Rafal Tarnawski

Prof. Rafal Tarnawski

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

34Years (1993-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 September 2014 in The Lancet Oncology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
RSRoger Stupp
Roger Stupp
MHMonika Hegi
Monika Hegi
TGThierry Gorlia
Thierry Gorlia
SESara C Erridge
Sara C Erridge
JPJames Perry
James Perry
MWMichael Weller
Michael Weller

7 March 2022 in International Journal of Gynecological Cancer
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
JMJyoti S Mayadev
Jyoti S Mayadev
GKGuihao Ke
Guihao Ke
UMUmesh Mahantshetty
Umesh Mahantshetty
MPMarcos David Pereira
Marcos David Pereira
RTRafal Tarnawski
Rafal Tarnawski
TTTakafumi Toita
Takafumi Toita
Cervical cancer represents a significant portion of the global cancer burden for women, with low- and middle-income countries carrying the bulk of this burden. Additionally, underserved populations in countries with sufficient resources may have a higher incidence of cervical cancer and poorer outcomes. Concurrent chemoradiotherapy is the standard-of-care treatment for locally advanced cervical cancer, which includes patients with stage IB3 to IVA disease, and it is effective for many patients; however, cervical cancer-related mortality remains high. The critical nature of cervical cancer treatment is underscored by the recent launch of the World Health Organization global initiative to accelerate the elimination of cervical cancer using a triple-intervention strategy of increased vaccination, screening, and treatment. The initiative calls for 90% of all patients diagnosed with cervical cancer to receive the appropriate treatment, but to reach this global goal there are significant barriers related to radiotherapy that must be addressed. We discuss and review evidence of the lack of adherence to guideline-recommended treatment, brachytherapy underutilization, limited access to radiotherapy in low- and middle-income countries, as well as regional limitations within high-income countries, as the major barriers to radiotherapy treatment for locally advanced cervical cancer. We further review ways these barriers are currently being addressed and, in some cases, make additional recommendations to address these issues. Finally, despite receiving recommended treatments, many patients with locally advanced cervical cancer have a poor prognosis. With effective administration of current standards of care, the global community will be able to shift focus to advancing treatment efficacy for these patients. We review several types of therapies under clinical investigation that are additions to concurrent chemoradiotherapy, including immune checkpoint inhibitors, antiangiogenic agents, DNA repair inhibitors, human papillomavirus vaccines, and radiosensitizing nanoparticles.

11 March 2015 in Neuro-Oncology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
LNLouis Nabors
Louis Nabors
KFKaren L. Fink
Karen L. Fink
TMTom Mikkelsen
Tom Mikkelsen
DGDanica Grujicic
Danica Grujicic
RTRafal Tarnawski
Rafal Tarnawski
DRDavid A. Reardon
David A. Reardon
Survival outcomes for patients with glioblastoma remain poor, particularly for patients with unmethylated O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) gene promoter. This phase II, randomized, open-label, multicenter trial investigated the efficacy and safety of 2 dose regimens of the selective integrin inhibitor cilengitide combined with standard chemoradiotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma and an unmethylated MGMT promoter. Overall, 265 patients were randomized (1:1:1) to standard cilengitide (2000 mg 2×/wk; n = 88), intensive cilengitide (2000 mg 5×/wk during wk 1−6, thereafter 2×/wk; n = 88), or a control arm (chemoradiotherapy alone; n = 89). Cilengitide was administered intravenously in combination with daily temozolomide (TMZ) and concomitant radiotherapy (RT; wk 1−6), followed by TMZ maintenance therapy (TMZ/RT→TMZ). The primary endpoint was overall survival; secondary endpoints included progression-free survival, pharmacokinetics, and safety and tolerability. Median overall survival was 16.3 months in the standard cilengitide arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.686; 95% CI: 0.484, 0.972; P = .032) and 14.5 months in the intensive cilengitide arm (HR, 0.858; 95% CI: 0.612, 1.204; P = .3771) versus 13.4 months in the control arm. Median progression-free survival assessed per independent review committee was 5.6 months (HR, 0.822; 95% CI: 0.595, 1.134) and 5.9 months (HR, 0.794; 95% CI: 0.575, 1.096) in the standard and intensive cilengitide arms, respectively, versus 4.1 months in the control arm. Cilengitide was well tolerated. Standard and intensive cilengitide dose regimens were well tolerated in combination with TMZ/RT→TMZ. Inconsistent overall survival and progression-free survival outcomes and a limited sample size did not allow firm conclusions regarding clinical efficacy in this exploratory phase II study.

1 June 2003 in International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
RSRafał Suwiński
Rafał Suwiński
ASAnna Sowa
Anna Sowa
TRTomasz Rutkowski
Tomasz Rutkowski
Jerzy WydmanskiJerzy Wydmanski
Jerzy Wydmanski
RTRafal Tarnawski
Rafal Tarnawski
BMBoguslaw Maciejewski
Boguslaw Maciejewski

1 March 2017 in International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
LMLoren K. Mell
Loren K. Mell
ISIgor Sirak
Igor Sirak
LWLichun Wei
Lichun Wei
RTRafal Tarnawski
Rafal Tarnawski
UMUmesh Mahantshetty
Umesh Mahantshetty
AMA.J. Mundt
A.J. Mundt

1 May 2000 in Radiotherapy and Oncology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
KSKrzysztof Skladowski
Krzysztof Skladowski
BMBogusław Maciejewski
Bogusław Maciejewski
MGMaria Golen
Maria Golen
BPBolesław Pilecki
Bolesław Pilecki
WPWiesława Przeorek
Wiesława Przeorek
RTRafal Tarnawski
Rafal Tarnawski