Yazar "Onal, Yilmaz" seçeneğine göre listele

Listeleniyor 1 - 3 / 3
  • Küçük Resim Yok
    Öğe
    Assessment of Prognostic Factors in Epithelial Ovarian Cancer
    (Kare Publ, 2017) Onal, Yilmaz; Kostek, Osman; Hacioglu, Muhammet Bekir; Erdogan, Bulent; Kodaz, Hilmi; Bekmez, Esma Turkmen; Hacibekiroglu, Ilhan
    Objectives: Ovarian cancer is the second most common gynecological cancer, and has a 5-year survival rate of about 40% to 45%. This ratio ranges from 15% to 95%, based on prognostic factors. There are numerous clinical, pathological and biological factors related to prognosis. The aim of this study was to assess prognostic factors in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Methods: A total of 119 stage III and stage IV ovarian cancer patients were evaluated. The patients age, menopausal status, age of menarche, number of children, height and weight values, surgery, tumor histopathological features, presence of metastasis, residual tumor volume, presence of ascites, abdominal lavage cytology, chemotherapy regimen, number of chemotherapy cycles, the first and last chemotherapy dates, relapse, and recent status were evaluated. Results: The median age of the study patients was 54 years (minimum: 34, maximum: 79 years). The pathological stages were 10 (8.6%) patients with IIIA, 6 (5%) patients with IIIB, 76 (63.9%) patients with IIIC, and 27 (22.7%) patients with stage IV. In multivariate analysis, age of diagnosis (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.22-087; p=0.01), postoperative tumor residual status (HR: 0.32; 95% CI, 0.14-0.71; p<0.01), number of adjuvant chemotherapies (HR: 0.48; 95% CI, 0.23-0.98; p=0.04), and platinum sensitivity (HR: 0.37; 95% CI, 0.18-0.74; p<0.01) were found to be independent variables related to longer survival. Notably, a patient treated with more than 6 cycles of chemotherapy had a worse prognosis. Conclusion: Independent indicators of a poor prognosis in our study were determined to be advanced age at diagnosis, a residual tumor more than 2 cm in size, more than 6 cycles of chemotherapy, and the presence of platinum-resistant disease. A multidisciplinary approach is needed to improve prognosis.
  • Küçük Resim Yok
    Öğe
    Comparative analysis of the efficacy and safety of modified FOLFOX-6 and DCF regimens as first-line treatment in advanced gastric cancer
    (Spandidos Publ Ltd, 2015) Hacibekiroglu, Ilhan; Kodaz, Hilmi; Erdogan, Bulent; Turkmen, Esma; Esenkaya, Asim; Onal, Yilmaz; Uzunoglu, Sernaz
    The aim of this study was to retrospectively compare the efficacy and toxicity of the oxaliplatin + 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) + leucovorin (LV) regimen [modified (m) FOLFOX-6] with that of the docetaxel + cisplatin + 5-FU regimen (DCF) in patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC). A total of 72 patients received DCF (75 mg/m(2) docetaxel and 75 mg/m(2) cisplatin on day 1 and 750 mg/m(2) 5-FU on days 1-5) every 21 days, whereas 54 patients received mFOLFOX-6 (85 mg/m(2) oxaliplatin and 400 mg/m(2) LV as a 2-h infusion, followed by a 5-FU bolus of 400 mg/m(2) and 2,400 mg/m(2) 5-FU as a 46-h continuous infusion) every 14 days. In the DCF arm, 55 (76.4%) of the patients received prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), 48-72 h following completion of chemotherapy. The median follow-up of the study was 12.1 months. The overall response rate (ORR) was 37.0% for mFOLFOX-6 and 40.3% for DCF (P=0.72). The median time to progression was 6.5 and 6.2 months in the mFOLFOX-6 and DCF arms, respectively (P=0.70). The median overall survival was 11.4 and 13.5 months in the mFOLFOX-6 and DCF arms, respectively (P=0.72). The rates of hematological toxicity did not differ between the two arms. However, in the subgroup analysis, grade 3-4 neutropenia and febrile neutropenia were significantly more common among patients who had not received G-CSF prophylaxis in the DCF arm. The incidence of grade 3-4 nausea/vomiting and diarrhea were significantly higher in the DCF arm. In conclusion, the present study demon-strated that the efficacy of the mFOLFOX-6 regimen was comparable to that of the DCF regimen in AGC patients. In addition, the benefit of G-CSF prophylaxis in conjunction with the DCF regimen was demonstrated.
  • Küçük Resim Yok
    Öğe
    Post progression survival analysis of metastatic gastric and gastroesophageal junction cancer patients after second-line treatment
    (Univ Catholique Louvain-Ucl, 2016) Turkmen, Esma; Erdogan, Bulent; Kodaz, Hilmi; Hacibekiroglu, Ilhan; Onal, Yilmaz; Uzunoglu, Sernaz; Kilic, Nilufer
    Purpose : The aim of this study was to define the factors that affect response and post-progression survival of metastatic gastric cancer (MGC) and gastroesophageal junction cancer (GEJ) patients treated with second-line chemotherapy. Methods : We retrospectively reviewed the data of 59 patients with MGC or GEJ adenocarcinoma who received second-line treatment. Results : The median age was 54 years old (26-77). Response to second-line treatment was strongly associated with disease control with first-line treatment (p < 0.01). Median progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and post-progression survival (PPS) were 3.2 (95% CI : 2.63-3.80), 6.5 (95% CI : 3.78-9.35) and 2.7 months (95% CI : 1.89-3.68), respectively. PFS (r = 0.55, p < 0.01) and PPS (r = 0.89, p < 0.01) were correlated with OS. Response to second-line treatment was independently related to PFS (HR : 0.12 95% CI : 0.53-0.26, p < 0.001). Having an ECOG 0 performance status (HR : 0.42; 95% CI : 0.21-0.86, p = 0.02) and response to second-line therapy (HR : 0.47; 95% CI : 0.25-0.85, p = 0.01) were independently associated with OS. Conclusion : PPS and PFS were correlated with OS after second-line treatment of MGC. Response to second-line treatment prolonged OS by increasing PFS, and having an ECOG 0 PS prolonged OS by increasing PPS.