ALAlon Lazarovich

Alon Lazarovich

*This is an algorithmically generated author record based on publicly available information.

Current Organizations / Institutes

The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article


Alon Lazarovich has a total of 23 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:


Latest Publications

  • Open Access

    Evaluating the Survival Benefits of Perioperative Chemotherapy in Frail and Morbid Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer Patients

    by Ziv Savin, Lin Levin, Alon Lazarovich, Barak Rosenzweig, Reut Shashar, Azik Hoffman, Jonathan Gal, Miki Haifler, Ilona Pilosov, Yuval Freifeld, et al.

    Introduction: Current guidelines endorse the use of perioperative chemotherapy (POC) in muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) to enhance the long-term overall survival (OS) compared to radical cystectomy (RC) alone. This study aims to assess the impact of POC on the OS in frail and morbid (F-M) patients undergoing RC. Methods: A retrospective multicenter study of 291 patients who underwent RC between 2015 and 2019 was performed. Patients with both a Charlson comorbidity index ≥ 4 and Modified Frailty Index ≥ 2 were classified as the F-M cohort. We compared the clinical and pathological characteristics and outcomes of the F-M patients who received POC to those who underwent RC alone. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to identify the predictors of the OS. Results: The F-M cohort included 102 patients. POC was administered to 44% of these patients: neoadjuvant (NAC) to 31%, adjuvant (AC) to 19%, and both to 6 (6%). The OS was significantly lower in the F-M cohort compared to in the healthier patients (median OS 42 months, p = 0.02). The F-M patients who received POC were younger, less morbid and had better renal function. Although POC was marginally associated with improved OS in the univariable analysis (p = 0.06), this was not significant in the multivariable analysis (p = 0.50). NAC was associated with improved OS in the univariable analysis (p = 0.004) but not after adjustment for competing factors (p = 1.00). AC was not associated with the OS. Conclusions: POC does not improve the OS in F-M patients undergoing RC. Personalized treatment strategies and further prospective studies are needed to optimize care in this unique vulnerable population.


  • Open Access

    Reply to Veerman et al. Comment on “Rosenzweig et al. Very Low Prostate PET/CT PSMA Uptake May Be Misleading in Staging Radical Prostatectomy Candidates. J. Pers. Med. 2022, 12, 410”

    by Barak Rosenzweig, Rennen Haramaty, Tima Davidson, Alon Lazarovich, Asaf Shvero, Miki Haifler, Jonathan Gal, Shay Golan, Sagi Shpitzer, Azik Hoffman, et al.

    We thank the commenters for their important insights


  • Open Access

    Very Low Prostate PET/CT PSMA Uptake May Be Misleading in Staging Radical Prostatectomy Candidates

    by Barak Rosenzweig, Rennen Haramaty, Tima Davidson, Alon Lazarovich, Asaf Shvero, Miki Haifler, Jonathan Gal, Shay Golan, Sagi Shpitzer, Azik Hoffman, et al.

    Purpose: to evaluate a unique subpopulation of radical prostatectomy (RP) candidates with “negative” prostate 68Ga-labeled prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET) computed tomography (CT) imaging scans and to characterize the clinical implications of misleading findings. Materials and Methods: This case-control retrospective study compared the final histological outcomes of patients with “negative” pre-RP PSMA PET/CT prostate scans (with a prostate maximal standardized uptake value [SUVmax] below the physiologic uptake) to those with an “intense” prostatic tracer uptake (with a SUVmax above the physiologic uptake). The patients underwent an RP between March 2015 and July 2019 in five academic centers. Data on the demographics, comorbidities, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and rectal exam findings, prior biopsies, imaging results, biopsies, and RP histology results were collected. Results: Ninety-seven of the 392 patients who underwent an RP had PSMA PET/CT imaging preoperatively. Fifty-two (54%) had a “negative” uptake (in the study group), and 45 (46%) had a “positive” uptake (in the control group). Only the lesion size and SUVmax values on the PSMA PET/CT differed between the groups preoperatively. On the histological analysis, only the ISUP score, seminal vesicles invasion, T stage, and positive margin rates differed between the groups (p < 0.05), while 50 (96%) study group patients harbored clinically significant disease (ISUP ≥ 2), with an extra-prostatic disease in 24 (46%), perineural invasion in 35 (67%), and positive lymph nodes in 4 (8%). Conclusions: Disease aggressiveness generally correlated with an intense PSMA uptake on the preoperative PSMA PET/CT, but a subpopulation of patients with clinically significant cancer and aggressive characteristics showed a deceptively weak PSMA uptake. These data raise a concern about the unqualified application of PSMA PET/CT for staging RP candidates.