Browsing by Author "Buyukberber, S"

Now showing 1 - 8 of 8
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Predictive factors for the development of brain metastases in patients with malignant melanoma: a study by the Anatolian society of medical oncology
    Gumusay, O; Coskun, U; Akman, T; Ekinci, AS; Kocar, M; Erceleb, ÖB; Yazici, O; Kaplan, MA; Berk, V; Cetin, B; Taskoylu, BY; Yildiz, A; Goksel, G; Alacacioglu, A; Demirci, U; Algin, E; Uysal, M; Oztop, I; Oksuzoglu, B; Dane, F; Gumus, M; Buyukberber, S
    The development of brain metastases (BMs) was associated with poor prognosis in melanoma patients. Patients with BMs have a median survival of < 6 months. Melanoma is the third most common tumor to metastasize to the brain with a reported incidence of 10-40 %. Our aim was to identify factors predicting development of BMs and survival. We performed a retrospective analysis of 470 melanoma patients between 2000 and 2012. The logistic regression analyses were used to identify the clinicopathological features of primary melanoma that are predictive of BMs development and survival after a diagnosis of brain metastases. There were 52 patients (11.1 %) who developed melanoma BMs during the study period. The analysis of post-BMs with Kaplan-Meier curves has resulted in a median survival rate of 4.1 months (range 2.9-5.1 months). On logistic regression analysis site of the primary tumor on the head and neck (p = 0.002), primary tumor thickness (Breslow > 4 mm) (p = 0.008), ulceration (p = 0.007), and pathologically N2 and N3 diseases (p = 0.001) were found to be significantly associated with the development of BMs. In univariate analysis, tumor thickness and performance status had a significant influence on post-BMs survival. In multivariate analysis, these clinicopathologic factors were not remained as significant predictive factors. Our results revealed the importance of primary tumor characteristics associated with the development of BMs. Ulceration, primary tumor thickness, anatomic site, and pathologic a parts per thousand yenN2 disease were found to be significant predictors of BMs development.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Endocrine therapy alone vs chemotherapy plus endocrine therapies for the treatment of elderly patients with endocrine-responsive and node positive breast cancer: A retrospective analysis of a multicenter study (Anatolian Society of Medical Oncology)
    Inal, A; Akman, T; Yaman, S; Ozturk, SD; Geredeli, C; Bilici, M; Inanc, M; Harputoglu, H; Demirci, U; Balakan, O; Cinkir, HY; Alici, S; Sonmez, OU; Goksel, G; Dogu, GG; Unal, OU; Tamozlu, T; Buyukberber, S; Boruban, CM; Isikdogan, A
    Purpose: The extra benefit of adding chemotherapy to effective endocrine therapy (ET) has not been clearly or consistently identified in patients older than 70 years with estrogen receptor (ER) positive and node positive breast cancer. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of adjuvant ET vs chemotherapy plus endocrine therapies (Chemo/ET) in such patients. Methods: In this retrospective multicenter study 191 patients >= 70 years with operated hormone receptor positive breast cancer, who were administered adjuvant ET or Chemo/ET were assessed. Results: The median patient follow-up time was 29.0 months (range 1-252). Therefore disease free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) analysis was limited, due to the rather short median follow-up, and only 30-month cumulative percentages are reported herein. The 30-month DFS rates were 50.0% in the ET arm and 49.0% in the Chemo/ET arm (p=0.79). The 30-month OS rates were 86% in the ET arm and 96.0% in the Chemo/ET arm (p=0.08). Cox proportional hazard model showed that only surgery was independent prognostic factor for survival (p=0.047), while tumor size showed a strong trend for statistical significance (p=0.051). Conclusion: The addition of chemotherapy to endocrine therapy in older patients has no significant impact on DFS and OS.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Prognostic factors in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer treated with gemcitabine alone or gemcitabine plus cisplatin: retrospective analysis of a multicenter study
    Inal, A; Kos, FT; Algin, E; Yildiz, R; Berk, V; Unek, IT; Colak, D; Kucukoner, M; Elkiran, ET; Helvaci, K; Geredeli, C; Dane, F; Balakan, O; Kaplan, MA; Durnali, AG; Harputoglu, H; Goksel, G; Ozdemir, N; Buyukberber, S; Gumus, M; Ozkan, M; Benekli, M; Isikdogan, A
    Purpose: The majority of patients with pancreatic cancer present with advanced disease. Systemic chemotherapy for patients with pancreatic cancer has limited impact on overall survival (OS). Patients eligible for chemotherapy should be selected carefully. The aim of this study was to analyse prognostic factors for OS in advanced pancreatic cancer patients treated with first-line palliative chemotherapy with gemcitabine alone or gemcitabine plus cisplatin. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 343 locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer patients who were treated with gemcitabine or gemcitabine plus cisplatin as first-line chemotherapy between December 2000 and June 2011. Fifteen potential prognostic variables were chosen for analysis. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to identify prognostic factors associated with OS. Univariate and multivariate statistical methods were used to determine prognostic factors. Results: Among the 15 variables of univariate analysis, 6 were identified to have prognostic significance: stage (p<0.001), cholestasis (p=0.02), weight loss, prior pancreatectomy, serum CEA level (p<0.001) and serum CA19-9 level (p<0.001). In addition, age, chemotherapy and liver metastasis were of borderline significance (p=0.06). Multivariate analysis (Cox proportional hazard model) included the 6 significant prognostic factors of univariate analysis and showed that stage was independent prognostic factor for OS, as were weight loss, and serum CEA level. Conclusion: Stage, weight loss, and serum CEA level were identified as important prognostic factors for OS in advanced pancreatic cancer patients. These findings may also facilitate pretreatment prediction of OS and can be used for selecting patients for treatment.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Pathologic and Clinical Characteristics of Elderly Patients With Breast Cancer: A Retrospective Analysis of a Multicenter Study (Anatolian Society of Medical Oncology)
    Inal, A; Akman, T; Yaman, S; Ozturk, SC; Geredeli, C; Bilici, M; Inanc, M; Harputoglu, H; Demirci, U; Balakan, O; Cinkir, HY; Alici, S; Colak, D; Sonmez, OU; Goksel, G; Dogu, GG; Engin, H; Unal, OU; Tamozlu, T; Buyukberber, S; Boruban, CM; Isikdogan, A
    There is very little information about breast cancer characteristics, treatment choices, and survival among elderly patients. The purpose of this multicenter retrospective study was to examine the clinical, pathologic, and biologic characteristics of 620 breast cancer patients age 70 years or older. Between June 1991 and May 2012, 620 patients with breast cancer, recruited from 16 institutions, were enrolled in the retrospective study. Patients had smaller tumors at diagnosis; only 15% of patients had tumors larger than 5 cm. The number of patients who had no axillary lymph node involvement was 203 (32.7%). Ninety-three patients (15.0%) had metastatic disease at diagnosis. Patients were characterized by a higher fraction of pure lobular carcinomas (75.3%). The tumors of the elderly patients were also more frequently estrogen receptor (ER) positive (75.2%) and progesterone receptor (PR) positive (67.3%). The local and systemic therapies for breast cancer differed according to age. An association between age and overall survival has not been demonstrated in elderly patients with breast cancer. In conclusion, the biologic behavior of older patients with breast cancer differs from younger patients, and older patients receive different treatments.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Gemcitabine Alone versus combination of Gemcitabine and Cisplatin for the Treatment of Patients with Locally Advanced and/or Metastatic Pancreatic Carcinoma: A Retrospective Analysis of multicenter study
    Inal, A; Kos, FT; Algin, E; Yildiz, R; Dikiltas, M; Unek, IT; Colak, D; Elkiran, ET; Helvaci, K; Geredeli, C; Dane, F; Balakan, O; Kaplan, MA; Durnali, AG; Harputoglu, H; Goksel, G; Ozdemir, N; Buyukberber, S; Gumus, M; Kucukoner, M; Ozkan, M; Uncu, D; Benekli, M; Isikdogan, A
    The majority of patients with pancreatic cancer is of advanced disease. Several randomized Phase II and III trials suggest that the combination of gemcitabine and cisplatin (GemCis) response rates were higher than Gemcitabine (Gem) alone, however the trials were not enough powered to indicate a statistically significant prolongation of survival in patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. The aim of this retrospective multicenter study is to evaluated the efficiency of Gem alone versus GemCis in patients with locally advanced and/or metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma. A total of 406 patients, from fourteen centers were evaluated retrospectively. All patients received Gem or GemCis as first-line treatment between September 2005 to March 2011. Primary end of this study were to evaluate the toxicity, clinical response rate, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) between the arms. There were 156 patients (M: 98, F: 58) in Gem arm and 250 patients (M: 175, F: 75) in the combination arm. Gemcitabin arm patients older than the combination arm ( median 63 vs 57.5, p=0.001). In patients with the combination arm had a higher dose reduction (25.2% vs 11.3%, p=0.001) and dose delay (34% vs 16.8%, p=0.001). Among patients with the combination and Gemcitabin arm gender, diabetes mellitus, performance status, cholestasis, grade, stage did not have a statistically difference (p>0.05). Clinical response rate to the combination arm was higher than the Gem arm (69.0% vs 49.7%, p=0.001). PFS was more favorable in the GemCis arm than Gem alone, but the difference did not attain statistical significance (8.9 vs 6.0, p=0.08). OS was not significantly superior in the GemCis arm (12.0 vs 10.2, p>0.05). Grade III-IV hematologic and nonhematologic toxicity were higher in the combination arm. PFS was more favorable in the GemCis arm than Gem alone, but the difference did not attain statistical significance. OS was not significantly superior in the GemCis arm.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Is lymph node ratio prognostic factor for survival in elderly patients with node positive breast cancer? The Anatolian Society of Medical Oncology
    Inal, A; Akman, T; Yaman, S; Ozturk, SC; Geredeli, C; Bilici, M; Inanc, M; Harputoglu, H; Demirci, U; Suner, A; Cinkir, HY; Alici, S; Colak, D; Sonmez, OU; Goksel, G; Dogu, GG; Engin, H; Unal, OU; Tamozlu, T; Buyukberber, S; Boruban, CM; Isikdogan, A
    Several studies have now demonstrated that the lymph node ratio (LNR), as a superior indicator of axillary tumor burden to the number of excised nodes. While, about the prognostic value of LNR on the the survival of elderly patients is limited. The aim of this retrospective multicenter study is to evaluate the prognostic value of lymph node ratio in elderly patients with node positive breast cancer. METHODS: Onehundredeightyfour patient with operable breast cancer, recruited from 17 institutions, were enrolled into the retrospectively study. Eleven potential prognostic variables were chosen for analysis in this study. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to identify prognostic factors associated with survival. RESULT: Among the eleven variables of univariate analysis, four variables were identified to have prognostic significance for Overall survival (OS): pathologic tumor size (T), No. of positive nodes (N), LNR and estrogen receptor-positive (ER). Among the eleven variables of univariate analysis, two variables were identified to have prognostic significance for Disease-free survival (DFS): N and LNR. Multivariate analysis by Cox proportional hazard model showed that 7; LNR and ER were considered independent prognostic factors for OS. Furthermore, LNR was considered independent prognostic factors for DFS. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the LNR was associated with the prognostic importance for DFS and OS in elderly patients who were administered adjuvant treatments.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Efficacy and Toxicity of Cisplatin and Capecitabine Combination in the First-Line Treatment of Patients with Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Multicenter Study by the Anatolian Society of Medical Oncology
    Ciltas, A; Buyukberber, S; Topcu, TO; Kucukoner, M; Uyeturk, U; Cihan, S; Sendur, MA; Budakoglu, B; Kefeli, U; Yildiz, R; Goksel, G; Berk, V; Balakan, O; Oksuzoglu, B; Uncu, D; Coskun, U; Ozdemir, F; Benekli, M
    Gastric cancer is an important public health problem which comprises 10% of all cancers and 12% of all cancer related deaths all over the world. Because of the differences in patient populations and treatment schemes in various studies, standard practice for advanced stage gastric cancer has not been fully established. The aim of this study was to assess the use of cisplatin and capecitabine combination regimen in real-world clinical practice. Medical records of 76 male and 37 female metastatic gastric cancer patients treated with first-line cisplatin and capecitabine combination between February 2006 and December 2009 were retrospectively analyzed in 11 centers of the Anatolian Society of Medical Oncology. Patients previously treated with chemotherapy were excluded from the analysis. The median age of the patients was 64 years (range, 28-83). Seventy-six (67.2%) patients were males and 37 (32.7%) females. Most of the patients were metastatic (n= 85, 75.2%) at the time of initial diagnosis. The most common sites for metastasis were liver (65.9%), lung (11.3%), peritoneum (23.8%) and local recurrence (15.9%) with multiple metastases in 9.7% of the patients. The mean follow-up period of all patients was 41 months (range 12-61). Overall response rates was 33.6%, while disease control rate (DCR) was 72.6 %. Median Progression-free survival was 4.7 months (95% CI 3.75-6.49) and median overall survival was 11.1 months (95% CI 5.58-10.98). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were anemia (8.3%), nausea-vomiting (3.8%) and diarrhea (1.8%). In terms of efficacy, toxicity and convenience, cisplatin and capecitabine combination is effective and well tolerated in Turkish patients with advanced gastric cancer, and could be one of the standard regimens for the first-line treatment in this cohort.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Gemcitabine alone versus gemcitabine plus cisplatin for the treatment of patients with locally advanced and/or metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma: A retrospective analysis of multicenter study
    Inal, A; Isikdogan, A; Kos, T; Algin, E; Gumus, M; Dikilitas, M; Elkiran, ET; Helvaci, K; Geredeli, C; Dane, F; Balakan, O; Durnali, AG; Harputluoglu, H; Goksel, G; Ozdemir, N; Buyukberber, S; Yildiz, R; Kaplan, MA; Ozkan, M; Uncu, D