Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Bladder

Objectives: The clinicopathological characteristics, treatment modalities, and effects on the prognosis of pure squamous cell carcinoma (SqCC) and adenocarcinoma (AC) were evaluated. Materials and Methods: 86 patients with pure SqCC and AC bladder cancer were evaluated retrospectively. Results: Of the 86 patients, 51 had SqCC and 35 had AC. No differences in clinicopathological characteristics were observed between patients with AC and SqCC, except for the prevalence of T4 disease (28.6% vs. 51.0%, respectively). In multivariate analysis, older age, stage IV disease, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (> 2) were predictive of a poor overall survival (OS). The median OS was significantly longer for stage I-III patients (82.9 months) treated with surgery +/- chemotherapy (CT) +/- radiotherapy (RT) than for those treated with transurethral resection +/- CT +/- RT (24.3 months) (P = 0.007). The median OS of patients with SqCC and AC who were given platinum-based CT for metastasis was 7.7 and 30.3 months, respectively. Conclusions: Advanced age, stage IV disease, and poor ECOG performance status were factors associated with a poor prognosis. Surgery +/- CT +/- RT resulted in significantly better OS, except in stage IV disease. Patients with metastatic AC had better response rates with platinum- based CT. (c) 2018 S. Karger GmbH, Freibur

(Anatolian Society of Medical Oncology)

Purpose: The extra benefit of adding chemotherapy to effective endocrine therapy (ET) has not been clearly or consistently identified in patients older than 70 years with estrogen receptor (ER) positive and node positive breast cancer. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of adjuvant ET vs chemotherapy plus endocrine therapies (Chemo/ET) in such patients.Methods: In this retrospective multicenter study 191 patients >= 70 years with operated hormone receptor positive breast cancer, who were administered adjuvant ET or Chemo/ET were assessed.Results: The median patient follow-up time was 29.0 months (range 1-252). Therefore disease free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) analysis was limited, due to the rather short median follow-up, and only 30-month cumulative percentages are reported herein. The 30-month DFS rates were 50.0% in the ET arm and 49.0% in the Chemo/ET arm (p=0.79). The 30-month OS rates were 86% in the ET arm and 96.0% in the Chemo/ET arm (p=0.08). Cox proportional hazard model showed that only surgery was independent prognostic factor for survival (p=0.047), while tumor size showed a strong trend for statistical significance (p=0.051).Conclusion: The addition of chemotherapy to endocrine therapy in older patients has no significant impact on DFS and OS

Society of Medical Oncology)

There is very little information about breast cancer characteristics, treatment choices, and survival among elderly patients. The purpose of this multicenter retrospective study was to examine the clinical, pathologic, and biologic characteristics of 620 breast cancer patients age 70 years or older. Between June 1991 and May 2012, 620 patients with breast cancer, recruited from 16 institutions, were enrolled in the retrospective study. Patients had smaller tumors at diagnosis; only 15% of patients had tumors larger than 5 cm. The number of patients who had no axillary lymph node involvement was 203 (32.7%). Ninety-three patients (15.0%) had metastatic disease at diagnosis. Patients were characterized by a higher fraction of pure lobular carcinomas (75.3%). The tumors of the elderly patients were also more frequently estrogen receptor (ER) positive (75.2%) and progesterone receptor (PR) positive (67.3%). The local and systemic therapies for breast cancer differed according to age. An association between age and overall survival has not been demonstrated in elderly patients with breast cancer. In conclusion, the biologic behavior of older patients with breast cancer differs from younger patients, and older patients receive different treatments

Does primary tumor localization has prognostic importance in seminoma patients?: Turkish oncology Group study

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine whether primary tumor localization may be a risk factor for relapse and survival in seminomatous germ cell tumors (GCT) patients. Methods: In our study, 612 seminomatous GCT patients diagnosed in 22 centers between 01.01.1989 and 03.02.2019 were retrospectively evaluated. Patient interview information, patient files and electronic system data were used for the study. Results: The primary tumor was localized in the right testis in 305 (49.9%) patients and in 307 (50.1%) in the left testis. Mean age of the patients was 36 years (range 16-85±10.4). The median follow-up period was 47 months (1-298). Recurrence was observed in 78 (12.7%) patients and 29 (4.7%) died during the follow-up period. Four-year overall survival (OS) was 95.4% and 4-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 84.5%. The relationship between localization and relapse was significant in 197 patients with stage 2 and stage 3 (p=0.003). In this patient group, 41 (20.8%) relapses were observed. Thirty (73.2%) of the relapses were in the right testis and 11 (26.8%) in the left testis. Four-year OS was 92.1% in patients with right tumor; and 98.7% in patients with left tumor (p=0.007). When 612 patients were evaluated with a mean follow-up of 4 years, there was a 6.6% survival advantage in patients with left testicular tumor and this difference was significant (p=0.007). Conclusion: Survival rates of patients with primary right testicular localization were worse compared with left testicular localization, and relapse rates were higher in stage 2 and 3 patients with right testicular localization. © 2020 Zerbinis Publications. All rights reserved

patients?: Turkish Oncology Group Study

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine whether primary tumor localization may be a risk factor for relapse and survival in seminomatous germ cell tumors (GCT) patients.Methods: In our study, 612 seminomatous GCT patients diagnosed in 22 centers between 01.01.1989 and 03.02.2019 were retrospectively evaluated. Patient interview information, patient files and electronic system data were used for the study.Results: The primary tumor was localized in the right testis in 305 (49.9%) patients and in 307 (50.1%) in the left testis. Mean age of the patients was 36 years (range 16-85 +/- 10.4).The median follow-up period was 47 months (1-298). Recurrence was observed in 78 (127%) patients and 29 (4.7%) died during the follow-up period. Four-year overall survival (OS) was 95.4% and 4-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 84.5%. The relationship between localization and relapse was significant in 197 patients with stage 2 and stage 3 (p=0.003). In this patient group, 41 (20.8%) relapses were observed. Thirty (73.2%) of the relapses were in the right testis and 11 (26.8%) in the left testis.Four-year OS was 92.1% in patients with right tumor; and 98.7% in patients with left tumor (p=0.007). When 612 patients were evaluated with a mean follow-up of 4 years, there was a 6.6% survival advantage in patients with left testicular tumor and this difference was significant (p=0.007).Conclusion: Survival rates of patients with primary right testicular localization were worse compared with left testicular localization, and relapse rates were higher in stage 2 and 3 patients with right testicular localization.C1 [Yildiz, Birol; Erturk, Ismail; Acar, Ramazan; Karadurmus, Nuri] Hlth Sci Univ, Gulhane Training & Res Hosp, Dept Med Oncol, Ankara, Turkey.[Kucukarda, Ahmet; Gokyer, Ali] Trakya Univ, Fac Med, Dept Med Oncol, Edirne, Turkey.[Demiray, Atike Gokcen] Pamukkale Univ, Fac Med, Dept Med Oncol, Denizli, Turkey.[Paydas, Semra] Cukurova Univ, Fac Med, Dept Med Oncol, Adana, Turkey.[Aral, Ipek Pinar] Nevsehir State Hosp, Dept Radiat Oncol, Nevsehir, Turkey.[Gumusay, Ozge] Gazi Osman Pasa Univ, Fac Med, Dept Med Oncol, Tokat, Turkey.[Bilici, Ahmet] Medipol Univ, Fac Med, Dept Med Oncol, Istanbul, Turkey.[Akdeniz, Nadiye] Dicle Univ, Fac Med, Dept Med Oncol, Diyarbakir, Turkey.[Bahceci, Aykut] Gaziantep Dr Ersin ARSLAN Training & Res Hosp, Dept Med Oncol, Gaziantep, Turkey.[Demir, Hacer] Afyon Kocatepe Univ, Fac Med, Dept Med Oncol, Afyon, Turkey.[Esin, Ece] Bayindir Hosp, Dept Med Oncol, Ankara, Turkey.[Uyeturk, Ummugul] Abant Izzet Baysal Univ, Fac Med, Dept Med Oncol, Bolu, Turkey.[Okten, Ilker Nihat] Istanbul Medeniyet Univ, Gortepe Training & Res Hosp, Dept Med Oncol, Istanbul, Turkey.[Turk, H. Mehmet] BezmiAlem Vakif Univ, Dept Med Oncol, Istanbul, Turkey.[Topaloglu, Ulas Serkan] Kayseri City Hosp, Dept Internal Med, Kayseri, Turkey.[Basoglu, Tugba] Marmara Univ, Fac Med, Dept Med Oncol, Istanbul, Turkey.[Turhal, Nazim Serdar] Anadolu Med Ctr, Dept Med Oncol, Kocaeli, Turkey.[Cinkir, Havva Yesil] Gaziantep Univ, Dept Med Oncol, Fac Med, Gaziantep, Turkey.[Menekse, Serkan; Kut, Engin] Manisa City Hosp, Dept Med Oncol, Manisa, Turkey.[Cakmak, Yagmur] Kocaeli Univ, Fac Med, Dept Med Oncol, Kocaeli, Turkey.[Urun, Yuksel] Ankara Univ, Fac Med, Dept Med Oncol, Ankara, Turkey.[Dal, Pinar] Eskisehir City Hosp, Dept Med Oncol, Eskisehir, Turkey.[Sakalar, Teoman] Kahramanmaras City Hosp, Dept Med Oncol, Kahramanmaras, Turkey.[Aktepe, Oktay Halit] Hacettepe Univ, Fac Med, Dept Med Oncol, Ankara, Turkey

Committee of the Turkish Oncology Group (TOG)

Objective Fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) is an important psychological trauma associated with reduction in the quality of life, disruptions in the level of adjustment, emotional distress and anxiety. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the impact of patient-physician relationship on FCR. Methods The study was designed as a multicentre survey study. The cancer survivors, who were under remission, were evaluated with structured questionnaires. Patient-physician relationship (PPR) scale in which higher scores indicate better relationship and FCR inventory was used. Results Between January and April 2019, 1,580 patients were evaluated. The median age was 57.0 (19-88), and 66% were female. There was high level of FCR scores in 51% of participants. There was a negative correlation between PPR and FCR scores (r = -.134,p < .001). In multivariate analysis, young age, female gender, history of metastasectomy and worse PPR were associated with high levels of FCR. Conclusion It is the first data showing the adverse impact of worse PPR on FCR. The strategies to improve the PPR should be practised. In addition, the cancer survivors, who are under the risk of FCR, should be evaluated and managed.C1 [Alkan, Ali; Tanriverdi, Ozgur] Mugla Sitki Kocman Univ, Sch Med, Med Oncol, Mugla, Turkey.[Yasar, Arzu; Gurbuz, Mustafa; Senler, Filiz Cay] Ankara Univ, Med Oncol, Sch Med, Ankara, Turkey.[Guc, Zeynep Gulsum; Yavuzsen, Tugba] Dokuz Eylul Univ, Sch Med, Med Oncol, Izmir, Turkey.[Basoglu, Tugba; Yumuk, Perran Fulden] Marmara Univ, Sch Med, Med Oncol, Istanbul, Turkey.[Goksu, Sema Sezgin; Coskun, Hasan Senol] Akdeniz Univ, Med Oncol, Sch Med, Antalya, Turkey.[Basal, Fatma Bugdayci; Ates, Ozturk] Abdurrahman Yurtarslan Res & Training Hosp, Med Oncol, Ankara, Turkey.[Turk, Haci Mehmet] Bezmialem Univ, Sch Med, Med Oncol, Istanbul, Turkey.[Ozdemir, Ozlem] Izmir Bozyak Res & Training Hosp, Med Oncol, Izmir, Turkey.[Cinkir, Havva Yesil] Gaziantep Univ, Sch Med, Med Oncol, Gaziantep, Turkey.[Guven, Deniz Can] Hacettepe Univ, Med Oncol, Sch Med, Ankara, Turkey.[Kus, Tulay] Dr Ersin Arslan Training & Res Hosp, Med Oncol, Gaziantep, Turkey.[Turker, Sema] Diskapi Yildirim Beyazit Res & Training Hosp, Med Oncol, Ankara, Turkey.[Koral, Lokman] Canakkale Onsekiz Mart Univ, Sch Med, Med Oncol, Canakkale, Turkey.[Karakas, Yusuf] Bodrum Acibadem Hosp, Med Oncol, Mugla, Turkey.[Ak, Naziye] Istanbul Univ, Sch Med, Med Oncol, Istanbul, Turkey.[Paydas, Semra] Cukurova Univ, Med Oncol, Sch Med, Adana, Turkey.[Karci, Ebru] Bagcilar Res & Training Hosp, Med Oncol, Istanbul, Turkey.[Demiray, Atike Gokcen] Pamukkale Univ, Med Oncol, Sch Med, Denizli, Turkey.[Demir, Atakan] Acibadem Maslak Hosp, Med Oncol, Istanbul, Turkey.[Alan, Ozkan] Tekirdag Publ Hosp, Med Oncol, Tekirdag, Turkey.[Keskin, Ozge] Selcuk Univ, Sch Med, Med Oncol, Konya, Turkey.[Nayir, Erdinc] VM Med Pk Mersin Hosp, Med Oncol, Mersin, Turkey.[Turhal, Serdar] Anadolu Med Ctr, Med Oncol, Kocaeli, Turkey