Browsing by Author "Özveren A."

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer Second-Line Treatment Options: Is the Difference Only in Cost?
    (Springer, 2022) Yıldırım S.; Erdoğan A.P.; Karateke M.; Yılmaz C.; Özveren A.; Bulut G.; Ekinci F.; Almuradova E.
    İntroduction: Although pancreatic cancer ranks seventh in cancer-related deaths, it is an extremely fatal disease, and more than 330,000 people die from this disease worldwide. Although there are many first-line treatment studies in the literature, there are almost no prospective studies regarding second-line therapy. Therefore, there is no standard approach in the second-line treatment of pancreatic cancer. We decided to conduct this study to investigate second-line treatments with problems such as cost, treatment efficacy, and toxicity. Methods: Patients older than 18 years old who applied to Ege University Hospital medical oncology department with a diagnosis of metastatic pancreatic cancer, who received first-line chemotherapy due to their illness, and who had progressed afterwards were included in the study. The files of the patients who applied between 2013 and 2017 were examined. Results: Our study’s primary endpoint was progression-free survival, and it was found that the median progression-free survival was 3.2 months in the Xelox patients, 3.7 months in the gemcitabine-nab paclitaxel patients, and 3.5 months in the other regimens. When the secondary endpoint was evaluated, overall survival, the median overall survival was 5.9 months in the Xelox patients, 5.3 months in the gemcitabine-nab paclitaxel patients, and 4.8 months in the other regimens. Conclusion: As a result, second-line treatments were compared, and no statistically significant difference was found between them. For this reason, the side effects of previously used drugs and the side effects of new drugs to be used, as well as their costs, should be evaluated when choosing a treatment. © 2021, Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Palliative Biliary Drainage Has No Effect on Survival in Pancreatic Cancer: Medical Oncology Perspective
    (Springer, 2022) Erdoğan A.P.; Ekinci F.; Yıldırım S.; Özveren A.; Göksel G.
    Purpose: Removal of obstructive jaundice in metastatic pancreatic cancer is an important part of palliative therapy. However, it is not known whether invasive procedures reduce cancer-related mortality. In this study, the effect of palliative biliary drainage on survival outcomes in pancreatic cancer patients was evaluated. Methods: Patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and undergoing biliary drainage in two different centers between 2010 and 2019 were evaluated retrospectively. Results: Biliary drainage was applied to 73 patients, constituting 20.6% of 355 patients included in the study. The median progression-free survival (PFS) of patients with biliary stent was 5 months, while the median PFS of patients without stenting was 5.5 months and the median overall survival (OS) was 11.1 and 11.5 months, respectively (p: 0.424, p: 0.802). Conclusions: A positive effect of palliative biliary drainage on median PFS and OS could not be demonstrated in our study group. In pancreatic cancer, predictive markers are needed to select patients who can derive a survival benefit from biliary drainage. © 2021, Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    The prognostic impact of Her2 status in early triple negative breast cancer: a Turkish Oncology Group (TOG) study
    (Nature Research, 2024) Özyurt N.; Alkan A.; Gülbağcı B.; Seyyar M.; Aydın E.; Şahbazlar M.; Türker M.; Kınıkoğlu O.; Yerlikaya T.; Dinç G.; Aytaç A.; Kalkan Z.; Ebinç S.; Gültürk İ.; Keskinkılıç M.; İşleyen Z.S.; Çağlayan D.; Türkel A.; Şakalar T.; Sekmek S.; Yıldırım N.; Koçak S.; Okutur K.; Özveren A.; Dursun B.; Kitaplı S.; Eren O.Ö.; Beypınar İ.; Hacıbekiroğlu İ.; Çabuk D.; Karaman E.; Acar Ö.; Paydaş S.; Eryılmaz M.K.; Demir B.; Oruç Z.; Yılmaz M.; Biricik F.S.; Salim D.K.; Tanrıverdi Ö.; Doğan M.
    The studies evaluating the impact of Her2 levels in neoadjuvant setting have conflicting data. The aim of the study was to evaluate the prognostic impact of Her2 status in early triple negative breast cancer(TNBC). In the study TNBC patients who were treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and surgery were analyzed retrospectively. The primary aim of the study was to analyze the impact of Her2 status(Her2-0 and Her2-low) on pathological complete response (pCR). The secondary objectives were disease free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). 620 female triple negative breast cancer patients were evaluated. 427 patients (68.9%) had Her2-0 and 193(31.1%) had her2-low pathology. The pCR rates were similar between Her2-0 and Her2-low patients (33.0% vs. 27.5%, p = 0.098). Although Her2-0 group has better DFS (106 vs. 50 months, p = 0.002), in multivariate analysis it had a HR of 0.74 (p = 0.06). In addition, OS was similar (131 vs. 105 months, p = 0.13) with a HR of 0.88 (p = 0.61). In multivariate analysis; presence of LVI (HR:2.2 (95% CI 1.1–3.5) p = 0.001), Clinical stage T1/T2 (HR:0.39 (95% CI 0.2–0.6) p < 0.001) and lymph node negativity (HR:0.35 (95% CI 0.1–0.9) p = 0.03) were independent factors for OS. Although there were pathological and clinical differences, the pCR, DFS and OS were similar between Her2-0 and Her2-low TNBC patients. The importance of Her2 status of TNBC in neoadjuvant setting should be further studied. © The Author(s) 2024.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Correction to: The prognostic impact of Her2 status in early triple negative breast cancer: a Turkish Oncology Group (TOG) study (Scientific Reports, (2024), 14, 1, (23556), 10.1038/s41598-024-75293-5)
    (Nature Research, 2025) Özyurt N.; Alkan A.; Gülbağcı B.; Seyyar M.; Aşık E.; Şahbazlar M.; Türker M.; Kınıkoğlu O.; Yerlikaya T.; Dinç G.; Aytaç A.; Kalkan Z.; Ebinç S.; Gültürk İ.; Keskinkılıç M.; İşleyen Z.S.; Çağlayan D.; Türkel A.; Aydın E.; Şakalar T.; Sekmek S.; Yıldırım N.; Koçak S.; Okutur K.; Özveren A.; Dursun B.; Kitaplı S.; Eren O.Ö.; Beypınar İ.; Hacıbekiroğlu İ.; Çabuk D.; Karaman E.; Acar Ö.; Paydaş S.; Eryılmaz M.K.; Demir B.; Oruç Z.; Yılmaz M.; Biricik F.S.; Salim D.K.; Tanrıverdi Ö.; Doğan M.
    Correction to: Scientific Reportshttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-75293-5, published online 09 October 2024 The original version of this Article contained an error in the spelling of the author Esra Aşık which was incorrectly given as Esra Aydın. The original Article has been corrected. © The Author(s) 2024.