Physician-reported ECOG-PS versus patient-reported (self) ECOG-PS: Which one is a better predictor of survival in cancer?

The aim of this study is to determine the discrepancy and agreement between Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG-PS) scores evaluated by doctors and patients and examine the factors that influence the performance evaluation of doctors and patients. This study is a prospective and descriptive case-control study. General, demographic, and oncologic data of the patients were collected. e-control study. General, demographic, and oncologic data of the patients were collected. Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) anxiety and depression surveys were conducted to determine patients' levels of anxiety and depression, and at the same time, both the doctors and the patients were asked to determine their performance status. As a result, the discrepancy in performance evaluation between the patient and the doctor, the factors affecting this discrepancy, and its effect on progression and survival were examined. 277 patients were included. 146 (52.7%) were male, and 131 (47.3%) were female. The most common cancers were breast cancer (17.7%, n=49) and lung cancer (17.3%, n=48). It was found that the doctors' assessment of patient performance increased the progression risk by 3.1 times (HR: 3.080, 95% CI: 1,671-5,675) in ECOG-PS 2 compared to ECOG-PS 0 and by 5 times (HR: 4.980, 95% CI 1.405-17.646) in ECOG-PS 3 compared to ECOG-PS 0. Our study determined a weak agreement between the doctor and patient in terms of performance assessment. The most significant reason for this discrepancy was found to be due to the levels of depression or anxiety in patients. In conclusion, it was demonstrated that the performance evaluations determined by doctors are more accurate and meaningful in terms of progression and survival results compared to those determined by patients. [Med-Science 2023; 12(3.000): 827-52

Real life experience of patients with locally advanced gastric and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a Turkish oncology group study

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) in gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) and gastric cancer (GC) was shown to improve survival in recent studies. We aimed to share our real-life experience of patients who received NACT to compare the efficacy and toxicity profile of different chemotherapy regimens in our country. This retrospective multicentre study included locally advanced GC and GEJ cancer patients who received NACT between 2007 and 2021. Relation between CT regimens and pathological evaluation were analysed. A total of 794 patients from 45 oncology centers in Turkey were included. Median age at the time of diagnosis was 60 (range: 18-86). Most frequent NACT regimens used were FLOT (65.4%), DCF (17.4%) and ECF (8.1%), respectively. In the total study group, pathological complete remission (pCR) rate was 7.2%, R0 resection rate 86.4%, and D2 dissection rate was 66.8%. Rate of pCR and near-CR (24%), and R0 resection (84%) were numerically higher in FLOT arm (p > 0.05). Patients who received FLOT had also higher chemotherapy-related toxicity rate compared to patients who received other regimens (p > 0.05). Median follow-up time was 16 months (range: 1-154 months). Estimated median overall survival (OS) was 58.4months (95% CI: 35.2-85.7) and disease-free survival (DFS) was 50.7 months (95% CI: 25.4-75.9). The highest 3-year estimated OS rate was also shown in FLOT arm (68%). We still do not know which NACT regimen is the best choice for daily practice. Clinicians should tailor treatment regimens according to patients' multifactorial status and comorbidities for to obtain best outcomes. Longer follow-up period needs to validate our results

Efficacy of first-line CDK 4-6 inhibitors in premenopausal patients with metastatic breast cancer and the effect of dose reduction due to treatment-related neutropenia on efficacy: a Turkish Oncology Group (TOG) study

The only phase 3 study on the effectiveness of CDK 4-6 inhibitors in first-line treatment in premenopausal patients with hormone receptor (HR) positive, HER2 negative metastatic breast cancer is the MONALEESA-7 study, and data on the effectiveness of palbociclib is limited. Data are also limited regarding the effectiveness of CDK 4-6 inhibitors in patients whose dose was reduced due to neutropenia, the most common side effect of CDK 4-6 inhibitors. In our study, we aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of palbociclib and ribociclib in first-line treatment in patients with premenopausal metastatic breast cancer and the effect of dose reduction due to neutropenia on progression-free survival. Our study is a multicenter, retrospective study, and factors affecting progression-free survival (PFS) were examined in patients diagnosed with metastatic premenopausal breast cancer from 29 different centers and receiving combination therapy containing palbociclib or ribociclib in the metastatic stage. 319 patients were included in the study. The mPFS for patients treated with palbociclib was 26.83 months, and for those receiving ribociclib, the mPFS was 29.86 months (p = 0.924). mPFS was 32.00 months in patients who received a reduced dose, and mPFS was 25.96 months in patients who could take the initial dose, and there was no statistical difference (p = 0.238). Liver metastasis, using a fulvestrant together with a CDK 4-6 inhibitor, ECOG PS 1 was found to be a negative prognostic factor. No new adverse events were observed. In our study, we found PFS over 27 months in patients diagnosed with premenopausal breast cancer with CDK 4-6 inhibitors used in first-line treatment, similar to post-menopausal patients. We did not detect any difference between the effectiveness of the two CDK 4-6 inhibitors, and we showed that there was no decrease in the effectiveness of the CDK 4-6 inhibitor in patients whose dose was reduced due to neutropenia