• IMA sites
  • IMAJ services
  • IMA journals
  • Follow us
  • Alternate Text Alternate Text
עמוד בית
Fri, 05.12.25

Search results


January 2022
Yael Feferman MD, Melinda Katz MD, Natalia Egorova PhD MPH, Umut Sarpel MD MSc, and Nina A. Bickell MD MPH

Background: Potentially preventable readmissions of surgical oncology patients offer opportunities to improve quality of care. Identifying and subsequently addressing remediable causes of readmissions may improve patient-centered care.

Objectives: To identify factors associated with potentially preventable readmissions after index cancer operation.

Methods: The New York State hospital discharge database was used to identify patients undergoing common cancer operations via principal diagnosis and procedure codes between the years 2010 and 2014. The 30-day readmissions were identified and risk factors for potentially preventable readmissions were analyzed using competing risk analysis.

Results: A total of 53,740 cancer surgeries performed for the following tumor types were analyzed: colorectal (CRC) (42%), kidney (22%), liver (2%), lung (25%), ovary (4%), pancreas (4%), and uterine (1%). The 30-day readmission rate was 11.97%, 47% of which were identified as potentially preventable. The most common cause of potentially preventable readmissions was sepsis (48%). Pancreatic cancer had the highest overall readmission rate (22%) and CRC had the highest percentage of potentially preventable readmissions (51%, hazard ratio [HR] 1.42, 95% confidence interval [95%CI] 1.28–1.61). Risk factors associated with preventable readmissions included discharge disposition to a skilled nursing facility (HR 2.22, 95%CI 1.99–2.48) and the need for home healthcare (HR 1.61, 95%CI 1.48–1.75).

Conclusions: Almost half of the 30-day readmissions were potentially preventable and attributed to high rates of sepsis, surgical site infections, dehydration, and electrolyte disorders. These results can be further validated for identifying broad targets for improvement

June 2015
Michael Papiashvili MD, Henri Hayat MD, Letizia Schreiber MD and Israel E. Priel MD
February 2009
I. Rabin, B. Chikman, R. Lavy, J. Sandbank, M. Maklakovsky, R. Gold-Deutch, Z. Halpren, I. Wassermann and A. Halevy

Background: Gastrointestinal stromal tumors are the most common mesenchymal neoplasms of the human gastrointestinal tract.

Objectives: To review our accumulated experience using surgery to treat gastrointestinal stromal tumors.

Methods: We reviewed all patient charts and histological diagnoses of leiomyomas, leiomyosarcomas, leiomyoblastomas and schwannomas. Only tumors that displayed c-kit (CD117) immunopositivity were defined as GISTs[1].

Results: The study group comprised 40 female and 53 male patients (age 26–89 years); 40.9% of the tumors were classified as malignant, 39.8% as benign, and 19.4% as of uncertain malignancy. Fifty-six GISTs were located in the stomach (60.2%), 29 in the small bowel (31.2%), 4 in the duodenum (4.3%), 2 in the colon (2.1%) and 2 in the rectum (2.1%). Incidental GISTs were found in 23.7% of our patients. Mean overall survival time for malignant gastric GISTs was 102.6 months (95% confidence interval 74.2–131.1) as compared to 61.4 months mean overall survival for malignant small bowel GISTs (95% CI[2] 35.7–87) (P = 0.262). The mean disease-free survival period for patients with malignant gastric GISTs was 97.5 months (95% CI 69.7–125.2) as compared to only 49.6 months (95% CI 27.4–71.7) for patients with small bowel malignant GISTs (P = 0.041).

Conclusions: We found a high percentage of incidental GISTs. Gastric GISTs are more common than small bowel GISTs. Patients with malignant gastric GISTs have a significantly better prognosis than patients with malignant small bowel GISTs. A statistically significant correlation was found between age and malignant potential of the GIST.






[1] GISTs = gastrointestinal stromal tumors

[2] CI = confidence interval



 
September 2003
R. Greenberg, Y. Barnea, S. Schneebaum, H. Kashtan, O. Kaplan and Y. Skornik

Background: Drains are inserted in the dissected axilla of most patients during surgery for breast cancer.

Objective: To evaluate the presence and prognostic value of MUC1 and Met-HGF/SF in the axillary drainage of these patients.

Methods: The study group included 40 consecutive patients with invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast who were suitable for breast-conserving treatment; 20 malignant melanoma patients found to have negative axillary sentinel lymph node served as the control group. The output of the drains, which had been placed in the axilla during operation, was collected, and the presence of MUC1, Met-hepatocyte growth factor/scatter factor and b-actin were assessed in the lymphatic fluid by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction assays. The data were compared to the pathologic features of the tumor and the axillary lymph nodes, and to the estrogen and progesterone receptors status.

Results: RT-PCR[1] assays of the axillary lymphatic drainage were positive for MUC1 and Met-HGF/SF[2] in 15 (37.5%) and 26 (65%) of the patients, respectively. Patients in whom MUC1 and Met-HGF/SF were not found in the axillary fluid had smaller tumors and less capillary and lymphatic invasion, compared to patients with positive assays (P < 0.02 for all these comparisons). The lymph nodes were negative for metastases in all patients with negative assays (P < 0.001). The presence of MUC1 and Met-HGF/SF showed negative correlations with the estrogen and progesterone receptors (P < 0.05).

Conclusion: MUC1 and Met-HGF/SF can be detected in the axillary fluids of patients with breast cancer. The expression of both tumor markers in the axillary drainage is strongly associated with unfavorable tumor features and can be used as a prognostic factor.






[1] RT-PCR = reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction



[2] HGF/SF = hepatocyte growth factor/scatter factor


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