1
|
Arak H, Erkiliç S, Yaslikaya Ş, Eylemer Mocan E, Aktaş G, Özdemir M, Semiz HS, kiliçkap S, Özalp FR, Sever ÖN, Akdağ G, Ağaoğlu AB, Özçelik M, Sari M, Arcagök M, Anik H, Yayla ŞB, Sever N, Açar FP, Bayrakçi İ, Turhal S, Ayhan M, Kuş T. The Effectiveness of Adjuvant PD-1 Inhibitors in Patients With Surgically Resected Stage III/IV Acral Melanoma. J Immunother 2024; 47:182-189. [PMID: 38333962 PMCID: PMC11073564 DOI: 10.1097/cji.0000000000000508] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/23/2023] [Accepted: 01/11/2024] [Indexed: 02/10/2024]
Abstract
Our aim was to assess the efficacy of adjuvant programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) inhibitors and compare the other adjuvant treatments in patients with surgically resected stage III or IV acral melanoma. This study is a multicenter, retrospective analysis. We included 114 patients with stage III or IV acral malignant melanoma who underwent surgery within the past 10 years. We analyzed the effect of adjuvant programmed cell death protein-1 inhibitors on disease-free survival (DFS). The mean follow-up was 40 months, during which 69 (59.5%) patients experienced recurrence. Among the participants, 64 (56.1%) received systemic adjuvant therapy. Specifically, 48.4% received anti-PD-1 therapy, 29.7% received interferon, 14.1% received tezozolomide, and 7.8% received B-Raf proto-oncogene/mitogen-activated protein kinase inhibitors. Patients who received adjuvant therapy had a median DFS of 24 (10.9-37.2) months, whereas those who did not receive adjuvant therapy had a median DFS of 15 (9.8-20.2) months. Multivariate analysis for DFS revealed that the receipt of adjuvant therapy and lymph node metastasis stage were independent significant parameters ( P = 0.021, P = 0.018, respectively). No statistically significant difference was observed for DFS between programmed cell death protein-1 inhibitor treatment and other adjuvant treatments. Regarding overall survival (OS), patients who received adjuvant treatment had a median OS of 71 (30.4-111.7) months, whereas those who did not receive adjuvant treatment had a median OS of 38 (16.7-59.3; P = 0.023) months. In addition, there were no significant differences in OS observed between various adjuvant treatment agents ( P = 0.122). In our study, we have shown that adjuvant therapy had a positive effect on both DFS and OS in patients with stages III-IV acral melanoma who underwent curative intent surgery. Notably, we found no significant differences between anti-PD-1 therapy and other adjuvant therapies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Haci Arak
- Department of Medical Oncology, School of Medicine, Gaziantep University, Gaziantep, Turkey
| | - Suna Erkiliç
- Department of Pathology, Gaziantep University, Gaziantep, Turkey
| | - Şendağ Yaslikaya
- Department of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Cukurova University, Adana, Turkey
| | | | - Gökmen Aktaş
- Department of Medical Oncology, Medicalpoint Hospital, Gaziantep, Turkey
| | - Melek Özdemir
- Department of Medical Oncology, Pamukkale University of Medicine, Denizli, Turkey
| | - Hüseyin Salih Semiz
- Department of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir, Turkey
| | | | - Faruk Recep Özalp
- Department of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir, Turkey
| | - Özlem Nuray Sever
- Department of Medical Oncology, Kartal Dr. Lutfi Kirdar Training and Research Hospital, University of Health Sciences, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Goncagül Akdağ
- Department of Medical Oncology, Kartal Dr. Lutfi Kirdar Training and Research Hospital, University of Health Sciences, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Ahmet Burak Ağaoğlu
- Department of Medical Oncology, Medical Faculty, Manisa Celal Bayar University Manisa, Turkey
| | - Melike Özçelik
- Department of Medical Oncology, Umraniye Training and Research Hospital, University of Health Sciences, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Murat Sari
- Department of Medical Oncology, Marmara University Pendik Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Murat Arcagök
- Department of Medical Oncology, Dicle University Medical Faculty, Diyarbakir, Turkey
| | - Hicran Anik
- Department of Medical Oncology, Dr Abdurahman Yurtaslan Ankara Oncology Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Şaziye Burçak Yayla
- Department of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Ege University, Izmir, Turkey
| | - Nadiye Sever
- Department of Medical Oncology, Marmara University Pendik Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Fatma Pinar Açar
- Department of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Ege University, Izmir, Turkey
| | - İsmail Bayrakçi
- Department of Medical Oncology, Trakya University Faculty of Medicine, Edirne, Turkey
| | - Serdar Turhal
- Anadolu Health Center, Department of Medical Oncology. İstanbul, Turkey
| | - Murat Ayhan
- Department of Medical Oncology, Adiyaman Training and Research Hospital, Adiyaman, Turkey
| | - Tülay Kuş
- Department of Medical Oncology, Gaziantep University School of Medicine, Gaziantep, Turkey
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Akyildiz A, Guven DC, Ozluk AA, Ismayilov R, Mutlu E, Unal OU, Yildiz I, Iriagac Y, Turhal S, Akbas S, Bayram E, Telli TA, Turkoz FP, Ozcelik M, Erciyestepe M, Selvi O, Gulbagci B, Erturk I, Isleyen ZS, Kahraman S, Akdag MO, Hamitoglu B, Unek IT, Unal C, Hacibekiroglu İ, Arslan C, Azizy A, Helvaci K, Demirci U, Dizdar O, Basaran M, Goker E, Sendur MA, Yalcin S. The safety and efficacy of first-line atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: A multicenter real-world study from Turkey. Medicine (Baltimore) 2023; 102:e35950. [PMID: 37960746 PMCID: PMC10637501 DOI: 10.1097/md.0000000000035950] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/27/2023] [Accepted: 10/13/2023] [Indexed: 11/15/2023] Open
Abstract
The aim of the study was to evaluate the real-world clinical outcomes of atezolizumab and bevacizumab (Atez/Bev) as the initial therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We retrospectively analyzed 65 patients treated with Atez/Bev for advanced HCC from 22 institutions in Turkey between September 2020 and March 2023. Responses were evaluated by RECIST v1.1 criteria. The median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox regression model was employed to conduct multivariate analyses. The median age was 65 (range, 22-89) years, and 83.1% of the patients were male. A total of 1.5% achieved a complete response, 35.4% had a partial response, 36.9% had stable disease, and 26.2% had progressive disease. The disease control rate was 73.8% and associated with alpha-fetoprotein levels at diagnosis and concomitant antibiotic use. The incidence rates of any grade and grade ≥ 3 adverse events were 29.2% and 10.7%, respectively. At a median follow-up of 11.3 (3.4-33.3) months, the median PFS and OS were 5.1 (95% CI: 3-7.3) and 18.1 (95% CI: 6.2-29.9) months, respectively. In univariate analyses, ECOG-PS ≥ 1 (relative to 0), Child-Pugh class B (relative to A), neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) > 2.9 (relative to ≤ 2.9), and concomitant antibiotic use significantly increased the overall risk of mortality. Multivariate analysis revealed that ECOG-PS ≥ 1 (HR: 2.69, P = .02), NLR > 2.9 (HR: 2.94, P = .017), and concomitant antibiotic use (HR: 4.18, P = .003) were independent predictors of OS. Atez/Bev is an effective and safe first-line therapy for advanced-stage HCC in a real-world setting. The survival benefit was especially promising in patients with a ECOG-PS score of 0, Child-Pugh class A, lower NLR, and patients who were not exposed to antibiotics during the treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Arif Akyildiz
- Department of Medical Oncology, Hacettepe University Cancer Institute, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Deniz Can Guven
- Department of Medical Oncology, Hacettepe University Cancer Institute, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Ahmet Anil Ozluk
- Department of Medical Oncology, Ege University Faculty of Medicine, Izmir, Turkey
| | - Rashad Ismayilov
- Department of Internal Medicine, Hacettepe University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Emel Mutlu
- Department of Medical Oncology, Erciyes University Faculty of Medicine, Kayseri, Turkey
| | - Olcun Umit Unal
- Department of Medical Oncology, Bozyaka Education and Research Hospital, Izmir, Turkey
| | - Ibrahim Yildiz
- Department of Medical Oncology, Acibadem University Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Yakup Iriagac
- Department of Medical Oncology, Namik Kemal University, Tekirdag, Turkey
| | - Serdar Turhal
- Department of Medical Oncology, Anadolu Medical Center, Kocaeli, Turkey
| | - Sinem Akbas
- Department of Medical Oncology, Koc University Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Ertugrul Bayram
- Department of Medical Oncology, Cukurova University Faculty of Medicine, Adana, Turkey
| | - Tugba Akin Telli
- Department of Medical Oncology, Marmara University School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Fatma Paksoy Turkoz
- Department of Medical Oncology, Istinye University, Medical Park Goztepe Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Melike Ozcelik
- Department of Oncology, Kartal Lutfi Kirdar Teaching and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Mert Erciyestepe
- Department of Medical Oncology, Prof Dr. Cemil Tascioglu City Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Oguzhan Selvi
- Department of Medical Oncology, Prof Dr. Cemil Tascioglu City Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Burcu Gulbagci
- Department of Medical Oncology, Sakarya University Faculty of Medicine, Sakarya, Turkey
| | - Ismail Erturk
- Department of Medical Oncology, Gulhane School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Zehra Sucuoglu Isleyen
- Department of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Bezmialem Vakif University, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Seda Kahraman
- Department of Medical Oncology, Ankara City Hospital, Yildirim Beyazit University, Ankara, Turkey
| | | | - Buket Hamitoglu
- Department of Medical Oncology, Dokuz Eylül University Faculty of Medicine, Izmir, Turkey
| | - Ilkay Tugba Unek
- Department of Medical Oncology, Dokuz Eylül University Faculty of Medicine, Izmir, Turkey
| | - Caglar Unal
- Department of Medical Oncology, Gayrettepe Florence Nightingale Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - İlhan Hacibekiroglu
- Department of Medical Oncology, Prof Dr. Cemil Tascioglu City Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Cagatay Arslan
- Department of Medical Oncology, Izmir University of Economics Faculty of Medicine, Izmir, Turkey
| | - Abdulmunir Azizy
- Department of Medical Oncology, Istanbul University Institute of Oncology, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Kaan Helvaci
- Department of Medical Oncology, Memorial Ankara Hospital, University of Uskudar, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Umut Demirci
- Department of Medical Oncology, Memorial Ankara Hospital, University of Uskudar, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Omer Dizdar
- Department of Medical Oncology, Hacettepe University Cancer Institute, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Mert Basaran
- Department of Medical Oncology, Istanbul University Institute of Oncology, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Erdem Goker
- Department of Medical Oncology, Ege University Faculty of Medicine, Izmir, Turkey
| | - Mehmet Ali Sendur
- Department of Medical Oncology, Ankara City Hospital, Yildirim Beyazit University, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Suayib Yalcin
- Department of Medical Oncology, Hacettepe University Cancer Institute, Ankara, Turkey
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Bilici A, Koca S, Karaagac M, Aydin SG, Eraslan E, Kaplan MA, Ocak B, Goksu SS, Paydas S, Akgul F, Derin S, Ergun Y, Yekeduz E, Erol C, Ozyukseler DT, Demiray AG, Karaca M, Guc ZG, Menekse S, Cinkir HY, Gumusay O, Sakin A, Ozkul O, Demir H, Erdem D, Besiroglu M, Unal OU, Acar R, Koral L, Sahin S, Sakalar T, Bahceci A, Ozveren A, Gunaydin UM, Seker MM, Sunar V, Dal P, Artac M, Turhal S. Real-world outcomes of pazopanib in metastatic soft tissue sarcoma: a retrospective Turkish oncology group (TOG) study. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2023:10.1007/s00432-023-04766-3. [PMID: 37067546 DOI: 10.1007/s00432-023-04766-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/05/2023] [Accepted: 04/08/2023] [Indexed: 04/18/2023]
Abstract
AIM Description of patient characteristics, effectiveness and safety in Turkish patients treated with pazopanib for metastatic soft tissue sarcoma (STS). PATIENTS AND METHODS This multicenter study is based on retrospective review of hospital medical records of patients (≥ 18 years) treated with pazopanib for non-adipocytic metastatic STS at 37 Oncology clinics across Turkey. Objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were evaluated with further analysis of data on the three most common histological subtypes (leiomyosarcoma [LMS], undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma [UPS], synovial sarcoma [SS]) in the cohort. RESULTS Data of 552 adults (57.6% women, median age: 52 years) were analyzed. DCR and ORR were 43.1% and 30.8%, respectively. Median PFS was 6.7 months and OS was 13.8 months. For LMS, UPS and SS, median PFSs were 6.1, 5.9 and 7.53 months and median OSs were 15.03, 12.87 and 12.27 months, respectively. ECOG ≥ 2 was associated with poor PFS and OS. Liver metastasis was only a factor for progression. Second-line use of pazopanib (vs. front-line) was associated with better PFS, its use beyond third line predicted worse OS. Adverse events (AE) occurred in 82.7% of patients. Most common AEs were fatigue (58.3%) and anorexia (52.3%) which were graded as ≥ 3 in 8.2% and 7.4% of patients, respectively. CONCLUSION Pazopanib is effective and well-tolerated in treatment of non-adipocytic metastatic STS. Its earlier use (at second-line), good performance status may result in better outcomes. Worldwide scientific collaborations are important to gain knowledge on rarer STS subtypes by conducting studies in larger patient populations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ahmet Bilici
- Medical Faculty, Department of Medical Oncology, Medipol University, TEM Avrupa Otoyolu Goztepe Cikisi, No:1, Bagcilar, 34214, Istanbul, Turkey.
| | - Sinan Koca
- Medical Faculty, Department of Medical Oncology, Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Mustafa Karaagac
- Meram Medical Faculty, Department of Medical Oncology, Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Turkey
| | - Sabin Goktas Aydin
- Medical Faculty, Department of Medical Oncology, Medipol University, TEM Avrupa Otoyolu Goztepe Cikisi, No:1, Bagcilar, 34214, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Emrah Eraslan
- Department of Medical Oncology, Dr.Abdurrahman Yurtarslan Oncology Education and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Muhammed Ali Kaplan
- Medical Faculty, Department of Medical Oncology, Dicle University, Diyarbakir, Turkey
| | - Birol Ocak
- Medical Faculty, Department of Medical Oncology, UludagUniversity, Bursa, Turkey
| | - Sema Sezgin Goksu
- Medical Faculty, Department of Medical Oncology, Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey
| | - Semra Paydas
- Medical Faculty, Department of Medical Oncology, Cukurova University, Adana, Turkey
| | - Fahri Akgul
- Medical Faculty, Department of Medical Oncology, Trakya University, Edirne, Turkey
| | - Sumeyye Derin
- Cerrahpasa Medical Faculty, Department of Medical Oncology, Istanbul University-Cerrahpasa, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Yakup Ergun
- Department of Medical Oncology, Ankara Numune Education and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Emre Yekeduz
- Medical Faculty, Department of Medical Oncology, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Cihan Erol
- Medical Faculty, Department of Medical Oncology, Ankara Yildirim Beyazit University, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Deniz Tataroglu Ozyukseler
- Department of Medical Oncology, Dr. Lutfi Kirdar Kartal Education and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Atike Gokcen Demiray
- Medical Faculty, Department of Medical Oncology, Pamukkale University, Denizli, Turkey
| | - Mustafa Karaca
- Department of Medical Oncology, Antalya Kartal Education and Research Hospital, Antalya, Turkey
| | - Zeynep Gulsum Guc
- Medical Faculty, Department of Medical Oncology, Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir, Turkey
| | - Serkan Menekse
- Department of Medical Oncology, Manisa State Hospital, Manisa, Turkey
| | - Havva Yesil Cinkir
- Medical Faculty, Department of Medical Oncology, Gaziantep University, Gaziantep, Turkey
| | - Ozge Gumusay
- Medical Faculty, Department of Medical Oncology, Acibadem University, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Abdullah Sakin
- Medical Faculty, Department of Medical Oncology, Yuzuncuyil University, Van, Turkey
| | - Ozlem Ozkul
- Department of Medical Oncology, Sakarya Education and Research Hospital, Sakarya, Turkey
| | - Hacer Demir
- Medical Faculty, Department of Medical Oncology, Afyon Kocatepe University, Afyon, Turkey
| | - Dilek Erdem
- Medical Faculty, Department of Medical Oncology, Bahcesehir University, Samsun, Turkey
| | - Mehmet Besiroglu
- Medical Faculty, Department of Medical Oncology, Bezmialem Vakif University, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Olcun Umit Unal
- Department of Medical Oncology, Izmir Bozyaka Education and Research Hospital, Izmir, Turkey
| | - Ramazan Acar
- Department of Medical Oncology, Gulhane Education and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Lokman Koral
- Medical Faculty, Department of Medical Oncology, Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Canakkale, Turkey
| | - Suleyman Sahin
- Department of Medical Oncology, Van Education and Research Hospital, Van, Turkey
| | - Teoman Sakalar
- Department of Medical Oncology, Aksaray Education and Research Hospital, Aksaray, Turkey
| | - Aykut Bahceci
- Department of Medical Oncology, Gaziantep Dr. Ersin Arslan Education and Research Hospital, Gaziantep, Turkey
| | - Ahmet Ozveren
- Department of Medical Oncology, Giresun Prof. Dr. A. Ilhan Ozdemir Education and Research Hospital, Giresun, Turkey
| | - Ulug Mutlu Gunaydin
- Medical Faculty, Department of Medical Oncology, Istanbul Medeniyet University, Istanbul, Turkey
| | | | - Veli Sunar
- Department of Medical Oncology, Zekai Tahir Burak Education and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Pinar Dal
- Department of Medical Oncology, Eskisehir Education and Research Hospital, Eskisehir, Turkey
| | - Mehmet Artac
- Meram Medical Faculty, Department of Medical Oncology, Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Turkey
| | - Serdar Turhal
- Anadolu Medical Center, Department of Medical Oncology, Istanbul, Turkey
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Almuradova E, Basoglu T, Nayir E, Bayram E, Paydas S, Gokmen I, Karakaya S, Oksuzoglu B, Erdem D, Sakin A, Atcı M, Belen Gulbagcı B, Hacibekiroglu I, Onder AH, Karaarslan S, Karakurt Eryılmaz M, Korkmaz M, Yazıcı O, Sutcuoglu O, Akagunduz B, Arak H, Sakalar T, Aydin D, Iriagac Y, Alan O, Midik M, Cetin D, Kip AD, Turhal S, Kacan T, Koseci T. Real-life experience of patients with sarcomatoid renal cell carcinoma: a multicenter retrospective study. Neoplasma 2023; 70:158-165. [PMID: 36620878 DOI: 10.4149/neo_2022_221004n984] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/04/2022] [Accepted: 12/01/2022] [Indexed: 01/10/2023]
Abstract
Sarcomatoid renal cell carcinoma (sRCC) is a rare variant of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and is associated with a poor prognosis. We reviewed the outcomes of patients from oncology centers in Turkey. Our aim is to share our real-life experience and to contribute to the literature. The demographic and clinical features, treatment, and survival outcomes of 148 patients with sRCC were analyzed. The median age at the time of diagnosis was 58 years (range: 19-83 years). Most patients (62.8%) had clear-cell histology. Most patients were in the intermediate Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) risk group (67.6%) and were stage 4 at the time of diagnosis (63.5%). The most common sites of metastasis were the lung (60.1%), lymph nodes (47.3%), and bone (35.8%). The patients received a median of two lines (range: 0-6) of treatment. The most common side effects were fatigue, hematological side effects, hypertension, and hypothyroidism. The median follow-up was 20.9 months (range: 1-162 months). The median overall survival (OS) was 30.8 months (95% confidence interval: 24.9-36.7 months). In multivariate analysis, high MSKCC scores, sarcomatoid differentiation rates >50%, having stage 4 disease, and having lung metastasis at the time of diagnosis were independent factors for poor prognosis affecting OS. No difference was observed between patients who received tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) as the first or second-line treatments. Similarly, no difference between TKI and immunotherapy as the second-line treatment. In conclusion, sRCC is a rare variant of RCC with a poor prognosis and response to treatment. Larger-scale prospective studies are needed to define an optimal treatment approach for longer survival in this aggressive variant.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Elvina Almuradova
- Division of Medical Oncology, Ege University School of Medicine, Izmir, Turkey
| | - Tugba Basoglu
- Division of Medical Oncology, Nigde Omer Omer Halisdemir University Training and Research Hospital, Nigde, Turkey
| | - Erdinc Nayir
- Division of Medical Oncology, Medikal Park Hospital, Mersin, Turkey
| | - Ertugrul Bayram
- Division of Medical Oncology, Cukurova University School of Medicine, Adana, Turkey
| | - Semra Paydas
- Division of Medical Oncology, Cukurova University School of Medicine, Adana, Turkey
| | - Ivo Gokmen
- Division of Medical Oncology, Trakya University School of Medicine, Edirne, Turkey
| | - Serdar Karakaya
- Division of Medical Oncology, Abdurrahman Yurtaslan Hospital, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Berna Oksuzoglu
- Division of Medical Oncology, Abdurrahman Yurtaslan Hospital, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Dilek Erdem
- Division of Medical Oncology, VM Samsun Medikal Park Hospital, Samsun, Turkey
| | - Abdullah Sakin
- Division of Medical Oncology, Okmeydani Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Mustafa Atcı
- Division of Medical Oncology, Okmeydani Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Burcu Belen Gulbagcı
- Division of Medical Oncology, Sakarya University School of Medicine, Sakarya, Turkey
| | - Ilhan Hacibekiroglu
- Division of Medical Oncology, Sakarya University School of Medicine, Sakarya, Turkey
| | - Arif Hakan Onder
- Division of Medical Oncology, Antalya Research and Training Hospital, Antalya, Turkey
| | - Serap Karaarslan
- Department of Pathology, Izmir Tinaztepe University Faculty of Medicine, Izmir, Turkey
| | - Melek Karakurt Eryılmaz
- Division of Medical Oncology, Necmettin Erbakan University School of Medicine, Konya, Turkey
| | - Mustafa Korkmaz
- Division of Medical Oncology, Necmettin Erbakan University School of Medicine, Konya, Turkey
| | - Ozan Yazıcı
- Division of Medical Oncology, Gazi University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Osman Sutcuoglu
- Division of Medical Oncology, Gazi University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Baran Akagunduz
- Division of Medical Oncology, Binali Yildirim University Mengucek Gazi Research and Training Hospital, Erzincan, Turkey
| | - Haci Arak
- Division of Medical Oncology, Gaziantep University School of Medicine, Gaziantep, Turkey
| | - Teoman Sakalar
- Division of Medical Oncology, Necip Fazil City Hospital, Kahramanmaras, Turkey
| | - Dincer Aydin
- Division of Medical Oncology, Derince Research and Training Hospital, Kocaeli, Turkey
| | - Yakup Iriagac
- Division of Medical Oncology, Namik Kemal University School of Medicine, Tekirdag, Turkey
| | - Ozkan Alan
- Division of Medical Oncology, Tekirdag City Hospital, Tekirdag, Turkey
| | - Murat Midik
- Division of Medical Oncology, Ege University School of Medicine, Izmir, Turkey
| | - Denis Cetin
- Division of Medical Oncology, Ege University School of Medicine, Izmir, Turkey
| | - Asli-Dilara Kip
- Division of Medical Oncology, Ege University School of Medicine, Izmir, Turkey
| | - Serdar Turhal
- Division of Medical Oncology, Anadolu Health Group, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Turgut Kacan
- Bursa High Specialized Research and Training Hospital, Bursa, Turkey
| | - Tolga Koseci
- Division of Medical Oncology, Cukurova University School of Medicine, Adana, Turkey
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Erol C, Sendur Mehmet AN, Bilgetekin I, Garbioglu DB, Hamdard J, Akbas S, Hizal M, Arslan C, Sevinc A, Kucukarda A, Erdem D, Kahraman S, Cakir E, Demirkiran A, On S, Dogan I, Erdogan AP, Koca S, Kubilay P, Eren OO, Cilbir E, Celik E, Araz M, Ozyukseler DT, Yildirim ME, Bahceci A, Taskaynatan H, Oyman A, Deniz GI, Menekse S, Kut E, Gulmez A, Sakin A, Nayir E, Acar R, Sen E, Inal A, Turhal S, Kaya AO, Paydas S, Tastekin D, Hacibekiroglu I, Cincin I, Bilici A, Mandel NM, Dede DS, Akinci MB, Oksuzoglu B, Uncu D, Yalcin B, Artac M. Efficacy and safety of folfiri plus aflibercept in second-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: Real-life data from Turkish oncology group. J Cancer Res Ther 2022; 18:S347-S353. [PMID: 36510987 DOI: 10.4103/jcrt.jcrt_1104_21] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
Aims The addition of aflibercept to the fluorouracil and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) regimen significantly improved clinical outcomes in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) previously treated with oxaliplatin. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of second-line FOLFIRI and aflibercept combination in patients with metastatic CRC in real-life experience. Materials and Methods Four hundred and thirty-three patients who treated with FOLFIRI and aflibercept in the second-line were included in the study. The clinical and pathological features of the patients were recorded retrospectively. Survival (overall and progression-free survival [PFS]), response rates, and safety data were analyzed. Results The median age was 61. Majority of patients (87.5%) received first-line bevacizumab and 10.1% of patients received anti-epidermal growth factor receptor agents. About 80% of patients had KRAS, 18.6% of patients had NRAS, and 6.4% of patients had BRAF mutations. The median OS was 11.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 10.6-12.6) and the median PFS was 6 months (95% CI, 5.5-6.5). About 4.6% of patients had complete response and 30.6% of patients had partial response as best tumor response. Grade 1-2 toxicities were seen in 33.4% of patients, while grade 3-4 toxicities were recorded in 27% of patients. Eight patients (2%) died due to treatment toxicity. Conclusions Overall and PFS were similar in routine clinical practice compared to phase III pivotal VELOUR trial. However, response rates were found to be higher. It was observed that there were fewer adverse events compared to the VELOUR trial.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Cihan Erol
- Department of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Ankara Yildirim Beyazit University, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Ali Nahit Sendur Mehmet
- Department of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Ankara Yildirim Beyazit University, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Irem Bilgetekin
- Department of Medical Oncology, Ankara Dr. Abdurrahman Yurtaslan Oncology Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Duygu Bayir Garbioglu
- Department of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Eskisehir Osmangazi University, Eskisehir, Turkey
| | - Jamshid Hamdard
- Department of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul Medipol University, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Sinem Akbas
- Department of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul Medipol University, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Mutlu Hizal
- Department of Medical Oncology, Ankara City Hospital, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Cagatay Arslan
- Department of Medical Oncology, Izmir Medical Park Hospital, Izmir, Turkey
| | - Alper Sevinc
- Department of Medical Oncology, Gaziantep Medical Park Hospital, Edirne, Turkey
| | - Ahmet Kucukarda
- Department of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Trakya University, Edirne, Turkey
| | - Dilek Erdem
- Department of Medical Oncology, Samsun Medical Park Hospital, Samsun, Turkey
| | - Seda Kahraman
- Department of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Sakarya University, Sakarya, Turkey
| | - Emre Cakir
- Department of Medical Oncology, Meram Faculty of Medicine, Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Turkey
| | - Aykut Demirkiran
- Department of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Ege University, Izmir, Turkey
| | - Sercan On
- Department of Medical Oncology, Istanbul University, Institute of Oncology, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Izzet Dogan
- Department of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Manisa Celal Bayar University, Manisa, Turkey
| | - Atike Pinar Erdogan
- Department of Medical Oncology, Goztepe Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul Medeniyet University, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Sinan Koca
- Department of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Pinar Kubilay
- Department of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Selcuk University, Konya, Turkey
| | - Orhan Onder Eren
- Department of Medical Oncology, Diskapi Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Ebru Cilbir
- Department of Medical Oncology, Cerrahpasa School of Medicine, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Emir Celik
- Department of Medical Oncology, Cerrahpasa School of Medicine, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Murat Araz
- Department of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Ege University, Izmir, Turkey
| | - Deniz Tataroglu Ozyukseler
- Department of Medical Oncology, Kartal Dr. Lutfi Kirdar Training and Research Hospital, University of Health Sciences, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Mahmut Emre Yildirim
- Department of Medical Oncology, Kartal Dr. Lutfi Kirdar Training and Research Hospital, University of Health Sciences, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Aykut Bahceci
- Department of Medical Oncology, Dr. Ersin Arslan Education and Research Hospital, Gaziantep, Turkey
| | - Halil Taskaynatan
- Department of Medical Oncology, Necip Fazil City Hospital, Kahramanmaras, Turkey
| | - Abdilkerim Oyman
- Department of Medical Oncology, Umraniye Education and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Gulhan Ipek Deniz
- Department of Medical Oncology, Sisli Hamidiye Etfal Education and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Serkan Menekse
- Department of Medical Oncology Manisa City Hospital, Manisa, Turkey
| | - Engin Kut
- Department of Medical Oncology Manisa City Hospital, Manisa, Turkey
| | - Ahmet Gulmez
- Department of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Inonu University, Malatya, Turkey
| | - Abdullah Sakin
- Department of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Van Yuzuncu Yil University, Van, Turkey
| | - Erdinc Nayir
- Department of Medical Oncology, Mersin Medical Park Hospital, Mersin, Turkey
| | - Ramazan Acar
- Department of Medical Oncology, Gulhane Education and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Erdem Sen
- Department of Medical Oncology, Mehmet Akif Ersoy Hospital, Canakkale, Turkey
| | - Ali Inal
- Department of Medical Oncology, Mersin City Hospital, Mersin, Turkey
| | - Serdar Turhal
- Department of Medical Oncology, Anadolu Medical Center, Kocaeli, Turkey
| | - Ali Osman Kaya
- Department of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Biruni University, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Semra Paydas
- Department of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Cukurova University, Adana, Turkey
| | - Didem Tastekin
- Department of Medical Oncology, Istanbul University, Institute of Oncology, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Ilhan Hacibekiroglu
- Department of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Sakarya University, Sakarya, Turkey
| | - Irfan Cincin
- Department of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Trakya University, Edirne, Turkey
| | - Ahmet Bilici
- Department of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul Medipol University, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Nil Molinas Mandel
- Department of Medical Oncology, Istanbul American Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Didem Sener Dede
- Department of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Ankara Yildirim Beyazit University, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Muhammed Bulent Akinci
- Department of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Ankara Yildirim Beyazit University, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Berna Oksuzoglu
- Department of Medical Oncology, Ankara Dr. Abdurrahman Yurtaslan Oncology Training and Research Hospital, 5Department of Medical Oncology, Ankara City Hospital, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Dogan Uncu
- Department of Medical Oncology, Ankara City Hospital, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Bulent Yalcin
- Department of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Ankara Yildirim Beyazit University, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Mehmet Artac
- Department of Medical Oncology, Meram Faculty of Medicine, Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Turkey
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Erol C, Sakin A, Başoğlu T, Özden E, Çabuk D, Doğan M, Öksüzoğlu B, Yıldırım HÇ, Öner İ, Eryılmaz MK, Dülgar Ö, Aydın D, Doğan N, Özen M, Hacıbekiroğlu İ, Özdemir N, Gürler F, Paksoy N, Karabulut S, Aksoy A, Hızal M, Kahraman S, Şen E, Paydaş S, Çılbır E, Fırat F, Akdeniz N, Özçelik M, Oyman A, Baytemür NK, Acar R, Almuradova E, Karabulut B, Şakalar T, Arak H, Değerli E, Türker S, Alan Ö, Er Ö, Taşçı EŞ, Demir N, Çavdar E, Turhal S, Dede DŞ, Akıncı MB, Yalçın B, Yumuk F, Yalçın Ş, Şendur MAN. Prognostic factors of perioperative FLOT regimen in operable gastric and gastroesophageal junction tumors: real-life data (Turkish Oncology Group). Turk J Med Sci 2022; 52:1022-1032. [PMID: 36326360 PMCID: PMC10387859 DOI: 10.55730/1300-0144.5404] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/07/2022] [Accepted: 05/22/2022] [Indexed: 02/05/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Perioperative FLOT regimen is a standard of care in locally advanced operable gastric and GEJ adenocarcinoma. We aimed to determine the efficacy, prognostic factors of perioperative FLOT chemotherapy in real-life gastric and GEJ tumors. METHODS The data of patients who were treated with perioperative FLOT chemotherapy were retrospectively analyzed from 34 different oncology centers in Turkey. Baseline clinical and demographic characteristics, pretreatment laboratory values, histological and molecular characteristics were recorded. RESULTS A total of 441 patients were included in the study. The median of age our study population was 60 years. The majority of patients with radiological staging were cT3-4N(+) (89.9%, n = 338). After median 13.5 months (IQR: 8.5-20.5) follow-up, the median overall survival was NR (95% CI, NR to NR), and median disease free survival was 22.9 (95% CI, 18.6 to 27.3) months. The estimated overall survival at 24 months was 62%. Complete pathological response (pCR) and near pCR was achieved in 23.8% of all patients. Patients with lower NLR or PLR have significantly longer median OS (p = 0.007 and p = 0.033, respectively), and patients with lower NLR have significantly longer median DFS (p = 0.039), but PLR level did not affect DFS (p = 0.062). The OS and DFS of patients with better ECOG performance scores and those who could receive FLOT as adjuvant chemotherapy instead of other regimens were found to be better. NLR was found to be independent prognostic factor for OS in the multivariant analysis. At least one adverse event reported in 57.6% of the patients and grade 3-4 toxicity was seen in 23.6% patients. DISCUSSION Real-life perioperative FLOT regimen in operable gastric and GEJ tumors showed similar oncologic outcomes compared to clinical trials. Better performance status, receiving adjuvant chemotherapy as same regimen, low grade and low NLR and PLR improved outcomes in real-life. However, in multivariate analysis, only NLR affected OS.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Cihan Erol
- Department of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Abdullah Sakin
- Department of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Van Yüzüncü Yıl University, Van, Turkey
| | - Tuğba Başoğlu
- Department of Medical Oncology, School of Medicine, Marmara University, İstanbul, Turkey
| | - Ercan Özden
- Department of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Kocaeli University, Kocaeli, Turkey
| | - Devrim Çabuk
- Department of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Kocaeli University, Kocaeli, Turkey
| | - Mutlu Doğan
- Department of Medical Oncology, Ankara Dr. Abdurrahman Yurtaslan Oncology Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Berna Öksüzoğlu
- Department of Medical Oncology, Ankara Dr. Abdurrahman Yurtaslan Oncology Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Hasan Çağrı Yıldırım
- Department of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
| | - İrem Öner
- Department of Medical Oncology, Konya Meram State Hospital, Konya, Turkey
| | - Melek Karakurt Eryılmaz
- Department of Medical Oncology, Meram Faculty of Medicine, Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Turkey
| | - Özgecan Dülgar
- Department of Medical Oncology, Göztepe Training and Research Hospital, İstanbul Medeniyet University, İstanbul, Turkey
| | - Dinçer Aydın
- Department of Medical Oncology, Derince Training and Research Hospital, Kocaeli, Turkey
| | - Neslihan Doğan
- Department of Medical Oncology, Prof. Dr. A. İlhan Özdemir Education and Research Hospital, Giresun University, Giresun, Turkey
| | - Miraç Özen
- Department of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Sakarya University, Sakarya, Turkey
| | - İlhan Hacıbekiroğlu
- Department of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Sakarya University, Sakarya, Turkey
| | - Nuriye Özdemir
- Department of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Fatih Gürler
- Department of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Nail Paksoy
- Department of Medical Oncology, Institute of Oncology, İstanbul University, İstanbul, Turkey
| | - Senem Karabulut
- Department of Medical Oncology, Institute of Oncology, İstanbul University, İstanbul, Turkey
| | - Asude Aksoy
- Department of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Fırat University, Elazığ, Turkey
| | - Mutlu Hızal
- Department of Medical Oncology, Ankara City Hospital, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Seda Kahraman
- Department of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Erdem Şen
- Department of Medical Oncology, Çanakkale Mehmet Akif Ersoy State Hospital, Çanakkale, Turkey
| | - Semra Paydaş
- Department of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Çukurova University, Adana, Turkey
| | - Ebru Çılbır
- Department of Medical Oncology, Dışkapı Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Feyza Fırat
- Department of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, İnönü University, Malatya, Turkey
| | - Nadiye Akdeniz
- Department of Medical Oncology, Adıyaman Training and Research Hospital, Adıyaman, Turkey
| | - Melike Özçelik
- Department of Medical Oncology, Ümraniye Education and Research Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey
| | - Abdilkerim Oyman
- Department of Medical Oncology, Ümraniye Education and Research Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey
| | | | - Ramazan Acar
- Department of Medical Oncology, Gülhane Education and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Elvina Almuradova
- Department of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Ege University, İzmir, Turkey
| | - Bülent Karabulut
- Department of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Ege University, İzmir, Turkey
| | - Teoman Şakalar
- Department of Medical Oncology, Kahramanmaraş Necip Fazıl City Hospital, Kahramanmaraş, Turkey
| | - Hacı Arak
- Department of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Gaziantep University, Gaziantep, Turkey
| | - Ezgi Değerli
- Department of Medical Oncology, Cerrahpaşa School of Medicine, İstanbul University, İstanbul, Turkey
| | - Sema Türker
- Department of Medical Oncology, Zonguldak Atatürk State Hospital, Zonguldak, Turkey
| | - Özkan Alan
- Department of Medical Oncology, Tekirdağ State Hospital, Tekirdağ, Turkey
| | - Özlem Er
- Department of Medical Oncology, Acıbadem Maslak Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey
| | - Elif Şenocak Taşçı
- Department of Medical Oncology, Acıbadem Maslak Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey
| | - Nazan Demir
- Department of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Osmangazi University, Eskişehir, Turkey
| | - Eyyüp Çavdar
- Department of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Tekirdağ Namık Kemal University, Tekirdağ, Turkey
| | - Serdar Turhal
- Department of Medical Oncology, Anadolu Medical Center, Kocaeli, Turkey
| | - Didem Şener Dede
- Department of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University, Ankara, Turke
| | - Muhammed Bülent Akıncı
- Department of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University, Ankara, Turke
| | - Bülent Yalçın
- Department of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University, Ankara, Turke
| | - Fulden Yumuk
- Department of Medical Oncology, School of Medicine, Marmara University, İstanbul, Turkey
| | - Şuayib Yalçın
- Department of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Mehmet Ali Nahit Şendur
- Department of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University, Ankara, Turke
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Başoğlu T, Sakin A, Erol C, Özden E, Çabuk D, Çılbır E, Tataroğlu Özyükseler D, Ayhan M, Şendur MA, Dogan M, Öksüzoğlu B, Eryılmaz MK, Er Ö, Taşçı EŞ, Özyurt N, Dülgar Ö, Özen M, Hacıbekiroğlu İ, Öner İ, Bekmez ET, Çağrı Yıldırım H, Yalçın Ş, Paydaş S, Yekedüz E, Aksoy A, Özçelik M, Oyman A, Almuradova E, Karabulut B, Demir N, Dinçer M, Özdemir N, Erdem D, Ak N, İnal A, Salim DK, Deniz Gİ, Şakalar T, Gülmez A, Kaçan T, Özdemir Ö, Alan Ö, Ünal Ç, Karakaş Y, Turhal S, Yumuk PF. Real life experience of patients with locally advanced gastric and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a Turkish oncology group study. J Chemother 2022; 35:142-149. [PMID: 35579894 DOI: 10.1080/1120009x.2022.2073159] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/18/2022]
Abstract
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) in gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) and gastric cancer (GC) was shown to improve survival in recent studies. We aimed to share our real-life experience of patients who received NACT to compare the efficacy and toxicity profile of different chemotherapy regimens in our country. This retrospective multicentre study included locally advanced GC and GEJ cancer patients who received NACT between 2007 and 2021. Relation between CT regimens and pathological evaluation were analysed. A total of 794 patients from 45 oncology centers in Turkey were included. Median age at the time of diagnosis was 60 (range: 18-86). Most frequent NACT regimens used were FLOT (65.4%), DCF (17.4%) and ECF (8.1%), respectively. In the total study group, pathological complete remission (pCR) rate was 7.2%, R0 resection rate 86.4%, and D2 dissection rate was 66.8%. Rate of pCR and near-CR (24%), and R0 resection (84%) were numerically higher in FLOT arm (p > 0.05). Patients who received FLOT had also higher chemotherapy-related toxicity rate compared to patients who received other regimens (p > 0.05). Median follow-up time was 16 months (range: 1-154 months). Estimated median overall survival (OS) was 58.4months (95% CI: 35.2-85.7) and disease-free survival (DFS) was 50.7 months (95% CI: 25.4-75.9). The highest 3-year estimated OS rate was also shown in FLOT arm (68%). We still do not know which NACT regimen is the best choice for daily practice. Clinicians should tailor treatment regimens according to patients' multifactorial status and comorbidities for to obtain best outcomes. Longer follow-up period needs to validate our results.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tuğba Başoğlu
- Medical Oncology, Marmara University School of Medicine, İstanbul, Turkey
| | - Abdullah Sakin
- Medical Oncology, Van Yuzuncu Yil University Faculty of Medicine, Van, Turkey
| | - Cihan Erol
- Medical Oncology, Ankara Yildirim Beyazit Universtiy, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Ercan Özden
- Medical Oncology, Kocaeli University Faculty of Medicine, Kocaeli, Turkey
| | - Devrim Çabuk
- Medical Oncology, Kocaeli University Faculty of Medicine, Kocaeli, Turkey
| | - Ebru Çılbır
- Medical Oncology, Dışkapı Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey
| | | | - Murat Ayhan
- Medical Oncology, Kartal Dr.LütfiKırdar Training and Research Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey
| | - Mehmet Ali Şendur
- Medical Oncology, Ankara Yildirim Beyazit Universtiy, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Mutlu Dogan
- Medical Oncology, Ankara Dr.Abdurrahman Yurtaslan Oncology Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Berna Öksüzoğlu
- Medical Oncology, Ankara Dr.Abdurrahman Yurtaslan Oncology Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey
| | | | - Özlem Er
- Medical Oncology, Acıbadem Mehmet Ali Aydınlar University School of Medicine, İstanbul, Turkey
| | - Elif Şenocak Taşçı
- Medical Oncology, Acıbadem Mehmet Ali Aydınlar University School of Medicine, İstanbul, Turkey
| | - Neslihan Özyurt
- Medical Oncology, Giresun Education and Research Hospital, Giresun, Turkey
| | - Özgecan Dülgar
- Medical Oncology, İstanbul Medeniyet University Göztepe Training and Research Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey
| | - Miraç Özen
- Medical Oncology, Sakarya University Faculty of Medicine, Sakarya, Turkey
| | | | - İrem Öner
- Medical Oncology, Konya City Hospital, Konya, Turkey
| | | | | | - Şuayib Yalçın
- Medical Oncology, Hacettepe University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Semra Paydaş
- Medical Oncology, Cukurova University School of Medicine, Adana, Turkey
| | - Emre Yekedüz
- Medical Oncology, Ankara University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Asude Aksoy
- Medical Oncology, Fırat University Faculty of Medicine, Elazığ, Turkey
| | - Melike Özçelik
- Medical Oncology, Umraniye Training and Research Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey
| | - Abdilkerim Oyman
- Medical Oncology, Umraniye Training and Research Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey
| | | | - Bülent Karabulut
- Medical Oncology, Ege University School of Medicine, İzmir, Turkey
| | - Nazan Demir
- Medical Oncology, Eskişehir Osmangazi University School of Medicine, Eskişehir, Turkey
| | - Murat Dinçer
- Medical Oncology, Eskişehir Osmangazi University School of Medicine, Eskişehir, Turkey
| | - Nuriye Özdemir
- Medical Oncology, Gazi University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Dilek Erdem
- Medical Oncology, VM Medical Park Samsun Hospital, Samsun, Turkey
| | - Naziye Ak
- Medical Oncology, İstanbul University, İstanbul, Turkey
| | - Ali İnal
- Medical Oncology, Mersin City Hospital, Mersin, Turkey
| | - Derya Kıvrak Salim
- Medical Oncology, Antalya Training and Research Hospital, Antalya, Turkey
| | - Gülhan İpek Deniz
- Medical Oncology, Sisli Hamidiye Etfal Training and Research Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey
| | - Teoman Şakalar
- Medical Oncology, Necip Fazıl City Hospital, Kahramanmaraş, Turkey
| | - Ahmet Gülmez
- Medical Oncology, İnönü University, Elazığ, Turkey
| | - Turgut Kaçan
- Medical Oncology, Bursa High Specialized Education and Research Hospital, Bursa, Turkey
| | - Özlem Özdemir
- Medical Oncology, İzmir Bozyaka Research and Training Hospital, İzmir, Turkey
| | - Özkan Alan
- Medical Oncology, Tekirdağ State Hospital, Tekirdağ, Turkey
| | - Çağlar Ünal
- Medical Oncology, Florance Nightingale Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey
| | - Yusuf Karakaş
- Medical Oncology, Bodrum Acıbadem Hospital, Muğla, Turkey
| | - Serdar Turhal
- Medical Oncology, Anadolu SağlıkMerkezi Anadolu Health Center, İstanbul, Turkey
| | | |
Collapse
|
8
|
Bilici A, Uysal M, Menekse S, Akin S, Yildiz F, Turan M, Sezgin Goksu S, Beypinar I, Sakalar T, Değirmenci M, Erdem D, Basaran G, Olmez OF, Avci N, Tural D, Sakin A, Turker S, Demir A, Temiz S, Kaplan MA, Dogan M, Tanriverdi O, Bilgetekin I, Cinkir HY, Acikgoz O, Paydas S, Uslu R, Turhal S. Real-Life Analysis of Efficacy and Safety of Everolimus Plus Exemestane in Hormone Receptor-Positive, Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor-2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients: A Turkish Oncology Group (TOG) Study. Cancer Invest 2021; 40:199-209. [PMID: 34894960 DOI: 10.1080/07357907.2021.2017952] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/19/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of everolimus (EVE) plus exemestane (EXE) in hormone-receptor positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor-2-negative (HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients in real-life settings. METHODS Overall, 204 HR+, HER2- MBC patients treated with EVE + EXE after progressing following prior endocrine treatment were included. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) and safety data were analyzed. RESULTS The objective response rate, median PFS, and median OS were 33.4%, 8.9 months, and 23.4 months, respectively. Multivariate analysis revealed that negative progesterone receptor status was a significant determinant of poor treatment response (p = 0.035) and PFS (p = 0.024). The presence of bone-only metastasis was associated with better treatment response (p = 0.002), PFS (p < 0.001), and OS (p = 0.001). CONCLUSION We confirmed the favorable efficacy and safety profile of EVE + EXE for HR+, HER - MBC patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ahmet Bilici
- Department of Medical Oncology, Medical Faculty, Medipol University, Bagcilar, Turkey
| | - Mukremin Uysal
- Department of Medical Oncology, Medical Faculty, Afyon Kocatepe University, Afyon, Turkey
| | - Serkan Menekse
- Department of Medical Oncology, Manisa State Hospital, Manisa, Turkey
| | - Semih Akin
- Department of Medical Oncology, Medical Faculty, Ege University, Izmir, Turkey
| | - Fatih Yildiz
- Department of Medical Oncology, Dr Abdurrahman Yurtarslan Oncology Education and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Merve Turan
- Department of Medical Oncology, Medical Faculty, Adnan Menderes University, Aydin, Turkey
| | - Sema Sezgin Goksu
- Department of Medical Oncology, Medical Faculty, Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey
| | - Ismail Beypinar
- Department of Medical Oncology, Medical Faculty, Afyon Kocatepe University, Afyon, Turkey
| | - Teoman Sakalar
- Department of Medical Oncology, Medical Faculty, Erciyes University, Kayseri, Turkey
| | - Mustafa Değirmenci
- Department of Medical Oncology, Izmir Tepecik Education and Research Hospital, Izmir, Turkey
| | - Dilek Erdem
- Department of Medical Oncology, Medical Faculty, Bahcesehir University, Samsun, Turkey
| | - Gul Basaran
- Department of Medical Oncology, Medical Faculty, Acibadem University, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Omer Fatih Olmez
- Department of Medical Oncology, Medical Faculty, Medipol University, Bagcilar, Turkey
| | - Nilufer Avci
- Department of Medical Oncology, Medicana Bursa Hospital, Bursa, Turkey
| | - Deniz Tural
- Department of Medical Oncology, Bakirkoy Dr Sadi Konuk Education and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Abdullah Sakin
- Department of Medical Oncology, Medical Faculty, Yuzuncuyil University, Van, Turkey
| | - Sema Turker
- Department of Medical Oncology, Diskapi Yildirim Beyazit Education and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Atakan Demir
- Department of Medical Oncology, Medical Faculty, Acibadem University, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Suleyman Temiz
- Department of Medical Oncology, Kocaeli Acıbadem Hospital, Kocaeli, Turkey
| | - Muhammed Ali Kaplan
- Department of Medical Oncology, Medical Faculty, Dicle University, Diyarbakir, Turkey
| | - Mutlu Dogan
- Department of Medical Oncology, Ankara Numune Education and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Ozgur Tanriverdi
- Department of Medical Oncology, Medical Faculty, Mugla Sitki Kocman University, Mugla, Turkey
| | - Irem Bilgetekin
- Department of Medical Oncology, Medical Faculty, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Havva Yesil Cinkir
- Department of Medical Oncology, Medical Faculty, Gaziantep University, Gaziantep, Turkey
| | - Ozgur Acikgoz
- Department of Medical Oncology, Medical Faculty, Medipol University, Bagcilar, Turkey
| | - Semra Paydas
- Department of Medical Oncology, Medical Faculty, Cukurova University, Adana, Turkey
| | - Ruchan Uslu
- Department of Medical Oncology, Medical Faculty, Ege University, Izmir, Turkey
| | - Serdar Turhal
- Anadolu Medical Center, Department of Medical Oncology, Istanbul, Turkey
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Kus T, Aktas G, Ozcelik M, Dirikoc M, Sakalar T, Oyman A, Tanriverdi O, Yavuzsen T, Unal S, Cinkir HY, Bahceci A, Alkan A, Turhal S, Abali H. Association of illness perception with chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a Turkish Oncology Group (TOG) study. Future Oncol 2021; 17:1933-1942. [PMID: 33599548 DOI: 10.2217/fon-2020-0939] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open
Abstract
Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) may be linked to the psychological status of cancer patients. Therefore, the authors aimed to better understand the underlying risk factors for CINV using the Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire. A total of 238 patients were recruited during three cycles of chemotherapy. Patient, disease and treatment characteristics were noted at the onset of chemotherapy. The Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire was administered face-to-face prior to chemotherapy. The relationship between illness perceptions and CINV was analyzed using Spearman's rank correlation. Positive illness perception parameters, including personal and treatment control, were negatively correlated, whereas negative illness perception parameters, including consequences, timeline, identity, concern and emotions, were positively correlated with CINV after adjusting for age, sex and emetogenic potential of chemotherapy (p < 0.001). Illness perception may be an underlying risk factor for CINV.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tulay Kus
- Department of Medical Oncology, School of Medicine, Gaziantep University, Gaziantep, TR-27310, Turkey
| | - Gokmen Aktas
- Department of Medical Oncology, School of Medicine, Kahramanmaras Sütçü İmam University, Kahramanmaraş, TR-46100, Turkey
| | - Melike Ozcelik
- Department of Medical Oncology, Umraniye Education & Research Hospital, University of Health Sciences, Istanbul, TR-34000, Turkey
| | - Merve Dirikoc
- Department of Medical Oncology, Ankara Numune Education & Research Hospital, Ankara, TR-06010, Turkey
| | - Teoman Sakalar
- Department of Medical Oncology, Kahramanmaras Necip Fazıl State Hospital, Kahramanmaraş, TR-46100, Turkey
| | - Abdilkerim Oyman
- Department of Medical Oncology, Umraniye Education & Research Hospital, University of Health Sciences, Istanbul, TR-34000, Turkey
| | - Ozgur Tanriverdi
- Department of Medical Oncology, Mugla Sitki Kocaman University, Mugla, TR-48000, Turkey
| | - Tugba Yavuzsen
- Department of Medical Oncology, Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir, TR-35000, Turkey
| | - Sinan Unal
- Department of Medical Oncology, Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir, TR-35000, Turkey
| | - Havva Yesil Cinkir
- Department of Medical Oncology, School of Medicine, Gaziantep University, Gaziantep, TR-27310, Turkey
| | - Aykut Bahceci
- Department of Medical Oncology, Dr Ersin Arslan Education & Research Hospital, Gaziantep, TR-27310, Turkey
| | - Ali Alkan
- Department of Medical Oncology, Mugla Sitki Kocaman University, Mugla, TR-48000, Turkey
| | - Serdar Turhal
- Department of Oncology, Anadolu Medical Center, Istanbul, TR-3400, Turkey
| | - Huseyin Abali
- Department of Medical Oncology, School of Medicine, Acıbadem Mehmet Ali Aydınlar University, Adana, TR-01170, Turkey
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Alkan A, Yaşar A, Güç ZG, Gürbüz M, Başoğlu T, Sezgin Göksu S, Buğdaycı Başal F, Türk HM, Özdemir Ö, Yeşil Çınkır H, Güven DC, Kuş T, Türker S, Koral L, Karakaş Y, Ak N, Paydaş S, Karcı E, Demiray AG, Demir A, Alan Ö, Keskin Ö, Nayır E, Tanrıverdi Ö, Yavuzşen T, Yumuk PF, Ateş Ö, Coşkun HŞ, Turhal S, Çay Şenler F. Worse patient-physician relationship is associated with more fear of cancer recurrence (Deimos Study): A study of the Palliative Care Working Committee of the Turkish Oncology Group (TOG). Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 2020; 29:e13296. [PMID: 32864838 DOI: 10.1111/ecc.13296] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/02/2020] [Revised: 07/16/2020] [Accepted: 08/07/2020] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) is an important psychological trauma associated with reduction in the quality of life, disruptions in the level of adjustment, emotional distress and anxiety. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the impact of patient-physician relationship on FCR. METHODS The study was designed as a multicentre survey study. The cancer survivors, who were under remission, were evaluated with structured questionnaires. Patient-physician relationship (PPR) scale in which higher scores indicate better relationship and FCR inventory was used. RESULTS Between January and April 2019, 1,580 patients were evaluated. The median age was 57.0 (19-88), and 66% were female. There was high level of FCR scores in 51% of participants. There was a negative correlation between PPR and FCR scores (r = -.134, p < .001). In multivariate analysis, young age, female gender, history of metastasectomy and worse PPR were associated with high levels of FCR. CONCLUSION It is the first data showing the adverse impact of worse PPR on FCR. The strategies to improve the PPR should be practised. In addition, the cancer survivors, who are under the risk of FCR, should be evaluated and managed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ali Alkan
- Medical Oncology, Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University School of Medicine, Muğla, Turkey
| | - Arzu Yaşar
- Medical Oncology, Ankara University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Zeynep Gülsüm Güç
- Medical Oncology, Dokuz Eylül University School of Medicine, İzmir, Turkey
| | - Mustafa Gürbüz
- Medical Oncology, Ankara University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Tuğba Başoğlu
- Medical Oncology, Marmara University School of Medicine, İstanbul, Turkey
| | - Sema Sezgin Göksu
- Medical Oncology, Akdeniz University School of Medicine, Antalya, Turkey
| | - Fatma Buğdaycı Başal
- Medical Oncology, Dr. Abdurrahman Yurtaslan Ankara Oncology Research and Training Hospital, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Hacı Mehmet Türk
- Medical Oncology, Bezmialem Vakıf University School of Medicine, İstanbul, Turkey
| | - Özlem Özdemir
- Medical Oncology, İzmir Bozyaka Research and Training Hospital, İzmir, Turkey
| | - Havva Yeşil Çınkır
- Medical Oncology, Gaziantep University School of Medicine, Gaziantep, Turkey
| | - Deniz Can Güven
- Medical Oncology, Hacettepe University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Tülay Kuş
- Medical Oncology, Dr Ersin Arslan Training and Research Hospital, Gaziantep, Turkey
| | - Sema Türker
- Medical Oncology, Dışkapı Yıldırım Beyazıt Research and Training Hospital, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Lokman Koral
- Medical Oncology, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University School of Medicine, Çanakkale, Turkey
| | - Yusuf Karakaş
- Medical Oncology, Bodrum Acıbadem Hospital, Muğla, Turkey
| | - Naziye Ak
- Department of Medical Oncology, Institute of Oncology, Istanbul University, İstanbul, Turkey
| | - Semra Paydaş
- Medical Oncology, Çukurova University School of Medicine, Adana, Turkey
| | - Ebru Karcı
- Medical Oncology, Bağcılar Research and Training Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey
| | | | - Atakan Demir
- Medical Oncology, Acıbadem Maslak Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey
| | - Özkan Alan
- Medical Oncology, Tekirdağ Public Hospital, Tekirdağ, Turkey
| | - Özge Keskin
- Medical Oncology, Selçuk University School of Medicine, Konya, Turkey
| | - Erdinç Nayır
- Medical Oncology, VM Medical Park Mersin Hospital, Mersin, Turkey
| | - Özgür Tanrıverdi
- Medical Oncology, Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University School of Medicine, Muğla, Turkey
| | - Tuğba Yavuzşen
- Medical Oncology, Dokuz Eylül University School of Medicine, İzmir, Turkey
| | | | - Öztürk Ateş
- Medical Oncology, Dr. Abdurrahman Yurtaslan Ankara Oncology Research and Training Hospital, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Hasan Şenol Coşkun
- Medical Oncology, Akdeniz University School of Medicine, Antalya, Turkey
| | - Serdar Turhal
- Medical Oncology, Anadolu Medical Center, Kocaeli, Turkey
| | - Filiz Çay Şenler
- Medical Oncology, Ankara University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Demirci U, Gokmen E, Eralp Y, Gunduz S, Goksu SS, Korkmaz T, Kostek O, Turhal S, Paydas S, Topcu S, Cakar B, Karabulut B, Tanrıverdi O, Karaca B, Deniz GI, Alan O, Turkoz FP, Basaran G. Abstract P5-11-19: Ribociclib for the treatment of hormone receptor-positive refractory advanced breast cancer: Managed access programme in Turkey. Cancer Res 2020. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs19-p5-11-19] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Background: Ribociclib combined with endocrine therapy (ET) have demonstrated efficacy in patients with hormone receptor (HR) positive advanced breast cancer (ABC) who experienced progression during prior ET. However, there are scarce data chemo-endocrine refractory patients with ribociclib. We analyzed the efficiency and safety of ribociclib from the real world evidence in this heavily treated group of patients in Managed Access Programme (MAP).
Methods: MAP launched in Turkey, between October 2017 and March 2018. We retrospectively analyzed survival outcomes and toxicities of 52 patients from this programme.
Results: The median age of the total population was 54.5 years (28-76 years) and 71.2% (n=37) of the patients were postmenapousal. Median estrogen receptor and progesterone receptor positivity were 90% (15-100) and 25% (0-100), respectively. Median Ki67 was 25% (3-90%). 46.2% and 73.1% of the patients had adjuvant chemotherapy and ET, respectively. Denovo metastatic disease was detected 28.8% of the patients. Visceral disease (lung, liver, and others) was present in 21 patients (40.3%), and 16 (30.8%) had bone-only disease.
Median treatment line of ABC before ribociclib was 4 (1-9). ET was performed 36.5% and 38.4% for the first and second line treatment of ABC, respectively. Most of the patients (71.5%) treated anthracycline and taxanes before ribociclib. Ribociclib combined with ET in the majority of the patients; aromatase inhibitors (51.9%), fulvestrant (26.9%) and tamoxifen (3.8%). However, 4 patients were receiving ribociclib monotherapy. As of May 21, 2019, 26.9% (n=14) of patients were still receiving treatment.
Objective response rate was 38.4% (n=20) and additional 18 (34.6%) stable diseases were detected. Median progression free survival and overall survival were 5 months (3.9-6.1 months) and 15.2 months (13.7-16.8 months), respectively. While 48.1% of the patients treated with chemotherapy after ribociclib failure, only two patients treated with ET after ribociclib failure.
Ribociclib was generally well tolerated all the study population, grade 2 emesis was developed only two patients. Grade 3/4 neutropenia was developed in 36.5% of the patients. There was no febrile neutropenia. Urosepsis (n=1) and grade 4 thrombocytopenia (n=1) were developed in seperate patients. A prolongation of QTcF from baseline occurred in two patients. Dose reductions occurred in 21.2% (n=11) of the patients. There was 3 deaths during treatment.
Conclusions: Ribociclib is an effective agent with tolerable safety profile even in the heavily pretreated patients with HR positive ABC especially combined with ET.
Citation Format: Umut Demirci, Erhan Gokmen, Yesim Eralp, Seyda Gunduz, Sema Sezgin Goksu, Taner Korkmaz, Osman Kostek, Serdar Turhal, Semra Paydas, Sevgi Topcu, Burcu Cakar, Bulent Karabulut, Ozgur Tanrıverdi, Burcak Karaca, Gulhan Ipek Deniz, Ozkan Alan, Fatma Paksoy Turkoz, Gul Basaran. Ribociclib for the treatment of hormone receptor-positive refractory advanced breast cancer: Managed access programme in Turkey [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P5-11-19.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Umut Demirci
- 1Dr. A. Y. Ankara Oncology Hospital, Department of Medical Oncology, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Erhan Gokmen
- 2Ege University, Department of Medical Oncology, Izmir, Turkey
| | - Yesim Eralp
- 3Florence Nightingale Hospital, Department of Medical Oncology, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Seyda Gunduz
- 4Memorial Antalya Hospital, Department of Medical Oncology, Antalya, Turkey
| | - Sema Sezgin Goksu
- 5Akdeniz University, Department of Medical Oncology, Antalya, Turkey
| | - Taner Korkmaz
- 6Acıbadem Mehmet Ali Aydinlar University, Department of Medical Oncology, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Osman Kostek
- 7Trakya University, Department of Medical Oncology, Edirne, Turkey
| | - Serdar Turhal
- 8Anadolu Medical Center, Department of Medical Oncology, Kocaeli, Turkey
| | - Semra Paydas
- 9Cukurova University, Department of Medical Oncology, Adana, Turkey
| | - Sevgi Topcu
- 10Ege University, Department of Medical Oncology, İzmir, Turkey
| | - Burcu Cakar
- 2Ege University, Department of Medical Oncology, Izmir, Turkey
| | | | - Ozgur Tanrıverdi
- 11Mugla Sitki Kocman University, Department of Medical Oncology, Mugla, Turkey
| | - Burcak Karaca
- 2Ege University, Department of Medical Oncology, Izmir, Turkey
| | - Gulhan Ipek Deniz
- 12Istanbul University Cerrahpasa Medical Faculty, Department of Medical Oncology, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Ozkan Alan
- 13Tekirdag State Hospital, Department of Medical Oncology, Edirne, Turkey
| | - Fatma Paksoy Turkoz
- 14Medical Park Goztepe Hospital, Department of Medical Oncology, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Gul Basaran
- 15Acıbadem Mehmet Ali Aydınlar University, Department of Medical Oncology, Istanbul, Turkey
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Gumus M, Yumuk PF, Atalay G, Aliustaoglu M, Macunluoglu B, Dane F, Caglar H, Sengoz M, Turhal S. What is the Optimal Number of Lymph Nodes to be Dissected in Colorectal Cancer Surgery? Tumori 2019; 91:168-72. [PMID: 15948546 DOI: 10.1177/030089160509100212] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
Background Regional lymph node (LN) involvement in colorectal cancer (CRC) identifies the stage and the subset of patients who would benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy. We performed a retrospective analysis to determine if the number of recovered LNs was associated with long-term outcome in patients operated on for stage II and III CRC. Patients and methods Hospital records of 179 patients with CRC followed in our unit from 1997 to April 2003 were reviewed. Results On average 11.68 ± 7.3 LNs were sampled per surgical specimen. Sampling of at least nine LNs appeared to be the minimum number required for accurately predicting LN involvement ( P = 0.002). Three-year rates of disease-free survival (DFS), local recurrence-free survival (LRFS) and overall survival (OS) were lower in patients with fewer than nine LNs sampled ( P = 0.032, P = 0.006 and P = 0.04, respectively). However, this had no impact on the three-year distant metastasis-free survival rate (DMFS) ( P = 0.472). In stage II disease, patients with nine or more LNs dissected had significantly higher three year DFS and LRFS rates than the subgroup with fewer than nine LNs dissected ( P = 0.024 and P = 0.015, respectively), but this did not have any effect on DMFS or OS ( P = 0.406 and P = 0.353, respectively). Conclusion Current protocols provide adjuvant treatment in stage III patients; the problem is to correctly determine stage by recovering as many LNs as possible.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mahmut Gumus
- Oncology Division, Department of Internal Medicine, Marmara University Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
13
|
Isik U, Kostek O, Demiray G, Dirican A, Simsek M, Büyüksimsek M, Ucar G, Gunaydin UM, Sakalar T, Aliyev A, Demir A, Turhal S, Pilanci KN, Kefeli U, Gokyer A, Paydas S, Uncu D, Okten IN, Uygun K, Cabuk D. Real life data from Turkey regarding the impact of first-line sunitinib and pazopanib in metastatic renal cell cancer. J Clin Oncol 2019. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2019.37.15_suppl.e16075] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
e16075 Background: Although the distribution in the world varies widely, renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is the ninth most common cancer, especially in males. It’s the seventh most common cancer in Turkey. In this study, the progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of patients with metastatic RCC (mRCC) who were treated at 13 centers in our country were evaluated and the efficacy of first-line treatment approaches was compared. Methods: Data of mRCC patients admitted to 13 outpatient clinics in Turkey between 2008 and 2018 were reviewed retrospectively. Demographic characteristics, pre-treatment clinical evaluations, information about treatment approaches and survival outcomes of the patients were collected. All medical records were collected by a detailed review of the patients’ charts. The median and percentage values were frequently signified for defining of central trends. Kaplan-Meier method was applied for OS analyzes and log-rank test with Cox-regression models were applied for the evaluation of prognostic factors. Results: Data from files of 262 patients were reviewed. Twelve of these patients were excluded from the study because they could not receive treatment due to comorbidities and other reasons at metastatic stage of the disease. Of the patients, 100 (40%) were female and 150 (60%) were male. Median age was 60 (range 21-83). For the entire group, the median PFS (mPFS) was 27.6 months and the median overall survival (mOS) was 46.1 months. In terms of first-line treatment of metastatic disease, 41.3% of the patients received sunitinib, 48.8% of the patients received pazopanib, 15.8% of the patients received other treatments. PFS of the patients receiving sunitinib, pazopanib and the other treatments were 26.3 months, 34.2 months and 14.2 months, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between PFS of the patients receiving sunitinib and pazopanib (p = 0.05). mOS was 54 months in sunitinib arm, 54.9 months in pazopanib arm and 23.3 months in the other treatment arm. There was no statistically significant difference between two treatment agents in terms of mOS (p = 0.43). Conclusions: Pazopanib was more commonly prescribed in Turkey. There were no statistically significant differences between mPFS and mOS of the patients who received sunitinib and pazopanib for the first-line treatment of mRCC. With increased use of immunotherapeutic agents for the first-line treatment of mRCC in our country, improvement in mOS could be expected.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | - Ahmet Dirican
- Katip Celebi University, Ataturk Education and Research Hospital, Medical Oncology, Izmir, Turkey
| | | | - Mahmut Büyüksimsek
- Cukurova University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Oncology, Adana, Turkey
| | - Gokhan Ucar
- Ankara Numune Education and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Ulug Mutlu Gunaydin
- Istanbul Medeniyet University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Medical Oncology, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Teoman Sakalar
- Aksaray University, Education Research Hospital, Aksaray, Turkey
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Ali Gokyer
- Trakya University, Medical School, Department of Medical Oncology, Edirne, Turkey
| | - Semra Paydas
- Cukurova University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Oncology, Adana, Turkey
| | - Dogan Uncu
- Ankara Numune Training and Research Hospital, Department of Medical Oncology, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Ilker Nihat Okten
- Istanbul Medeniyet University, Dept of Internal Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Kazim Uygun
- Department of Medical Oncology, Kocaeli University School of Medicine, Izmit, Turkey
| | - Devrim Cabuk
- Kocaeli University Medical School, Department of Medical Oncology, Izmit, Turkey
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Degirmencioglu S, Tanriverdi O, Menekse S, Dogan M, Hacıoglu B, Oktay E, Erdem D, Arpaci E, Uluc BO, Turhal S, Yilmaz M, Pilanci KN, Sakin A, Araz M, Cokmert S, Ozdemir O, Sen E, Nayir E. A retrospective analysis on first-line bevacizumab, cetuximab, and panitimumab-containing regimens in patients with RAS-wild metastatic colorectal cancer: A Collaborative Study by Turkish Oncology Group (TOG). J BUON 2019; 24:136-142. [PMID: 30941962] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/09/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE To compare the efficacy and adverse effect profiles of the first-line treatment of patients with KRAS wild type metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) in Turkey who were treated based on regimens including bevacizumab, cetuximab and panitumumab. METHODS This retrospective multicenter observational study involved a total of 238 patients who received chemotherapy in combination with either bevacizumab or cetuximab or panitumumab as first-line therapy for KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. Patients with full medical records having pathological diagnosis of CRC adenocarcinoma were included in the study. The demographic, laboratory, histopathological and clinical characteristics of the patients were determined, and three groups were compared based on the study variables. RESULTS The mean age of the entire sample (n=238) was 58±11 years, 64% of which were male. The most frequent tumor localization was the rectum (37%) and G2 was the most common tumor grade (59.7%). About 63% of the patients had metastatic disease at diagnosis, with the most common site of metastasis being lung (14.7%) and liver (52.5%). Overall survival (OS) was 63.9%, while 1-, 3- and 5-year survival rates were 91.7, 56.6 and 36.9%, respectively. The expected mean survival was 49.1 months (95% CI, 42.9-55.3). The 1-, 3- and 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) rates following first-line treatment were 65.3, 26.1 and 5.6%, respectively, while disease free survival (DFS) in patients without metastasis at diagnosis was 68.5%. An analysis carried out disregarding which treatment the patients received (FOLFOX or FOLFIRI) revealed that a panitumumab-containing combination resulted in poorer prognosis compared to bevacizumab or cetuximab-containing combination (p<0.001). With regard to the adverse effect profile, the most common adverse effects were neuropathy and neutropenia in patients receiving FOLFOX-bevacizumab; neutropenia and perforation in patients receiving FOLFIRI-bevacizumab; rash and pustular infection in patients receiving FOLFIRI-cetuximab; and diarrhea in patients who received FOLFIRI-panitumumab combination. CONCLUSION This is the first multicenter study performed in Turkey evaluating the response to treatment and adverse effects in patients with KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Serkan Degirmencioglu
- Pamukkale University School of Medicine, Medical Oncology Department, Denizli, Turkey
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
15
|
Abstract
Aims and Background Extrapulmonary small cell carcinoma is a distinct entity that can occur in many sites, and it is pathologically similar to small-cell lung cancer. We report the results of a retrospective study of a multimodality treatment of 16 consecutive patients with a diagnosis of extrapulmonary small-cell carcinoma. Methods Primary tumor site was prostate in 2, gallbladder in 2, uterine cervix in 2, liver in 2, endometrium in 1, epididymis in 1, colon in 1, larynx in 1, breast in 1, and unknown primary tumor in 3 patients. Patients’ ages ranged from 19 to 79 years (median, 62). Nine patients had limited and 7 had extensive disease. Histologically, 14 were pure extrapulmonary small-cell carcinoma and 2 were mixed with squamous-cell carcinoma. Results Curative surgery was attempted in 8 patients. Seven patients received local-regional adjuvant radiotherapy. All patients, except the one with a breast primary, were treated with chemotherapy (mostly platinum-based regimens). Overall survival for all patients was 41% and 11% at 2 and 5 years, respectively (median survival, 14 months). Median survival for patients with limited disease was 25 months compared to 12 months for patients with extensive disease (P = 0.05). Conclusions Treatment results for extrapulmonary small-cell carcinoma are comparable to those of small-cell carcinomas of the lung. Extent of disease is a significant prognostic factor for survival.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Meric Sengoz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Marmara University Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
16
|
Erdem GU, Dogan M, Sakin A, Oruc Z, Yaman E, Yesil Cinkir H, Uysal M, Bozkurt O, Ozturk B, Aytekin A, Ozcelik M, Bahceci A, Cakiroglu U, Turhal S, Sahin S, Uncu D, Zengin N. Non-Urothelial Bladder Cancer: Comparison of Clinicopathological and Prognostic Characteristics in Pure Adenocarcinoma and Non-Bilharzial Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Bladder. Oncol Res Treat 2018; 41:220-225. [PMID: 29558755 DOI: 10.1159/000486598] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/24/2017] [Accepted: 01/04/2018] [Indexed: 11/19/2022]
|
17
|
Alkan A, Kaçan T, Avcı N, Türker İ, Kaçan SB, Ergen A, Yaşar A, Tanrıverdi Ö, Turhal S, Şenler FÇ. Nurses' Knowledge Levels About Port Catheter Care (POCATH Study): a study of the palliative care working committee of the Turkish Oncology Group (TOG). J Clin Exp Invest 2017. [DOI: 10.5799/jcei.333384] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/23/2022] Open
|
18
|
Nayir E, Bakir Koyuncu M, Esin E, Turker I, Tanriverdi O, Uysal M, Er O, Demir A, Tuzel Akman T, Nur Pilanci K, Paydas S, Kocar M, Saip P, Kilickap S, Turhal S, Kacan T. Attitudes of cancer patients after diagnosis: How cancer affects social life? A Turkish Oncology Group study. J BUON 2017; 22:208-213. [PMID: 28365956] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/07/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Each year, 12.7 million people learn that they have cancer and 8.2 million people die of cancer worldwide. Cancer is a major public health issue which causes fundamental changes in the lives of patients and their families. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the lives of patients after diagnosis and determine the changes in their lifestyles. METHODS Between September 2013 to December 2013, a questionnaire consisting of 22 questions was administered during a face to face interview to patients at 13 different Oncology Units in Turkey. Each patient was queried during the administration of his/her chemotherapy. Eight of the questions featured independent choices, and 14 had dependent (multiple) choices. RESULTS A total of 1300 patients were included in the study. Of patients 9.5% were 71 years of age and older which was the oldest age group. The mean patient age was 54.6±13.8 years. Of the whole group of patients 58.5% were female and 41.5% male. After diagnosis, 64% of the patients reported that they were complying with guidelines for a healthy lifestyle and 80% said that they were eating healthier food. At the time they filled in the questionnaire, more than half of the patients (57.3%) felt optimistic about their disease. CONCLUSIONS Diagnosis of cancer may change the patients' dietary and reading habits, social relationships, activities and more importantly, their point of life view.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Erdinc Nayir
- Department of Medical Oncology, Kahramanmaras Necip Fazil City Hospital, Kahramanmaras, Turkey
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
19
|
Aldemir M, Turkeli M, Hacioglu B, Sakin A, Yaman E, Coban E, Koca D, Karaca M, Simsek M, Bahceci A, Sen E, Eren T, Aliustaoglu B, Sakalar T, Kalkan N, Aktas G, Bilici M, Turhal S, Benekli M, Tekin S. Efficacy and tolerability of first-line chemotherapy in elderly patients (age ≥70 years) with metastatic gastric cancer: a multicenter study of the Anatolian Society of Medical Oncology (ASMO). Ann Oncol 2016. [DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdw371.42] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/14/2022] Open
|
20
|
Artac M, Korkmaz L, Coskun H, Dane F, Karabulut B, Karaağaç M, Çabuk D, Karabulut S, Aykan F, Doruk H, Avci N, Turhal S. Efficacy of obesity in metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated with bevacizumab-based chemotherapy combinations: A Turkish Oncology Group Study. Ann Oncol 2016. [DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdw370.82] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
|
21
|
Alkan A, Guc ZG, Senler FC, Yavuzsen T, Onur H, Dogan M, Karci E, Yasar A, Koksoy EB, Tanriverdi O, Turhal S, Urun Y, Ozkan A, Mizrak D, Akbulut H. Breast cancer survivors suffer from persistent postmastectomy pain syndrome and posttraumatic stress disorder (ORTHUS study): a study of the palliative care working committee of the Turkish Oncology Group (TOG). Support Care Cancer 2016; 24:3747-55. [PMID: 27039206 DOI: 10.1007/s00520-016-3202-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/04/2016] [Accepted: 03/28/2016] [Indexed: 12/28/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Persistent postmastectomy pain syndrome (PMPS) is one of the most important disturbing symptoms. Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is an anxiety disorder which is characterized by reactions to reminders of the trauma that has been experienced. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the predictors of PMPS and PTSD in Turkish breast cancer survivors and the correlation between PMPS and PTSD. METHOD The study is designed as a multicenter survey study. Breast cancer patients in remission were evaluated. Patients were evaluated with structured questionnaires to assess the PMPS and clinical parameters associated with it. The Turkish version of the posttraumatic stress disorder checklist-civilian version (PCL-C) was used. RESULTS Between February 2015 and October 2015, 614 breast cancer survivors in outpatient clinics were evaluated. The incidence of PMPS documented is 45.1 %. In the multivariate analysis low income, presence of PTSD and <46 months after surgery were associated with increased risk of PMPS. PTSD was documented in 75 %, and the mean PCL-C score was 32.4 ± 11.1. PMPS and being married at the time of the evaluation were linked with PTSD. CONCLUSIONS It is the first data about the association between PMPS and PTSD. The clinicians should be aware of PMPS and PTSD in breast cancer survivors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ali Alkan
- Department of Medical Oncology, Ankara University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey. .,Medical Oncology, Ankara University School of Medicine, Ankara Üniversitesi Tıp fakültesi hastanesi, Cebeci hastanesi, Tıbbi onkoloji bilim dalı, Mamak/Ankara, TR 06890, Turkey.
| | - Zeynep Gulsum Guc
- Department of Medical Oncology, Dokuz Eylül University School of Medicine, İzmir, Turkey
| | - Filiz Cay Senler
- Department of Medical Oncology, Ankara University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Tugba Yavuzsen
- Department of Medical Oncology, Dokuz Eylül University School of Medicine, İzmir, Turkey
| | - Handan Onur
- Department of Medical Oncology, Ankara University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Mutlu Dogan
- Department of Medical Oncology, Numune Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Ebru Karci
- Department of Medical Oncology, Ankara University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Arzu Yasar
- Department of Medical Oncology, Ankara University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Elif Berna Koksoy
- Department of Medical Oncology, Ankara University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Ozgur Tanriverdi
- Department of Medical Oncology, Mugla Sitki Kocman University, Muğla, Turkey
| | - Serdar Turhal
- Department of Medical Oncology, Marmara University School of Medicine, İstanbul, Turkey
| | - Yuksel Urun
- Department of Medical Oncology, Ankara University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Asiye Ozkan
- Department of Medical Oncology, Ankara University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Dilsa Mizrak
- Department of Medical Oncology, Ankara University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Hakan Akbulut
- Department of Medical Oncology, Ankara University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Yalcin S, Trad D, Kader YA, Halawani H, Demir OG, Mall R, Meshcheryakov A, Nasr F, Nosworthy A, Osinsky D, Tumanova A, Turhal S, Tejpar S, Köhne CH. Personalized treatment is better than one treatment fits all in the management of patients with mCRC: a consensus statement. Future Oncol 2015; 10:2643-57. [PMID: 25531050 DOI: 10.2217/fon.14.203] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
The VEGF- (bevacizumab) and EGFR- (cetuximab and panitumumab) targeting monoclonal antibodies have become integral components of the first-line treatment strategies for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Increasingly combination chemotherapy, with or without a targeted agent, is being used to facilitate curative liver resection and improve survival rates in patients with initially unresectable but potentially resectable mCRC. Currently, the only selective marker for the treatment of patients with mCRC is tumor RAS mutational status. BRAF status is a strong prognostic indicator. Medical and clinical oncologists from Central Asia, Russia, the Middle East, Africa and Turkey reviewed data for the use of targeted agents in the treatment of patients with mCRC and have formed recommendations for the biological of choice first-line for patients with mCRC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Suayib Yalcin
- Department of Medical Oncology, Hacettepe University Institute of Cancer, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
23
|
Dede F, Civen H, Dane F, Aliustaoglu M, Turhal S, Turoglu HT, Inanir S. Carbon-14 urea breath test: does it work in patients with partial gastric resection? Ann Nucl Med 2015; 29:786-91. [DOI: 10.1007/s12149-015-1005-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/03/2015] [Accepted: 07/08/2015] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
|
24
|
Tanriverdi O, Yavuzsen T, Akman T, Senler FC, Taskoylu BY, Turhal S, Komurcu S, Cehreli R, Yaren A, Ozyilkan O. The Perspective of Non-oncologist Physicians on Patients with Metastatic Cancer and Palliative Care (ALONE Study): A Study of the Palliative Care Working Committee of the Turkish Oncology Group (TOG). J Cancer Educ 2015; 30:253-259. [PMID: 25631655 DOI: 10.1007/s13187-015-0794-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/04/2023]
Abstract
The aim of our study was to determine the perspective of non-oncologist physicians regarding their attitudes and beliefs associated with palliative care for patients with metastatic cancer. The study was planned as a cross-sectional survey, and non-oncologist physicians were reached via e-mail and social networking sites. The first part of the questionnaire involved demographic properties, the second part inquired as to the perspectives of participants regarding metastatic disease, and the third part was used to determine beliefs and attitudes about palliative care. All of the questions were five-point Likert-type questions. A total of 1734 physicians completed the questionnaire. The majority of participants were general surgeons or internal medicine specialists (21 and 18%, respectively), were male (61%), were younger than 50 years of age (54%), worked in the town center (67%), had more than 11 years of professional experience (57%), and worked in a hospital without an active oncology service (86%). A total of 71% of participants identified all patients with metastatic cancer as being terminal stage, 62% were unaware of palliative care techniques, 64% did not know about common supportive care options, 59% were against hospice, and 63% had no opinion on resuscitation. We determined that non-oncologist physicians believed that all patients with metastatic cancer are at the terminal stage and that palliative/supportive care is the oncologist's task. These data suggest that non-oncologist physicians would benefit from additional graduate and postgraduate courses on these topics.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ozgur Tanriverdi
- Department of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Mugla Sıtkı Kocman University, Mugla Universtesi Egitim ve Arastirma Hastanesi, Onkoloji Poliklinigi, 48000, Mugla, Turkey,
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
25
|
Kaya S, tanrikulu Simsek E, Ugurlu U, Ozgen Z, Halil S, Besiroglu M, Koca S, Babacan N, Dane F, Kaya H, Turhal S, Yumuk F. Do responses in PET/CT correlate with pathological complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced breast cancer? J Clin Oncol 2015. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2015.33.15_suppl.e12038] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Serap Kaya
- Marmara University, Medical Oncology, Istanbul, Turkey
| | | | - Umit Ugurlu
- Marmara University, General Surgery, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Zerrin Ozgen
- Marmara University Education and Research Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, Istanbul, Turkey
| | | | | | - Sinan Koca
- Marmara University, Medical Oncology, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Nalan Babacan
- Marmara University, Medical Oncology, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Faysal Dane
- Marmara University, Medical Oncology, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Handan Kaya
- Marmara University, Pathology, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Serdar Turhal
- Marmara University, Medical Oncology, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Fulden Yumuk
- Medical Oncology Department, Marmara University Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Tanriverdi O, Yavuzsen T, Turhal S, Kilic D, Yalcin S, Ozkan A, Uzunoglu S, Uysal-Sonmez O, Akman T, Aktas B, Ulger S, Babacan T, Komurcu S, Yaren A, Cay-Senler F. Depression and socio-economical burden are more common in primary caregivers of patients who are not aware of their cancer: TURQUOISE Study by the Palliative Care Working Committee of the Turkish Oncology Group (TOG). Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 2015; 25:502-15. [PMID: 25828949 DOI: 10.1111/ecc.12315] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 02/23/2015] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
In this study, we aimed to determine the personal, social and economic burden and the frequency of depression, as well as in caregivers of cancer patients who are being treated with chemotherapy in Turkey. The study is designed as a cross-sectional survey study using a 5-point Likert-type response scale, and the last part of the questionnaire includes the Beck Depression Inventory. The depression rate was found to be 64% (n = 476) among all subjects (n = 968), with 91% of those with depression demonstrating signs of mild depression. In this study, a significant difference was found between the presence of depression and age (young), sex (female), educational level (high), economic status (low), financial loss during treatment, patient's lack of knowledge about his/her diagnosis, metastatic disease and short survival time. In addition, 64% of all subjects had concerns of getting cancer, and 44% of all subjects had feelings of anger/rage against other people. In a multivariate regression analysis, the patient's lack of knowledge of the diagnosis was the independent risk factor. In conclusion, depression incidence and burden rate increased among cancer caregivers, and care burden was highly associated with depression. Accordingly, approaches to reducing the psycho-social effects of cancer should focus intensively on both the patients and their caregivers in Turkey.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- O Tanriverdi
- Department of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Mugla Sitki Kocman University, Mugla, Turkey
| | - T Yavuzsen
- Department of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir, Turkey
| | - S Turhal
- Department of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - D Kilic
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey
| | - S Yalcin
- Department of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
| | - A Ozkan
- Clinical Psychology Unit, Department of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey
| | - S Uzunoglu
- Department of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Trakya University, Edirne, Turkey
| | - O Uysal-Sonmez
- Department of Medical Oncology, Sakarya University Education and Research Hospital, Sakarya, Turkey
| | - T Akman
- Department of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir, Turkey
| | - B Aktas
- Department of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - S Ulger
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey
| | - T Babacan
- Department of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
| | - S Komurcu
- Department of Medical Oncology, Bayindir Hospital, Ankara, Turkey
| | - A Yaren
- Department of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Pamukkale University, Denizli, Turkey
| | - F Cay-Senler
- Department of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Cabuk D, Basaran G, Teomete M, Dane F, Korkmaz T, Seber S, Telli F, Yumuk PF, Turhal S. Clinical outcome of Turkish metastatic breast cancer patients with currently available treatment modalities--single center experience. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2014; 15:117-22. [PMID: 24528011 DOI: 10.7314/apjcp.2014.15.1.117] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Breast cancer is the most common malignancy and the second leading cause of cancer-related death among women in the developed countries. Despite advances in screening, improved local therapies and adjuvant systemic treatments, median survival of metastatic breast cancer patients (MBC) is in the range of 2-3 years at most. We aimed to investigate whether the prognostic factors and therapeutic responses of our Turkish patients are similar to those in the literature. MATERIALS AND METHODS We reviewed the medical records of MBC patients who had been treated in our institution between 1999-2009 and analyzed their clinicopathological features and survival outcomes retrospectively. RESULTS A hundred and sixty patients were included. Median age was 47 (23-82), median follow up was 24 (2-186) months. At the time of diagnosis 59% of patients were under the age of 50 and 46% were postmenopausal. The majority (37%) had multiple sites of metastases. Forty percent received endocrine therapy and 40% chemotherapy as first line metastatic treatment. Thirty (20%) patients were treated with molecular targeting agents like trastuzumab, lapatinib and sunitinib, frequently combined with a chemotherapy agent. Five-year overall survival (OS) was 32% and median OS was 38 months for the whole group. Five year progression free survival (PFS) was 10% and median PFS was 10 months. Menopausal status, hormone receptor expression and disease free status had a significant impact on overall survival in the multivariate analysis (p 0.018, p 0.018 and p:0.003, respectively). CONCLUSIONS All our patients were treated with the modern oncologic therapies recommended by the international guidelines. From our data, MBC patients live up to 3-4 years, indicating that further improvement beyond that requires development of new treatment modalities. The survival outcomes of our patients were consistent with the data reported in the literature.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Devrim Cabuk
- Department of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Medical School, Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey E-mail :
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
28
|
Tanriverdi O, Kaytan-Saglam E, Ulger S, Bayoglu IV, Turker I, Ozturk-Topcu T, Cokmert S, Turhal S, Oktay E, Karabulut B, Kilic D, Kucukzeybek Y, Oksuzoglu B, Meydan N, Kaya V, Akman T, Ibis K, Saynak M, Sen CA, Uysal-Sonmez O, Pilancı KN, Demir G, Saglam S, Kocar M, Menekse S, Goksel G, Yapar-Taskoylu B, Yaren A, Uyeturk U, Avci N, Denizli B, Ilis-Temiz E. The clinical and pathological features of 133 colorectal cancer patients with brain metastasis: a multicenter retrospective analysis of the Gastrointestinal Tumors Working Committee of the Turkish Oncology Group (TOG). Med Oncol 2014; 31:152. [PMID: 25108599 DOI: 10.1007/s12032-014-0152-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/20/2014] [Accepted: 07/28/2014] [Indexed: 02/01/2023]
Abstract
Brain metastasis in colorectal cancer is highly rare. In the present study, we aimed to determine the frequency of brain metastasis in colorectal cancer patients and to establish prognostic characteristics of colorectal cancer patients with brain metastasis. In this cross-sectional study, the medical files of colorectal cancer patients with brain metastases who were definitely diagnosed by histopathologically were retrospectively reviewed. Brain metastasis was detected in 2.7 % (n = 133) of 4,864 colorectal cancer patients. The majority of cases were male (53 %), older than 65 years (59 %), with rectum cancer (56 %), a poorly differentiated tumor (70 %); had adenocarcinoma histology (97 %), and metachronous metastasis (86 %); received chemotherapy at least once for metastatic disease before brain metastasis developed (72 %), had progression with lung metastasis before (51 %), and 26 % (n = 31) of patients with extracranial disease at time the diagnosis of brain metastasis had both lung and bone metastases. The mean follow-up duration was 51 months (range 5-92), and the mean survival was 25.8 months (95 % CI 20.4-29.3). Overall survival rates were 81 % in the first year, 42.3 % in the third year, and 15.7 % in the fifth year. In multiple variable analysis, the most important independent risk factor for overall survival was determined as the presence of lung metastasis (HR 1.43, 95 % CI 1.27-4.14; P = 0.012). Brain metastasis develops late in the period of colorectal cancer and prognosis in these patients is poor. However, early screening of brain metastases in patients with lung metastasis may improve survival outcomes with new treatment modalities.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ozgur Tanriverdi
- Department of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Medical School of Sitki Kocman University, Mugla, 48000, Turkey,
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
29
|
Kucukoner M, Arpaci E, Isikdogan A, Bilici M, Uncu D, Cetin B, Dane F, Inanc M, Ekinci AS, Inal A, Cayir K, Yetisyigit T, Ozdemir N, Kaplan MA, Aksoy S, Alkıs N, Tekin SB, Eroglu C, Turhal S, Buyukberber S. Prognostic analysis of patients with operable gastric cancer and tolerability to adjuvant radio-chemo-therapy. Neoplasma 2013; 60:19-25. [PMID: 23067212 DOI: 10.4149/neo_2013_003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
Abstract
The aim of this study is to evaluate the tolerability and toxicity of adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and to analyze the prognosis in patients with operable gastric cancer. The retrospective analysis included 723 patients with operable gastric cancer; stage IB-IV (M0), received adjuvant CRT from 8 Medical Centers in Turkey between 2003 and 2010. The patients' age, sex, tumor localization, Lauren classification, grade and stage of the disease, type of dissection, the toxicity and tolerability status and survival rate were analyzed. All patients were divided into two groups as tolerable group to adjuvant CRT and intolerable group to adjuvant CRT .Among the patient, 73.9% had stage III-IVM0 disease; 61.0% had the intestinal type of gastric cancer, 51.1% had the distal type, and 61.4% had undergone D2 dissections. The number of patients who completed the entire course of the adjuvant CRT was 545 (75.4%).The median follow-up period was 20.8 months (range: 1.5-107 months). Overall Survival (OS) rates were 80% and 52%, while the relapse free survival (RFS) rates were 75% and 48% at 1 and 3 years, respectively.In the univariate analysis of the groups based on the the age defined as <65 or ≥ 65 (p=0.16 / p=0.003), Lauren classification (p=0.004 / p<0.001), localization of tumor (p=0.02 / p=0.04), tumor grade (p=0.06 / p=0.003), disease stage (p<0.001 / p<0.001), type of dissection (p=0.445 / p=0.043), presence or absence of toxicity (p=0.062 / p=0.077) and tolerability of the therapy (p=0.002 / p=0.001). In the cox regression analysis, tumor stage (Hazard Ratio (HR): 0.332; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.195-0.566; p<0.001), and tolerability (HR: 0.516; 95% CI: 0.305-0.872; p=0.014), were found to be related with the OS. Tumor stage (HR: 0.318; 95% CI: 0.190-0.533; p=<0.001) and tolerability (HR: 0.604; 95% CI: 0.367-0.995; p=0.048) were observed to be statistically significant in terms of the RFS.We have observed that whether a patient can or cannot tolerate adjuvant CRT due to its toxicity is an independent prognostic factor besides the known prognostic factors like tumor stage and Lauren classification. We are of the opinion that the treatment of patients who cannot tolerate adjuvant CRT should be replaced with less toxic adjuvant therapies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M Kucukoner
- Dicle University, Medical Oncology Department, Diyarbakir, Turkey.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
30
|
Hayran M, Kilickap S, Elkiran T, Akbulut H, Abali H, Yuce D, Kilic D, Turhal S. Smoking Habits of Relatives of Patients with Cancer: Cancer Diagnosis in the Family is an Important Teachable Moment for Smoking Cessation. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2013; 14:475-9. [DOI: 10.7314/apjcp.2013.14.1.475] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
|
31
|
Schmoll HJ, Van Cutsem E, Stein A, Valentini V, Glimelius B, Haustermans K, Nordlinger B, van de Velde CJ, Balmana J, Regula J, Nagtegaal ID, Beets-Tan RG, Arnold D, Ciardiello F, Hoff P, Kerr D, Köhne CH, Labianca R, Price T, Scheithauer W, Sobrero A, Tabernero J, Aderka D, Barroso S, Bodoky G, Douillard JY, El Ghazaly H, Gallardo J, Garin A, Glynne-Jones R, Jordan K, Meshcheryakov A, Papamichail D, Pfeiffer P, Souglakos I, Turhal S, Cervantes A. ESMO Consensus Guidelines for management of patients with colon and rectal cancer. a personalized approach to clinical decision making. Ann Oncol 2012; 23:2479-2516. [PMID: 23012255 DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mds236] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1034] [Impact Index Per Article: 86.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/11/2022] Open
Abstract
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the most common tumour type in both sexes combined in Western countries. Although screening programmes including the implementation of faecal occult blood test and colonoscopy might be able to reduce mortality by removing precursor lesions and by making diagnosis at an earlier stage, the burden of disease and mortality is still high. Improvement of diagnostic and treatment options increased staging accuracy, functional outcome for early stages as well as survival. Although high quality surgery is still the mainstay of curative treatment, the management of CRC must be a multi-modal approach performed by an experienced multi-disciplinary expert team. Optimal choice of the individual treatment modality according to disease localization and extent, tumour biology and patient factors is able to maintain quality of life, enables long-term survival and even cure in selected patients by a combination of chemotherapy and surgery. Treatment decisions must be based on the available evidence, which has been the basis for this consensus conference-based guideline delivering a clear proposal for diagnostic and treatment measures in each stage of rectal and colon cancer and the individual clinical situations. This ESMO guideline is recommended to be used as the basis for treatment and management decisions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- H J Schmoll
- Department of Oncology/Haematology, Martin Luther University Halle, Germany.
| | - E Van Cutsem
- Digestive Oncology Unit, University Hospital Gasthuisberg, Leuven, Belgium
| | - A Stein
- Hubertus Wald Tumor Center, University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany
| | - V Valentini
- Department of Radiotherapy, Policlinico Universitario "A. Gemelli," Catholic University, Rome, Italy
| | - B Glimelius
- Department of Radiology, Oncology and Radiation Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala; Department of Oncology and Pathology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - K Haustermans
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals Leuven Campus Gasthuisberg, Leuven, Belgium
| | - B Nordlinger
- Department of Surgery, Assistance-Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Ambroise Paré,Boulogne; Université Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines, Versailles, France
| | - C J van de Velde
- Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - J Balmana
- Department of Medical Oncology, University Hospital Vall d'Hebron, Barcelona, Spain
| | - J Regula
- Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center and Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland
| | - I D Nagtegaal
- Department of Pathology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen
| | - R G Beets-Tan
- Department of Radiology, University Hospital of Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - D Arnold
- Hubertus Wald Tumor Center, University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany
| | - F Ciardiello
- Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine and Surgery "F. Magrassi and A. Lanzara", Second University of Naples, Naples, Italy
| | - P Hoff
- Hospital Sírio Libanês, Sao Paulo, Brazil; Instituto do Câncer do Estado de São Paulo, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
| | - D Kerr
- Department of Clinical Pharmacology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - C H Köhne
- Department for Oncology/Haematology, Klinikum Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany
| | - R Labianca
- Department of Haematology and Oncology, Ospedali Riuniti, Bergamo, Italy
| | - T Price
- Department of Medical Oncology, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Woodville, Australia
| | - W Scheithauer
- Department of Medicine I, Division of Oncology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - A Sobrero
- Oncologia Medica, Ospedale S. Martino, Genova, Italy
| | - J Tabernero
- Department of Medical Oncology, Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - D Aderka
- Division of Oncology, Sheba Medical Center, Tel-Hashomer, Israel
| | - S Barroso
- Serviço de Oncologia Médica, Hospital do Espirito Santo de Evora, Evora, Portugal
| | - G Bodoky
- Department of Clinical Oncology, St. László Teaching Hospital, Budapest, Hungary
| | - J Y Douillard
- Service d'oncologie médicale, institut de Cancérologie de l'Ouest-René Gauducheau, Saint-Herblain, France
| | - H El Ghazaly
- Department of Oncology, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt
| | - J Gallardo
- Department of Oncology, Clínica Alemana, INTOP, Santiago, Chile
| | - A Garin
- N. N. Blokhin Russian Cancer Research Center, Moscow, Russia
| | - R Glynne-Jones
- Department of Radiotherapy, Mount Vernon Hospital, Northwood, UK
| | - K Jordan
- Department of Oncology/Haematology, Martin Luther University Halle, Germany
| | - A Meshcheryakov
- N. N. Blokhin Russian Cancer Research Center, Moscow, Russia
| | - D Papamichail
- Department of Medical Oncology, Bank of Cyprus Oncology Centre, Nicosia, Cyprus
| | - P Pfeiffer
- Department of Oncology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
| | - I Souglakos
- Department of Medical Oncology, School of Medicine, University of Crete, Heraklion, Greece
| | - S Turhal
- Department of Medical Oncology, Marmara University Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - A Cervantes
- Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, INCLIVA Health Research Institute, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
Schmoll H, Van Cutsem E, Stein A, Valentini V, Glimelius B, Haustermans K, Nordlinger B, van de Velde C, Balmana J, Regula J, Nagtegaal I, Beets-Tan R, Arnold D, Ciardiello F, Hoff P, Kerr D, Köhne C, Labianca R, Price T, Scheithauer W, Sobrero A, Tabernero J, Aderka D, Barroso S, Bodoky G, Douillard J, El Ghazaly H, Gallardo J, Garin A, Glynne-Jones R, Jordan K, Meshcheryakov A, Papamichail D, Pfeiffer P, Souglakos I, Turhal S, Cervantes A. ESMO Consensus Guidelines for management of patients with colon and rectal cancer. A personalized approach to clinical decision making. Ann Oncol 2012. [DOI: 78495111110.1093/annonc/mds236' target='_blank'>'"<>78495111110.1093/annonc/mds236] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [78495111110.1093/annonc/mds236','', 'Serdar Turhal')">Reference Citation Analysis] [78495111110.1093/annonc/mds236', 32)">What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022] Open
78495111110.1093/annonc/mds236" />
|
33
|
Dane F, Atasoy BM, Akgun Z, Yumuk F, Cabuk D, Teomete M, Basaran G, Turhal S, Abacioglu U. Docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil-based induction chemotherapy followed by concurrent chemoradiotherapy with cisplatin in locally advanced stage III and IV nasopharyngeal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2012. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2012.30.15_suppl.e16015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
e16015 Background: Concomitant chemoradiatiotherapy (CRT) is the standard treatment in locally advanced nasopharyngeal cancer (LANPC). We studied the activity and tolerability of docetaxel, cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil-based induction chemotherapy (IC) followed by concurrent CRT with cisplatin in LANPC. Methods: Between 2004 and 2010 a total of 33 (15 stage III, 18 non-metastatic stage IV) patients were included into this retrospective analysis. Median age was 51 (range, 19 to 75) years. Twenty-five patients were male. IC was planned for three courses in all patients. IC was consisted of docetaxel and cisplatin (DC) in 11 patients and fluoropyrimidine, dosetaxel and cisplatin (DCF) in 22 patients. G-CSF and ciprofloxacin were given prophylactically to all patients received DCF. 3D conformal radiotherapy (RT) was administered in conventional fractionation (2Gy/fr, 5 fraction per week) using 6-18MV photon energy and appropriate electron energies. Therefore, nasopharynx, level I-V and supraclavicular lymph nodes received 46 Gy (phase I) whereas, nasopharynx and clinically positive or initially bulky lymph nodes received 70 Gy (phase II). Cisplatin (75 mg/m2/21days) was administered during RT concomitantly. Results: Median follow up for surviving patients was 48 months. There was no progression after IC. Complete (CR) and partial responses (PR) were achieved in 6 and 23 patients in nasopharynx, respectively. We observed CR and PR in 19 and 13 patients in neck, respectively. All patients were given 3 cycles of IC. The dose of chemotherapy was reduced in 8 patients during IC. Sixty-six percent of the planned cisplatin dose could be given in the concomitant setting. In 11 patients, cisplatin was either reduced or permanently stopped. Thirty-one patients completed RT as planned. Five years PFS and OS rates were 65.5% and 72.2% respectively. Conclusions: In our LANPC patients, induction DC(F) chemotherapy followed by concomitant CRT was promising. This strategy should be evaluated in prospective studies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Faysal Dane
- Marmara University Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Beste Melek Atasoy
- Marmara University Hospital Department of Radiation Oncology, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Zuleyha Akgun
- Marmara University Radiation Oncology, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Fulden Yumuk
- Medical Oncology Department, Marmara University Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Devrim Cabuk
- Kocaeli University Medical School, Department of Medical Oncology, Kocaeli, Turkey
| | - Mehmet Teomete
- Medical Oncology Department, Marmara University Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Gul Basaran
- Medical Oncology Department of Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Serdar Turhal
- Marmara University Medicine Faculty, Istanbul, Turkey
| | | |
Collapse
|
34
|
Hayran M, Kilickap S, Elkiran T, Akbulut H, Abali H, Yuce D, Kilic D, Turhal S. Smoking habits of relatives of patients (pts) with cancer. J Clin Oncol 2012. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2012.30.15_suppl.9050] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
9050 Background: We aimed to determine the rate and habitual patterns of smoking, intentions of cessation, dependence levels and sociodemographic characteristics of relatives of cancer patients. Methods: The smoking habits of relatives of cancer pts were evaluated with a questionnaire and Fagerstrom test (FT) of nicotine dependence. FT and a questionnaire form were filled in by the volunteers. The quit rate of the relatives of the cancer pts was compared with the rates declared in the literature. Results: A total of 560 subjects who have relatives of pts with cancer. The median age of those with lower and higher Fagerstrom scores (FS) were 40 years and 42 years, respectively (p<0.001). We found no association between FS and sociodemographic variables, such as the subject's medical status, gender, living in the same house, educational status, family income, closeness and time spent with the cancer pts. Only 2% of the subjects started smoking after cancer was diagnosed in their relative and almost 20% of subjects had quit smoking within the year. Spontaneous quit rates of these subgroup of smokers (20%) was significantly higher than reported self-quit rates (max. ~10%) in the literature (p<0.001). Conclusions: The FS is known to be helpful in determining who would benefit from a cigarette smoking cessation program. We also show here that the cancer diagnosis in a smoker's family motivates this individual to quit smoking and may create a time window for any involved health staff to intervene for help. This study was designed by the Turkish Oncology Group, Epidemiology and Prevention Subgroup. [Table: see text]
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mutlu Hayran
- Hacettepe University Institute of Oncology, Ankara, Turkey
| | | | - Tamer Elkiran
- Inonu University Faculty of Medicine, Malatya, Turkey
| | - Hakan Akbulut
- Ankara University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey
| | | | - Deniz Yuce
- Hacettepe University, Institute of Oncology, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Diclehan Kilic
- Gazi University Faculty of Medicine Department of Radiation Oncology, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Serdar Turhal
- Marmara University Medicine Faculty, Istanbul, Turkey
| |
Collapse
|
35
|
Kucukoner M, Arpaci E, Isikdogan A, Bilici M, Uncu D, Cetin B, Dane F, Cayir K, Inanc M, Ekinci AS, Inal A, Yetisyigit T, Ozdemir N, Kaplan MA, Aksoy S, Alkis N, Tekin SB, Eroglu C, Turhal S, Buyukberber S. Prognostic analysis of the patients with operable gastric cancer and the importance of tolerability of therapy: Study of Anatolian Society of Medical Oncology. J Clin Oncol 2012. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2012.30.15_suppl.e14526] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
e14526 Background: The aims of this study were to evaluate the tolerability and toxicity with adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and prognostic analysis of patients with operable gastric cancer. Methods: The retrospective analysis included 723 patients with operable gastric cancer, stage IB-IV (M0), received adjuvant CRT from 8 Medical Centers in Turkey between 2003 and 2010. Patients’ age, sex, tumor localization, Lauren classification, grade, stage, type of dissection, toxicity and tolerability status were analyzed. Results: 73.9% of the patients were with stage III- IVM0. 61.0% of the patients were in the intestinal type, 51.1% of the patients were with the distal type of gastric cancer and 61.4% of the patients had undergone D2 dissection. 545 (75.4%) of patients completed the entire of adjuvant CRT. The median follow-up period was 20.8 months. Overall Survival (OS) rates were 80% and 52% while relapse free survival (RFS) rates were 75% and 48%, at 1, 3 years, respectively. In univariate analysis of groups, according to the group under the age of 65 and above (p=0.16 / p=0.003), Lauren classification (p=0.004 / p<0.001), localization of tumor (p=0.02 / p=0.04), tumor grade (p=0.06 / p=0.003), stage (p<0.001 / p<0.001), type of dissection (p=0.445 / p=0.043), toxicity (p=0.062 / p=0.077), tolerability of therapy (p=0.002 / p=0.001) were significantly different in both RFS and OS. In multivariate analysis, three independent prognostic factors were identified on RFS / OS; stage (ods ratio (OR)=3.0, 95% confidence interval (CI):1.8-5.0, / OR=3.2, CI=1.8-5.4), for Lauren classification (OR=1.5, CI=0.9-2.2 / OR=1.5, CI= 1.1-2.2), for tolerability of therapy (OR=2.0, CI=1.0-3.8 / OR=1.9, CI=1.0-3.6). Conclusions: We found a new independent prognostic factor whether or not tolerate adjuvant CRT because of toxicity, except for the known prognostic factors like tumor stage and Lauren classification. We suggest that the treatment of the patients with intolerable to adjuvant CRT, is to change with less toxic adjuvant therapies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mehmet Kucukoner
- Department of Medical Oncology, Dicle University, Diyarbakir, Turkey
| | | | | | - Mehmet Bilici
- Department of Medical Oncology, Ataturk University, Erzurum, Turkey
| | - Dogan Uncu
- Ankara Numune Training and Research of Medical Oncology, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Bulent Cetin
- Medical Oncology Department of Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Faysal Dane
- Department of Medical Oncology, Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Kerim Cayir
- Medical Oncology of Ataturk Universty, Erzurum, Turkey
| | - Mevlude Inanc
- Medical Oncology of Erciyes University, Kayseri, Turkey
| | | | - Ali Inal
- Dicle University Medical Oncology Department, Diyarbakir, Turkey
| | | | | | | | - Sercan Aksoy
- Ankara Numune Training and Research of Medical Oncology, Ankara, Turkey
| | | | | | - Celalettin Eroglu
- Erciyes University, Department of Radiation Oncology , Kayseri, Turkey
| | - Serdar Turhal
- Marmara University Medicine Faculty, Istanbul, Turkey
| | | |
Collapse
|
36
|
Kucukoner M, Isikdogan A, Arpaci E, Bilici M, Uncu D, Cetin B, Dane F, Inane M, Kaplan MA, Cayir K, Yetisyigit T, Ozdemir N, Inal A, Aksoy S, Alkis N, Tekin SB, Eroglu C, Turhal S, Benekli M, Buyukberber S. Adjuvant chemoradiation for gastric cancer: multicentric study of the Anatolian Society of Medical Oncology. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2012; 59:2343-7. [PMID: 22389301 DOI: 10.5754/hge11709] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS The aims of this study were to report the clinical outcomes of adjuvant chemo-radiotherapy after curative resection in 637 patients with gastric cancer. METHODOLOGY The retrospective analysis included 637 patients with resectable gastric cancer and stage IB-IV (M0) from 8 medical centers between 2003 and 2010. The patients were treated with 5FU-leucovorin and radiotherapy according to Schema for INT-0116. RESULTS Of the 637 patients, the median of overall survival (OS) was 43.7 months and relapse free survival (RFS) was 36.6 months. OS rates were 84%, 45%, 40% while RFS rates were 81%, 45% and 35% at 1, 3 and 5-years, respectively. Hematological and gastrointestinal toxicities (grade 1-4) were observed in 35% and 36.5% of patients, respectively. In univariate analysis, according to the Lauren classification, tumor grade, T stage, N stage, type of operation (total gastrectomy or subtotal) and surgery resection margin (R0 or R1) were found as prognostic factors on RFS and OS (p<0.05). In multivariate analysis, T stage, N stage and surgical margins were found as effective factors on OS. T stage, N stage and Lauren classification were factors affecting RFS. CONCLUSIONS Adjuvant chemo-radiotherapy after curative resection of gastric cancer was feasible, with acceptable toxicities in the Turkish population.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mehmet Kucukoner
- Anatolian Society of Medical Oncology Association (ASMO), Turkey.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
37
|
Tezcan S, Izzettin F, Turhal S. 3078 POSTER Investigation of Cisplatin Nephrotoxicity in out Patients Using a Short Hydration Method. Eur J Cancer 2011. [DOI: 10.1016/s0959-8049(11)71151-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/17/2022]
|
38
|
Abali H, Ata A, Ozdogan M, Turhal S, Cabuk D, Seyrek E, Senol Coskun H, Arik Z, Erman M, Celik I. Frequency of comorbid illnesses in cancer patients in Turkey. J BUON 2011; 16:557-560. [PMID: 22006766] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/31/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Comorbidities in cancer patients can adversely affect the management and outcome of their primary illnesses at all levels from diagnosis to therapy. We sought to examine comorbid conditions of cancer patients, treated at 4 university hospitals, each representing a different geographic location in Turkey. METHODS A total of 769 consecutive cancer patients presenting to outpatient clinics were recruited between November 2007 and May 2008. The patients filled in a questionnaire on comorbidities. Based on the questionnaire, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI( was calculated. RESULTS The patient median age was 55 years (range 21-87) and 456 (59.3%) were female. Breast (36.5%), colorectal (21.4%) and lung cancers (13.9%) were the 3 most frequent malignancies. Of the patients, 59.3% had at least one comorbid disease and 46.3% were using at least one medication daily. The most frequent comorbidities were hypertension (25.3%), diabetes mellitus (13.1%) and peptic ulcer (7.7%). Increasing age positively correlated with the extent of comorbidities (r=0.30, p<0.001), number of medications (r=0.32, p<0.001) and the CCI (r=0.20, p<0.001). CONCLUSION It is crucial to remember that comorbid illnesses are not rare and many patients are treated for conditions unrelated to their cancer, which potentially may affect various stages of their clinical management.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- H Abali
- Baskent University School of Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Ankara, Turkey.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
39
|
Korkmaz T, Seber S, Turhal S. Primary melanoma of the gallbladder. J BUON 2010; 15:802. [PMID: 21229653] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [MESH Headings] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/30/2023]
|
40
|
Dane F, Öztürk MA, Turhal S. Adequacy of Lymph Node Dissection Should be Taken into Consideration While Determining the Prognostic Significance of the Lymph Node Ratio: In Regard to Kim et al. (Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009;74:796–802). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009; 75:1625; author reply 1625. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.07.1719] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/30/2009] [Accepted: 07/14/2009] [Indexed: 10/20/2022]
|
41
|
Kuscu MK, Dural U, Onen P, Yaşa Y, Yayla M, Basaran G, Turhal S, Bekiroğlu N. The association between individual attachment patterns, the perceived social support, and the psychological well-being of Turkish informal caregivers. Psychooncology 2009; 18:927-35. [PMID: 19140124 DOI: 10.1002/pon.1441] [Citation(s) in RCA: 36] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND This study aimed to investigate the relations among the psychological well-being (i.e. depression and state/trait anxiety levels), attachment patterns (i.e. secure, ambivalent, avoidant), and the perceived social support from family/friends/significant others of caregivers of cancer patients in Turkey. METHODS Fifty-one caregivers of adult cancer patients were recruited from the oncology outpatient clinic of the Marmara Medical School Hospital in Istanbul. Caregivers were assessed with the Adult Attachment Scale, the Beck Depression Inventory, State-trait Anxiety Inventories, and the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support. RESULTS Stepwise multiple regression analysis indicated that depression was predicted by ambivalent attachment and the perceived social support from family. The support from significant others was the significant predictor of trait anxiety and the caregivers' ambivalent attachment score was the significant predictor of state anxiety. CONCLUSIONS We assert that ambivalent attachment pattern could confer a vulnerability to psychological distress in cancer caregivers. Assessing the psychological experiences and needs of caregivers and being aware of possible risk factors (such as attachment patterns) and protective factors (social support network) for depression and anxiety might be helpful for successful programmes and interventions that support the caregivers of cancer patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M Kemal Kuscu
- Psychiatry Department, Marmara University Medical School, Family and Community Mental Health Unit, Istanbul, Turkey.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
42
|
Abali H, Ata A, Turhal S, Ozdogan M, Seyrek E, Erman M, Celik I. Frequency of co-morbid illnesses in cancer patients in Turkey. J Clin Oncol 2009. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2009.27.15_suppl.e20717] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
e20717 Background: Co-morbidities in cancer patients can adversely affect the management of their primary illnesses at multiple levels from diagnosis to therapy. We saught to examine co-morbid conditions in cancer patients treated at 3 university hospitals in Turkey representing three different geographic locations. Methods: A total of 622 consecutive cancer patients presenting to outpatient clinics were recruited to the study from November 2007 to May 2008. Each patient answered a questionnaire consisting of questions on co-morbidities and drugs taken. Based on the questionnaire, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) was calculated. Results: Their median age was 55 years (minimum-maximum: 21–87) and 376 (62%) were female. Breast cancer (39%), colon and rectum (19%) and lung cancer (14%) were the 3 most frequent cancers. Of the patients, 60% had at least 1 co-morbid disease and 49% were using at least one medication daily. The most frequent comorbid diseases were hypertension (25%), other cardiovascular disorders (15%) and diabetes mellitus (13%). Incidence of comorbid diseases were increasing by age; 65% in patients between 60–69 years and 76% in patients older than 70 (r=0.25, p<0.001). Similarly, of those over 70 years, 65% was on at least 1 medication (r=0.29, p<0,001). CCI scores were calculated as 0 in (71%), 1 (23%) and 2 (5%) and it also worsened by increasing age (r=0.15, p<0.001). Conclusions: It is crucial to remember that co-morbid illnesses are not infrequent and many patients take medications for conditions unrelated to their cancer, which potentially may affect multiple stages of clinical management. No significant financial relationships to disclose.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- H. Abali
- Baskent University School of Medicine, Adana, Turkey; Mersin University School of Medicine, Mersin, Turkey; Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey; Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey; Hacettepe University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey
| | - A. Ata
- Baskent University School of Medicine, Adana, Turkey; Mersin University School of Medicine, Mersin, Turkey; Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey; Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey; Hacettepe University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey
| | - S. Turhal
- Baskent University School of Medicine, Adana, Turkey; Mersin University School of Medicine, Mersin, Turkey; Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey; Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey; Hacettepe University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey
| | - M. Ozdogan
- Baskent University School of Medicine, Adana, Turkey; Mersin University School of Medicine, Mersin, Turkey; Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey; Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey; Hacettepe University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey
| | - E. Seyrek
- Baskent University School of Medicine, Adana, Turkey; Mersin University School of Medicine, Mersin, Turkey; Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey; Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey; Hacettepe University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey
| | - M. Erman
- Baskent University School of Medicine, Adana, Turkey; Mersin University School of Medicine, Mersin, Turkey; Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey; Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey; Hacettepe University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey
| | - I. Celik
- Baskent University School of Medicine, Adana, Turkey; Mersin University School of Medicine, Mersin, Turkey; Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey; Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey; Hacettepe University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey
| |
Collapse
|
43
|
Atalay Basaran G, Cabuk D, Dane F, Teomete M, Iyikesici S, Meltem E, Gulluoglu B, Kaya H, Abacıoglu U, Yumuk F, Turhal S. Clinical outcome of node-negative (NN) breast cancer (BC) patients. J Clin Oncol 2007. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2007.25.18_suppl.11102] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
11102 Background: Breast cancer patients (pts) with NN disease have diverse clinical outcomes. An optimal treatment decision- making tool has not been defined for this heterogeneous group. Methods: We identified pts with NN disease who have been treated between 1998–2006 in our department. We recorded the clinical/pathological, treatment characteristics and analyzed their survival outcome. High risk (HR) was defined as having at least one of the following features: age<35 yr-old, pts with grade 3 tumors (tms), ER and PR negative tms, tm size >2 cm. Results: Out of 597 early BC pts, 275 pts with NN disease were identified, 190 pts with HR, 85 with low risk (LR) features.The median age was 51 (26–83). The median follow up was 40 months (4–120 months). 47% pts were premenopausal. 31% pts had breast conserving surgery (BCS).58/29% pts had grade 2/3 tms. 34% pts with BCS or T3 tms received adjuvant radiotherapy. All receptor positive pts received adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET). In the HRNN group, 5% pts had tms>5cm, 51/40% pts had grade 2/3 tms, 43% pts had ER/PR negative tms. In the LRNN group 25/74% pts had grade 1/2 tms, no pt had receptor negative tm. 86%/51% pts received adjuvant chemotherapy (CT) in the HR and LRNN groups. 12%/48% pts received adjuvant ET alone in the HR and LRNN groups. 5pt in the HR and 1 pt in the LR group received no adjuvant systemic therapy due to their comorbidities and/or negative receptor status. So far, 14 pts had relapsed (8 from the HR, 6 from the LR group) and 3 pts died due to BC (1 from the HR, 2 from LR group). The 5-yr DFS was %94 in the HR and was %90 in the LR groups. HRNN pts had %98 and LRNN pts had %95 5-yr OS. Conclusion: It seems that prognostic information based merely on clinical/pathological characteristics might not accurately quantify the risk of recurrence and death, so that the decisions about adjuvant chemotherapy in NN breast cancer patients. Prospective evaluation of the performance of the new genomic prognostic tools compared to traditional prognostic factors is needed in order to more clearly define the HR vs LR subsets of NNBC pts. No significant financial relationships to disclose.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - D. Cabuk
- Marmara University Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - F. Dane
- Marmara University Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - M. Teomete
- Marmara University Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
| | | | - E. Meltem
- Marmara University Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
| | | | - H. Kaya
- Marmara University Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
| | | | - F. Yumuk
- Marmara University Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - S. Turhal
- Marmara University Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
| |
Collapse
|
44
|
Kömürcü S, Turhal S, Altundağ K, Atahan L, Turna HS, Manavoğlu O, Yavuz AA, Ozkök S, Aliustaoğlu M, Altinbaş M, Pak Y, Cooper R, Yaylaci M, Demirkan B, Sarihan S, Ozdemir F. Safety and efficacy of transdermal fentanyl in patients with cancer pain: phase IV, Turkish oncology group trial. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 2007; 16:67-73. [PMID: 17227355 DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2354.2006.00707.x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/01/2022]
Abstract
We have performed a prospective evaluation of the efficacy, safety and convenience of the transdermal therapeutic system - fentanyl (TTS-F) in Turkish cancer patients when it was newly available in Turkey. Ninety-nine patients with historically confirmed malignancy and pain entered the study; the mean age was 55.1 (16-58) years. The study duration was 28 days. Transdermal therapeutic system - fentanyl was used in opioid-naïve or pre-treated patients. Most patients reported a decrease in pain severity. Use of rescue medication decreased from day 4 to day 28. The majority of patients rated patch convenience of use as excellent. A total of 22.2% of patients experienced adverse events that were either probably related or very likely to be related to the study drug. The majority of the adverse events mentioned were related to the digestive system. Eighteen serious adverse events were reported by 13 patients. Six events were doubtfully related, and 12 events were not related to the study drug. Four patients died during the trial. None of these deaths was attributed to the study drug. In conclusion, the trial showed that TTS-F is easily managed, effective and will help to enable the appropriate opioid administration to patients who are suffering from cancer pain in Turkey.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- S Kömürcü
- Gulhane Askeri Tip Akademisi, Department of Medical Oncology, Ankara, Turkey.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
45
|
Atasoy BM, Abacioglu U, Dane F, Ozgen Z, Yumuk PF, Ozden S, Akgun Z, Mayadagli A, Basaran G, Turhal S, Sengoz M. Concomitant administration of uracil-tegafur and leucovorin during adjuvant radiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer. J BUON 2007; 12:203-8. [PMID: 17600873] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/16/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE We report the feasibility and toxicity profile, and the impact on local control, disease-free survival and overall survival rates of our study which consisted of postoperative concurrent chemoradiotherapy, followed by adjuvant chemotherapy using uracil-tegafur (UFT)/leukovorin (LV) in locally advanced rectal cancer patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS Thirty-one patients operated for rectal adenocarcinoma (pT3/4 or N+) were enrolled onto the study. Twenty-three patients were males and 8 females with median age 62 years (range 21-85). Radiotherapy (RT) to the pelvis with conformal technique and individual blocks was delivered within 8 weeks following surgery. Total RT dose was 50.4 Gy and was given in a conventional single fraction of 1.8 Gy per day. Chemotherapy was administered concomitantly and consisted of UFT (300 mg/m(2)/day) and LV (30 mg/day) during RT-days. Following chemoradiotherapy, chemotherapy alone was administered for 4 cycles in the same dose for 28 days every 35 days. RESULTS No lethal toxicity occurred. All patients completed the scheduled RT. Concurrent chemotherapy continued in 22 (70.9%) patients until the end of RT. Seventeen (54.8%) patients completed the whole concurrent chemoradiotherapy and adjuvant chemotherapy as planned. No grade 3-4 stomatitis/mucositis or haematological toxicities were observed during the whole treatment period. During concomitant therapy grade 1-2 toxicities were: nausea/vomiting 60%, dyspepsia/gastric pain 39%, diarrhea 39% and dysuria 10%, whereas grade 3 nausea and diarrhea occurred in 6% and 19%, respectively. Median follow-up was 22 months. Two-year local control, disease-free survival and overall survival rates were 96.3%, 72.3% and 83.2%, respectively. CONCLUSION The acute toxicity profile of UFT/LV, local control, disease-free survival and overall survival in the concurrent chemoradiotherapy setting for operated, locally advanced rectal cancer seem comparable with the standard 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)-based therapies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- B M Atasoy
- Department of Radiation Oncology, School of Medicine, Marmara University Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
46
|
Onol FF, Tanidir Y, Kotiloğlu E, Bayramiçli M, Turhal S, Türkeri LN. Corrigenda to “Proximal Type Epithelioid Sarcoma of the Scrotum: A Source of Diagnostic Confusion That Needs Immediate Attention” [Eur Urol 2006;49:406–407] and “Proximal Type Epithelioid Sarcoma of the Scrotum: A Source of Diagnostic Confusion That Needs Immediate Attention: Part 2” [Eur Urol 2006;49:578–580]. Eur Urol 2007. [DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2006.09.023] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
|
47
|
Atasoy BM, Abacioglu U, Ozgen Z, Dane F, Yumuk F, Akgun Z, Ozden S, Mayadagli A, Turhal S, Sengoz M. Tolerability assessment of urasil-tegafur (UFT)/folinic acid (FA) as concurrent chemoradiation (CRT) in adjuvant rectal cancer treatment. J Clin Oncol 2006. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2006.24.18_suppl.13559] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
13559 Background: The objective of the present phase II study was to evaluate the feasibility of UFT and FA as a concomittant CRT administration for rectal cancer in the adjuvant setting. Methods: Between October 2003 and December 2005 thirty-one (10 female; 21 male) patients were treated. All the patients were locally advanced (T2N1–2M0 (2), T3N0M0 (12), T3–4N1M0 (9), T3–4N2M0 (7)) and median age was 62 (range, 21–85). Inclusion criteria were WHO 0–1, age ≥ 18, complete tumor resection, stage T3/4 or N+, adequate CBC, liver function tests and signed informed consent form. RT was performed in 8 weeks following the surgery and the dose was 50.4 Gy given at 1.8 Gy daily. Chemotherapy consisted of UFT (300 mg/m2/day) and FA (30 mg/day) during week-days of radiotherapy and continued 4 cycles with same dose (D1–28/35days) after CRT. Acute toxicity was assessed according to CTC 2.0 criteria. Results: Median follow-up for all patients was 12 months (between 3–27 months). No toxic death occurred. CRT related side effects were diarrhea Gr 2 (25%) and Gr 3 (25%); emesis Gr 2 (29%) and Gr 3 (10%); dysuria Gr 2 (10%) and Gr 3 (10%). All patients completed radiotherapy but 21 out of 31 (67%) continued with UFT/LV until the end of concurrent treatment. The full compliance to the adjuvant CT part was 63%. During the adjuvant CT period there were diarrhea Gr 3–4 (10%), emesis Gr 3 (10%) and no Gr 3–4 hematological toxicity observed during the whole treatment. During the study period none of the patients failed locally, 3 patients developed distant metastases (2 liver, 1 bone), and 3 patients died (1 with disease, 2 without). Two-year disease-free and overall survival rates were 84% and 71%, respectively. Conclusion: The acute and subacute toxicity of CRT with UFT/LV is acceptable and seems comparable to infusional 5-FU based combined modality treatments. No significant financial relationships to disclose.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- B. M. Atasoy
- Marmara University School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey; Lutfi Kirdar Kartal State Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - U. Abacioglu
- Marmara University School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey; Lutfi Kirdar Kartal State Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Z. Ozgen
- Marmara University School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey; Lutfi Kirdar Kartal State Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - F. Dane
- Marmara University School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey; Lutfi Kirdar Kartal State Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - F. Yumuk
- Marmara University School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey; Lutfi Kirdar Kartal State Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Z. Akgun
- Marmara University School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey; Lutfi Kirdar Kartal State Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - S. Ozden
- Marmara University School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey; Lutfi Kirdar Kartal State Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - A. Mayadagli
- Marmara University School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey; Lutfi Kirdar Kartal State Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - S. Turhal
- Marmara University School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey; Lutfi Kirdar Kartal State Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - M. Sengoz
- Marmara University School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey; Lutfi Kirdar Kartal State Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
| |
Collapse
|
48
|
Dane F, Gumus M, Iyikesici S, Yumuk F, Basaran G, Atasoy BM, Abacioglu U, Cabuk D, Teomete M, Turhal S. Outcome of rectal carcinoma patients receiving adjuvant chemoradiotherapy in Marmara University Hospital. J Clin Oncol 2006. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2006.24.18_suppl.13584] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
13584 Background: Surgical resection is the cornerstone of curative therapy for rectal cancer. Relapse rate following potentially curative resection is high in patients with stage II/III disease. Thus, chemoradiotherapy is the standard adjuvant treatment in resected stage II/III rectal carcinoma. There are limited studies, if any, analyzing the outcome of rectal cancer patients with stage II/III who received adjuvant chemoradiotherapy after curative resection in Turkey. Therefore, we aimed to analyze the treatment outcome, and the prognostic significance of various parameters in these patients. Methods: 106 patients with stage II/III rectal cancer treated with adjuvant chemoradiotherapy since 1997 until present were analyzed retrospectively. Patients received 5-fluorouracil (370–425mg/m2/day × 5days) and calcium leucovorin (20mg/m2/day × 5days), q4weeks, two courses before and two courses after radiotherapy. The 5-fluorouracil dose was reduced to, 225mg/m2/day given continuously as protracted short-term infusion during radiotherapy. 45–50.4 Gy radiotherapy was given to the pelvic region. Patients were followed-up every 3 months for the first 2 years and every 6 months thereafter. Age, gender, T stage, N stage, histological grade, lymphatic, vascular, and perineural invasion were analyzed as prognostic factors. Results: The median follow-up was 34 months. Median age was 59.5 years. Forty-four percent of the patients were node-negative. Lymphatic, vascular, and perineural invasion rate were 50.5%, 47.3%, and 32.3% respectively. Five-year disease-free and overall survival rates were 68.8% and 72.2%, respectively. Median survival time and median disease free-survival time were not reached at the time of analysis. In multivariate Cox regression analysis; T stage (p: 0.022), nodal stage (0.019), presence of lymphatic invasion (p: 0.0001), and the presence of vascular invasion (p:0.01) were independent prognostic factors. Conclusion: The adjuvant treatment outcome in Turkish patients in our department with stage II/III rectal cancer is similar to those reported in the Western studies. No significant financial relationships to disclose.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- F. Dane
- Marmara University Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - M. Gumus
- Marmara University Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
| | | | - F. Yumuk
- Marmara University Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - G. Basaran
- Marmara University Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
| | | | | | - D. Cabuk
- Marmara University Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - M. Teomete
- Marmara University Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - S. Turhal
- Marmara University Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
| |
Collapse
|
49
|
Yalcin B, Aydin F, Zengin N, Ilhan M, Isikdogan A, Aykan F, Demir G, Celik I, Turhal S, Icli F, Akbulut H. The clinicopathological and socioeconomic features of patients with gastric cancer in Turkey (Turkish Oncology Group). J Clin Oncol 2006. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2006.24.18_suppl.20098] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
20098 Background: The incidence of gastric cancer has declined dramatically in western countries. However it is the second most common cancer in Turkey, and its mortality rate is still high. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinicopathological and socioeconomic features of patients with gastric cancer in Turkey. Methods: A questionnaire including the clinicopathological and socioeconomic features of gastric cancer patients diagnosed in 2004, was used in this retrospective multicentre study. The characteristic of patients in economically developed Western Turkey (WT) was compared to those in less developed Eastern Turkey (ET). Results: From sixteen centers, 971 patients with gastric cancer during the year 2004 were included in the study. Male-female ratio was 2/1. Mean age was 57 ± 12.9 years. Of patients, 75.3% had low socioeconomic status. Distal and middle gastric cancers were the most common locations (distal 39%, middle 36.5% vs upper 24.5%). The R0 resectability rate was 54.1% in all patients. There was no statistically significant difference in gender, age, smoking rate, anemia, the location of tumor and the frequency of atrophic gastritis between WT and ET. The rate of cancer resectability was lower in Eastern Turkey (ET) than Western Turkey (WT) (31.6% vs. 63.4%, p = 0.0001). Also, socioeconomic status of patients was lower in ET than those in WT (53.6% vs. 32.3%, p = 0.0001). H. pylori associated gastritis and intestinal metaplasia were more common in ET when compared with WT (75.0% vs. 40.5%, P = 0.003, and 68.4% vs. 18.1%, respectively, P = 0.0001). Conclusions: Lower socioeconomic status and lower resectability rate of gastric cancer in ET is considerable. Further epidemiological study of gastric cancer is warranted in Turkey. No significant financial relationships to disclose.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- B. Yalcin
- Ankara University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey; Karadeniz Teknik University School of Medicine, Trabzon, Turkey; Ankara Numune Hospital, Ankara, Turkey; Yuzuncu Yil University School of Medicine, Van, Turkey; Dicle University School of Medicine, Diyarbakir, Turkey; Istanbul University, Oncology Institute, Istanbul, Turkey; Istanbul University, Cerrahpasa School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey; Hacettepe University Oncology Hospital, Ankara, Turkey; Marmara University School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - F. Aydin
- Ankara University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey; Karadeniz Teknik University School of Medicine, Trabzon, Turkey; Ankara Numune Hospital, Ankara, Turkey; Yuzuncu Yil University School of Medicine, Van, Turkey; Dicle University School of Medicine, Diyarbakir, Turkey; Istanbul University, Oncology Institute, Istanbul, Turkey; Istanbul University, Cerrahpasa School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey; Hacettepe University Oncology Hospital, Ankara, Turkey; Marmara University School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - N. Zengin
- Ankara University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey; Karadeniz Teknik University School of Medicine, Trabzon, Turkey; Ankara Numune Hospital, Ankara, Turkey; Yuzuncu Yil University School of Medicine, Van, Turkey; Dicle University School of Medicine, Diyarbakir, Turkey; Istanbul University, Oncology Institute, Istanbul, Turkey; Istanbul University, Cerrahpasa School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey; Hacettepe University Oncology Hospital, Ankara, Turkey; Marmara University School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - M. Ilhan
- Ankara University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey; Karadeniz Teknik University School of Medicine, Trabzon, Turkey; Ankara Numune Hospital, Ankara, Turkey; Yuzuncu Yil University School of Medicine, Van, Turkey; Dicle University School of Medicine, Diyarbakir, Turkey; Istanbul University, Oncology Institute, Istanbul, Turkey; Istanbul University, Cerrahpasa School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey; Hacettepe University Oncology Hospital, Ankara, Turkey; Marmara University School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - A. Isikdogan
- Ankara University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey; Karadeniz Teknik University School of Medicine, Trabzon, Turkey; Ankara Numune Hospital, Ankara, Turkey; Yuzuncu Yil University School of Medicine, Van, Turkey; Dicle University School of Medicine, Diyarbakir, Turkey; Istanbul University, Oncology Institute, Istanbul, Turkey; Istanbul University, Cerrahpasa School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey; Hacettepe University Oncology Hospital, Ankara, Turkey; Marmara University School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - F. Aykan
- Ankara University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey; Karadeniz Teknik University School of Medicine, Trabzon, Turkey; Ankara Numune Hospital, Ankara, Turkey; Yuzuncu Yil University School of Medicine, Van, Turkey; Dicle University School of Medicine, Diyarbakir, Turkey; Istanbul University, Oncology Institute, Istanbul, Turkey; Istanbul University, Cerrahpasa School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey; Hacettepe University Oncology Hospital, Ankara, Turkey; Marmara University School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - G. Demir
- Ankara University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey; Karadeniz Teknik University School of Medicine, Trabzon, Turkey; Ankara Numune Hospital, Ankara, Turkey; Yuzuncu Yil University School of Medicine, Van, Turkey; Dicle University School of Medicine, Diyarbakir, Turkey; Istanbul University, Oncology Institute, Istanbul, Turkey; Istanbul University, Cerrahpasa School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey; Hacettepe University Oncology Hospital, Ankara, Turkey; Marmara University School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - I. Celik
- Ankara University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey; Karadeniz Teknik University School of Medicine, Trabzon, Turkey; Ankara Numune Hospital, Ankara, Turkey; Yuzuncu Yil University School of Medicine, Van, Turkey; Dicle University School of Medicine, Diyarbakir, Turkey; Istanbul University, Oncology Institute, Istanbul, Turkey; Istanbul University, Cerrahpasa School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey; Hacettepe University Oncology Hospital, Ankara, Turkey; Marmara University School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - S. Turhal
- Ankara University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey; Karadeniz Teknik University School of Medicine, Trabzon, Turkey; Ankara Numune Hospital, Ankara, Turkey; Yuzuncu Yil University School of Medicine, Van, Turkey; Dicle University School of Medicine, Diyarbakir, Turkey; Istanbul University, Oncology Institute, Istanbul, Turkey; Istanbul University, Cerrahpasa School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey; Hacettepe University Oncology Hospital, Ankara, Turkey; Marmara University School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - F. Icli
- Ankara University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey; Karadeniz Teknik University School of Medicine, Trabzon, Turkey; Ankara Numune Hospital, Ankara, Turkey; Yuzuncu Yil University School of Medicine, Van, Turkey; Dicle University School of Medicine, Diyarbakir, Turkey; Istanbul University, Oncology Institute, Istanbul, Turkey; Istanbul University, Cerrahpasa School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey; Hacettepe University Oncology Hospital, Ankara, Turkey; Marmara University School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - H. Akbulut
- Ankara University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey; Karadeniz Teknik University School of Medicine, Trabzon, Turkey; Ankara Numune Hospital, Ankara, Turkey; Yuzuncu Yil University School of Medicine, Van, Turkey; Dicle University School of Medicine, Diyarbakir, Turkey; Istanbul University, Oncology Institute, Istanbul, Turkey; Istanbul University, Cerrahpasa School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey; Hacettepe University Oncology Hospital, Ankara, Turkey; Marmara University School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey
| |
Collapse
|
50
|
Onol FF, Tanidir Y, Tandr Y, Kotilŏglu E, Bayramiçli M, Turhal S, Türkeri LN. Proximal type epithelioid sarcoma of the scrotum: a source of diagnostic confusion that needs immediate attention: part 2. Eur Urol 2006; 49:578-80. [PMID: 16541484 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2005.12.074] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Fikret Fatih Onol
- Marmara University School of Medicine, Department of Urology, Altunizade, Istanbul, Turkey.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|