Araştırma Çıktıları
Permanent URI for this communityhttps://hdl.handle.net/11443/931
Browse
2 results
Search Results
Item Should pancreas cyst fluids be divided into two for cytological diagnosis and biochemical tests?(AVES, 2019-01-01) Sahin, Davut; Cicek, Bahattin; Akpolat, Iikser; Sisman, Gurhan; Tekkesin, NilgunBackground/Aims: The aim of the present study was to investigate whether pancreas cyst fluids should be divided into two for cytological diagnosis and biochemical tests. Materials and Methods: The present study was conducted with fluids aspirated from 12 pancreas cysts. The fluids were divided into two and sent to the cytopathology (fluid 1) and biochemistry (fluid 2) laboratories. Fluid 1 was centrifuged at the cytopathology laboratory. Cytology slides were prepared from the deposit, and the supernatant was sent to the biochemistry laboratory. Fluid 2 was centrifuged at the biochemistry laboratory, and amylase, carcinoembryonic antigen, and cancer antigen 19.9 levels were determined in the supernatant. These procedures were repeated for fluid 1 from the cytopathology laboratory. The remaining fluid 2 was sent to the cytopathology laboratory. Fluid 1-like slides were prepared from fluid 2 in the cytopathology laboratory. Cytological diagnoses of fluid 1 and fluid 2 were compared, and the Pearson correlation coefficient for biochemical test results was identified. Results: 92\% of fluid 1 and 50\% of fluid 2 were diagnostic. Biochemical test results of fluid 1 and fluid 2 were similar, and the Pearson correlation coefficient was high. Conclusion: Our results showed that pancreatic cyst fluids did not need to be divided into two for cytological diagnosis and biochemical tests. Following centrifugation of the whole fluid at the cytopathology laboratory, the deposit and the supernatant can be used for cytological diagnosis and for biochemical tests, respectively. With this protocol, the sensitivity of cytological diagnoses and biochemical tests of pancreatic cyst fluids may increase.Item Dealing with the gray zones in the management of gastric cancer: The consensus statement of the Istanbul Group(AVES, 2019-01-01) Aytac, Erman; Aslan, Fatih; Cicek, Bahattin; Erdamar, Sibel; Gurses, Bengi; Guven, Koray; Falay, Okan; Karahasanoglu, Tayfun; Selcukbiricik, Fatih; Selek, Ugur; Atalar, Banu; Balik, Emre; Tozun, Nurdan; Rozanes, Izzet; Arican, Ali; Hamzaoglu, Ismail; Baca, Bilgi; Mandell, Nil Molinas; Saruc, Murat; Goksel, Suha; Demir, Gokhan; Agaoglu, Fulya; Yakicier, Cengiz; Ozbek, Ugur; Ozben, Volkan; Ozyar, Enis; Guner, Ahmet Levent; Er, Ozlem; Kaban, Kerim; Bolukbasi, Yasemin; Bugra, Dursun; Ahishali, Emel; Asian, Fatih; Boz-bas, Aysun; Hamzaoglu, Hulya; Karaman, Ahmet; Kucukmetin, Nurten Turkel; Vardareli, Eser Kutsal; Onder, Fatih Oguz; Sisman, Gurhan; Tiftikci, Arzu; Unal, Hakan Umit; Yapali, Suna; Acar, Sami; Agcaoglu, Orhan; Aghayeva, Afag; Akyuz, Ali; Atasoy, Deniz; Batik, Emre; Bayraktar, Ilknur Erenler; Bayram, Onur; Bilgic, Cagri; Bilgin, Ismail Ahmet; Can, Ugur; Dulgeroglu, Onur; Durukan, Ugur; Gencosmanoglu, Rasim; Gonenc, Murat; Gurbuz, Bulent; Kaya, Mesut; Omarov, Nail; Ozben, Volkan; Ozgur, Ilker; Ozoran, Emre; Sobutay, Erman; Uras, Cihan; Uymaz, Derya; Zenger, Serkan; Ozbek, Ugur; Yakicier, M. Cengiz; Afsar, Cigdem Usul; Bozkurt, Mustafa; Demir, Atakan; Er, Ozlem; Kanitez, Metin; Korkmaz, Taner; Mandel, Nil Molina; Mert, Askhan Guven; Ozer, Leyla; Sonmez, Ozlem; Tunali, Didem; Uluc, Basak Oyan; Yazar, Aziz; Yildiz, Ibrahim; Demirkurek, Cengiz; Guner, Ahmet Levent; Vardareli, Erkan; Armutlu, Aye; Baba, Fisun; Ersozlu, Ilker; Kapran, Yersu; Sahin, Davut; Abacioglu, Mehmet Ufuk; Bese, Nuran; Durankus, Nilufer Kilic; Gural, Zeynep; Ozyar, Enis; Sengoz, Meric; Sezen, Duygu; Caliskan, Can; Guven, Koray; Karaaslan, Ercan; Kizilkaya, Esref; Suleyman, Erdogan; Grp, IstanbulThe geographical location and differences in tumor biology significantly change the management of gastric cancer. The prevalence of gastric cancer ranks fifth and sixth among men and women, respectively, in Turkey. The international guidelines from the Eastern and Western countries fail to manage a considerable amount of inconclusive issues in the management of gastric cancer. The uncertainties lead to significant heterogeneities in clinical practice, lack of homogeneous data collection, and subsequently, diverse outcomes. The physicians who are professionally involved in the management of gastric cancer at two institutions in Istanbul, Turkey, organized a consensus meeting to address current problems and plan feasible, logical, measurable, and collective solutions in their clinical practice for this challenging disease. The evidence-based data and current guidelines were reviewed. The gray zones in the management of gastric cancer were determined in the first session of this consensus meeting. The second session was constructed to discuss, vote, and ratify the ultimate decisions. The identification of the T stage, the esophagogastric area, imaging algorithm for proper staging and follow-up, timing and patient selection for neoadjuvant treatment, and management of advanced and metastatic disease have been accepted as the major issues in the management of gastric cancer. The recommendations are presented with the percentage of supporting votes in the results section with related data.