• IMA sites
  • IMAJ services
  • IMA journals
  • Follow us
  • Alternate Text Alternate Text
עמוד בית
Sat, 27.04.24

Search results


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
September 2018
Anna Kaplinsky MD, Vera Pyatigorskaya MA, Hila Granot BA, Ilana Gelernter MA, Maoz Ben-Ayun PhD, Dror Alezra PhD, Shira L. Galper MD, Zvi Symon MD and Merav A. Ben-David MD

Background: Adjuvant radiotherapy for breast cancer reduces local recurrence and improves survival. In patients with left sided breast cancer, anterior heart position or medial tumor location may cause inadequate breast coverage due to heart shielding. Respiration gating using the Real-time Position Management (RPM) system enables pushing the heart away from the tangential fields during inspiration, thus optimizing the treatment plan.

Objectives: To compare breathing inspiration gating (IG) techniques with free breathing (FB), focusing on breast coverage.

Methods: The study comprised 49 consecutive patients with left sided breast cancer who underwent lumpectomy and adjuvant radiation. RPM was chosen due to insufficient breast coverage caused by an anterior heart position or medial lumpectomy cavity. FB and IG computed tomography simulations were generated for each patient. Breast (PTVbreast) and lumpectomy cavity (CTVlump) were defined as the target areas. Optimized treatment plans were created for each scan. A dosimetric comparison was made for breast coverage and heart and lungs doses.

Results: PTVbreast V95% and mean dose (Dmean) were higher with IG vs. FB (82.36% vs. 78.88%, P = 0.002; 95.73% vs. 93.63%, P < 0.001, respectively). CTVlump V95% and Dmean were higher with IG (98.87% vs. 88.92%, P = 0.001; 99.14% vs. 96.73%, P = 0.003, respectively). The cardiac dose was lower with IG. The IG left lung Dmean was higher. No statistical difference was found for left lung V20.

Conclusions: In patients with suboptimal treatment plans due to anterior heart position or medial lumpectomy cavity, RPM IG enabled better breast/tumor bed coverage and reduced cardiac doses.

January 2017
Sarit Appel MD, Yaacov R. Lawrence MRCP, Jeffery Goldstein MD, Raphael M. Pfeffer MD, Ilana Weiss MA, Tatiana Rabin MD, Shira Felder MD, Maoz Ben-Ayun PhD, Lev Tzvang MSc, Dror Alezra PhD, David Simansky MD, Alon Ben-Nun MD PhD, Jair Bar MD PhD and Zvi Symon MD

Background: Stereotactic ablative radiation therapy (SABR) is the application of a very high radiation dose to a small treatment volume. It is the new standard of care in medically inoperable early-stage lung cancer. 

Objectives: To report the outcomes of SABR in stage I lung cancer at Sheba Medical Center since its introduction in 2009.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients with stage I lung cancer treated during the period 2009–2015. Survival status was retrieved from the electronic medical records and confirmed with the national registry. Local failure was defined as increased FDG uptake on PETCT scan within a 2 cm radius of the treated region. Toxicity was estimated from medical records and graded according to common toxicity criteria for adverse events (CTCAE) version 4.03. Overall survival and local control were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method.

Results: During the study period 114 patients were treated for 122 stage I lung cancer lesions. Median follow-up time was 27 months (range 8.2–69.5 months), median age was 76 years. Eighty-two percent of the tumors were stage IA (size ≤ 3 cm). Median survival was 46 months; estimated 3 year overall survival was 59% (95%CI 47–69%) and local control was 88% (95%CI 78–94%). Toxicity included chest wall pain in 8.4% of patients, rib fracture in 0.9%, grade 1–2 pneumonitis in 12%, grade 3 in 12% and grade 5 (death) in 0.9%.

Conclusions: SABR has been successfully implemented at Sheba Medical Center for the treatment of stage I lung cancer in inoperable patients. It is associated with excellent local control, minor toxicity and an acceptable overall survival.

 

April 2003
S. Behar, A. Battler, A. Porath, J. Leor, E. Grossman, Y. Hasin, M. Mittelman, Z. Feigenberg, C. Rahima-Maoz, M. Green, A. Caspi, B. Rabinowitz and M. Garty

Background: Little information is available on the clinical practice and implementation of guidelines in treating acute myocardial infarction patients in Israel.

Objective: To assess patient characteristics, hospital course, management, and 30 day clinical outcome of all AMI[1] patients hospitalized in Israel during a 2 month period in 2000.

Method: We conducted a prospective 2 month survey of consecutive AMI patients admitted to 82 of 96 internal medicine departments and all 26 cardiac departments operating in Israel in 2000. Data were collected uniformly by means of a hospital and 30 day follow-up form.

Results: During the survey 1,683 consecutive patients with a discharge diagnosis of AMI were included. Their mean age was 66 years; 73% were male. The electrocardiographic pattern on admission revealed ST elevation, non-ST elevation and an undetermined ECG[2] in 63%, 34% and 4% of patients respectively. Aspirin and heparin were given to 95% of patients. Beta-blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors were given to 76% and 65% of patients respectively. Among hospital survivors, 45% received lipid-lowering drugs. Thrombolytic therapy was administered in 28% of patients, coronary angiography was used in 45%, and 7% of patients underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention. The 7 and 30 day mortality rates were 7% and 11% respectively.

Conclusions: This nationwide survey shows that one-third of the AMI patients in Israel are elderly (≥ 75 years). The survey suggests that clinical guidelines for the management of patients with AMI are partially implemented in the community. Data from large surveys representing the "real world" practice are of utmost importance for the evaluation of clinical guidelines, research and educational purposes.






[1] AMI = acute myocardial infarction



[2] ECG = electrocardiogram


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