• IMA sites
  • IMAJ services
  • IMA journals
  • Follow us
  • Alternate Text Alternate Text
עמוד בית
Sun, 03.03.24

Search results


January 2023
Naama Hermann MD, Pnina Mor CNM PhD, Orit Kaidar-Person MD, Rinat Bernstein-Molho MD, Mali Brodsky RN MSc, Dana Madorsky Feldman MD, Anath A. Flugelman MD MPH MA, Hadar Aboody Nevo MD, Danna Meshoulam Avital MD, Miri Sklair-Levy MD, Eitan Friedman MD PhD, Tanir M. Allweis MD

Background: Population screening for the BRCA mutations in Ashkenazi Jewish women was recently implemented in Israel and is expected to lead to a 10-fold increase in the diagnosis of asymptomatic carriers. Performing the screening follow-up within multidisciplinary dedicated clinics for carriers is recommended for early detection and risk reduction.

Objectives: To determine the availability, capacity, and practices of dedicated screening clinic for BRCA carriers in Israel.

Methods: A telephone-based survey of all public hospitals in Israel was conducted October 2020 to August 2021 to determine whether they had a dedicated clinic. Dedicated clinics were defined as multidisciplinary screening clinics offering at least breast and gynecological screening and risk reducing services on site. The clinic director or nurse navigator answered a questionnaire about screening practices followed by a semi-structured interview.

Results: Of the ten dedicated BRCA clinics found in Israel, nine participated. Approximately 4500 BRCA carriers are currently being followed. No specialized clinics are available in the southern district or in the northernmost half of the northern district of Israel, leading to a disparity between periphery and center. Screening recommendations, although asserted as adhering to international guidelines, vary among clinics including age at initiating of clinical exam, use of adjunct imaging modalities, and follow-up during lactation and after risk reducing surgery.

Conclusions: There is a suboptimal distribution of dedicated clinics for BRCA carriers in Israel. Nationally centralized attempt to create guidelines that will unify screening practices is warranted, especially considering the expected increase in demand.

April 2020
Sarit Appel MD, Orit Kaidar-Person MD, Yaacov Richard Lawrence MD MBBS MA MRCP, Maoz Ben-Ayun PhD, Tamar Katzman MPH BASc, Jair Bar MD PhD, Anat Mansano BA and Zvi Symon MD
July 2015
Fadi Atrash MD, Orit Kaidar-Person MD and Salem Billan MD

Background: Anal cancer is a relatively uncommon disease, accounting for only 4% of cancers of the lower gastrointestinal tract. 

Objectives: To summarize the single-center experience in the treatment of anal carcinoma using various radiation techniques.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective chart review of consecutive patients who were treated for anal cancer between the years 2002 and 2011. The data extracted included demographics, type of radiation technique, treatment-associated acute toxicity, and patterns of failure and survival. For statistical analysis purposes, the patients were divided into two groups according to radiotherapy technique: 2D (group A) and 3D (group B).

Results: A total of 42 patients – 25 (59.5%) females and 17 males (40.5%) – underwent definitive chemo-radiation treatment (CRT) for anal cancer. Group A comprised 26 patients and group B 14 patients. Toxicity did not differ significantly between the groups, only in grade 1-2 skin toxicity which was more common in group B. There were significant differences in the unplanned interruptions in treatment, in both the number of patients who needed a treatment break and the number of days needed (more in group A). There were no differences in treatment response and patterns of failure between these two techniques, or in overall survival between the two groups. 

Conclusions: Our study results are consistent with reported large randomized trials, indicating that current treatments for anal carcinomas are associated with high grade acute toxicity that may result in significant treatment interruptions. The 2D technique was associated with significantly more treatment interruptions, but did not differ from 3D with regard to treatment efficacy. 

 

Legal Disclaimer: The information contained in this website is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal or medical advice on any matter.
The IMA is not responsible for and expressly disclaims liability for damages of any kind arising from the use of or reliance on information contained within the site.
© All rights to information on this site are reserved and are the property of the Israeli Medical Association. Privacy policy

2 Twin Towers, 35 Jabotinsky, POB 4292, Ramat Gan 5251108 Israel