Haematologic Parameters in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients Treated with Capecitabine Combination Therapy Colorectal cancer;chemotherapy response;MCV;PLT;NLR; Background: The standard treatment in the metastatic colorectal cancer consists of 5-FU based infusional regimens. However, with oral fluoropyrimidines, equal tumor responses may be obtained. Capecitabine causes macrocytosis of the cells by inhibition of DNA synthesis. In this context, a relationship was found between mean corpuscular volume (MCV) and response to therapy in breast cancer patients treated with Capecitabine, but whether this relationship also pertains in colorectal cancer has not been established. Materials and Methods: A total of 102 metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated with a oxaliplatin (XELOX)${\pm}$Bevacizumab combination were retrospectively evaluated. Patients were randomized into three groups. Hematological parameters (MCV, MPV, PCT, PLT, NLR) were recorded retrospectively, before treatment and after 3 cycles of chemotherapy. Results: After three cycles of therapy, 20 (19.6%) patients had progressive disease (PD), 41 (40.1%) had stable disease (SD), and 41 (40.1%) demonstrated a partial response (PR). In 62 (60.7%) treatment was with capesitabin plus XELOX therapy, and in 40 (39.2%) it was XELOX-Bevacizumab combination therapy. There was no difference among three groups before the treatment in terms of MCV, MPV, PCT, PLT, and NLR. MCV showed significant increase in chemotherapy response groups (PR and SD). In addition, a significant decrease was observed for platelet count in chemotherapy response groups. While NLR decrease was seen in only a PR group, PCT decrease was observed in all three groups. PCT and PLT values were higher in patients receiving Bevacizumab. Conclusions: PLT, PCT, MPV, and NLR values were decreased due to Capecitabine-based chemotherapy, however MCV was increased. PCT and PLT values were higher in patients who received Bevacizumab than those who did not. MCV, PLT, and NLR can be considered as important factors in predicting response to colorectal carcinoma treatment.

Background: Increasing use of ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT in cancer patients, has led to more common detection of ¹⁸F-FDG uptake in the gastrointestinal tract (GIT). Aims: The objective of this study was to assess ¹⁸F-FDG uptake in incidental and known GIT malignancy. Methods: A total of 6500 patients followed-up in a single and tertiary center between January 2010 and September 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. Of 2850 patients assessed with ¹⁸FDG-PET/CT, known GIT malignancy and ¹⁸F-FDG uptake cases during follow-up were included in the study. Results: Of 658 patients with ¹⁸F-FDG uptake, 150 patients who underwent endoscopy were included in the study. Seventy-seven of these patients had known GIT malignancy and 73 had incidental ¹⁸F-FDG uptake. Among these 73 patients; 7 (9.6%) had malignancy, 20 (27,2%) adenoma and 24 (32.9%) inflammation that were confirmed. Endoscopy was normal in 22 (30.2%) patients. One hundred forty-three (95.3%) patients had focal and 7 (4.7%) had diffuse uptake. While no malignancy was detected in patients with diffuse uptake, 58.7% (84/143) of the patients with focal uptake presented malignancy. Mean the standardized uptake value (SUV) max values were found as 15.0 ± 10.6 (range, 3.8–56.5) in malignant disease, 10.2 ± 4.3 (range, 2.4-19.7) in adenoma, 7.3 ± 3.6 (range, 3.6–18.7) in inflammation, and 9.8 ± 4.2 (range, 3.8–19.9) in normal endoscopy groups (p < 0.001, rho = 0.378). Conclusion: Although this study demonstrated high probability of malignant disease with increased ¹⁸F-FDG uptake in the GIT, it would be a more appropriate approach to confirm all patients with ¹⁸F-FDG uptake through endoscopy as SUVmax values vary in a wide range.