Wos İndeksli Açık & Kapalı Erişimli Yayınlar

Permanent URI for this communityhttps://hdl.handle.net/11727/10751

Browse

Filters

20192

Settings

Author: search.filters.author.Sari, Sezin YuceSubject: search.filters.subject.Radiotherapy

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    A multi-institutional analysis of sequential versus 'sandwich' adjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy for stage IIIC endometrial carcinoma
    (2019) Onal, Cem; Sari, Sezin Yuce; Yildirim, Berna Akkus; Yavas, Guler; Gultekin, Melis; Guler, Ozan Cem; Akyurek, Serap; Yildiz, Ferah; 0000-0002-2742-9021; 30887753; D-5195-2014
    Objective: To analyze the outcomes of sequential or sandwich chemotherapy (ChT) and radiotherapy (RT) in patients with node-positive endometrial cancer (EC). Methods: Data from 4 centers were collected retrospectively for 179 patients with stage IIIC EC treated with postoperative RT and ChT (paclitaxel and carboplatin). Patients were either treated with 6 cycles of ChT followed by RT (sequential arm; 96 patients) or with 3 cycles of ChT, RT, and an additional 3 cycles of ChT (sandwich arm; 83 patients). Prognostic factors affecting overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were analyzed. Results: The 5-year OS and PFS rates were 64% and 59%, respectively, with a median followup of 41 months (range, 5-167 months). The 5-year OS rates were significantly higher in the sandwich than sequential arms (74% vs. 56%; p=0.03) and the difference for 5-year PFS rates was nearly significant (65% vs. 54%; p=0.05). In univariate analysis, treatment strategy, age, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage, pathology, rate of myometrial invasion, and grade were prognostic factors for OS and PFS. In multivariate analysis, non-endometrioid histology, advanced FIGO stage, and adjuvant sequential ChT and RT were negative predictors for OS, whereas only non-endometrioid histology was a prognostic factor for PFS. Conclusion: Postoperative adjuvant ChT and RT for stage IIIC EC patients, either given sequentially or sandwiched, offers excellent clinical efficacy and acceptably low toxicity. Our data support the superiority of the sandwich regimen compared to the sequential strategy in stage IIIC EC patients for OS.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Radiotherapy After Skin-Sparing Mastectomy and Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction
    (2019) Sari, Sezin Yuce; Guler, Ozan Cem; Gultekin, Melis; Yildirim, Berna Akkus; Onal, Cem; Ozyigit, Gokhan; Yildiz, Ferah; 0000-0001-6908-3412; 31255547; AAC-5654-2020
    We aimed to evaluate the cosmetic results of radiotherapy in 170 breast cancer patients after implant-based reconstruction. Cosmetic results were excellent or fair in most patients after radiotherapy. However, bolus use, lymphatic irradiation, and the volume receiving at least 110% of the prescribed dose being >1% significantly deteriorated the outcomes. Introduction: We evaluated the cosmetic results of radiotherapy (RT) after implant-based reconstruction (IBR). Patients and Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 170 patients with 171 breast cancers treated between December 2004 and January 2016 in 2 university hospitals. RT fields were reconstructed breast (RB) only in 24 (14%), and RB and regional lymphatics in 147 (86%) breasts, respectively. All but 1 patient received a total 50 Gy with conventional fractionation. All patients received systemic chemotherapy. One hundred thirty-eight (81%) patients received hormonal therapy; 118 tamoxifen and 20 aromatase inhibitor. Results: Median follow-up time was 46.8 months (range, 1-163 months). The 5-year disease-free and overall survival rate was 83% and 93%, respectively. Cosmetic results were considered excellent in 111 (65%), fair in 46 (27%), and bad in 14 (8%) RB by patients. Thirty-four (20%) RB had restorative surgery; because of surgeons' preference because of implant natural life time span in 5, and contracture, fibrosis, deformation, or dislocation of the implant, or cellulitis in the remaining. Statistically significant adverse factors in univariate analysis for impaired cosmetic outcome were bolus use on the RB, lymphatic irradiation, and volume that received at least 110% of the prescribed dose being >1%. The use of bolus material was the only prognostic factor for deterioration of the cosmetic result in multivariate analysis. Conclusion: RT after IBR yields acceptable cosmetic results. Although only 111 (65%) of RBs were considered to have excellent cosmetic results, only a small percentage of patients needed reoperation because of bad cosmetic outcome. (C) 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.