• IMA sites
  • IMAJ services
  • IMA journals
  • Follow us
  • Alternate Text Alternate Text
עמוד בית
Tue, 18.06.24

Search results


March 2022
Yakir Moshe MD and Ron Ram MD

Several novel strategies have emerged in the last decade as potential therapies for patients with chemorefractory lymphoproliferative diseases and acute leukemia. While these treatments include exciting drugs that dramatically change the landscape of treatment, the organ-toxicity profile associated with these therapies may be significant. This article focuses on cardiac disorders associated with chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy, as well as with novel regimens for acute leukemia

December 2018
Kassem Sharif MD, Louis Coplan MD, Benjamin Lichtbroun MD and Howard Amital MD MHA
November 2018
Nir Hod MD MHA, Reut Anconina MD, Daniel Levin MD, Ekaterina Tiktinsky MD, Dina Ezroh Kazap MD, Itai Levi MD, Maria Zektser MD, Vered Stavi MD, Gilbert Sebbag MD and Sophie Lantsberg MD
July 2016
Yishay Wasserstrum MD, Pia Raanani MD, Ran Kornowski MD and Zaza Iakobishvili MD PhD
July 2014
Ori Toker MD, Ariella Tvito MD, Jacob M. Rowe MD, Jacob Ashkenazi MD, Chezi Ganzel MD, Yuval Tal MD and Meir Shalit MD
April 2014
Arie Apel MD, Meirav Kedmi MD, Etai Levi MD, Miriam Berkowicz MD, Yaron Davidovitz MD, Abraham Kneller MD, Elena Ribakovsky MD, Avichai Shimoni MD, Arnon Nagler MD MSc and Abraham Avigdor MD
 Background: Acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL) is a rare disease with a poor outcome in adults. Over the years different protocols have been developed with the aim of improving the outcome. The German study group protocols (GMALL), which are the most frequently used in our institutions, changed significantly between the periods 1989–93 and 1999–2003.

Objectives: To investigate whether the change in protocols over the years resulted in an outcome difference at two hospitals in Israel.

Methods: We thoroughly reviewed the records of 153 patients from Sheba Medical Center and Soroka Medical Center, of whom 106 comprised the study group. The patients were divided into two groups according to the treatment protocol used: 40 patients with the 1989/93 protocol and 66 with the 1999/2003 protocol. Outcome was analyzed for the two groups.

Results: We found a significant difference in disease-free survival (DFS) between the two groups for B cell-ALL (B-ALL) patients who achieved complete remission after induction. There was no difference in overall survival. We did not find any difference in outcome for T cell-ALL patients or for CD20-positive patients.

Conclusions: In our retrospective analysis, GMALL 99/2003 led to a better DFS for B-ALL patients who were in complete remission after induction. This is possibly related to the differences in medications between the protocols, but may also be due to better supportive care. Despite the proven advantage of the newer protocols regarding overall survival, in our experience there was no other significant difference between the two regimens. 

October 2013
August 2012
T. Tohami, A. Nagler and N. Amariglio

Chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) is a clonal hematological disease that represents 15–20% of all adult leukemia cases. The study and treatment of CML has contributed pivotal advances to translational medicine and cancer therapy. The discovery that a single chromosomal abnormality, the Philadelphia (Ph) chromosome, is responsible for the etiology of this disease was a milestone for treating and understanding CML. Subsequently, CML became the first disease for which allogeneic bone marrow transplantation is the treatment of choice. Currently, CML is one of the few diseases where treatment targeted against the chromosomal abnormality is the sole frontline therapy for newly diagnosed patients. The use of directed therapy for CML challenged disease monitoring during treatment and led to the development of definitions that document response and predict relapse sooner than the former routine methods. These methods relied on classical cytogenetics through molecular cytogenetics (FISH) and, finally, on molecular monitoring assays. This review discusses the laboratory tools used for diagnosing CML, for monitoring during treatment, and for assessing remission or relapse. The advantages and disadvantages of each test, the common definition of response levels, and the efforts to standardize molecular monitoring for CML patient management are discussed.

August 2011
September 2009
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