• IMA sites
  • IMAJ services
  • IMA journals
  • Follow us
  • Alternate Text Alternate Text
עמוד בית
Fri, 22.11.24

Search results


July 2016
Noa Lavi MD, Gali Shapira MD, Ariel Zilberlicht MD, Noam Benyamini MD, Dan Farbstein MD, Eldad J. Dann MD, Rachel Bar-Shalom MD and Irit Avivi MD

Background: Despite the lack of clinical studies supporting the use of routine surveillance FDG-positron emission tomography (PET) in patients with diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) who achieved remission, many centers still use this strategy, especially in high risk patients. Surveillance FDG-PET computed tomography (CT) is associated with a high false positive (FP) rate in DLBCL patients. 

Objectives: To investigate whether use of specific CT measurements could improve the positive predictive value (PPV) of surveillance FDG-PET/CT. 

Methods: This retrospective study included DLBCL patients treated with CHOP or R-CHOP who achieved complete remission and had at least one positive surveillance PET. CT-derived features of PET-positive sites, including long and short diameters and presence of calcification and fatty hilum within lymph nodes, were assessed. Relapse was confirmed by biopsy or consecutive imaging. The FP rate and PPV of surveillance PET evaluated with/without CT-derived measurements were compared. 

Results: Seventy surveillance FDG-PET/CT scans performed in 53 patients were interpreted as positive for relapse. Of these studies 25 (36%) were defined as true-positive (TP) and 45 (64%) as FP. Multivariate analysis found long or short axis measuring ≥ 1.5 and ≥ 1.0 cm, respectively, in PET-positive sites, International Prognostic Index (IPI) ≥ 2, lack of prior rituximab therapy and FDG uptake in a previously involved site, to be independent predictors of true positive surveillance PET (odds ratio 5.4, 6.89, 6.6, 4.9, P < 0.05 for all). 

Conclusion: PPV of surveillance PET/CT may be improved by its use in selected high risk DLBCL patients and combined assessment of PET and CT findings.

 

October 2015
Nadav Sarid MD, Sigi Kay PhD, Avital Angel MD, Luba Trakhtenbrot PhD , Odelia Amit MD, Yair Herishanu MD and Chava Perry MD PhD
August 2012
January 2009
A. Dortort Lazar, O. Shpilberg, M. Shaklai and O. Bairey

Background: There is currently no standard salvage chemotherapy for the 40–50% of patients with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma who fail first-line treatment.

Objectives: To review the experience of a major tertiary medical center with DVIP (dexamethasone, etoposide, ifosfamide and cisplatin) salvage therapy for primary refractory/relapsing NHL[1].

Methods: We reviewed the records of all patients with NHL who received DVIP salvage therapy during the period 1993 to 2005.

Results: We identified 37 adult patients (mean age 56.3 years): 29 with aggressive lymphoma and 8 with indolent lymphoma. Mean event-free survival was 13.5 months (range 0–82 months), mean time between diagnosis and DVIP treatment 18.5 months (range 2–101), and mean number of DVIP cycles 1.9. Four patients (11%) achieved a complete response and 9 (24%) a partial response (overall response 35%). Consolidation with stem cell transplantation was used in 14 patients with aggressive lymphoma and 4 with indolent lymphoma; 14 patients, all with aggressive lymphoma, responded (12 complete, 2 partial). Of the 10 patients who underwent SCT[2] despite no response to salvage DVIP, 6 achieved a complete response. Five year overall survival from diagnosis for the whole sample was 39.4 ± 8.7%, and 5 year post-DVIP overall survival 37.6 ± 8.0%. On multivariate analysis, SCT was the strongest predictor of survival (relative risk 0.73, P < 0.0001) followed by a high score on the International Prognostic Index (RR[3] 3.71, P = 0.032).

Conclusions: DVIP salvage therapy for NHL was associated with a low response rate of 35% but a 5 year post-DVIP survival rate of 37.6%. Patients who are refractory to salvage treatment with DVIP might still be salvaged with SCT.






[1] NHL = non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma



[2] SCT = stem cell transplantation



[3] RR = relative risk



 
February 2004
D. Zamir, I. Leibovitz, I. Polyschuch, T. Reitblat and G. Lugassy
August 2002
Jamal Zidan, MD, Shifra Zohar, MD, Ioram Mezerecki, MD, Stefan Kral, MD and Boris Bilenca, MD

Background: The treatment of patients with recurrent ovarian carcinoma after failure of first and second-line chemotherapy is still debated. Chemical agents used for third and fourth-line therapy usually yield poor results with severe toxic side effects.

Objective: To summarize our experience with goserelin in the treatment of patients with recurrent ovarian cancer.

Methods: From September 1996 to June 1999 we administered goserelin, 3.6 mg subcutaneously every 4 weeks, to 15 patients with advanced and recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer (median age 59.0, median performance status 3.0).

Results: Seven of 15 eligible patients relapsed after platinum-based chemotherapy (3 of them also received paclitaxel and another 2 received tamoxifen). Four patients relapsed after carboplatin and paclitaxel, one of whom was treated with topotecan thereafter. Two patients relapsed after single-agent paclitaxel. Two patients with advanced disease and poor performance status without previous treatment received only goserelin. There was one complete response (6.7%) and 1 partial response (6.7%) lasting 8 and 14 months respectively (overall response rate 13.4%). In addition, the disease stabilized in three patients (20%) for a median of 7.5 months. In 10 patients the disease progressed. There was no significant toxicity. Median survival of all patients was 5.8 months.

Conclusion: Goserelin was helpful in one-third of our patients with advanced and refractory ovarian cancer. It is an easy and non-toxic option for treating very ill or previously heavily treated patients.
 

May 2000
Ami D. Sperber MD MSPH, Merav Goren-Lerer MD, Aya Peleg PhD and Michael Friger PhD

Background: Smoking is the most important preventable cause of chronic disease in the western world. Many smokers want to quit, but have difficulty overcoming the addictive effect of nicotine.

Objectives: To assess the quitting rate of smokers who participated in smoking cessation groups and to characterize predictors of success or failure over a 1-3 year follow-up period.

Methods: We studied 89 participants in 7 groups. Questionnaires were completed at baseline and after a follow-up period of 1 to 3 years. Smoking cessation was determined by self-report and a carbon monoxide breath test.

Results: Of the 89 participants in the support groups 76 (85%) were located. An intention-to-treat analysis was done for these participants. At follow-up 25 (33%) were non-smokers. There was a 95% agreement rate between self-report of smoking status and CO breath analysis. There were no differences between quitters and non-quitters in education level, gender, age at initiation of smoking, previous quit attempts, extent of participation in group meetings, concern about gaining weight, Fagerstrom index, or the number of close friends or relatives who smoke. Belief in one's ability to quit, satisfaction with group meetings, and spouse support were significantly associated with success (P<0.01).

Conclusions: The quit rate was 33%. Self-report is a reliable method for assessing smoking status. Smokers' belief in their ability to quit must be reinforced. Spouse participation in some group meetings may be beneficial, as may the involvement of a dietician and an expert on exercise. Follow-up "booster" meetings may also help.

__________________________________

 

CO= carbon monoxide

* In partial fulfilment of the requirements for an MD degree.

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