• IMA sites
  • IMAJ services
  • IMA journals
  • Follow us
  • Alternate Text Alternate Text
עמוד בית
Sun, 24.11.24

Search results


July 2010
Y. Salit, A. Bitterman, O. Lefel, D. Eisenberg, A. Eden, M. Barzelai, M. Steiner, E. Zuckerman and R. Haddad
O. Arnon, R.P. Rapini, A.J. Mamelak and L.H. Goldberg
February 2009
I. Rabin, B. Chikman, R. Lavy, J. Sandbank, M. Maklakovsky, R. Gold-Deutch, Z. Halpren, I. Wassermann and A. Halevy

Background: Gastrointestinal stromal tumors are the most common mesenchymal neoplasms of the human gastrointestinal tract.

Objectives: To review our accumulated experience using surgery to treat gastrointestinal stromal tumors.

Methods: We reviewed all patient charts and histological diagnoses of leiomyomas, leiomyosarcomas, leiomyoblastomas and schwannomas. Only tumors that displayed c-kit (CD117) immunopositivity were defined as GISTs[1].

Results: The study group comprised 40 female and 53 male patients (age 26–89 years); 40.9% of the tumors were classified as malignant, 39.8% as benign, and 19.4% as of uncertain malignancy. Fifty-six GISTs were located in the stomach (60.2%), 29 in the small bowel (31.2%), 4 in the duodenum (4.3%), 2 in the colon (2.1%) and 2 in the rectum (2.1%). Incidental GISTs were found in 23.7% of our patients. Mean overall survival time for malignant gastric GISTs was 102.6 months (95% confidence interval 74.2–131.1) as compared to 61.4 months mean overall survival for malignant small bowel GISTs (95% CI[2] 35.7–87) (P = 0.262). The mean disease-free survival period for patients with malignant gastric GISTs was 97.5 months (95% CI 69.7–125.2) as compared to only 49.6 months (95% CI 27.4–71.7) for patients with small bowel malignant GISTs (P = 0.041).

Conclusions: We found a high percentage of incidental GISTs. Gastric GISTs are more common than small bowel GISTs. Patients with malignant gastric GISTs have a significantly better prognosis than patients with malignant small bowel GISTs. A statistically significant correlation was found between age and malignant potential of the GIST.






[1] GISTs = gastrointestinal stromal tumors

[2] CI = confidence interval



 
September 2008
November 2007
J. Issakov, I. Jiveliouk, I. Nachmany, J. Klausner and O. Merimsky

Background: The diagnosis of gastrointestinal stromal tumors is based on documentation of c-KIT and platelet-derived growth factor-alpha receptors or specific c-KIT mutations. Before the diagnosis of GIST[1] was possible, all cases had been classified as sarcomas or benign tumors.

Objectives: To identify cases of GIST formerly diagnosed as abdominal or retroperitoneal mesenchymal tumors.

Methods: We reviewed the archive material on all surgical cases diagnosed as gastrointestinal related malignant mesenchymal tumors or GIST in our medical center during the last decade (1995–2004).

Results: Sixty-eight cases of retroperitoneal soft tissue sarcoma were identified. Thirty-eight were reconfirmed to be GIST, 19 were newly diagnosed as GIST (the hidden cases), 8 cases were re-diagnosed as mesenchymal tumors, and 3 cases of sarcoma remained sarcomas. Of all the GIST tumors, c-KIT-positive and PDGFRα[2]-positive tumors were more characteristic of primary gastric tumors, while c-KIT-positive and PDGFRα-negative tumors were found in the colorectal area. The c-KIT-negative and PDGFRα-positive cases were of gastric origin.

Conclusions: Any c-KIT-negative malignant mesenchymal mass located near the proximal gastrointestinal tract should also be stained for PDGFRα to differentiate between GIST and other soft tissue sarcomas. Practically, formerly diagnosed abdominal or retroperitoneal soft tissue sarcomas should be reviewed to identify patients with misdiagnosed GIST and thereby avoid future unnecessary and ineffective chemotherapy.

 






[1] GIST = gastrointestinal stromal tumors



[2] PDGFRα = platelet-derived growth factor-alpha


July 2007
M.Gershinsky, S.Croitoru, G.Dickstein, O.Bardicef, R.Gelman and E.Barmeir.
August 2006
April 2006
H. Mazeh, A. Nissan, N. Simanovsky and N. Hiller
November 2005
A. Yellin, S.T. Zwas, J. Rozenman, D.A. Simansky and E. Goshen
Background: Somatostatin receptor scintigraphy has been used widely for the evaluation of neuroendocrine tumors in the gastrointestinal tract. Its use for detecting and staging thoracic carcinoids is only sporadically reported.
Objectives: To evaluate the possible roles of SRS[1] in the management of proven or suspected pulmonary carcinoids. 

Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of all patients undergoing SRS for known or suspected pulmonary carcinoids in a tertiary referral center during a 10 year period. During this period 89 patients underwent resection of pulmonary carcinoids and SRS was used for detection, staging or localization purposes in 8 of them (9%). Scans were labeled true positive, true negative, false positive, or false negative in comparison with histologic or follow-up results. 

Results: SRS was true positive in 6/6 lung locations; true positive in 2/8, true negative in 4/8 and false positive in 2/8 lymph node locations; and true positive in 1/8, true negative in 6/8 and false negative in 1/8 distant locations. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values and accuracy were 90%, 83%, 83%, 91% and 87% respectively. The scans were strongly positive in the tumors and involved lymph nodes. SRS correctly localized an occult secreting pulmonary carcinoid. Granulomatous and reactive lymph nodes showed increased uptake. SRS was accurate in ruling out distant metastases. 

Conclusions: SRS is effective for visualizing and localizing pulmonary carcinoids. It assists in the staging of these tumors by detecting lymph node involvement and confirming or ruling out distant metastases. Inflamatory areas in the lung or lymph nodes may be falsely positive.


[1] SRS = somatostatin receptor scintigraphy

 
September 2005
M. Attia, J. Menhel, D. Alezra, R. Pffefer and R. Spiegelmann
March 2005
June 2004
E. Eviatar, M. Vaiman, N. Shlamkovitch, S. Segal, A. Kessler and U. Katzenell

Background: The external approach is the golden standard for sinonasal tumor removal but it is associated with several side effects, including facial scars, intracranial and extracranial complications, a long hospitalization period and high costs. Endoscopic sinus surgery enables resection of benign and selected malignant sinonasal tumors and has the advantages of no facial scars, better functional and structural preservation of the sinonasal complex, minimal trauma to surrounding tissue, a shorter hospitalization stay and lower costs.

Objectives: To evaluate the advantages and limitations of endoscopic resection of benign and malignant sinonasal tumors, their recurrence and complication rates.

Methods: The medical and radiology records of 56 patients who underwent endonasal endoscopic resection of benign and malignant sinonasal tumors between 1996 and 2003 were retrospectively reviewed. Tumors located in the center of the nose and sinuses were endoscopically resected.

Results: Six cases of malignant tumor and 50 cases of benign tumor underwent resection by ESS[1]. One of the patients with malignant tumor died, the remainder showing no evidence of disease on follow-up of 3–60 months (mean 26.8 months). Inverted papilloma was the most common benign tumor (40 patients). Seven patients (18%) had recurrence followed by endonasal resection. No major complications were recorded. Hospitalization stay was 2–7 days (mean 3.6 days).

Conclusions: Endoscopic resection of benign sinonasal tumors that are centrally located in the nose and sinuses should be considered before the external approach is used. In very carefully selected cases of malignant tumors ESS is oncologically acceptable, but more experience is needed for discerning the indications for endoscopic resection of malignant tumors. The complication rate for endoscopic resection is low, there are no facial scars, hospitalization stay is short, and costs are low.






[1] ESS = endoscopic sinus surgery


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