Browsing by Author "Semiz H.S."

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Is crp/albumin ratio (car) a new parameter to be added to risk stratification systems in metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients?
    (College of Physicians and Surgeons Pakistan, 2022) Uzun M.; Yildirim E.C.; Ekinci F.; Semiz H.S.
    Objective: To evaluate the effect of pretreatment C-reactive protein (CRP)/Albumin ratio (CAR) on prognosis and its association with IMDC (International metastatic renal cell carcinoma database consortium) risk score and overall survival (OS) in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients. Study Design: Descriptive study. Place and Duration of Study: Department of Medical Oncology, Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir, Turkey, between 2007 and 2020. Methodology: Clinico-pathological and treatment-related data of mRCC patients were retrospectively evaluated and included in the study. CAR was used as a prognostic inflammatory score. CAR threshold value for OS has been obtained by ROC analysis. The prognostic value of CAR was tested using Kaplan-Meier and Cox-regression models. IMDC-CAR model was created by adding CAR to IMDC risk stratification. Results: OS was 91 months in patients with CAR below the threshold value of 0.072 (0.072), while OS was 51 months in patients with CAR of 0.072 and above (p=0.005). According to IMDC risk stratification, intermediate and poor risk groups showed similar survival times (p0.05). However, when CAR was added to the IMDC risk score in the intermediate group, it was divided into 3 subgroups with different prognoses (p=0.02). Conclusion: CAR is an independent predictor of OS in mRCC patients. In this study, it has been demonstrated that more accurate prognosis prediction could be made by adding CAR to IMDC indicators in the intermediate risk group, which constitutes a highly heterogeneous group according to IMDC risk stratification. © 2022 College of Physicians and Surgeons Pakistan. All rights reserved.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    What Is Your Choice for Androgen Deprivation Therapy in Metastatic Prostate Carcinoma: Surgical or Medical?
    (AVES, 2022) Semiz H.S.; Kisa E.; Yildirim E.C.; Atag E.; Arayici M.E.; Muezzinoglu T.; Karaoglu A.
    Objective: At the time of diagnosis, approximately 16.5% of prostate cancer patients are metastatic. The main framework of metastatic prostate cancer treatment is androgen deprivation therapy, which is performed surgically or medically. The aim of this study is to evaluate the attitudes of medical oncologists and urologists about orchiectomy as androgen deprivation therapy. Material and Methods: A total of 387 physicians working in the Departments of Urology (n = 217) and Medical Oncology (n = 170) were included in this descriptive study. Data were collected through an electronic survey. Results: Only 7.5% of participants indicated that they offered surgical castration to their patients. Urologists preferred surgical castration more than oncologists for the treatment of metastatic castration-sensitive prostate carcinoma (P = .003). The reasons why medical oncologists preferred surgical castration less are that it is an invasive procedure, has risk of morbidity and mortality, high cost of hospitalization, and may cause deterioration of the patient's body image (P < .05). Conclusion: This study showed that physicians were less likely to perform orchiectomy as an androgen deprivation therapy. Although the most important reason for this is the patient preference, the biased presen-tation of treatment options to patients, the lack of knowledge of physicians about orchiectomy, and the effect of the pharmaceutical industry should also be kept in mind. @ Author(s).
  • 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).
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    The Effectiveness of Adjuvant PD-1 Inhibitors in Patients with Surgically Resected Stage III/IV Acral Melanoma
    (Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, 2024) Arak H.; Erkiliç S.; Yaslikaya Ş.; Eylemer Mocan E.; Aktaş G.; Özdemir M.; Semiz H.S.; Kiliçkap S.; Özalp F.R.; Sever Ö.N.; Akdaǧ G.; Aǧaoǧlu A.B.; Özçelik M.; Sari M.; Arcagök M.; Anik H.; Yayla Ş.B.; Sever N.; Açar F.P.; Bayrakçi İ.; Turhal S.; Ayhan M.; Kuş T.
    Our aim was to assess the efficacy of adjuvant programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) inhibitors and compare the other adjuvant treatments in patients with surgically resected stage III or IV acral melanoma. This study is a multicenter, retrospective analysis. We included 114 patients with stage III or IV acral malignant melanoma who underwent surgery within the past 10 years. We analyzed the effect of adjuvant programmed cell death protein-1 inhibitors on disease-free survival (DFS). The mean follow-up was 40 months, during which 69 (59.5%) patients experienced recurrence. Among the participants, 64 (56.1%) received systemic adjuvant therapy. Specifically, 48.4% received anti-PD-1 therapy, 29.7% received interferon, 14.1% received tezozolomide, and 7.8% received B-Raf proto-oncogene/mitogen-activated protein kinase inhibitors. Patients who received adjuvant therapy had a median DFS of 24 (10.9-37.2) months, whereas those who did not receive adjuvant therapy had a median DFS of 15 (9.8-20.2) months. Multivariate analysis for DFS revealed that the receipt of adjuvant therapy and lymph node metastasis stage were independent significant parameters (P = 0.021, P = 0.018, respectively). No statistically significant difference was observed for DFS between programmed cell death protein-1 inhibitor treatment and other adjuvant treatments. Regarding overall survival (OS), patients who received adjuvant treatment had a median OS of 71 (30.4-111.7) months, whereas those who did not receive adjuvant treatment had a median OS of 38 (16.7-59.3; P = 0.023) months. In addition, there were no significant differences in OS observed between various adjuvant treatment agents (P = 0.122). In our study, we have shown that adjuvant therapy had a positive effect on both DFS and OS in patients with stages III-IV acral melanoma who underwent curative intent surgery. Notably, we found no significant differences between anti-PD-1 therapy and other adjuvant therapies. © 2024 Lippincott Williams and Wilkins. All rights reserved.