TR-Dizin Açık Erişimli Yayınlar

Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://hdl.handle.net/11727/10759

Browse

Filters

2014 - 20192

Settings

Author: search.filters.author.Akmansu, Muge

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    The Comparision of Breast Cancer in the Young and Elderly Patients
    (2019) Petek Erpolat, Ozge; Yuce Sari, Sezin; Ergen, Sefika Arzu; Aydin, Barbaros; Akkus, Berna; Gultekin, Melis; Copan Oksuz, Didem; Arican, Zumre; Onal, Cem; Gursel, Bilge; Akmansu, Muge; Ozyigit, Gokhan; Bilkay Gorken, Ilknur; Yildiz, Ferah
    OBJECTIVE To compare the tumor characteristics, treatment approaches, recurrence patterns and survival results rates of young and elderly patients with breast cancer. METHODS In this study, Between between 2000-2013, a total of 779 patients were treated for breast cancer at nine radiation oncology departments were evaluated retrospectively. Three-hundred eight four of these patients were young (<= 35 years), and 395 of those the patients were elderly (>= 70 years). RESULTS Young patients were more likely to present with aggressive tumor features. They were more often received comprehensive lymphatic irradiation, tumor bed boost and intense chemotherapy. No difference was found for 5 and 10-year loco-regional recurrence- free survival rates were (96% and 93% for young, 97% and 97% for elderly). The 5 and 10-year distant recurrence- free survival rates were lower in the young patients (77% and 67% for young, 85% and 85% for elderly, p<0.0001). No difference was found in 5 and 10-year breast cancer- specific survival (91% and 79% for young, 92% and 87% for elderly). The 5 and 10-year overall survival rates were higher in the young patients (92% and 78% for young, 78% and 63% for elderly, p<0.0001). CONCLUSION The reason for the similarity between the age groups in terms ofregarding loco-regional recurrence- free survival can be more comprehensive lymphatic irradiation and tumor bed boost, the young patients received. The distant recurrence- free survival rates rates were significantly lower in the young patients even though they received more intensive chemotherapy. Future studies aimed at more effective systemic regimens to decrease distant recurrence in young patients are warranted.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Role of Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor in Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer Treated with Radiation Therapy
    (2014) Erkal, Eda Yirmibesoglu; Bora, Huseyin; Tepeoglu, Merih; Akmansu, Muge
    Background: Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (Anti-VEGF) agents are a promising approach to increase the efficacy of treatment for treatment-resistant prostate cancer. Aims: To correlate vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) expression and outcome following radiation therapy in the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer. Study Design: Retrospective observational study. Methods: Forty-one patients and clinically localized disease that were treated with radiation therapy were analyzed. For VEGF expression, immunoreactivity scores (IRS) were calculated using percent scores and intensity scores. Twenty-four patients were classified as having low (0 to 4 IRS) and 17 patients were classified as having high (5 to 8 IRS) VEGF expression. Results: The median age was 71 years, median follow-up was 5.4 years and median radiation therapy dose was 70 Gy. VEGF expression was calculated as low in 24 patients and high in 17 patients. Higher VEGF expression was observed in 6/26 patients with a low Gleason score versus 11/15 patients with a high Gleason score (p=0.02). Biochemical failure (BF) was observed in 2/24 patients with low VEGF expression versus 7/17 patients with high VEGF expression (p=0.01). In univariate analysis, having a higher Gleason score (p<0.01), being in the high risk group (p=0.03) and having higher VEGF expression (p=0.01) predicted BF after definitive radiation therapy. The biochemical failure-free survival rate at 5 years tended to be different (91% vs. 53%) when patients were grouped according to VEGF expression (p=0.06). Conclusion: In attempt to define patients with clinically localized disease that are not sensitive to standard treatment modalities, cellular and/or molecular biological markers may be required