risk operable head and neck tumors based on RTOG #85-03 and #88-24: targets for postoperative radiochemotherapy?" (Cooper JS, Head Neck. 1998 Oct;20(7):588-94.)
 * Retrospective. Data collected from RTOG 85-03 (INT 0034) and RTOG 88-24, which were sequential and concurrent chemo-radiotherapy trials for post-op H&N cancers
 * New risk factors grouping: Group 1: no risk features; Group 2: 2+ lymph nodes or ECE; Groups 3: SM+
 * Outcome: 5-year LRR 17% vs. 27% vs 61%; Median OS 5.6 years vs. 2.6 years vs. 1.5 years
 * Conclusion: Suggested benefit for concurrent chemo-radiotherapy with a 50% decrease in local-regional recurrence, but only a small increase in survival (18% reduction in death rate).

Radiotherapy dose

 * Fletcher: 60 Gy
 * Peters, 1993: 63 Gy for ECE+, otherwise 57.6 Gy
 * RTOG 9501: 60 Gy +/- 6 Gy boost (given in 13%)
 * EORTC 22931: 66 Gy to high risk region, 54 Gy to large field
 * Recommendations (NCCN v2.2008):
 * Primary: >= 60 Gy in 2 Gy/fx
 * Involved nodal stations: >= 60 Gy in 2 Gy/fx
 * Uninvolved nodal stations: >= 50 Gy in 2 Gy/fx

 * Fletcher recommended 50 Gy in 25 fractions to control microscopic disease in an undissected neck. But Fletcher recommended 60 Gy in 30 fractions for a post-operative neck because of hypoxia due to disturbed vascular supply (in the Textbook of Radiotherapy, 2nd edition).

Randomized:
 * Peters (M.D. Anderson), 1993 (1983-91) -- 57.6 Gy vs 63 Gy vs 68.4 Gy
 * Purpose: 1) define groups with high and low risk for recurrence, 2) determine the optimal radiotherapy dose, 3) study the dose-response relationship for normal tissue injury
 * Randomized. 302 pts. (report based on 240 pts). Eligible pts: oral cavity, oropharynx, hypopharynx, larynx, or unknown primary. Used a points system to assign pts to low or high risk.  Low-risk pts randomized between 57.6 Gy and 63 Gy. (originally randomized to 52.2-54 Gy as well, but this arm was dropped.) High-risk pts randomized between 63 Gy and 68.4 Gy.  All gross tumor had to be removed but + margins allowed. 54 Gy was given to surgically undisturbed sites with subclinical disease (i.e. contralateral neck) or putative sites of unknown primary. 57.6 Gy to dissected but pathologically negative neck. The randomized dose was given to the pathologically involved neck and primary — separate randomized doses to neck and primary, but when the primary site was randomized to a higher dose, it took precedence; if neck was to receive higher dose than the primary, then neck boosted with electrons to the higher dose.
 * 1993 PMID 8482629 — "Evaluation of the dose for postoperative radiation therapy of head and neck cancer: first report of a prospective randomized trial." Peters LJ et al. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1993 Apr 30;26(1):3-11.
 * Disease control by dose: 2-year loco-regional recurrence rate of 26%. Disease-specific survival continued to decline up to about 5 years due to metastatic disease or second primary tumor. Low risk pts receiving <= 54 Gy had a higher primary failure rate than those with >= 57.6 Gy; no increase in control with doses above 57.6 Gy. Also, the point system they used did not accurately predict for recurrence since high and low risk pts receiving the same dose had the same LF rate.
 * Analysis of prognostic factors: analyzed a subset of 199 pts who received at least 57.6 Gy. Only independent risk factor was extracapsular extension; more than 1 positive LN was of borderline significance. Also a cluster of 2 or more risk factors was associated with worse prognosis. Crude recurrence rate was 20-30% if ECE+ but only 5-13% if ECE- and fewer than 4 other risk factors. With 4 or risk factors other than ECE, did just as bad as with ECE.
 * Dose response for high risk group: for pts with ECE, 2-yr control rate was 52% for 57.6 Gy vs 74% for 63 Gy. No added benefit for 68.4 Gy.
 * Conclusions: 57.6 Gy is adequate dose for post-op RT without extracapsular extension; 63 Gy for pts with ECE.
 * See list of risk factors used in this paper (separate section above).
 * Update (2017) PMID 28721881 -- "Final Report of a Prospective Randomized Trial to Evaluate the Dose-Response Relationship for Postoperative Radiation Therapy and Pathologic Risk Groups in Patients With Head and Neck Cancer." (Rosenthal DI, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017 Aug 1;98(5):1002-1011.)
 * 5-yr and 10-yr OS: 32% and 20%. 5-yr and 10-yr CSS: 48% and 46%. LRF in 28%. 5-yr LRC 67% (no events beyond 5 yrs). DM in 31%; 5-yr and 1-yr FDM 64% and 60%. 5-yr and 10-yr RFS 47% and 44%. Second primary cancer in 27%.
 * Tumor prognostic factors: "high risk" factors of SM and ECE were the only independent tumor-related risk factors predicting LRC and OS.
 * Treatment-related factors: no difference in LC between dose levels 57.6 Gy and above (older dose of 54 Gy known to be suboptimal).
 * Conclusion: This long-term report of PORT delivered at 1.8 Gy/d to total doses of 57.6 to 68.4 Gy without chemotherapy for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma demonstrated that increasing dose did not significantly improve tumor control. On multivariate analysis, the only significant treatment variable was TPT (treatment package time). The results confirm that positive surgical margins and/or nodal ECE remains the most significant predictive pathologic factors.

Alternative Fractionation

 * Evidence for intensifying RT through accelerated fractionation/hyperfractionation after surgery is not strong
 * Some benefit might be seen in patients who delay start of RT >7 weeks, but this is on subset analysis
 * Balanced against this is the fact that toxicity typically tends to be significantly higher

 * Sklodowska-Curie Cancer Center, Poland (2001-2004) -- conventional RT 5-days/week vs. accelerated RT 7-days/week
 * Randomized. 279 patients, high-risk SCC larynx (57%) vs. oral cavity/oropharynx (43%). High risk determined by score using tumor site, SM status, SM width, LVI, grade, number of LN+, ECE, and LN grade. Surgery + lymph node dissection. Arm 1) Conventional RT 63/35 over 7 weeks vs. Arm 2) Accelerated RT 63/35 over 5 weeks
 * 2008 PMID 18342964 -- "Randomized clinical trial on 7-days-a-week postoperative radiotherapy for high-risk squamous cell head and neck cancer." (Suwinski R, Radiother Oncol. 2008 May;87(2):155-63. Epub 2008 Mar 14.)
 * Outcome: 3-year LRC CF 64% vs. CAIR 70% (NS). Planned subset analysis oropharynx/oral cavity 53% vs. 74% (SS), larynx 72% vs. 67% (NS). LC 73% vs. 81% (NS); neck control 81% vs. 83% (NS). 3-year OS 52% vs. 55% (NS)
 * Toxicity: Confluent mucositis CF 33% vs. CAIR 60%, but considered acceptable. Late toxicity Grade 3-4 CF 6% vs. 13%
 * Conclusion: Improvement in LRC restricted to patients with oropharynx/oral cavity; no benefit in patients with larynx

 * Italy Multi-Institutional (1994-2001) -- conventional 60/30 vs. accelerated concomitant boost 64/35
 * Randomized. 226 patients, locally advanced oral cavity, oropharynx, larynx, or hypopharynx, with high-risk features (pT4, SM+, N2-3, PNI+, LVI+, ECE+, subglottic extension) after surgery. Arm 1) conventional RT 60/30 vs. Arm 2) accelerated RT "biphasic concomitant boost" during first/last week to deliver 64 Gy over 5 weeks. Primary endpoint LRC
 * 2005 PMID 15708255 -- "Accelerated versus conventional fractionated postoperative radiotherapy for advanced head and neck cancer: results of a multicenter Phase III study." (Sanguineti G, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005 Mar 1;61(3):762-71.) Median F/U 2.5 years
 * Outcome: 2-year LRC CF 80% vs. AF 78% (NS), trend to benefit for patients with RT delay >7 weeks. 2-year OS 67% vs. 64% (NS)
 * Toxicity: Confluent mucositis CF 27% vs. AF 50% (SS), duration same. Late toxicity 18% vs. 27% (NS), though data preliminary
 * Conclusion: Accelerated fractionation not beneficial overall, might be option for patients who delay starting RT

 * MDACC/Mayo/Moffitt (1991-1995) -- risk adapted; conventional 63/35 in 7 weeks vs. accelerated 63/35 in 5 weeks
 * Risk adapted, part randomized. 213 patients, oral cavity, oropharynx, larynx, hypopharynx. Risk factors ECE, >1 nodal group, >=2 LN+, >3-cm LN, oral cavity, SM+, PNI+ (Peters 1993)
 * Low risk (no risk factors): no RT
 * Intermediate risk (1 risk factor, excluding ECE): conventional RT 57.6/32
 * High risk (ECE or 2+ risk factors): randomized Arm 1) conventional RT 63/35 in 7 weeks vs. accelerated RT 63/35 in 5 weeks concomitant boost. Undissected neck received 54 Gy and dissected but negative neck 57.6 Gy.
 * 2001 PMID 11597795 — "Randomized trial addressing risk features and time factors of surgery plus radiotherapy in advanced head-and-neck cancer." (Ang KK, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001 Nov 1;51(3):571-8.) Median F/U 4.9 years
 * Outcome: 5-year LRC low risk patients 90% vs. intermediate risk patients 94% vs. high risk patients 68% (SS). High risk CF ~60% vs. AF ~75% (NS). 5-year OS low risk 83% vs. intermediate risk 66% vs. high risk 42%, CF ~35% vs. AF ~50% (NS)
 * Treatment time: 5-year LRC <11 weeks 76% vs. >11 weeks 62% vs >13 weeks 38% (SS); 5-year OS 48% vs. 27% v. 25% (SS). Surgery-RT interval >6 weeks detrimental
 * Conclusion: Risk stratification appropriate. Accelerated fractionation better for patients with delay >6 weeks of starting RT, combined treatment time should be <11 weeks

 * Cairo, Egypt -- conventional RT 60/30 vs. accelerated RT 46.2/33 TID in 2 weeks
 * Randomized. 70 patients, T2N1-2 or T3-4 any N, s/p radical surgery. Arm 1) conventional RT 60/30 vs. Arm 2) accelerated RT 46.2/33 TID over 2 weeks
 * 2002 PMID 11870530 -- "Accelerated hyperfractionation (AHF) compared to conventional fractionation (CF) in the postoperative radiotherapy of locally advanced head and neck cancer: influence of proliferation." (Awwad HK, Br J Cancer. 2002 Feb 12;86(4):517-23.)
 * Outcome: 3-year LRC AHF 88% vs. CF 57% (SS), 3-year OS 60% vs. 46% (NS). No benefit for T(pot) evaluation on multivariate analysis, though rapid tumors higher risk of DM. Surgery-RT gap shouldn't exceed 6 weeks
 * Toxicity: acute mucositis more severe in AHF, fibrosis and late edema also worse in AHF
 * Conclusion: Accelerated hyperfractionation improved local control, but without survival impact

 * Cairo, Egypt -- conventional RT 50/25 vs. accelerated RT 42/30 TID in 11 days
 * Randomized. 56 patients, locally advanced HNSCC, s/p radical surgery. Arm 1) conventional RT 50/25 vs. Arm 2) accelerated RT 42/30 TID over 11 days
 * 1992 PMID 1480771 -- "Accelerated versus conventional fractionation in the postoperative irradiation of locally advanced head and neck cancer: influence of tumour proliferation." (Awwad HK, Radiother Oncol. 1992 Dec;25(4):261-6.)
 * Outcome: 3-year DFS 46%, no difference between arms. AHF better survival in fast growing tumors (thymidine labeling index >10.4%)
 * Toxicity: Acute toxicity higher in AF arm, but 3-year late toxicity CF 87% vs. AF 64% (SS)
 * Conclusion: No survival benefit for AF overall, but benefit in faster growing tumors

Overall treatment time

 * Based, in part, on the fact that overall treatment time for intact head & neck cancers influences outcome and the theory of accelerated repopulation. (Withers' data - Radiobiology).
 * Overall treatment time should be less than 100 days.
 * RT should begin within 6 weeks of surgery

 * University of Pennsylvania; 2002 (1992-97) - PMID 11891941 — "Importance of the treatment package time in surgery and postoperative radiation therapy for squamous carcinoma of the head and neck." Rosenthal DI et al. Head Neck. 2002 Feb;24(2):115-26.
 * Retrospective. 208 pts.
 * Overall package time (>= vs < 100 days) was significant on multivariate analysis.

 * Rouen, France; 2001(1981-92) - PMID 11163507 — "Influence of the delay of adjuvant postoperative radiation therapy on relapse and survival in oropharyngeal and hypopharyngeal cancers." Bastit L et al. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001 Jan 1;49(1):139-46.
 * Retospective. 420 pts.
 * Surgery to radiotherapy interval was not a significant predictor for failure.

 * Florida; 1997 (1964-94) - PMID 9300748 — "An analysis of factors influencing the outcome of postoperative irradiation for squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity." Parsons JT et al. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1997 Aug 1;39(1):137-48.
 * Oral cavity.
 * Improved local control for the unfavorable group if overall "package time" (i.e. from surgery to end of radiotherapy) was within 100 days. For surgery to XRT interval (cutoff: 45-50 days), there was a nonsignificant trend. Also a trend for shorter duration of RT.

 * Memorial Sloan Kettering; 1990 (1975-80) - PMID 2325418 — "Impact of the time interval between surgery and postoperative radiation therapy on locoregional control in advanced head and neck cancer." Schiff PB et al. J Surg Oncol. 1990 Apr;43(4):203-8.
 * Retrospective. 111 pts. Examined time from surgery to start of RT (S-R interval).
 * Of 50 pts with S-R interval of 6 weeks or more, 11 (22%) had a local recurrence. 8 of these 11 had RT dose < 56 Gy. Of 17 pts with a delay of 6 weeks who had at least 60 Gy, only 2 (12%) had LR. For those who started RT within 6 weeks and had at least 60 Gy, 3/20 (15%) had a LR. The effect of delay was significant only in those who had < 60 Gy.
 * Conclusion: prolonged delay in starting RT does not by itself have a negative impact if doses of 60 Gy or more are given.

Reviews

 * 2003 PMID 12560449 - "Does delay in starting treatment affect the outcomes of radiotherapy? A systematic review." Huang J et al. J Clin Oncol. 2003 Feb 1;21(3):555-63.
 * Increased LRR for starting RT > 6 wks after surgery (OR = 2.89).

 * 1998 PMID 9676534 Full text (PDF), 1998 — "Adjuvant therapy in head and neck cancer." Vikram B et al. CA Cancer J Clin. 1998 Jul-Aug;48(4):199-209.

title: Radiation Oncology/Head & Neck/Post-op


text:
Using Ratpoison/Cover

Welcome to the WikiTextBook on Using Ratpoison

Go to Contents >>

The logotype of Ratpoison

title: Using Ratpoison/Cover


text:
Using Ratpoison/Table of Contents

This is a new wikibook that is aimed to help the average user work with the simple yet powerful window manager ratpoison. Please note that this book is very far from finished, but if you want to help, feel free to write some!

Table of Contents
 * 1) Introduction
 * 2) Your First Steps
 * 3) Basic Keystrokes
 * 4) Advanced Usage
 * 5) Aliasing
 * 6) Rebinding keys
 * 7) Splitting Windows
 * 8) The Config File
 * 9) Advanced Commands
 * 10) Pulling it all together: an example configuration file
 * 11) Tips and Tricks
 * 12) Where to Go from Here
 * 13) External Resources

title: Using Ratpoison/Table of Contents


text:
Using Ratpoison/Pros and cons

Pros

 * 1) Ratpoison is extremely lightweight and will therefore run on ancient hardware as well as a 32-way SPARC.
 * 2) Rodent usage is minimized and the keyboard is promoted, relieving your arms and shoulders and decreasing the risk of injury
 * 3) Ratpoison works very well with multiple monitors

Cons

 * 1) A bit cumbersome to work with
 * 2) Not suited for UNIX beginners, this is a window manager written by experts for experts
 * 3) Some programs are not written for this kind of window managers and do not work very well.

title: Using Ratpoison/Pros and cons


text:
Using Ratpoison/Your first steps

As stated in the introduction, these instructions assume a working X system.

Starting ratpoison
To launch ratpoison as your default window manager you need to edit the file  in your home directory; this might already have been done for you by a package manager. The file  should just contain one line: Now start your X server:

Within a second or two, you'll see a cursor in the middle of the screen superimposed on a dappled grey background, and a small welcome text in the upper right corner that welcomes you to ratpoison. This welcome message instructs you to type in if you have any questions. Now is where the fun starts, but first some background on how to interact with and control ratpoison.

The almighty escape key
Ratpoison is only controlled by the keyboard; no matter what you click with your mouse on the root window, nothing will happen. Instead, you give it a keyboard command. All ratpoison commands are initiated by typing the escape key sequence. By default, this is Ctrl (in Emacs notation, which is preferentially used by ratpoison documentation and users: ). Try typing Ctrl, and you'll see that the mouse changes into a white square. This means that ratpoison has taken over the keyboard and is ready to interpret any letter typed as a command (as opposed to normal operation where anything typed is sent to an application to deal with). After typing Ctrl, try hit the c key (note that this is a lowercase key; capital C does not currently do anything). Immediately an X terminal opens up and takes over the screen (assuming xterm is installed as it usually is); in other words, the command c creates a console window. Now you can do anything you could do on the command line, and you can even run your graphical programs like Firefox – ratpoison will automatically switch to the newest windows.

Note that if constantly pressing Ctrl to prefix all commands is uncomfortable (if you, for example are using the Dvorak keyboard layout) you can change it dynamically or in the configuration file. Please see one of the advanced chapters for more information on adjusting key bindings.

Key strokes
Try a few different key strokes – you can find the command list in the ratpoison manual or info documentation, or you can type Ctrl ?, which will give a brief list of sequences. Remember, all key strokes are preceded with Ctrl.

A useful pair of commands are Ctrl n (shifts your view to the next window; like conventional alt) and its inverse Ctrl p (shifts your view to the previous window; if you just Ctrl n'ed, for example, a Ctrl p will take you back to the original window).

title: Using Ratpoison/Your first steps


text:
Talk:Using Ratpoison/Cover

Reorganisation
Actually, shouldn't the bookshelf link to Using Ratpoison's cover, and the ToC be the next logical subpage? If that's the case, then this subpage is a duplicate, and an admin SHOULD delete it. Orethrius van Degaurde 07:41, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Organizing the book
I noticed your new book Using Ratpoison. It seems to get very professional. I just want to let you know at an early stage, that a prefered way of creating subpages is "/" or ":" (without spaces before and afterwards), where "/" gives you the additional advantage that you get an automatic link back to your main page. Have a look at the discussion at Hierarchy naming scheme or the recent conversion at Talk:How To Build A Computer. I'd therefore recommend to organize your book like this: Using Ratpoison       <- should be what you currently call Table of Contents Using Ratpoison/Cover <- Move your cover here (you can link from the bookshelf here) Using Ratpoison/Introduction <- move "What is Ratpoison" and "Pros and cons" here Using Ratpoison/Your first steps and so on. Avoid having too many subpages if you don't have the content yet. For your book, 3 or 4 subpages are enough (more can be easily created later as soon as you have enough content). If there are questions, just ask. --Andreas 10:11, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your feedback. This is in fact my first wikibook, so I am glad for any hints that I can get. I will edit the pages subsequently as soon as I can find some spare time. Etnoy 08:16, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind me taking the liberty here to implement this. Don't forget that the pipe character '|' can be used to show a link name that differs from the link path, for clarity's sake. Orethrius van Degaurde 07:04, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, it looks like Etnoy has this well in-hand, the bookshelf just needs a little cleanup. Orethrius van Degaurde 07:09, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * OH, I see where you're going with that. Reverting those two pages.  Orethrius van Degaurde 07:33, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Using Ratpoison/Cover


text:
User talk:Etnoy

Hi Etnoy, I noticed your new book Using Ratpoison and left a message at Talk:Using Ratpoison. --Andreas 10:16, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ratpoison
I've been doing a bit of work on the ratpoison book lately- I'm essentially rewriting it and adding in my notes from the past few days (I recently installed a fresh Debian and decided to learn Ratpoison), so my additions reflect my middling knowledge; for example, I'm currently hoping to find out soon how to remap C-t to maybe Win or C-z. Incidentally, what is the copyright on that ratpoison logo? --Maru (talk) Contribs 23:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:Etnoy


text:
Talk:Ada Programming/Pragmas

Another list for implementation defined pragmas
There are so much implementation defined pragmas that the language defined ones are not easily seen. A possible solution (if this is seen as a problem) is to make two lists: language defined pragmas, and implementation defined pragmas. --suruena 10:18, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * done (a long time ago, BTW) —surueña (talk) 10:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ada Programming/Pragmas


text:
Cookbook talk:Cuisine of Turkey

Böreks
Transwikied text from Wikipedia. Editors of Böreks article there: Denni 01:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 18:48, 2005 July 14 Denni (extend)
 * 08:45, 2005 July 14 141.154.202.232
 * 08:43, 2005 July 14 63.237.76.66 (+turkey stub)
 * 08:37, 2005 July 14 195.174.80.125

title: Cookbook talk:Cuisine of Turkey


text:
Conlang/Introduction

Conlanging, the craft of creating a language, is a very in-depth, but fun, process. Many even consider it an form of art. The people who make conlangs are called conlangers. Conlanging isn't just a hobby, though. You can learn a lot about how real languages work by creating conlangs and improving them.

Why construct a conlang?

 * To learn about linguistics. Conlanging is sometimes used as a teaching tool in university-level linguistics.
 * To explore how the way we speak affects the way we think. This is related to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which we'll have more to say about later.
 * To have private conversations with trusted individuals.
 * For a personal diary, or similar personal writing.
 * For use as a lingua franca to bridge gaps between people with different languages, on a regional or global scale. The most famous example, amongst many, is.
 * For use in a work of fiction. This is typically done in works of alternative history, fantasy, and science fiction.  Some well-known recent examples are, , and.
 * For the sheer pleasure of artistic creation. A famous example is Tolkien's  — which then inspired him to write works of fiction.

What are the different types of conlangs?
For a more exhaustive list, see the next chapter.
 * Engineered Languages (engelangs) — designed to meet objective criteria. These are often experimental.
 * Logical Languages (loglangs) — built around the structure of logic.
 * Philosophical Languages — constructed to meet some philosophical goal.
 * Auxiliary Languages (auxlangs) — designed as common second languages for people with different native languages.
 * International Auxiliary Languages (IALs) — designed to aid communication between people who speak different languages.
 * Zonal Constructed Languages — designed to aid communication between people who speak similar, but different, languages.
 * Artistic Languages (artlangs) — designed as or for works of art.
 * Fictional languages — designed to be used by the people in the fictional worlds of books, movies, games, and so on. Some of them may be spoken by aliens (exolangs or xenolangs), using sounds we can't easily make, or using grammatical structure different from the way any of our languages work.
 * Alternative Languages (altlangs) — designed as a plausible alternative way a language might have evolved from some real language, based on some alternate history.

Since each kind of conlang has a different goal, each involves a different process of creation.

The most common conlangs are artlangs. Many conlangers create a conworld to go with their conlang. They create a conrace, with a conculture. The process of creating a conworld is outlined in the Conworld wikibook.

The different types of conlangs will be discussed, with examples, in the next chapter.

Where do I start?
This wikibook is designed to help you, the conlanger, create a fairly involved conlang. It will take you step-by-step through the language making process.

As you work through the steps outlined in this wikibook, you will probably have numerous questions. A good central place to find resources, including community resources like mailing lists and blogs, is the.

title: Conlang/Introduction


text:
Conhistory/The Future World

We don't know the future, but we can guess what it may be like. It may be our idea of paradise (like the Culture) or our idea of hell (like 1984). A conworld set in the future has much less to go on than one set in the past. That may be one of the main reasons that futuristic conworlds are rarely seen, though there are certainly other factors.

title: Conhistory/The Future World


text:
Scouting/Knots

This part of the book will cover nearly everything you can do with rope and lace.

 * Stoppers
 * Bends
 * Loops
 * Nooses
 * Hitches
 * Lashes
 * Decorational Knots

title: Scouting/Knots


text:
Scouting/Knots/Bends

Bends or Bendknots are used to bend two ropes together. The most famous bend is of course the Reef knot, which is the first knots boy scouts learn nearly everywhere on earth. It is also presented in the WOSM flag.

 * Reef knot, square knot
 * Granny knot
 * Thief knot
 * What knot, grief knot

title: Scouting/Knots/Bends


text:
Consociety

A consociety is a fictional constructed society, usually for use within a conworld. A consociety details information about a given people, their cultural practices and lifestyles, as well as politics, government, and morals. This book will help you develop a fleshed-out, in-depth consociety for use in anything from novels to video games to role-playing.

Table of Contents

 * /Introduction/ [[File:00%.svg]]
 * The Basics [[File:00%.svg]]
 * /Influences on Society/ [[File:00%.svg]]
 * /Geography/ [[File:00%.svg]]
 * /Mythology/ [[File:00%.svg]]
 * /Time/ [[File:00%.svg]]
 * /Culture/ [[File:00%.svg]]
 * /Religion/ [[File:00%.svg]]
 * /Food/ [[File:00%.svg]]
 * /Art/ [[File:00%.svg]]
 * /Music/ [[File:00%.svg]]
 * /Literature/ [[File:00%.svg]]
 * /Philosophy/ [[File:00%.svg]]
 * /Technology/ [[File:00%.svg]]
 * /Science/ [[File:00%.svg]]
 * /Government/ [[File:00%.svg]]
 * /Economics/ [[File:00%.svg]]
 * /Politics/ [[File:00%.svg]]
 * /Intersection/ [[File:00%.svg]]
 * /Cultures Colliding/ [[File:00%.svg]]
 * /War/ [[File:00%.svg]]
 * Finishing Touches [[File:00%.svg]]

title: Consociety