Israel Medical Association Journal

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. 

Background: Venous thromboembolism is a well-recognized and relatively frequent complication of malignancy, whereas tumor thrombosis is a rare complication of solid cancers. Correct diagnosis of tumor thrombosis and its differentiation from VTE[1] can alter patient management and prevent unnecessary long-term anticoagulation treatment.

Objectives: To evaluate the contribution of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography to the diagnosis of tumor thrombosis and its differentiation from VTE.

Methods: PET/CT[2] scans from 11 patients with suspected tumor thrombosis were retrospectively evaluated. Suspicion arose from positive PET/CT in eight cases, or from findings on contrast-enhanced CT in three patients. Criteria for positivity of PET/CT included increased focal or linear uptake of 18F-FDG[3] in the involved vessel. Findings were categorized as PET/CT positive, or PET/CT negative and compared to contrast-enhanced or ultrasound Doppler, pathology where available, and clinical follow-up.

Results: Eight occult tumor thromboses were identified by PET/CT-positive scans. Underlying pathologies included pancreatic, colorectal, renal cell, and head-neck squamous cell carcinoma, as well as lymphoma (4 patients). Three thrombotic lesions on contrast-enhanced CT were PET/CT negative, due to VTE (2 patients) and leiomyomatosis. Accuracy of PET/CT to differentiate between tumor thrombosis and benign VTE was 100% in this small study.

Conclusions: Contrast-enhanced CT defines the extent of thrombotic lesions, while the functional information from PET/CT characterizes the lesions. It appears that PET/CT may be helpful in the diagnosis of occult tumor thrombosis and its differentiation from VTE.