Browsing by Author "Unek, IT"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Factors Predicting Response in Breast Cancer Receiving Neoadjuvant Therapy and the Role of Ki67 Labeling Index
    Ekinci, F; Uzun, M; Demir, B; Unek, IT; Erdogan, AP
    Objective: To determine the predictive value of Ki67 on pathological complete response (pCR) of breast and axilla regions in breast cancer (BC) patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy (NAT).Study Design: Descriptive study.Place and Duration of the Study: Departments of Medical Oncology, Sirnak State Hospital, Aydin State Hospital, Manisa Celal Bayar University, and Dokuz Eylul University, from November 2010 to July 2022.Methodology: PCR and various histopathological parameters were evaluated for BC patients receiving NAT. The Youden Index method was used to find the cut-off value for the Ki67 variable according to the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. This value was obtained as 77.5. Breast and axillary responses were individually evaluated to assess response to NAT. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis were used to predict both breast and axillary pCR.Results: A total number of 280 females receiving NAT for BC were included in the study. Multivariate analysis for breast pCR to NAT showed that Ki67 index (>77.5 vs <77.5, p=0.047) was statistically significant marker. While Ki67 index was significant for breast pCR in both univariate and multivariate analyses, the same was not observed on axillary response (p=0.387).Conclusion: High Ki67 level was significantly associated with breast pCR in BC patients receiving NAT, but a similar effect was not observed on axillary pCR. These findings suggest that breast and axilla tissues have a biological differences in treatment responses.
  • 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
    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.