MILENA PEREZ MAK
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Instituto do Câncer do Estado de São Paulo, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina - Médico
LIM/24 - Laboratório de Oncologia Experimental, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina
LIM/24 - Laboratório de Oncologia Experimental, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina
21 resultados
Resultados de Busca
Agora exibindo 1 - 10 de 21
bookPart Câncer de pulmão(2023) FêDE, Angelo Bezerra de Souza; TAKAHASHI, Tiago Kenji; MAK, Milena Perez; CASTRO JUNIOR, Gilberto debookPart Princípios do tratamento oncológico(2023) BRAGA, Henrique Faria; MAK, Milena Perez; TAKAHASHI, Tiago KenjibookPart Câncer de pele não melanoma(2023) AMARAL, Paulo Siqueira do; CAMARGO, Caio Lamunier de Abreu; MAK, Milena PerezbookPart Obstrução maligna intestinal(2023) MAK, Milena Perez- Patient's perceptions of oral and oropharyngeal cancer diagnosis disclosure: communication aspects based on SPIKES protocol(2023) ALVES, Carolina G. B.; RIBEIRO, Ana Carolina Prado; BRANDAO, Thais Bianca; TONAKI, Juliana O.; PEDROSO, Caique Mariano; RIVERA, Cesar; EPSTEIN, Joel B.; MIGLIORATI, Cesar Augusto; KOWALSKI, Luiz Paulo; MAK, Milena Perez; CASTRO, Gilberto; LOPES, Marcio Ajudarte; SANTOS-SILVA, Alan RogerObjective. Breaking bad medical news is a complex task of clinical practice. The manner in which this is done has a significant impact on patients. This study aimed to assess patient's perceptions regarding oral and oropharyngeal cancer diagnosis disclosure according to the ""SPIKES"" protocol. Study Design. This cross-sectional study used a questionnaire with 21 SPIKES-based items. The questionnaire was administered to 100 patients with recently diagnosed oral and oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma who evaluated each item according to their preference and experience. Results. Nineteen items showed a significant difference between patient's preference and recalled experience. Eighteen of these items showed lower experience scores primarily related to the amount of information desired by patients, presence of a compan-ion, time to express feelings, and summary of information. Most patients preferred receiving as much information as possible about the diagnosis. However, only 35% reported that they had obtained sufficient information. Patients who were aware of can-cer diagnostic suspicion had better communication experiences. Conclusions. Protocols may be useful to guide health professionals to support patient-centered strategies to disclose oral cancer diagnoses. (Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2023;135:518-529)
- Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab Versus EXTREME Regimen as First-Line Treatment for Recurrent/Metastatic Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck: The Final Results of CheckMate 651(2023) HADDAD, Robert I.; HARRINGTON, Kevin; TAHARA, Makoto; FERRIS, Robert L.; GILLISON, Maura; FAYETTE, Jerome; DASTE, Amaury; KORALEWSKI, Piotr; ZURAWSKI, Bogdan; TABERNA, Miren; SABA, Nabil F.; MAK, Milena; KAWECKI, Andrzej; GIROTTO, Gustavo; AVITIA, Miguel Angel Alvarez; EVEN, Caroline; TOLEDO, Joaquin Gabriel Reinoso; GUMINSKI, Alexander; MULLER-RICHTER, Urs; KIYOTA, Naomi; ROBERTS, Mustimbo; KHAN, Tariq Aziz; MILLER-MOSLIN, Karen; WEI, Li; ARGIRIS, AthanassiosPURPOSE CheckMate 651 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02741570) evaluated first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus EXTREME (cetuximab plus cisplatin/carboplatin plus fluorouracil <= six cycles, then cetuximab maintenance) in recurrent/metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (R/M SCCHN). METHODS Patients without prior systemic therapy for R/M SCCHN were randomly assigned 1:1 to nivolumab plus ipilimumab or EXTREME. Primary end points were overall survival (OS) in the all randomly assigned and programmed death-ligand 1 combined positive score (CPS) >= 20 populations. Secondary end points included OS in the programmed death-ligand 1 CPS >= 1 population, and progression-free survival, objective response rate, and duration of response in the all randomly assigned and CPS >= 20 populations. RESULTS Among 947 patients randomly assigned, 38.3% had CPS >= 20. There were no statistically significant differences in OS with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus EXTREME in the all randomly assigned (median: 13.9 v 13.5 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.95; 97.9% CI, 0.80 to 1.13; P = .4951) and CPS >= 20 (median: 17.6 v 14.6 months; HR, 0.78; 97.51% CI, 0.59 to 1.03; P = .0469) populations. In patients with CPS >= 1, the median OS was 15.7 versus 13.2 months (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.97). Among patients with CPS >= 20, the median progression-free survival was 5.4 months (nivolumab plus ipilimumab) versus 7.0 months (EXTREME), objective response rate was 34.1% versus 36.0%, and median duration of response was 32.6 versus 7.0 months. Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 28.2% of patients treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus 70.7% treated with EXTREME. CONCLUSION CheckMate 651 did not meet its primary end points of OS in the all randomly assigned or CPS >= 20 populations. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab showed a favorable safety profile compared with EXTREME. There continues to be a need for new therapies in patients with R/M SCCHN. (c) 2022 by American Society of Clinical Oncology
bookPart Síndrome da veia cava superior(2023) MAK, Milena PerezbookPart Neoplasia de sítio primário indeterminado(2023) MAK, Milena Perez; TAKAHASHI, Tiago Kenji; SARAGIOTTO, Daniel FernandesbookPart Hipercalcemia associada a malignidade(2023) MAK, Milena PerezbookPart Síndrome de compressão medular(2023) SAMSONE, Francesco Bermejo; MAK, Milena Perez
- «
- 1 (current)
- 2
- 3
- »