Urine iodine excretion in patients with papillary thyroid cancer evaluation of the relationship with the presence of BRAF mutation

Iodine is an essential element for the production of thyroid hormones. In recent years, it has been suggested that excessive consumption of iodine may play a role in the pathogenesis of papillary thyroid cancer (PTC). In addition, studies have suggested that high iodine consumption is an important risk factor for the formation of a BRAF mutation in the thyroid gland. A prospectively designed study included 132 cases scheduled for thyroidectomy for various reasons. Urine iodine levels of all patients were examined before the operation. The iodine excretion levels of the patients were grouped according to the median urinary iodine concentration determined in community screenings (those with <100 µg L-1 low iodine excretion, those with 100-199 µg L-1 normal iodine excretion, those with 200-299 µg L-1 high iodine excretion). Patients were divided into 3 groups according to the post-operative pathology results. As a result of thyroid histopathology, benign (n: 44), PTC (n: 88) (BRAF (+): 44 and BRAF (-): 44) cases were included in the study. BRAF mutations in patients diagnosed with PTC were evaluated using the “Real Time PCR Melting Curve Analyzer” method. The relationship between urinary iodine excretion levels and clinical, histopathological and BRAF positivity was examined. In our study, no difference was found in urinary iodine excretion between patients with and without PTC. Hashimoto’s thyroiditis was observed more frequently in patients with PTC (p=0.023). In addition, Hashimoto’s thyroiditis was statistically more frequently detected in the BRAF (-) group compared to the BRAF (+) and control group (p=0.034). Despite studies suggesting that high iodine consumption is important in PTC pathogenesis, we did not find a relationship between the mutation and iodine consumption, which plays an important role in the development of PTC

Relation between sarcopenia and dose-limiting toxicity in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who received regorafenib

BackgroundSarcopenia is related to poor prognosis and drug toxicities in solid tumors. The aim of our study is to investigate the predisposition of patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma who started regorafenib treatment to sarcopenia and prolonged survival.MethodsPatients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma who receives regorafenib were search retrospectively. Dose-limiting toxicity was defined as dose reduction or toxicity requiring drug withdrawal. Sarcopenia evaluation was made with computed tomography performed within a month before treatment. Progression-free survival and overall survival were estimated.ResultsThirty-six patients were found as suitable for the study. 63.9% of patients were found as basally sarcopenic. Dose-limiting toxicity occured 13 of 23 patients (56.5%) with basal sarcopenia, whereas only 1 of 13 patients (7.6%) with no sarcopenia exhibited dose-limiting toxicity (p=0.005). Three patients suffered from grade 3-4 toxicity. Hand-foot syndrome, hypertension, and mucosal rash were the most seen side effects. Mean regorafenib treatment duration was 3.36 months. There was no significant difference in the progression-free survival (PFS) and the overall survival (OS) between sarcopenic patients and patients with no sarcopenia. Durations were as OS 24.2 weeks in patients with sarcopenia (95% CI 16.7-31.7), 28.1 weeks in patients with no sarcopenia (95% CI 20.5-35.7) (p=0.36), and as PFS 14.2 weeks in patients with sarcopenia (95% CI 12.1-16.4), 14.8 weeks in patients with no sarcopenia (95% CI 9.7-20.1) (p=0.65).ConclusionDose-limiting toxicity was significantly higher in basally sarcopenic patients who were started regorafenib as treatment of metastatic colorectal carcinoma. There was no significant relationship between overall survival and progression-free survival with sarcopenia

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