Israel Medical Association Journal

Background: Coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) is an established modality for ruling out coronary artery disease. However, it has been suggested that CCTA may be a source of non-negligible radiation exposure.

Objectives: To evaluate the potential degradation in coronary image quality when using prospective gated (PG) CCTA as compared with retrospective gated (RG) CCTA in chest pain evaluation.

Methods: The study cohort comprised 216 patients: 108 consecutive patients in the PG CCTA arm and 108 patients matched for age, gender and heart rate in the RG CCTA arm. Scans were performed using a 64-slice multidetector CT scanner. All 15 coronary segments were evaluated subjectively for image quality using a 5-point visual scale. Dose-length product was recorded for each patient and the effective radiation dose was calculated

Results: The PG CCTA technique demonstrated a significantly higher incidence of step artifacts in the middle and distal right coronary artery, the distal left anterior descending artery, the second diagonal, the distal left circumflex artery, and the second marginal branches. Nevertheless, the diagnostic performance of these scans was not adversely affected. The mean effective radiation doses were 3.8 ± 0.9 mSv vs.17.2 ± 3 mSv for PG CCTA and RG CCTA, respectively (P < 0.0001).

Conclusions: Artifacts caused by the PG CCTA technique (64 MDCT) scanners tended to appear in specific coronary segments but did not impair the overall diagnostic quality of CCTA and there was a marked reduction in radiation exposure. We conclude that 64-slice PG CCTA is suitable for clinical use, especially for acute chest pain "fast track" evaluation targeted at relatively young subjects in a chest pain unit.
 

Background: Patients with multiple (< 100) colorectal adenomatous polyps are at increased risk for colorectal cancer. Genetic evaluation of those patients who test negative for APC gene mutation is both a clinical and economic burden but is critical for counseling and surveillance. In Israel, this is confounded by the fact that national health insurance does not fully cover genetic evaluation of APC gene exon 16.

Objectives: To perform a comprehensive genetic evaluation of APC gene mutation-negative polyposis patients with the aim of developing a future evaluation protocol.

Methods: Genetic analyses were performed in 29 APC gene mutation-negative Jewish individuals with 5 to ≥ 40 colonic adenomas who did not fulfill Amsterdam (clinical) criteria for Lynch syndrome. Analyses included completion of APC gene exon 16 sequencing, analysis for APC gene copy number variations (deletions or duplications), MUTYH gene sequencing, and microsatellite instability in CRC[1] patients fulfilling “Bethesda” (laboratory investigation) criteria for Lynch syndrome.

Results: Completion of APC gene exon 16 sequencing revealed one patient with the E1317Q polymorphism. All were normal by APC multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification analysis. Pathogenic MUTYH mutations were found in three patients, all of North African origin; two additional patients had variants of unknown significance. One of six patients with Bethesda-positive criteria was MSI²-High with immunohistology consistent with MLH1 mutation.

Conclusions: Based on this small but well-characterized cohort with multiple colorectal adenomas, Lynch syndrome needs to be excluded if there are compatible criteria; otherwise MUTYH sequencing is probably the first step in evaluating APC-negative patients, especially for Jews of North African descent. Completing APC exon 16 sequencing and copy number variations analysis should probably be the last evaluations.

Background: Low back pain is a common problem managed by primary care physicians and orthopedic specialists.

Objectives: To evaluate the outcome of new LBP[1] episodes in patients who chose to visit either an orthopedist or a general practitioner.

Methods: All patients visiting the orthopedist or physician during the study period were screened for a new complaint of LBP. After the initial visit the patients were interviewed by phone by means of a structured questionnaire, with a follow-up interview one month later. The study was performed at Clalit Health Services primary care and consultation clinics. A random sample of 125 GPs[2] and 17 orthopedists were chosen. Consecutively recruited were 166 patients who visited the GP and 75 the orthopedist. The main outcome measures evaluated were perceived complaint severity and degree of disturbance to everyday functioning, problem resolution, and health services utilization.

Results: Patients who decided to first visit the orthopedist indicated a higher disturbance to everyday functioning (75% vs. 70%, P < 0.01), were invited for further follow-up visits (6% vs. 51%, P < 0.05) and had more computed tomography and bone scans (20 vs. 3%, P < 0.001 and 9 vs. 2%, P < 0.05, respectively). Health status after one month showed that patients who chose the GP were more likely to have their problem solved (36 vs. 17%, P < 0.05).

Conclusions: Symptom resolution for a new LBP complaint was significantly higher in patients who decided on the GP, even when controlling for severity of illness and degree of disturbance to everyday functioning.

Background: Patients with thick melanomas > 4 mm deep are at great risk for regional and distant metastatic disease. Historically, the appropriate management of thick melanomas has remained unclear and there is no consensus in the literature. Many have taken the nihilistic view that surgical intervention to excise regional nodal basins is not justified in light of the poor overall prognosis and risk of occult distant disease.

Objectives: To review the outcome of patients with thick node negative melanoma treated at a multidisciplinary academic center

Methods: We retrospectively reviewed a database of melanoma patients to identify patients with thick melanomas, > 4 mm, who were either clinically or sentinel node biopsy negative, staged T4N0, stage IIb or IIc. The charts of these patients were reviewed and updated, with a median follow-up of 4 years.

Results: We identified 23 patients who fit these criteria. Of these, 18 (78%) remain alive with a median follow-up of 4 years. Five patients died of metastatic disease. Of the 18 surviving patients, 14 remained with no evidence of disease after initial resection of their primary lesions. The majority of the recurrences were non-nodal.
Conclusions: The overall survival of patients in our study remains above 75%, at median follow-up of 4 years, even with thick initial index tumor depths. Most of the failures were due to hematogenous spread with lymphatic sparing. Tumor biology that may inhibit lymphatic spread could be a target of future investigation

Background: Multi-detector computed tomography has advanced enormously and now enables non-invasive evaluation of coronary arteries as well as cardiac anatomy, function and perfusion. However, the role of cardiac MDCT[1] is not yet determined in the medical community and, consequently, many clinically unnecessary scans are performed solely on a self-referral basis.

Objectives: To prospectively evaluate the role of a cardiologist consultation and recommendation prior to the scan, and the influence on the diagnostic yield of cardiac MDCT.

Methods: In our center, a CT service was initiated, but with the prerequisite approval of a cardiologist before performance of the CT. Each individual who wanted and was willing to pay for a cardiac CT was interviewed by an experienced cardiologist who determined whether cardiac MDCT was the most appropriate next test in the cardiovascular evaluation. Subjects were classified into three groups: a) those with a normal or no prior stress test, no typical symptoms and no significant risk factors of coronary artery disease were recommended to perform a stress test or to remain under close clinical follow-up without MDCT; b) those with an equivocal stress test, atypical symptoms and/or significant risk factors were allowed to have cardiac MDCT; and c) those with positive stress test or clinically highly suspected CAD[2] were advised to go directly to invasive coronary angiography. CT findings were categorized as normal CAD (normal calcium score and no narrowings), < 50% and > 50% CAD.

Results: A total of 254 people were interviewed, and in only 39 cases did the cardiologist approve the CT. However, 61 of the 215, despite our recommendation not to undergo CT, decided to have the scan. Assessment of the 100 cases that underwent MDCT showed a statistically significant better discrimination of significant CAD, according to the cardiologist’s recommendation: MDCT not recommended in 3/54 (6%) vs. MDCT recommended in 12/39 (31%) vs. recommended invasive coronary angiography in 4/7 (57%) (P < 0.001).

Conclusions: Detection of coronary calcification, as well as MDCT angiography can provide clinically useful information if applied to suitable patient groups. It is foreseeable that MDCT angiography will become part of the routine workup in some subsets of patients with suspected CAD. Selection of patients undergoing MDCT scans by a cardiologist improves the ability of the test to stratify patients, preventing unnecessary scans in both high and low risk patients