Browsing by Author "Cihan, Şener"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2

The Clinical Importance of Fibroblast Growth Factor 23 on Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients Without Druggable Alterations in Genes as Egfr or Alk or Ros1 Fibroblast Growth Factor 23 and Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
(2020) Cihan, Şener; Çekin, Ruhper; Seçmeler, Şaban; Atcı, Muhammed Mustafa; Ocak, Birol; Sakin, Abdullah; Arıcı, Serdar
Objectives: We aimed to investigate the relation between serum fibroblast growth factor (FGF) 23 levels and clinicopathologic features of stage 3B and 4 non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients without druggable alterations ingenes as epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) or rearrangements of the anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) or c-ROSoncogene 1 (ROS1), by comparing healthy control group.Methods: This was a prospective, single-center study. Newly diagnosed stage 3B and 4 NSCLC patients without druggable alterations in genes as EGFR, ALK or ROS1 and healthy control in similar age, without any chronic disease andvitamin D deficiency were enrolled in the study. Fibroblast growth factor 23 levels were compared between groups.Results: Forty men newly diagnosed stage 3B and 4 patients and 24 healthy men were enrolled. The median age ofpatients and controls were 54.7 and 53.1 years. The number of patients were 22 (55.0%) and 18 (45.0%) in stage 3B andstage 4 groups respectively. The mean FGF 23 level was calculated as 87.7±58.0 pg/ml in patients group and 63.1±11.4pg/ml in control group (p=0.045). Fibroblast growth factor 23 levels were 85.5±42.5 pg/ml and 89.6±69.1 in metastaticand non-metastatic patients respectively (p=0.532). The median FGF 23 levels were 91.1±58.4 pg/ml and 92.5±60.8 pg/ml in squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma groups respectively (p=0.926).Conclusion: Our study suggests that high FGF-FGFR interaction may be causative for stage 3B and 4 NSCLC withoutdruggable alterations in genes as EGFR, ALK or ROS1 and is important in terms of suggesting the FGF pathway as a newtreatment target in NSCLC patients.
The Evaluation of Efficacy and Tolerability of Gemcitabine Vs. Capecitabine Therapy in the Second-Line Setting for Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer Patients With Poor Performance Status
(2019) Yasar, Nurgul; Sakin, Abdullah; Cihan, Şener; Geredeli, Caglayan; Atcı, Muhammed Mustafa; Sahin, Suleyman; Demir, Cumhur
Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of single-agent gemcitabine vs.capecitabine therapy in the second-line setting for metastatic Pancreatic Cancer (mPC) patients withpoor performance status.Material and methods: A total of 48 patients with mPC, who were followed and treated in oncologycenter between 2012 and 2017, were included. After a failure of first-line therapy, patients with an ECOGPS 2 treated with capecitabine or gemcitabine monotherapy in the secondline setting were retrospectively analyzed.Results: Of the 48 patients, 26(54.2%) were males and 22(45.8%) were females. The median age of thepatients was 62 years(range, 31-82). Treatment regimens in the first-line setting were as follows;gemcitabine+cisplatin in 24(50%) patients, gemcitabine+nub-paclitaxel in 4(8.3%) patients, FOLFIRINOXin 8(16.7%) patients, FOLFOX in 8(16.7%) patients, and gemcitabine+oxaliplatine in 4(8.3%) patients. Afterprogression on first-line therapy, 29(60.5%) patients were treated with capecitabine in the second-linesetting, while 19(39.5%) patients were given gemcitabine. Median progression-free survival was found tobe 4 months(95% CI,1.9-6.0) in patients receiving capecitabine compared to 2 months(95% CI, 0.5-3.4) inthose treated with gemcitabine (p¼0.271). Median overall survival was 6.0 months(95% CI, 2.0-9.9) inpatients receiving capecitabine therapy versus 5.0 months (95% CI, 1.0-8.9) in those treated with gemcitabine monotherapy (p¼0.353).Conclusions: Optimal second-line treatment for mPC has not yet been established. In the present study,capecitabine monotherapy was compared to gemcitabine and it was found that they both had similarefficacy in the second-line treatment for mPC patients who were not eligible for combination chemotherapy regimen.