• IMA sites
  • IMAJ services
  • IMA journals
  • Follow us
  • Alternate Text Alternate Text
עמוד בית
Mon, 29.04.24

Search results


June 2017
Ophir Eyal MD, Yuval Tal MD PhD, Arie Ben MD, Ofer N. Gofrit MD PhD and Mordechai Golomb MD
November 2016
Guy Hidas MD, Jacob Ben Chaim MD, Refael Udassin MD, Merry Graeb MD, Ofer N. Gofrit MD, Rachel Yaffa Zisk-Rony PhD, Dov Pode MD, Mordechai Duvdevani M2, Vladimir Yutkin MD, Amos Neheman MD, Amos Fruman MD, Dan Arbel MD, Vadim Kopuler MD, Yaron Armon MD and Ezekiel H. Landau MD

Background: Strong evidence suggests that in order to prevent irreversible testicular damage surgical correction (orchidopexy) for undescended testis (UDT) should be performed before the age of 1 year. 

Objectives: To evaluate whether orchidopexy is delayed in our medical system, and if so, to explore the pattern of referral for orchidopexy as a possible contributing factor in such delays. 

Methods: We conducted a retrospective chart review of all children who underwent orchidopexy for UDT between 2003 and 2013 in our institution. We collected data on the age at surgery and the child's health insurance plan. We also surveyed pediatricians from around the country regarding their pattern of UDT patient referral to a pediatric urologist or surgeon for surgical correction.

Results: A total of 813 children underwent orchidopexy in our institute during the study period. The median age at surgery was 1.49 years (range 0.5–13). Only 11% of the children underwent surgery under the age of 1 year, and 53% between the ages of 1 and 2 years. These findings were consistent throughout the years, with no difference between the four health insurance plans. Sixty-three pediatricians who participated in the survey reported that they referred children to surgery at a median age of 1 year (range 0.5–3 years).

Conclusions: Our results demonstrate delayed orchidopexy in our medical system. There is a need to improve awareness for early specialist consultation in order to facilitate earlier surgery and better care.

 

January 2016
Tamara Kushnir MA, Ofer N. Gofrit MD, Ruth Elkayam MA, Shani Shimon-Paluch MD, Yaacov R. Lawrence MBBS MRCP, Ilana Weiss MA and Zvi Symon MD

Background: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) added to radiation therapy (RT) in intermediate to high risk prostate cancer negatively impacts quality of life. 

Objectives: To compare health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) in patients receiving combined RT with and without ADT 

Methods: The study population comprised patients treated with definitive RT for prostate cancer who completed the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite-26 form between 3 and 24 months after completing RT. Covariance and a stepwise backward logistic regression model was used. 

Results: Data were available for 143 patients who received RT+ADT and 70 who received RT alone. The sexual function and hormonal vitality scores of patients receiving RT+ADT were significantly lower than those receiving RT alone (P < 0.0001). Patients with only compulsory school education had significantly lower sexual function scores than patients with university level education (P ≤ 0.005). Patients with depression had significantly lower hormonal vitality scores than those without depression (P ≤ 0.0001). 

Conclusions: The addition of ADT to RT is responsible for decrements in quality of life in the sexual and hormonal vitality domains, which is further compounded by lack of education and depression. This underlines the need to improve education, identify and treat depression, and develop strategies to improve the quality of life of patients receiving combination therapy. 

 

July 2013
D. Leibovici, S. Shikanov, O.N. Gofrit, G.P. Zagaja, Y. Shilo and A.L. Shalhav
 Background: Recommendations for active surveillance versus immediate treatment for low risk prostate cancer are based on biopsy and clinical data, assuming that a low volume of well-differentiated carcinoma will be associated will a low progression risk. However, the accuracy of clinical prediction of minimal prostate cancer (MPC) is unclear.

Objectives: To define preoperative predictors for MPC in prostatectomy specimens and to examine the accuracy of such prediction.

Methods: Data collected on 1526 consecutive radical prostatectomy patients operated in a single center between 2003 and 2008 included: age, body mass index, preoperative prostate-specific antigen level, biopsy Gleason score, clinical stage, percentage of positive biopsy cores, and maximal core length (MCL) involvement. MPC was defined as < 5% of prostate volume involvement with organ-confined Gleason score ≤ 6. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to define independent predictors of minimal disease. Classification and Regression Tree (CART) analysis was used to define cutoff values for the predictors and measure the accuracy of prediction.

Results: MPC was found in 241 patients (15.8%). Clinical stage, biopsy Gleason`s score, percent of positive biopsy cores, and maximal involved core length were associated with minimal disease (OR 0.42, 0.1, 0.92, and 0.9, respectively). Independent predictors of MPC included: biopsy Gleason score, percent of positive cores and MCL (OR 0.21, 095 and 0.95, respectively). CART showed that when the MCL exceeded 11.5%, the likelihood of MPC was 3.8%. ;Conversely, when applying the most favorable preoperative conditions (Gleason ≤ 6, < 20% positive cores, MCL ≤ 11.5%) the chance of minimal disease was 41%.

Conclusions: Biopsy Gleason score, the percent of positive cores and MCL are independently associated with MPC. While preoperative prediction of significant prostate cancer was accurate, clinical prediction of MPC was incorrect 59% of the time. Caution is necessary when implementing clinical data as selection criteria for active surveillance. 

August 2011
N. Halpern, D. Bentov-Gofrit, I. Matot and M.Z. Abramowitz

Background: A new approach for assessing non-cognitive attributes in medical school candidates was developed and implemented at the Hebrew University Medical School. The non-cognitive tests included a biographical questionnaire, a questionnaire raising theoretical dilemmas and multiple mini-interviews.

Objectives: To evaluate the effects of the change in the admission process on students' demographics and future career choices.

Methods: A questionnaire including questions on students’ background and future residency preferences was administered to first-year students accepted to medical school by the new admission system. Results were compared with previous information collected from students admitted through the old admission process.

Results: Students accepted by the new process were significantly older (22.49 vs. 21.54, P < 0.001), and more had attended other academic studies before medical school, considered other professions besides medicine, and majored in humanities combined with sciences in high school. Significantly more students from small communities were admitted by the new system.  Differences were found in preferences for future residencies; compared with the old admission process (N=41), students admitted by the new system (N=85) had a more positive attitude towards a career in obstetrics/gynecology (41% vs. 22%, P < 0.001) and hematology/oncology (11.7% vs. 4.8%, P < 0.001), while the popularity of surgery and pediatrics had decreased (34.5% vs. 61%, P < 0.001 and 68.7% vs. 82.5%, P < 0.001 respectively).

Conclusions: Assessment of non-cognitive parameters as part of the admission criteria to medical school was associated with an older and more heterogenic group of students and different preferences for future residency. Whether these preferences in first-year students persist through medical school is a question for further research.
 

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