Introduction: Approximately 20–33% of all cancer patients are treated with acid-reducing agents (ARAs), most commonly proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), to reduce gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms. Palbociclib and ribociclib are weak bases so their solubility depends on different pH. The solubility of palbociclib dramatically decreases to < 0.5 mg/ml when pH is above 4,5 but ribociclibs’ solubility decreases when pH increases above 6,5. In the current study, we aimed to investigate the effects of concurrent PPIs on palbociclib and ribociclib efficacy in terms of progression-free survival in metastatic breast cancer (mBC) patients. Patients and methods: We enrolled hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative mBC patients treated with endocrine treatment (letrozole or fulvestrant) combined palbociclib or ribociclib alone or with PPI accompanying our observational study. During palbociclib/ribociclib therapy, patients should be treated with "concurrent PPIs" defined as all or more than half of treatment with palbociclib/ribociclib, If no PPI was applied, it was defined as ‘no concurrent PPI’, those who used PPI but less than half were excluded from the study. All data was collected from real-life retrospectively. Results: Our study included 217 patients, 105 of whom received palbociclib and 112 received ribociclib treatment. In the study population CDK inhibitor treatment was added to fulvestrant 102 patients ( 47%), to letrozole 115 patients (53%). In the Palbociclib arm fulvestrant/letrozole ratio was 53.3/46.7%, in the ribociclib arm it was 41.07/58.93%. Of 105 patients who received palbociclib, 65 were on concomitant PPI therapy, 40 were not. Of the 112 patients who received ribociclib, 61 were on concomitant PPI therapy, 51 were not. In the palbociclib group, the PFS of the patients using PPIs was shorter than the PFS of the patients not using (13.04 months vs. unreachable, p < 0.001). It was determined that taking PPIs was an independent predictor of shortening PFS (p < 0.001) in the multivariate analysis, In the ribociclib group, the PFS of the patients using PPIs was shorter than the PFS of the patients not using (12.64 months vs. unreachable, p = 0.003). It was determined that taking PPIs was single statistically independent predictor of shortening PFS (p = 0.003, univariate analysis). Conclusions: Our study demonstrated that concomitant usage of PPIs was associated with shorter PFS in mBC treated with both ribociclib and especially palbociclib. If it needs to be used, PPI selection should be made carefully and low-strength PPI or other ARAs (eg H2 antagonists, antacids) should be preferred.

Preclinical evaluation of bintrafusp alfa (BA) combined with radiotherapy demonstrated greater antitumor effects than BA or radiotherapy alone. In a phase 1 study, BA demonstrated encouraging clinical activity in patients with stage IIIB/IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who had received previous treatment. This multicenter, double-blind, controlled phase 2 study (NCT03840902) evaluated the safety and efficacy of BA with concurrent chemoradiotherapy (cCRT) followed by BA (BA group) vs. placebo with cCRT followed by durvalumab (durvalumab group) in patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 as assessed by the investigator. Based on the recommendation of an independent data monitoring committee, the study was discontinued before the maturity of overall survival data (secondary endpoint). A total of 153 patients were randomized to either BA (n=75) or durvalumab groups (n=78). Median PFS was 12.8 months vs. 14.6 months (stratified hazard ratio: 1.48 [95% confidence interval, 0.69-3.17], in the BA and durvalumab groups, respectively. Trends for overall response rate (29.3% vs. 32.1%) and disease control rate (66.7% vs. 70.5%) were similar between the two groups. Any grade treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 94.6% vs. 96.1% of patients in the BA vs. durvalumab groups, respectively. Bleeding events in the BA group were mostly grade 1 (21.6%) or 2 (9.5%). BA with cCRT followed by BA demonstrated no efficacy benefit over placebo with cCRT followed by durvalumab in patients with stage III unresectable NSCLC.

Background and Objectives: The systemic immune-inflammation index (SII), derived from peripheral blood parameters, has emerged as a novel marker reflecting the balance between host immunity and tumor-related inflammatory burden. This study aimed to investigate the prognostic impact of baseline SII on survival outcomes in patients with gastric or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer undergoing perioperative FLOT (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel) chemotherapy. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective study, 168 patients with histologically confirmed gastric or GEJ cancer who received perioperative FLOT therapy were included. SII was calculated using the formula: SII = (Platelets × Neutrophils)/Lymphocytes. ROC curve analysis determined the optimal SII cutoff for predicting mortality. Patients were categorized into low (SII ≤685) and high (SII >685) groups. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were evaluated using Kaplan–Meier analysis and compared via the log-rank test. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used for univariate and multivariate analysis. Results: The optimal cutoff value for SII was determined to be 685 (AUC: 0.652, 95% CI: 0.558–0.747, p = 0.003). High SII was significantly shorter OS (17.4 vs. 28.2 months, p = 0.001) Multivariate analysis identified high SII (HR = 1.88, 95% CI: 1.36–2.89, p = 0.039), advanced T stage (HR = 3.693, p < 0.001), poor treatment response (HR = 0.36, p < 0.001), and ECOG-PS ≥1 (HR = 3.297, p < 0.001) as independent predictors of mortality. Conclusions: Elevated baseline SII is an independent predictor of worse OS and DFS in gastric and GEJ cancer patients receiving perioperative FLOT chemotherapy. SII may serve as a practical and inexpensive biomarker to support risk stratification and personalized treatment decisions.

Background and Objectives: The HALP (Haemoglobin, Albumin, Lymphocyte and Platelet) score is used to predict the prognosis of different types of cancer. This study aimed to investigate the role of the HALP score in predicting pathological response in early-stage gastric cancer patients. Materials and Methods: This retrospective cohort study was conducted on 118 patients diagnosed with early-stage gastric cancer and subjected to perioperative (FLOT) treatment between 2018 and 2023. The role of the HALP score in predicting the pathological response to perioperative treatment in patients was investigated. Results: The mean age of the 118 patients included in the study was 61.3 ± 11.1 (min = 23; max = 86). In the ROC analysis, the optimum cut-off value for the HALP score in pathological response classification was found to be 28.9 (AUC = 0.710, sensitivity = 56.7%, specificity = 80%, PPV = 86.79%, NPV = 46.15%). The pathological response rate was 69% in all patients, 87% in patients with a HALP score ≥ 28.9, and 52% in patients with a HALP score < 28.9 (p < 0.001). The probability of pathological response is 6.5 times higher in patients with a HALP score ≥ 28.9. In the Fagan nomogram, when the HALP score was ≥28.9, our pathological response probability estimate (post-test response probability) was found to increase to 64.8% (Positive Likelihood Ratio = 3, Negative Likelihood Ratio = 0.53). In patients with HALP scores ≥ 28.9 and <28.9, progression rates were 16.7% and 47.8%, respectively (p < 0.001), and median survival times were 45.4 and 30.6 months (p < 0.001). Conclusions: The HALP score is a useful and easily accessible score for determining pathological responses in patients with locally advanced gastric cancer.

Beslenme desteği, hasta tedavisinin ayrılmaz bir parçasıdır. Bununla birlikte, günlük uygulamalarda beslenme tedavisi hedeflerine ulaşıldığını söylemek zordur. Bu nedenle klinik pratikte beslenme tedavisi uygulamalarını kolaylaştırmaya yönelik girişimlere ihtiyaç vardır. Malnütrisyon tedavisinde ilk seçenekler diyet düzenlemesi ve oral tamamlayıcı nütrisyon ürünleri kullanımıdır. Ancak oral yolla beslenemeyen veya beslenme hedeflerine ulaşılamayan bazı hasta gruplarında tüple beslenme ihtiyacı gerekmektedir. Tüm dünyada tıp fakültesi, beslenme ve diyetetik fakültesi ve uzmanlık eğitimi müfredatları klinik beslenme konusunda genellikle yeterli değildir. Hekim, diyetisyen, hemşire, eczacı ve diğer sağlık profesyonellerine yönelik, enteral beslenme kullanım endikasyonları, uygulanma şekilleri, ürünlerin seçimi, hasta izlemi, komplikasyonların yönetimi ve tedavi sonlandırılmasında yol gösterecek kısa, net ve pratik önerilere odaklı bir rehberin yararlı olacağını düşündük. Bu rehber, alanında deneyimli uzman bir ekip tarafından KEPAN çatısı altında hazırlanmış ve 29 kişiden oluşan KEPAN rehber grubunca onaylanmıştır.

Background and Aims: During liver transplantation, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence remains a critical challenge for patient survival. Targeted therapies, such as sorafenib and regorafenib, have been utilized to manage relapsed HCC in this unique setting. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of Sorafenib and Regorafenib in patients with HCC who experienced recurrence after liver transplantation. We focused on survival outcomes, treatment responses, and the management of side effects in this patient group. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 73 patients who experienced HCC recurrence post-liver transplantation between 2012 and 2022 across 11 oncology centers in Turkey. Patients were categorized according to Child–Pugh classification and treated with sorafenib as first-line therapy and Regorafenib in case of progression. Survival rates were analyzed using the Kaplan–Meier method, and risk factors were evaluated using Cox regression analysis. Results: Of the 73 patients included in the study, 62 were male (84.9%), and 11 were female (15.1%), with a mean age of 61.5 ± 10.9 years. All patients received sorafenib as first-line treatment. Among patients who experienced progression with sorafenib or discontinued treatment due to toxicity, 45.2% (n = 33) continued treatment with regorafenib. The median progression-free survival (PFS1) time with sorafenib was 5.6 months, and the one-year survival rate was 24.3%. The median progression-free survival (PFS2) time with regorafenib, which was administered as second-line treatment, was also calculated as 5.9 months. Overall survival (OS) duration was determined as 35.9 months. The most common side effects associated with both drugs included fatigue, hand and foot syndrome, and hypertension. Significantly better survival outcomes were shown in the Child–Pugh A group compared to other patients. Conclusions: These results suggest that Sorafenib and Regorafenib treatments offer a survival advantage in patients with relapsed HCC post-transplantation. However, individualized treatment strategies and close follow-up are crucial for optimizing outcomes. Further studies are needed to refine therapeutic protocols and enhance the care of this specific patient group.