Browsing by Author "Çetin B."

Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Advanced oxidation protein products, ferrous oxidation in xylenol orange, and malondialdehyde levels in thyroid cancer
    (2007) Kosova F.; Çetin B.; Akinci M.; Aslan S.; Ari Z.; Sepici A.; Altan N.; Çetin A.
    Aims and Background: The oxidation of protein plays an essential role in the pathogenesis of an important number of degenerative and cancer diseases, which is now widely recognized. The aim is to examine advanced oxidation protein products (AOPPs), lipid peroxidation products malondialdehyde (MDA), and ferrous oxidation in xylenol orange (FOX) in blood samples of papillary thyroid cancer patients compared with healthy controls to determine the oxidation status and the change after thyroidectomy. Methods: Thirty-five female thyroid cancer patients who underwent total thyroidectomy and 39 female control subjects were included into this study. Prethyroidectomy and postthyroidectomy, AOPP, FOX, and MDA levels were studied. Results: Prethyroidectomy AOPP, FOX, and MDA levels were significantly higher compared to control (P < .05). In postthyroidectomy AOPP, FOX, and MDA levels were significantly decreased compared with prethyroidectomy levels (P < .05). However, postthyroidectomy levels on the 20th day were still significantly higher, compared to control subjects (P < .05). Conclusion: In conclusion, all of AOPP, FOX, and MDA levels that are markers of protein oxidation and lipid hyperoxidation may induce thyroid cancer development and begin to decrease after thyroidectomy. © 2007 Society of Surgical Oncology.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Oxidant/antioxidant balance in patients with thyroid cancer
    (2008) Akinci M.; Kosova F.; Çetin B.; Sepici A.; Altan N.; Aslan S.; Çetin A.
    Purpose: To compare the antioxidant enzyme activities of superoxide dismutase (SOD), glutathione peroxidase (GSH-Px) and the levels of lipid peroxidation product malondialdehyde (MDA) in blood samples of thyroid cancer patients compared to healthy controls. Methods: 43 control subjects (mean age 44±13 years) and 43 patients (43±13 years) presented with multinodular goiter whose fine needle aspiration revealed malignant cytology were included into this study. The SOD, MDA and GSH-Px activities were measured in control subjects, and before/20 days after thyroidectomy in thyroid cancer patients. Results: SOD activities of pre-thyroidectomy, post-thyroidectomy and control groups were not different (p<0.05). Before thyroidectomy GSH-Px activities were lower (p<0.05) and MDA levels were higher (p<0.05) than the control group. In post- thyroidectomy, GSH-Px activity (p<0.05) increased, and MDA levels (p<0.05) decreased compared to prethyroidectomy levels. After thyroidectomy GSH-Px activity was significantly higher than the control group (p<0.05). Although post-thyroidectomy MDA levels significantly decreased, they were still higher than the control group (p<0.05). Conclusion: The superoxide dismutase does not seem to change with thyroid cancer and thyroidectomy but both antioxidant glutathione peroxidase and lipid peroxidation product malondialdehyde do. These preliminary findings may point out oxidant/antioxidant imbalance associated with thyroid cancer.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Antifungal consumption, indications and selection of antifungal drugs in paediatric tertiary hospitals in Turkey: Results from the first national point prevalence survey
    (Elsevier Ltd, 2018) Çağlar İ.; Devrim İ.; Özdemir H.; Şahbudak Z.; Sönmez G.; Buyukcam A.; Gulhan B.; Kara A.; Aygun D.F.; Bayram N.; Celebi S.; Çetin B.; Nepesov M.İ.; Yilmaz A.T.; Kepenekli E.; Çiftdogan D.Y.; Acar M.K.; Yayla B.C.; Okumuş C.; Ecevit Z.; Hatipoglu N.; Kuyucu N.; Kosker M.; Sen S.; Karbuz A.; Sutcu M.; Duramaz B.B.; Özen M.; Çiftçi E.; Alabaz D.; Kurugol Z.; Kara A.; Kanik S.; Kilic O.; Oncel S.; Somer A.; Tapisiz A.; Belet N.; Akcan Ö.M.; Türel Ö.; Ozkaya A.; Tezer H.; Cengiz A.B.; İnce E.; Camcioglu Y.; Kocabas E.; Arisoy E.S.; Salman N.
    Objectives: The aim of this point prevalence survey was to evaluate the consumption, indications and strategies of antifungal therapy in the paediatric population in Turkey. Methods: A point prevalence study was performed at 25 hospitals. In addition to general data on paediatric units of the institutes, the generic name and indication of antifungal drugs, the presence of fungal isolation and susceptibility patterns, and the presence of galactomannan test and high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) results were reviewed. Results: A total of 3338 hospitalised patients were evaluated. The number of antifungal drugs prescribed was 314 in 301 patients (9.0%). Antifungal drugs were mostly prescribed in paediatric haematology and oncology (PHO) units (35.2%), followed by neonatal ICUs (NICUs) (19.6%), paediatric services (18.3%), paediatric ICUs (PICUs) (14.6%) and haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) units (7.3%). Antifungals were used for prophylaxis in 147 patients (48.8%) and for treatment in 154 patients (50.0%). The antifungal treatment strategy in 154 patients was empirical in 77 (50.0%), diagnostic-driven in 29 (18.8%) and targeted in 48 (31.2%). At the point of decision-making for diagnostic-driven antifungal therapy in 29 patients, HRCT had not been performed in 1 patient (3.4%) and galactomannan test results were not available in 12 patients (41.4%). Thirteen patients (8.4%) were receiving eight different antifungal combination therapies. Conclusion: The majority of antifungal drugs for treatment and prophylaxis were prescribed in PHO and HSCT units (42.5%), followed by ICUs. Thus, antifungal stewardship programmes should mainly focus on these patients within the availability of diagnostic tests of each hospital. © 2018 International Society for Chemotherapy of Infection and Cancer
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Efficacy of subsequent treatments in patients with hormone-positive advanced breast cancer who had disease progression under CDK 4/6 inhibitor therapy
    (BioMed Central Ltd, 2023) Karacin C.; Oksuzoglu B.; Demirci A.; Keskinkılıç M.; Baytemür N.K.; Yılmaz F.; Selvi O.; Erdem D.; Avşar E.; Paksoy N.; Demir N.; Göksu S.S.; Türker S.; Bayram E.; Çelebi A.; Yılmaz H.; Kuzu Ö.F.; Kahraman S.; Gökmen İ.; Sakin A.; Alkan A.; Nayır E.; Uğraklı M.; Acar Ö.; Ertürk İ.; Demir H.; Aslan F.; Sönmez Ö.; Korkmaz T.; Celayir Ö.M.; Karadağ İ.; Kayıkçıoğlu E.; Şakalar T.; Öktem İ.N.; Eren T.; Urul E.; Mocan E.E.; Kalkan Z.; Yıldırım N.; Ergün Y.; Akagündüz B.; Karakaya S.; Kut E.; Teker F.; Demirel B.Ç.; Karaboyun K.; Almuradova E.; Ünal O.Ü.; Oyman A.; Işık D.; Okutur K.; Öztosun B.; Gülbağcı B.B.; Kalender M.E.; Şahin E.; Seyyar M.; Özdemir Ö.; Selçukbiricik F.; Kanıtez M.; Dede İ.; Gümüş M.; Gökmen E.; Yaren A.; Menekşe S.; Ebinç S.; Aksoy S.; İmamoğlu G.İ.; Altınbaş M.; Çetin B.; Uluç B.O.; Er Ö.; Karadurmuş N.; Erdoğan A.P.; Artaç M.; Tanrıverdi Ö.; Çiçin İ.; Şendur M.A.N.; Oktay E.; Bayoğlu İ.V.; Paydaş S.; Aydıner A.; Salim D.K.; Geredeli Ç.; Yavuzşen T.; Doğan M.; Hacıbekiroğlu İ.
    Background: There is no standard treatment recommended at category 1 level in international guidelines for subsequent therapy after cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6) based therapy. We aimed to evaluate which subsequent treatment oncologists prefer in patients with disease progression under CDKi. In addition, we aimed to show the effectiveness of systemic treatments after CDKi and whether there is a survival difference between hormonal treatments (monotherapy vs. mTOR-based). Methods: A total of 609 patients from 53 centers were included in the study. Progression-free-survivals (PFS) of subsequent treatments (chemotherapy (CT, n:434) or endocrine therapy (ET, n:175)) after CDKi were calculated. Patients were evaluated in three groups as those who received CDKi in first-line (group A, n:202), second-line (group B, n: 153) and ≥ 3rd-line (group C, n: 254). PFS was compared according to the use of ET and CT. In addition, ET was compared as monotherapy versus everolimus-based combination therapy. Results: The median duration of CDKi in the ET arms of Group A, B, and C was 17.0, 11.0, and 8.5 months in respectively; it was 9.0, 7.0, and 5.0 months in the CT arm. Median PFS after CDKi was 9.5 (5.0–14.0) months in the ET arm of group A, and 5.3 (3.9–6.8) months in the CT arm (p = 0.073). It was 6.7 (5.8–7.7) months in the ET arm of group B, and 5.7 (4.6–6.7) months in the CT arm (p = 0.311). It was 5.3 (2.5–8.0) months in the ET arm of group C and 4.0 (3.5–4.6) months in the CT arm (p = 0.434). Patients who received ET after CDKi were compared as those who received everolimus-based combination therapy versus those who received monotherapy ET: the median PFS in group A, B, and C was 11.0 vs. 5.9 (p = 0.047), 6.7 vs. 5.0 (p = 0.164), 6.7 vs. 3.9 (p = 0.763) months. Conclusion: Physicians preferred CT rather than ET in patients with early progression under CDKi. It has been shown that subsequent ET after CDKi can be as effective as CT. It was also observed that better PFS could be achieved with the subsequent everolimus-based treatments after first-line CDKi compared to monotherapy ET. © 2023, The Author(s).
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Correction: Efficacy of subsequent treatments in patients with hormone-positive advanced breast cancer who had disease progression under CDK 4/6 inhibitor therapy (BMC Cancer, (2023), 23, 1, (136), 10.1186/s12885-023-10609-8)
    (BioMed Central Ltd, 2023) Karacin C.; Oksuzoglu B.; Demirci A.; Keskinkılıç M.; Baytemür N.K.; Yılmaz F.; Selvi O.; Erdem D.; Avşar E.; Paksoy N.; Demir N.; Göksu S.S.; Türker S.; Bayram E.; Çelebi A.; Yılmaz H.; Kuzu Ö.F.; Kahraman S.; Gökmen İ.; Sakin A.; Alkan A.; Nayır E.; Uğraklı M.; Acar Ö.; Ertürk İ.; Demir H.; Aslan F.; Sönmez Ö.; Korkmaz T.; Celayir Ö.M.; Karadağ İ.; Kayıkçıoğlu E.; Şakalar T.; Öktem İ.N.; Eren T.; Erul E.; Mocan E.E.; Kalkan Z.; Yıldırım N.; Ergün Y.; Akagündüz B.; Karakaya S.; Kut E.; Teker F.; Demirel B.Ç.; Karaboyun K.; Almuradova E.; Ünal O.Ü.; Oyman A.; Işık D.; Okutur K.; Öztosun B.; Gülbağcı B.B.; Kalender M.E.; Şahin E.; Seyyar M.; Özdemir Ö.; Selçukbiricik F.; Kanıtez M.; Dede İ.; Gümüş M.; Gökmen E.; Yaren A.; Menekşe S.; Ebinç S.; Aksoy S.; İmamoğlu G.İ.; Altınbaş M.; Çetin B.; Uluç B.O.; Er Ö.; Karadurmuş N.; Erdoğan A.P.; Artaç M.; Tanrıverdi Ö.; Çiçin İ.; Şendur M.A.N.; Oktay E.; Bayoğlu İ.V.; Paydaş S.; Aydıner A.; Salim D.K.; Geredeli Ç.; Yavuzşen T.; Doğan M.; Hacıbekiroğlu İ.
    Following publication of the original article [1], the authors reported an error in the author name of Enes Erul. Incorrect: Enes Urul Correct: Enes Erul, The original article [1] has been corrected. © 2023, The Author(s).