Research Outputs
Permanent URI for this communityhttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14288/2
Browse
4 results
Search Results
Publication Metadata only Genomic classifiers in personalized prostate cancer radiation therapy approaches: a systematic review and future perspectives based on international consensus(Elsevier Ltd, 2023) Spohn, Simon K.B.; Draulans, Cedric; Kishan, Amar U.; Spratt, Daniel; Ross, Ashley; Maurer, Tobias; Berlin, Alejandro; Blanchard, Pierre; Collins, Sean; Bronsert, Peter; Chen, Ronald; Pra, Alan Dal; de Meerleer, Gert; Eade, Thomas; Haustermans, Karin; Hölscher, Tobias; Höcht, Stefan; Ghadjar, Pirus; Davicioni, Elai; Heck, Matthias; Kerkmeijer, Linda G.W.; Kirste, Simon; Tselis, Nikolaos; Tran, Phuoc T.; Pinkawa, Michael; Pommier, Pascal; Deltas, Constantinos; Schmidt-Hegemann, Nina-Sophie; Wiegel, Thomas; Zilli, Thomas; Tree, Alison C.; Qiu, Xuefeng; Murthy, Vedang; Epstein, Jonathan I.; Graztke, Christian; Gao, Xin; Grosu, Anca L.; Kamran, Sophia C.; Zamboglou, Constantinos; Tilki, Derya; Other; School of Medicine; Koç University Hospital; N/ACurrent risk-stratification systems for prostate cancer (PCa) do not sufficiently reflect the disease heterogeneity. Genomic classifiers (GC) enable improved risk stratification after surgery, but less data exist for patients treated with definitive radiation therapy (RT) or RT in oligo-/metastatic disease stages. To guide future perspectives of GCs for RT, we conducted (1) a systematic review on the evidence of GCs for patients treated with RT and (2) a survey of experts using the Delphi method, addressing the role of GCs in personalized treatments to identify relevant fields of future clinical and translational research. We performed a systematic review and screened ongoing clinical trials on ClinicalTrials.gov. Based on these results, a multidisciplinary international team of experts received an adapted Delphi method survey. Thirty-one and 30 experts answered round 1 and round 2, respectively. Questions with ≥75% agreement were considered relevant and included in the qualitative synthesis. Evidence for GCs as predictive biomarkers is mainly available to the postoperative RT setting. Validation of GCs as prognostic markers in the definitive RT setting is emerging. Experts used GCs in patients with PCa with extensive metastases (30%), in postoperative settings (27%), and in newly diagnosed PCa (23%). Forty-seven percent of experts do not currently use GCs in clinical practice. Expert consensus demonstrates that GCs are promising tools to improve risk-stratification in primary and oligo-/metastatic patients in addition to existing classifications. Experts were convinced that GCs might guide treatment decisions in terms of RT-field definition and intensification/deintensification in various disease stages. This work confirms the value of GCs and the promising evidence of GC utility in the setting of RT. Additional studies of GCs as prognostic biomarkers are anticipated and form the basis for future studies addressing predictive capabilities of GCs to optimize RT and systemic therapy. The expert consensus points out future directions for GC research in the management of PCa.Publication Metadata only In Regard to Hammer et al.(Elsevier Ltd, 2023) Önal, Cem; Oymak, Ezgi; Bölükbaşı, Yasemin; Spratt, Daniel E.; Ward, Matthew C.; Fasola, Carolina E.; White, Richard L.; Bentzen, Søren M.; Khan, Atif J.; Vicini, Frank; Shah, Chirag; Vaidya, Jayant S.; Bulsara, Max; Wenz, Frederik; Sperk, Elena; Massarut, Samuele; Alvarado, Michael; Williams, Norman R.; Brew-Graves, Chris; Bernstein, Marcelle; Holmes, Dennis; Vinante, Lorenzo; Pigorsch, Steffi; Lundgren, Steiner; Uhl, Valery; Joseph, David; Tobias, Jeffrey S.; Sezen, Duygu; Faculty Member; School of Medicine; 170535N/APublication Metadata only Nanotechnology-based electrochemical biosensors for monitoring breast cancer biomarkers(John Wiley and Sons Inc, 2022) Nasrollahpour, Hassan; Khalilzadeh, Balal; Hasanzadeh, Mohammad; Rahbarghazi, Reza; Estrela, Pedro; Naseri, Abdolhossein; Sillanpää, Mika; Department of Mechanical Engineering; Taşoğlu, Savaş; Faculty Member; Department of Mechanical Engineering; Koç University Research Center for Translational Medicine (KUTTAM) / Koç Üniversitesi Translasyonel Tıp Araştırma Merkezi (KUTTAM); College of Engineering; 291971Breast cancer is categorized as the most widespread cancer type among women globally. On-time diagnosis can decrease the mortality rate by making the right decision in the therapy procedure. These features lead to a reduction in medication time and socioeconomic burden. The current review article provides a comprehensive assessment for breast cancer diagnosis using nanomaterials and related technologies. Growing use of the nano/biotechnology domain in terms of electrochemical nanobiosensor designing was discussed in detail. In this regard, recent advances in nanomaterial applied for amplified biosensing methodologies were assessed for breast cancer diagnosis by focusing on the advantages and disadvantages of these approaches. We also monitored designing methods, advantages, and the necessity of suitable (nano) materials from a statistical standpoint. The main objective of this review is to classify the applicable biosensors based on breast cancer biomarkers. With numerous nano-sized platforms published for breast cancer diagnosis, this review tried to collect the most suitable methodologies for detecting biomarkers and certain breast cancer cell types.Publication Metadata only Robotic radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer in renal transplant recipients: results from a multicenter series(Elsevier B.V., 2022) Marra, Giancarlo; Agnello, Marco; Giordano, Andrea; Soria, Francesco; Oderda, Marco; Dariane, Charles; Timsit, Marc-Oliver; Branchereau, Julien; Hedli, Oussama; Mesnard, Benoit; Olsburgh, Jonathon; Kulkarni, Meghana; Kasivisvanathan, Veeru; Breda, Alberto; Biancone, Luigi; Gontero, Paolo; Tilki, Derya; Other; School of Medicine; Koç University Hospital; N/ABackground: Despite an expected increase in prostate cancer (PCa) incidence in the renal transplant recipient (RTR) population in the near future, robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in these patients has been poorly detailed. It is not well understood whether results are comparable to RARP in the non-RTR setting. Objective: To describe the surgical technique for RARP in RTR and report results from our multi-institutional experience. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a retrospective review of the experience of four referral centers. Surgical Procedure: Transperitoneal RARP with pelvic lymph node dissection in selected patients. Measurements: We measured patient, PCa, and graft baseline features; intraoperative and postoperative parameters; complications, (Clavien classification); and oncological and functional outcomes. Results and Limitations: We included 41 men. The median age, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, preoperative renal function, and prostate-specific antigen were 60 yr (interquartile range [IQR] 57–64), 2 points (IQR 2–3), 45 ml/min (IQR 30–62), and 6.5 ng/ml (IQR 5.2–10.2), respectively. Four men (9.8%) had a biopsy Gleason score >7. The majority of the patients (70.7%) did not undergo lymphadenectomy. The median operating time, hospital stay, and catheterization time were 201 min (IQR 170–250), 4 d (IQR 2–6), and 10 d (IQR 7–13), respectively. At final pathology, 11 men had extraprostatic extension and seven had positive surgical margins. At median follow-up of 42 mo (IQR 24–65), four men had biochemical recurrence, including one case of local PCa persistence and one local recurrence. No metastases were recorded while two patients died from non–PCa-related causes. Continence was preserved in 86.1% (p not applicable) and erections in 64.7% (p = 0.0633) of those who were continent/potent before the procedure. Renal function remained unchanged (p = 0.08). No intraoperative complications and one major (Clavien 3a) complication were recorded. Conclusions: RARP in RTR is safe and feasible. Overall, operative, oncological, and functional outcomes are comparable to those described for the non-RTR setting, with graft injury remaining undescribed. Further research is needed to confirm our findings. Patient summary: Robot-assisted removal of the prostate is safe and feasible in patients who have a kidney transplant. Cancer control, urinary and sexual function results, and surgical complications seem to be similar to those for patients without a transplant, but further research is needed.