Browsing by Author "Kaplan M.A."

Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
  • 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
    (SAP - Slovak Academic Press, spol. s.r.o., 2012) Inal A.; Kos F.T.; Algin E.; Yildiz R.; Dikiltas M.; Unek I.T.; Colak D.; Elkiran E.T.; Helvaci K.; Geredeli C.; Dane F.; Balakan O.; Kaplan M.A.; Durnali A.G.; 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
    Predictive factors for the development of brain metastases in patients with malignant melanoma: A study by the Anatolian society of medical oncology
    (2014) Gumusay O.; Coskun U.; Akman T.; Ekinci A.S.; Kocar M.; Erceleb O.B.; Yazici O.; Kaplan M.A.; Berk V.; Cetin B.; Taskoylu B.Y.; Yildiz A.; Goksel G.; Alacacioglu A.; Demirci U.; Algin E.; Uysal M.; Oztop I.; Oksuzoglu B.; Dane F.; Gumus M.; Buyukberber S.
    Background: 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. Patients and methods: 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. Results: 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. Conclusions: Our results revealed the importance of primary tumor characteristics associated with the development of BMs. Ulceration, primary tumor thickness, anatomic site, and pathologic ≥N2 disease were found to be significant predictors of BMs development. © 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Is eribulin treatment prognostic factor in patients with metastatic breast cancer treated with this drug? Retrospective analysis of a multicentre study
    (Zerbinis Publications, 2019) Oruc Z.; Kaplan M.A.; Geredeli C.; Sari N.Y.; Ozaslan E.; Aytekin A.; Elkiran E.T.; Koca S.; Dogan M.; Turan N.; Yuce O.; Sevinc A.; Ercelep O.; Isikdogan A.
    Purpose: This study aimed to analyze prognostic factors for survival and the reliability and the effectiveness of eribulin therapy in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients. Methods: A total of 80 patients treated with eribulin in 12 medical oncology centers in Turkey between 2013-2017 were retrospectively evaluated. Sixteen potential prognostic variables were assessed for analysis. Results: The patients had received a median of 5 prior chemotherapy regimens and a median of 3 eribulin cycles for MBC. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.5 months (95% Cl: 4.1-7.8) and median overall survival (OS) was 11 months (95 % Cl: 6-15). Multivariate analysis showed that eribulin treatment line was shown to have independent prognostic significance for PFS. PFS difference was demostrated in patients who received 3 chemotherapy lines for advanced disease compared to those who had more than 3 chemotherapy lines [median PFS; 3 lines: 8.6 months (6.2-11) and >3 lines: 4.6 months (3.7-4.6) p=0.00]. The clinical benefit rate (CBR) was 52.5 and 35% in patients treated with three lines and with >3 previous chemotherapeutic regimens. Most common toxicities were neutropenia (62.5%), fatigue (52.5%), alopecia (50%) and nausea (37.5%). Conclusions: Eribulin treatment line was identified as in-depedent prognostic factor for PFS in MBC patients. © 2019 Zerbinis Publications. All rights reserved.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Is eribulin treatment prognostic factor in patients with metastatic breast cancer treated with this drug? Retrospective analysis of a multicentre study
    (Zerbinis Publications, 2020) Oruc Z.; Kaplan M.A.; Geredeli C.; Sari N.Y.; Ozaslan E.; Aytekin A.; Elkiran E.T.; Koca S.; Dogan M.; Turan N.; Yuce O.; Sevinc A.; Ercelep O.; Isikdogan A.
    Purpose: This study aimed to analyze prognostic factors for survival and the reliability and the effectiveness of eribulin therapy in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients. Methods: A total of 80 patients treated with eribulin in 12 medical oncology centers in Turkey between 2013-2017 were retrospectively evaluated. Sixteen potential prognostic variables were assessed for analysis. Results: The patients had received a median of 5 prior chemotherapy regimens and a median of 3 eribulin cycles for MBC. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.5 months (95% Cl: 4.1-7.8) and median overall survival (OS) was 11 months (95 % Cl: 6-15). Multivariate analysis showed that eribulin treatment line was shown to have independent prognostic significance for PFS. PFS difference was demostrated in patients who received 3 chemotherapy lines for advanced disease compared to those who had more than 3 chemotherapy lines [median PFS; 3 lines: 8.6 months (6.2-11) and >3 lines: 4.6 months (3.7-4.6) p=0.00]. The clinical benefit rate (CBR) was 52.5 and 35% in patients treated with three lines and with >3 previous chemotherapeutic regimens. Most common toxicities were neutropenia (62.5%), fatigue (52.5%), alopecia (50%) and nausea (37.5%). Conclusions: Eribulin treatment line was identified as indepedent prognostic factor for PFS in MBC patients. © 2020 Zerbinis Publications. All rights reserved.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Comparison of the efficacy of sunitinib and pazopanib in patients with advanced non-clear renal cell carcinoma
    (Taylor and Francis Ltd., 2024) Yildirim H.C.; Bayram E.; Chalabiyev E.; Majidova N.; Avci T.; Güzel H.G.; Kapar C.; Uzun M.; Perkin P.; Akgül F.; Yildirim S.S.; Sali S.; Yildiz A.; Kazaz S.N.; Hendem E.; Arcagok M.; Tufan G.; Yildirim U.; Akgul O.F.; Arslan Ç.; Taban H.; Sahin E.; Caglayan M.; Esen R.; Öksüzoğlu B.; Guven D.C.; Kaplan M.A.; Araz M.; Basaran M.; Cubukcu E.; Gokmen E.; Cicin I.; Algin E.; Semiz H.S.; Tural D.; Ozturk B.; Erdogan A.P.; Sari M.; Kara O.; Erman M.
    Non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (non-ccRCC) is a highly heterogeneous disease group, accounting for approximately 25% of all RCC cases. Due to its rarity and especially heterogeneity, phase III trial data is limited and treatment options generally follow those of clear cell RCC. In the literature, there exists a number of studies with sunitinib, cabozantinib, and everolimus, but data on the efficacy of pazopanib are limited. Our aim in this study was to compare the efficacy of pazopanib and sunitinib, in a multicenter retrospective cohort of non-ccRCC patients. Our study included patients diagnosed with non-ccRCC who received pazopanib or sunitinib treatment as first-line therapy from 22 tertiary hospitals. We compared the progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and response rates of pazopanib and sunitinib treatments. Additionally, we investigated prognostic factors in non-ccRCC. PFS and response rates of sunitinib and pazopanib were found to be similar, while a numerical difference was observed in OS. Being 65 years and older, being in the intermediate or poor risk group according to the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium, having liver metastases, presence of a sarcomatoid component, and having de novo metastatic disease were found to be significantly associated with shorter PFS. Pazopanib treatment appears to have similar efficacy in the treatment of non-ccRCC compared to sunitinib. Though randomized controlled trials are lacking and will probably be never be available, we suggest that pazopanib could be a preferred agent like sunitinib and cabozantinib. © 2024 Edizioni Scientifiche per l’Informazione su Farmaci e Terapia (Italian Society of Chemotherapy).