Browsing by Author "Menekşe S."

Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Predictive and prognostic factors in ovarian and uterine carcinosarcomas
    (AVES Ibrahim Kara, 2016) Cicin İ.; Özatlı T.; Türkmen E.; Özturk T.; Özçelik M.; Çabuk D.; Gökdurnalı A.; Balvan Ö.; Yıldız Y.; Şeker M.; Özdemir N.; Yapar B.; Tanrıverdi Ö.; Günaydin Y.; Menekşe S.; Öksüzoğlu B.; Aksoy A.; Erdogan B.; Hacıoglu M.B.; Arpaci E.; Sevinç A.
    Background: Prognostic factors and the standard treatment approach for gynaecological carcinosarcomas have not yet been clearly defined. Although carcinosarcomas are more aggressive than pure epithelial tumours, they are treated similarly. Serous/clear cell and endometrioid components may be predictive factors for the efficacy of adjuvant chemotherapy (CT) or radiotherapy (RT) or RT in patients with uterine and ovarian carcinosarcomas. Heterologous carcinosarcomas may benefit more from adjuvant CT. Aims: We aimed to define the prognostic and predictive factors associated with treatment options in ovarian (OCS) and uterine carcinosarcoma (UCS). Study Design: Retrospective cross-sectional study Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients with ovarian and uterine carcinosarcoma from 2000 to 2013, and 127 women were includ ed in this study (24 ovarian and 103 uterine). Patients admitted to seventeen oncology centres in Turkey between 2000 and December 2013 with a histologically proven diagnosis of uterine carcinosarcoma with FIGO 2009 stage I-III and patients with sufficient data obtained from well-kept medical records were included in this study. Stage IV tumours were excluded. The patient records were retrospectively reviewed. Data from 104 patients were evaluated for this study. Results: Age (≥70 years) was a poor prognostic factor for UCS (p=0.036). Pelvic±para aortic lymph node dissection did not affect overall survival (OS) (p=0.35). Macroscopic residual disease was related with OS (p<0.01). The median OS was significantly longer in stage I-II patients than stage III patients (p=0.03). Adjuvant treatment improved OS (p=0.013). Adjuvant radiotherapy tended to increase the median OS (p=0.075). However, this tendency was observed in UCS (p=0.08) rather than OCS (p=0.6).Adjuvant chemotherapy had no effect on OS (p=0.15).Adjuvant radiotherapy significantly prolonged the median OS in patients with endometrioid component (p=0.034). A serous/clear cell component was a negative prognostic factor (p=0.035). Patients with serous/clear cell histology for whom adjuvant chemotherapy was applied had significantly longer OS (p=0.019), and there was no beneficial effect of adjuvant radiotherapy (p=0.4). Adjuvant chemotherapy was effective in heterologous tumours (p=0.026). In multivariate analysis, the stage and chemotherapy were prognostic factors for all patients. Age was an independent prognostic factor for UCS. However, serous/clear cell histology and radiotherapy tended to be significant prognostic factors. Conclusion: The primary location, the histological type of sarcomatous and the epithelial component may be predictive factors for the efficacy of chemotherapy or radiotherapy in UCS and OCS. © Trakya University Faculty of Medicine.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Effectiveness and safety of cabazitaxel chemotherapy for metastatic castration-resistant prostatic carcinoma on Turkish patients (The Anatolian Society of Medical Oncology)
    (Verduci Editore, 2016) Süner A.; Aydin D.; Hacioǧlu M.B.; Doǧu G.G.; Imamoǧlu G.I.; Menekşe S.; Pilanci K.N.; Yazici Ö.K.; Koca D.; Karaaǧaç M.; Akyol M.; Akman T.; Ergen S.; Avci N.; Kaçan T.; Bozkurt O.; Kefeli U.; Urakçi Z.; Araz M.; Arpaci E.; Harputlu H.; Sevinç A.
    OBJECTIVE: Prostate cancer is among the most common cancers in males. Prostate cancer is androgen dependent in the beginning, but as time progresses, it becomes refractory to androgen deprivation treatment. At this stage, docetaxel has been used as standard treatment for years. Cabazitaxel has become the first chemotherapeutic agent which has been shown to increase survival for patients with metastatic Castrate Resistant Prostate Cancer (mCRPC) that progresses after docetaxel. Phase 3 TROPIC study demonstrated that cabazitaxel prolongs survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this study, we evaluated a total of 103 patients who took cabaz-itaxel chemotherapy for mCRPC diagnosis in 21 centers of Turkey, retrospectively. This study included patients who progressed despite doc-etaxel treatments, had ECOG performance score between 0-2, and used cabazitaxel treatment. Patients received cabazitaxel 25 mg/m2 at every 3 weeks, and prednisolone 5 mg twice a day. RESULTS: Median number of cabazitaxel cures was 5.03 (range: 1-17). Cabazitaxel response evaluation detected that 34% of the patients had a partial response, 22.3% had stable disease and 32% had a progressive disease. Grade 3-4 hema-tological toxicities were neutropenia (28.2%), neutropenic fever (14.5%), anemia (6.7%), and thrombocytopenia (3.8%). In our study, median progression-free survival (PFS) was 7.7 months and overall survival (OS) was 10.6 months. CONCLUSIONS: This study reflects toxicity profile of Turkish patients as a Caucasian race. We suggest that cabazitaxel is a safe and effective treatment option for mCRPC patients who progress after docetaxel. Moreover, ethnicity may play important roles both in treatment response and in toxicity profile.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    The effect of the gastrectomy on survival in patients with metastatic gastric cancer: A study of ASMO
    (Future Medicine Ltd., 2016) Yazici O.; Özdemir N.; Duran A.O.; Menekşe S.; Nahit Şendur M.A.; Karaca H.; Göksel G.; Arpaci E.; Hacibekiroʇlu I.; Bilgetekin I.; Kaçan T.; Özkan M.; Aksoy S.; Aksoy A.; Çokmert S.; Uysal M.; Elkiran E.T.; Çiçin I.; Büyükberber S.; Zengin N.
    Aim: To investigate the role of surgical resection of primary tumor on overall survival (OS) in advanced gastric cancer patients at the time of diagnosis. Patients & methods: The survival rates of metastatic gastric cancer patients whose gastric primary tumor was resected at time of diagnosis were compared with metastatic gastric cancer patients whose primary tumor was nonresected. Results: The median progression-free survival and OS in operated and nonoperated group were 10 versus 6, 14 versus 9 months, respectively (p < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, gastric resection of primary tumor, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, second-line chemotherapy had a significant effect on OS (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.52 [95% CI: 0.38-0.71], HR: 0.57 [95% CI: 0.42-0.78], HR: 1.48 [1.09-2.01]; p ≤ 0.001, p = 0.001 and p = 0.012, respectively). Conclusion: Subpopulations of patients with metastatic gastric cancer might benefit from surgical removal of primary tumor. © 2016 Future Medicine Ltd.
  • 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).