Browsing by Author "Sahinler, Ismet"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3

Perspective of Turkish Medicine Students on Cancer, Cancer Treatments, Palliative Care, and Oncologists (ARES Study): a Study of the Palliative Care Working Committee of the Turkish Oncology Group (TOG)
(2020) Oktay, Esin; Levent, Mustafa; Gelincik, Hakan; Aktas, Gizem; Yumuk, Fulden; Koral, Lokman; Arpaci, Erkan; Keser, Murat; Akan, Ali; Kaci, Ebru; Karadurmus, Nuri; Degirmencioglu, Serkan; Turan, Merve; Uyeturk, Ummugul; Cabuk, Devrim; Avci, Nilufer; Toprak, Omer; Ergen, Arzu; Urvay, Semiha; Bayram, Evrim; Petekkaya, Emine; Nayir, Erdinc; Paydas, Semra; Yavuzsen, Tugba; Senler, Filiz Cay; Yaren, Arzu; Barutca, Sabri; Sahinler, Ismet; Ozyilkan, Ozgur; Tanrıverdi, Ozgur; 0000-0001-8825-4918; 30446981; AAD-2817-2021
Cancer is one of the most common causes of death all over the World (Rahib et al. in Cancer Res 74(11):2913-2921, 2014; Silbermann et al. in Ann Oncol 23(Suppl 3):iii15-iii28, 2012). It is crucial to diagnose this disease early by effective screening methods and also it is very important to acknowledge the community on various aspects of this disease such as the treatment methods and palliative care. Not only the oncologists but every medical doctor should be educated well in dealing with cancer patients. Previous studies suggested various opinions on the level of oncology education in medical schools (Pavlidis et al. in Ann Oncol 16(5):840-841, 2005). In this study, the perspectives of medical students on cancer, its treatment, palliative care, and the oncologists were analyzed in relation to their educational status. A multicenter survey analysis was performed on a total of 4224 medical school students that accepted to enter this study in Turkey. After the questions about the demographical characteristics of the students, their perspectives on the definition, diagnosis, screening, and treatment methods of cancer and their way of understanding metastatic disease as well as palliative care were analyzed. The questionnaire includes questions with answers and a scoring system of Likert type 5 (absolutely disagree = 1, completely agree = 5). In the last part of the questionnaire, there were some words to detect what the words "cancer" and "oncologist" meant for the students. The participant students were analyzed in two study groups; "group 1" (n = 1.255) were phases I and II students that had never attended an oncology lesson, and "group 2" (n = 2.969) were phases III to VI students that had attended oncology lessons in the medical school. SPSS v17 was used for the database and statistical analyses. A value of p < 0.05 was noted as statistically significant. Group 1 defined cancer as a contagious disease (p = 0.00025), they believed that early diagnosis was never possible (p = 0.042), all people with a diagnosis of cancer would certainly die (p = 0.044), and chemotherapy was not successful in a metastatic disease (p = 0.003) as compared to group 2. The rate of the students that believed gastric cancer screening was a part of the national screening policy was significantly more in group 1 than in group 2 (p = 0.00014). Group 2 had a higher anxiety level for themselves or their family members to become a cancer patient. Most of the students in both groups defined medical oncologists as warriors (57% in group 1 and 40% in group 2; p = 0.097), and cancer was reminding them of "death" (54% in group 1 and 48% in group 2; p = 0.102). This study suggested that oncology education was useful for the students' understanding of cancer and related issues; however, the level of oncology education should be improved in medical schools in Turkey. This would be helpful for medical doctors to cope with many aspects of cancer as a major health care problem in this country.
Restaging of Cervical Cancer Patients Treated with Adjuvant Radiotherapy According to FIGO 2018 and Suggestions for the Next Staging: Turkish Society for Radiation Oncology Gynecologic Group Study (TROD 04-004)
(2022) Alanyali, Senem; Balci, Beril; Esen, Caglayan Selenge Beduk; Gultekin, Melis; Yildirim, Berna Akkus; Ozkurt, Selnur; Ergen, Sefika Arzu; Gursel, Sukriye Bilge; Cetin, Ilknur Alsan; Sert, Fatma; Sari, Sezin Yuce; Ibis, Kamuran; Onal, Cem; Sahinler, Ismet; Yildiz, Ferah; Ozsaran, Zeynep
OBJECTIVE The objective of this study was to compare Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2009 and 2018 staging systems in patients with uterine cervical cancer. METHODS Medical records of 571 patients who were treated with adjuvant radiotherapy or radiochemotherapy between 2001 and 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. Differences in overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) rates according to FIGO 2009 and FIGO 2018 staging systems were compared using the log-rank test. Cox regression model was used to identify independent prognostic factors for survival. RESULTS The median follow-up was 59 months. Five-year OS and PFS rates were 81.1% and 77.7%, respectively. Stage migration was recorded in 401 patients (70.2%) and the most remarkable stage migration was detected in stage I patients (60%). A total of 157 (27.5%) patients upstaged to stage IIIC disease. According to FIGO 2009, 5-year OS rates were 87.3%, 80.5% (p=0.076), and PFS rates were 82.8%, 77.5% (p=0.036) for stage IB1 and IB2, respectively. According to FIGO 2018, the 5-year OS rates for stage IB1, IB2, and IB3 were 89.8%, 87.1%, and 81.4% (p=0.310), and PFS rates were 90.2%, 80.5%, and 80.1% (p=0.189), respectively. Patients with >= 2 pelvic lymph node (LN) metastases had worse 5-year OS and PFS rates than patients with one metastasis (p=0.015 and p=0.006). Number of para-aortic LN metastasis and metastatic LN ratio (MLNR) were also correlated with 5-year OS and PFS. CONCLUSION Current FIGO staging system better discriminates patients with cervical cancer. However, integration of metastatic LN number and/or MLNR to the upcoming FIGO staging system may improve the prognostic value of the staging.
Role of vaginal brachytherapy boost following adjuvant external beam radiotherapy in cervical cancer: Turkish Society for Radiation Oncology Gynecologic Group Study (TROD 04-002)
(2021) Gultekin, Melis; Esen, Caglayan Selenge Beduk; Balci, Beril; Alanyali, Senem; Yildirim, Berna Akkus; Guler, Ozan Cem; Sari, Sezin Yuce; Ergen, Sefika Arzu; Sahinler, Ismet; Cetin, Ilknur Alsan; Onal, Cem; Yildiz, Ferah; Ozsaran, Zeynep; 0000-0002-2742-9021; 0000-0001-6661-4185; 0000-0001-6908-3412; 32998860; D-5195-2014; V-5717-2017; AAC-5654-2020
Objective There are a limited number of studies supporting vaginal brachytherapy boost to external beam radiotherapy in the adjuvant treatment of cervical cancer. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of the addition of vaginal brachytherapy boost to adjuvant external beam radiotherapy on oncological outcomes and toxicity in patients with cervical cancer. Methods Patients treated with post-operative external beam radiotherapy +/- chemotherapy +/- vaginal brachytherapy between January 2001 and January 2019 were retrospectively evaluated. The treatment outcomes and prognostic factors were analyzed in patients treated with external beam radiotherapy with or without vaginal brachytherapy. Results A total of 480 patients were included in the analysis. The median age was 51 years (range 42-60). At least two intermediate risk factors were observed in 51% of patients, while 49% had at least one high-risk factor. The patients in the external beam radiotherapy + vaginal brachytherapy group had worse prognostic factors than the external beam radiotherapy alone group. With a median follow-up time of 56 months (range 33-90), the 5-year overall survival rate was 82%. There was no difference in 5-year overall survival (87% vs 79%, p=0.11), recurrence-free survival (74% vs 71%, p=0.49), local recurrence-free survival (78% vs 76%, p=0.16), and distant metastasis-free survival (85% vs 76%, p=0.09) rates between treatment groups. There was no benefit of addition of vaginal brachytherapy to external beam radiotherapy in patients with positive surgical margins. In multivariate analysis, stage (overall survival and local recurrence-free survival), tumor histology (recurrence-free survival, local recurrence-free survival and distant metastasis-free survival), parametrial invasion (recurrence-free survival and distant metastasis-free survival), lymphovascular space invasion (recurrence-free survival), and lymph node metastasis (distant metastasis-free survival) were found as negative prognostic factors. Conclusion Adding vaginal brachytherapy boost to external beam radiotherapy did not provide any benefit in local control or survival in patients with cervical cancer.