PubMed İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu

Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://hdl.handle.net/11727/4810

Browse

Filters

2015 - 20202

Settings

Subject: search.filters.subject.COMBINATION

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Comparison of Involved Field Radiotherapy versus Elective Nodal Irradiation in Stage IIIB/C Non-Small-Cell Lung Carcinoma Patients Treated with Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy: A Propensity Score Matching Study
    (2020) Topkan, Erkan; Ozdemir, Yurday; Guler, Ozan Cem; Kucuk, Ahmet; Besen, Ali Ayberk; Mertsoylu, Huseyin; Sezen, Duygu; Akdemir, Eyub Yasar; Sezer, Ahmet; Bolukbasi, Yasemin; Pehlivan, Berrin; Selek, Ugur; 0000-0002-1932-9784; 0000-0001-6908-3412; 0000-0002-2218-2074; 0000-0002-6445-1439; 0000-0001-8120-7123; 0000-0002-7862-0192; 32952557; M-9530-2014; AAC-5654-2020; AAG-5629-2021; AAD-2667-2020; AAG-2213-2021; AAD-6910-2021
    Background. We retrospectively compared the incidence of isolated elective nodal failure (IENF) and toxicity rates and survival outcomes after elective nodal irradiation (ENI) versus involved-field RT (IFRT) by employing the propensity score matching (PSM) methodology in stage IIIB/C inoperable non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients treated with definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy (C-CRT).Methods. Our PSM examination included 1048 stage IIIB/C NSCLC patients treated with C-CRT from January 2007 to December 2016: a total dose of 66 Gy (2 Gy/fraction) radiotherapy and 1-3 cycles of platinum-based doublet chemotherapy concurrently. The primary and secondary endpoints were the IENF and toxicity rates and survival outcomes after ENI versus IFRT, respectively. Propensity scores were calculated for each group to adjust for confounding variables and facilitate well-balanced comparability by creating 1 : 1 matched study groups.Results. The median follow-up was 26.4 months for the whole study accomplice. The PSM analysis unveiled 1 : 1 matched 646 patients for the ENI (N = 323) and IFRT (N = 323) cohorts. Intergroup comparisons discovered that the 5-year isolated ENF incidence rates (3.4% versus 4.3%;P=0.52) and median overall survival (25.2 versus 24.6 months;P=0.69), locoregional progression-free survival (15.3 versus 15.1 months;P=0.52), and progression-free survival (11.7 versus 11.2 months;P=0.57) durations were similar between the ENI and IFRT cohorts, separately. However, acute grade 3-4 leukopenia (P=0.0012), grade 3 nausea-vomiting (P=0.006), esophagitis (P=0.003), pneumonitis (P=0.002), late grade 3-4 esophageal toxicity (P=0.038), and the need for hospitalization (P<0.001) were all significantly higher in the ENI than in the IFRT group, respectively.Conclusion. Results of the present large-scale PSM cohort established the absence of meaningful IENF or survival differences between the IFRT and ENI cohorts and, consequently, counseled the IFRT as the elected RT technique for such patients since ENI increased the toxicity rates.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Treatment of Peri-implant Bone Defects with Platelet-Rich Fibrin
    (2015) Hamzacebi, Burak; Oduncuoglu, Bahar; Aladdinoglu, Emine Elif; 25909530
    The objective of this study was to investigate and compare the clinical effectiveness of the application of platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) and conventional flap surgery for the treatment of pen-implant bone loss. Nineteen patients (8 women, 11 men) with peri-implant bone loss were randomly allocated to two groups, with the PRF group comprising patients who received fibrin scaffold and the control group made up of those who received only the access flap. At 3 and 6 months after surgery, respectively, the PRF group demonstrated higher mean probing depth reductions (2.41 +/- 1.06 and 2.82 +/- 1.03 mm versus 1.65 +/- 1.02 and 2.05 +/- 0.77 mm) and more gains in clinical attachment level (2.89 +/- 1.01 and 3.31 +/- 1.08 mm versus 1.43 +/- 1.08 and 1.84 +/- 0.81 mm) compared with the control group. In addition, the increase in the amount of keratinized mucosa from baseline to 6 months postoperatively was statistically significant for the PRF group (P < .001). Hence, the data from the current study led to the conclusion that PRF application in peri-implant bone loss provided better clinical results than conventional flap surgery.