Tıp Fakültesi / Faculty of Medicine

Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://hdl.handle.net/11727/1403

Browse

Filters

2019 - 201912020 - 20221

Settings

Author: search.filters.author.Alicikus, Zumre Arican

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Evaluation of Nutritional Status and Anxiety Levels in Patients Applying to the Radiation Oncology Outpatient Clinic during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Turkish Society for Radiation Oncology Group Study (TROD 12:02)
    (2022) Caloglu, Vuslat Yurut; Akmansu, Muge; Yalman, Deniz; Gul, Sule Karabulut; Kocak, Zafer; Alicikus, Zumre Arican; Serarslan, Alparslan; Akyurek, Serap; Mustafayev, Teuta Zoto; Demiroz, Candan; Oksuz, Didem Colpan; Kanyilmaz, Gul; Altinok, Pelin; Saglam, Esra Kaytan; Balkanay, Ayben Yentek; Akboru, Halil; Keven, Emine; Yildirim, Berna; Onal, Cem; Igdem, Sefik; Ozkan, Emre; Ozdener, Fatih; Caloglu, Murat; 35792709
    Cancer patients often face malnutrition, which negatively affects their response to cancer treatment. This study aims to analyze the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on nutritional status and anxiety in cancer patients with different types and stages of cancer. This is a cross-sectional cohort study that includes 1,252 patients with varying cancer types from 17 radiation oncology centers. The nutritional risk scores (NRS-2002) and coronavirus anxiety scale (CAS) scores of all patients were measured. NRS-2002 >= 3 and CAS >= 5 were accepted as values at risk. Of all patients, 15.3% had NRS-2002 >= 3. Breast cancer was the most prevalent cancer type (24.5%) with the lowest risk of nutrition (4.9%, p < 0.001). Nutritional risk was significantly higher in patients with gastrointestinal cancer, head and neck cancer, and lung cancer (p < 0.005) and in patients with stage IV disease (p < 0.001). High anxiety levels (CAS >= 5) were significantly related to voluntary avoidance and clinical postponement of hospital visits due to the pandemic (p < 0.001), while clinical postponement was particularly frequent among patients with NRS-2002 < 3 (p = 0.0021). Fear and anxiety in cancer patients with COVID-19 cause hesitations in visiting hospitals, leading to disrupted primary and nutritional treatments. Thus, nutritional monitoring and treatment monitoring of cancer patients are crucial during and after radiotherapy.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Treatment outcomes of prostate cancer patients with Gleason score 8-10 treated with definitive radiotherapy
    (2019) Ozyigit, Gokhan; Onal, Cem; Igdem, Sefik; Alicikus, Zumre Arican; Iribas, Ayca; Akin, Mustafa; Yalman, Deniz; Cetin, Ilknur; Aksu, Melek Gamze; Atalar, Banu; Dincbas, Fazilet; Hurmuz, Pervin; Guler, Ozan Cem; Aydin, Barbaros; Sert, Fatma; Yildirim, Cumhur; Gorken, Ilknur Birkay; Agaoglu, Fulya Yaman; Korcum, Aylin Fidan; Yüce, Deniz; Ozkok, Serdar; Darendeliler, Emin; Akyol, Fadil; 31143994
    Purpose To validate the clinical outcomes and prognostic factors in prostate cancer (PCa) patients with Gleason score (GS) 8-10 disease treated with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT)+ androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in the modern era. Methods Institutional databases of biopsy proven 641 patients with GS 8-10 PCa treated between 2000 and 2015 were collected from 11 institutions. In this multi-institutional Turkish Radiation Oncology Group study, a standard database sheet was sent to each institution for patient enrollment. The inclusion criteria were, T1-T3N0M0 disease according to AJCC (American Joint Committee on Cancer) 2010 Staging System, no prior diagnosis of malignancy, at least 70Gy total irradiation dose to prostate +/- seminal vesicles delivered with either three-dimensional conformal RT or intensity-modulated RT and patients receiving ADT. Results The median follow-up time was 5.9 years (range 0.4-18.2 years); 5-year overall survival (OS), biochemical relapse-free survival (BRFS) and distant metastases-free survival (DMFS) rates were 88%, 78%, and 79%, respectively. Higher RT doses (>= 78Gy) and longer ADT duration (>= 2 years) were significant predictors for improved DMFS, whereas advanced stage was a negative prognosticator for DMFS in patients with GS 9-10. Conclusions Our results validated the fact that oncologic outcomes after radical EBRT significantly differ in men with GS 8 versus those with GS 9-10 prostate cancer. We found that EBRT dose was important predictive factor regardless of ADT period. Patients receiving 'non-optimal treatment' (RT doses <78Gy and ADT period <2 years) had the worst treatment outcomes.