No studies have evaluated the interaction, quality, and reliability of chemotherapy-related videos published on YouTube. The aim was to evaluate the content of YouTube videos about chemotherapy using 5 different scoring tools. In this cross-sectional register-based study, popular videos on YouTube about the following keywords were examined; “chemotherapy,” “what is chemotherapy,” “types of chemotherapy,” “chemotherapy side effects” and “chemotherapy treatments.” Quality and reliability of video content were measured using the modified DISCERN (mDISCERN), the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), the Global Quality Score (GQS), the Video Information Quality Index (VIQI), and Health on the Net code (HONcode) scores. A total of 108 videos were analyzed in the study. The median duration was 200 (30-2020) seconds and the median total number of views was 17500 (61-8615000). Among the video publishers, private hospitals were the most (n = 36, 33%). The most (n = 71, 66%) populer category of videos were patient education videos. Half (n = 55, 51%) of the narrators in the videos were only oncology professionals. Mean DISCERN, JAMA, GQS, VIQI, and HONcode scores were 2.73 ± 1.18, 1.97 ± 1.05, 2.94 ± 1.08, 14.03 ± 3.73, and 4.68 ± 2.46, respectively. A positive correlation was found between the 5 scoring points (P < .001 for all pairwise comparisons). There was a significant difference between video quality scores according to video categories and video publishers (P < .001 for both). Although most YouTube videos about chemotherapy were helpful to patients, content quality and reliability were moderate-low. Cancer patients looking for information on chemotherapy may find YouTube videos beneficial, but clinicians must be cautious to clear up any misunderstandings.

This study is aimed to investigate the prognostic significance of inflammation indices, including neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio (MLR), platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), systemic immune-inflammation index (SII), and pan-immune-inflammation value (PIV) in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients who had received lutetium labeled prostate-specific membrane antigen (¹⁷⁷Lu–PSMA-617) therapy. Sixty-one mCRPC patients who received ¹⁷⁷Lu–PSMA-617 treatment and followed up in Kocaeli University were included. The relationship between overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) and clinical and laboratory parameters was analyzed by multivariate analyses. The mean age was 69.8 ± 6.9 years. The mean follow-up time was 53.2 ± 24 months. The median OS was 14 (95% CI: 8.8–18.1) and the median PFS was 10.4 (95% CI: 4.7–17.2) months. NLR ≥ 2.7, PLR ≥ 134.27, SII ≥ 570.39, PIV ≥ 408.59 were considered as elevated levels. In the multivariate analysis for OS, baseline ECOG performance score (HR: 1.92, 95% CI: 1.01–3.65, P = .046), high albümin (HR: 0.36, 95% CI: 0.16–0.82, P = .015), primary resistant total prostate-specific-antigen (PSA) (HR: 4.37, 95% CI: 1.84–10.35, P = .001), high NLR (HR: 3.32, 95% CI: 1.66–6.65, P = .001), high MLR (HR: 2.53, 95% CI: 1.35–4.76, P = .004), high PLR (HR: 2.47, 95% CI: 1.23–4.96, P = .01), and high SII (HR: 2.17, 95% CI: 1.09–4.32, P = .027) were associated with shorter OS. However, PIV was not associated with survival (P = .69). No factor other than the primer-resistant PSA could be identified as having an impact on PFS (for the PSA, HR: 4.52, 95% CI: 1.89–10.76, P = .001). In this study, pretreatment NLR, MLR, PLR, and SII demonstrate as powerful independent prognostic indices predicting survival in patients with mCRPC receiving ¹⁷⁷Lu–PSMA-617 therapy.

The most commonly recommended screening test for determining the nutritional status of hospitalized cancer patients is Nutrition Risk Screening-2002 (NRS-2002). NUTRISCORE, on the other hand, is an outpatient cancer patient-specific nutritional screening test that is easier to administer than NRS-2002 and queries tumor location and treatment information received from the patient. We aimed to investigate the validity of NUTRISCORE, in hospitalized cancer patients. In total, 112 patients were enrolled in this study. The NRS 2002 and NUTRISCORE screening tests were performed. The data obtained with NUTRISCORE were compared to the reference test NRS-2002 using the kappa test and ROC curve analysis. The NRS-2002 identified 45.5% of patients as being at risk of malnutrition, while the NUTRISCORE test identified 48.2% (k = 0.516, p < 0.005). The AUC value was 0.759 (95% CI:0.67-0.85) as shown in the ROC analysis. Using the NRS-2002 as a reference test, the sensitivity (S), specificity (SP), Positive Predictive (PPD), and Negative Predictive (NPD) values for the NUTRISCORE test were 76.5% (95% CI:63.7-86.6), 75.4% (95.CI:63.7-85), 72.2% (95% CI:59.4-83), 79%, (95% CI:67.7-88.3) respectively. NUTRISCORE can be used for screening of malnutrition in hospitalized cancer patients.

Background/Objectives: In the REGOMA trial, regorafenib demonstrated an overall survival advantage over lomustine, and it has become a recommended treatment for recurrent glioblastoma in guidelines. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of regorafenib as a third-line treatment for patients with recurrent glioblastoma who progressed while taking bevacizumab-based therapy. Methods: This retrospective, multicenter study in Turkey included 65 patients treated between 2021 and 2023 across 19 oncology centers. The main inclusion criteria were histologically confirmed isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH)-wildtype glioblastoma, progression after second-line bevacizumab-based treatment, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status score of ≤2. Patients received regorafenib 160 mg once daily for the first 3 weeks of each 4-week cycle. Results: The median age of the patients was 53 years (18–67 years), with a median progression-free survival of 2.5 months (95% Confidence Interval: 2.23–2.75) and a median overall survival of 4.1 months (95% CI: 3.52–4.68). The median overall survival was improved in patients who received subsequent therapy after regorafenib treatment compared with those who did not (p = 0.022). Progression-free survival was longer in patients with ECOG 0–1 than in those with ECOG 2 (p = 0.042). The safety profile was consistent with that of the REGOMA trial, with no drug-related deaths observed. Conclusions: Regorafenib shows good efficacy and safety as a third-line treatment for recurrent glioblastoma after bevacizumab-based therapy. This study supports the use of regorafenib and emphasizes the need for further randomized studies to validate its role and optimize treatment strategies.

Objectives: Inflammation plays an important role in cancer development, and various inflammation parameters are used as potential prognostic markers. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the combined use of HALP and H index in predicting pathological response to neoadjuvant therapy in patients with HER2-positive early-stage breast cancer. Method: This retrospective cohort study was conducted on 146 HER2-positive breast cancer patients treated in two centers. To stratify patients by their predicted probability of pathological response, HALP and H index values were combined into a composite biomarker score called the combined response score (CRS). Patients were classified into three groups based on biomarker levels: 0 = low CRS (low predictive score), 1 = intermediate CRS, and 2 = high CRS (high predictive score). These groups reflect predicted response likelihood and do not represent actual pathological outcomes. Pathological response results were evaluated according to the combined response score. Pathological complete response (pCR) was defined as residual cancer burden (RCB) 0, indicating no residual invasive tumor in breast or lymph nodes. Results: The mean age of 146 early-stage breast cancer patients included in our study was 52.3 ± 11.3 (min: 29-max: 83). In the ROC analysis, the optimum cut-off value for the HALP score in pathological response classification was found to be 36 (AUC = 0.608, sensitivity = 76.29%, specificity = 44.9%, PPV = 73%, NPV = 47.89%) and 2.3 for the H index (AUC = 0.641, sensitivity = 65.98%, specificity = 51.02%, PPV = 72.73%, NPV = 43.1%). While the pathological complete response rate was 66.4% in all patients, it was 81.8% in those with a combined score of 2, 51% in those with a score of 1, and 58.6% in those with a score of 0 (p < 0.001). In the logistic regression analysis, the probability of pathological response in patients in the combined score = 2 group is 3.77 times higher than in group 0. In the Fagan nomogram, the pretest probability of pathological response is 66%, while the post-test probability for combined response score group 2 is 81.5%, and for the low-H index < 2.3 and the high-HALP ≥ 36 patient group, our estimate for pathological complete response increases to 82%. Conclusions: The HALP-H index combined score is an important predictor of pathological response in early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer patients, independent of histological type and stage. This new score may enable personalized approaches in treatment planning.