Docality.com Logo
 
Dr. Edgar  Ben Josef  Md image

Dr. Edgar Ben Josef Md

3400 Civic Center Concourse Level
Philadelphia PA 19104
215 622-2428
Medical School: Other - 1998
Accepts Medicare: Yes
Participates In eRX: No
Participates In PQRS: Yes
Participates In EHR: Yes
License #: MD444541
NPI: 1447342845
Taxonomy Codes:
2085R0001X

Request Appointment Information

Awards & Recognitions

About Us

Practice Philosophy

Conditions

Dr. Edgar Ben Josef is associated with these group practices

Procedure Pricing

HCPCS Code Description Average Price Average Price
Allowed By Medicare
HCPCS Code:77295 Description:Set radiation therapy field Average Price:$747.00 Average Price Allowed
By Medicare:
$217.11
HCPCS Code:77427 Description:Radiation tx management x5 Average Price:$634.83 Average Price Allowed
By Medicare:
$187.51
HCPCS Code:77263 Description:Radiation therapy planning Average Price:$539.55 Average Price Allowed
By Medicare:
$162.20
HCPCS Code:77470 Description:Special radiation treatment Average Price:$341.00 Average Price Allowed
By Medicare:
$107.58
HCPCS Code:77290 Description:Set radiation therapy field Average Price:$286.23 Average Price Allowed
By Medicare:
$77.28
HCPCS Code:77334 Description:Radiation treatment aid(s) Average Price:$205.63 Average Price Allowed
By Medicare:
$63.22
HCPCS Code:99205 Description:Office/outpatient visit new Average Price:$314.64 Average Price Allowed
By Medicare:
$172.68
HCPCS Code:77333 Description:Radiation treatment aid(s) Average Price:$137.00 Average Price Allowed
By Medicare:
$40.43
HCPCS Code:77014 Description:Ct scan for therapy guide Average Price:$139.00 Average Price Allowed
By Medicare:
$43.80
HCPCS Code:77280 Description:Set radiation therapy field Average Price:$114.00 Average Price Allowed
By Medicare:
$35.91
HCPCS Code:77300 Description:Radiation therapy dose plan Average Price:$102.71 Average Price Allowed
By Medicare:
$32.07
HCPCS Code:77421 Description:Stereoscopic x-ray guidance Average Price:$62.82 Average Price Allowed
By Medicare:
$19.42

HCPCS Code Definitions

77290
Therapeutic radiology simulation-aided field setting; complex
77280
Therapeutic radiology simulation-aided field setting; simple
77263
Therapeutic radiology treatment planning; complex
77014
Computed tomography guidance for placement of radiation therapy fields
99205
Office or other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of a new patient, which requires these 3 key components: A comprehensive history; A comprehensive examination; Medical decision making of high complexity. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other physicians, other qualified health care professionals, or agencies are provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient's and/or family's needs. Usually, the presenting problem(s) are of moderate to high severity. Typically, 60 minutes are spent face-to-face with the patient and/or family.
77470
Special treatment procedure (eg, total body irradiation, hemibody radiation, per oral or endocavitary irradiation)
77427
Radiation treatment management, 5 treatments
77300
Basic radiation dosimetry calculation, central axis depth dose calculation, TDF, NSD, gap calculation, off axis factor, tissue inhomogeneity factors, calculation of non-ionizing radiation surface and depth dose, as required during course of treatment, only when prescribed by the treating physician
77295
3-dimensional radiotherapy plan, including dose-volume histograms
77334
Treatment devices, design and construction; complex (irregular blocks, special shields, compensators, wedges, molds or casts)
77333
Treatment devices, design and construction; intermediate (multiple blocks, stents, bite blocks, special bolus)

Medical Malpractice Cases

None Found

Medical Board Sanctions

None Found

Referrals

NPI
Doctor Name
Specialty
Count
1164597704
Hematology/Oncology
2,613
1518954395
Medical Oncology
2,549
1275569964
Radiation Oncology
1,942
1316920234
Radiation Oncology
1,922
1255377198
Hematology/Oncology
1,749
1720144512
Radiation Oncology
1,559
1801822598
Radiation Oncology
1,550
1831283340
Radiation Oncology
1,501
1730119728
Internal Medicine
1,194
1407898893
Radiation Oncology
1,076
*These referrals represent the top 10 that Dr. Ben Josef has made to other doctors

Publications

SWOG S0809: A Phase II Intergroup Trial of Adjuvant Capecitabine and Gemcitabine Followed by Radiotherapy and Concurrent Capecitabine in Extrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma and Gallbladder Carcinoma. - Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology
The role of postoperative therapy in extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (EHCC) or gallbladder carcinoma (GBCA) is unknown. S0809 was designed to estimate 2-year survival (overall and after R0 or R1 resection), pattern of relapse, and toxicity in patients treated with this adjuvant regimen.Eligibility criteria included diagnosis of EHCC or GBCA after radical resection, stage pT2-4 or N+ or positive resection margins, M0, and performance status 0 to 1. Patients received four cycles of gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m(2) intravenously on days 1 and 8) and capecitabine (1,500 mg/m(2) per day on days 1 to 14) every 21 days followed by concurrent capecitabine (1,330 mg/m(2) per day) and radiotherapy (45 Gy to regional lymphatics; 54 to 59.4 Gy to tumor bed). With 80 evaluable patients, results would be promising if 2-year survival 95% CI were > 45% and R0 and R1 survival estimates were ≥ 65% and 45%, respectively.A total of 79 eligible patients (R0, n = 54; R1, n = 25; EHCC, 68%; GBCA, 32%) were treated (86% completed). For all patients, 2-year survival was 65% (95% CI, 53% to 74%); it was 67% and 60% in R0 and R1 patients, respectively. Median overall survival was 35 months (R0, 34 months; R1, 35 months). Local, distant, and combined relapse occurred in 14, 24, and nine patients. Grade 3 and 4 adverse effects were observed in 52% and 11% of patients, respectively. The most common grade 3 to 4 adverse effects were neutropenia (44%), hand-foot syndrome (11%), diarrhea (8%), lymphopenia (8%), and leukopenia (6%). There was one death resulting from GI hemorrhage.This combination was well tolerated, has promising efficacy, and provides clinicians with a well-supported regimen. Our trial establishes the feasibility of conducting national adjuvant trials in EHCC and GBCA and provides baseline data for planning future phase III trials.© 2015 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.
Comparative assessment of liver tumor motion using cine-magnetic resonance imaging versus 4-dimensional computed tomography. - International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics
To compare the extent of tumor motion between 4-dimensional CT (4DCT) and cine-MRI in patients with hepatic tumors treated with radiation therapy.Patients with liver tumors who underwent 4DCT and 2-dimensional biplanar cine-MRI scans during simulation were retrospectively reviewed to determine the extent of target motion in the superior-inferior, anterior-posterior, and lateral directions. Cine-MRI was performed over 5 minutes. Tumor motion from MRI was determined by tracking the centroid of the gross tumor volume using deformable image registration. Motion estimates from 4DCT were performed by evaluation of the fiducial, residual contrast (or liver contour) positions in each CT phase.Sixteen patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (n=11), cholangiocarcinoma (n=3), and liver metastasis (n=2) were reviewed. Cine-MRI motion was larger than 4DCT for the superior-inferior direction in 50% of patients by a median of 3.0 mm (range, 1.5-7 mm), the anterior-posterior direction in 44% of patients by a median of 2.5 mm (range, 1-5.5 mm), and laterally in 63% of patients by a median of 1.1 mm (range, 0.2-4.5 mm).Cine-MRI frequently detects larger differences in hepatic intrafraction tumor motion when compared with 4DCT most notably in the superior-inferior direction, and may be useful when assessing the need for or treating without respiratory management, particularly in patients with unreliable 4DCT imaging. Margins wider than the internal target volume as defined by 4DCT were required to encompass nearly all the motion detected by cine-MRI for some of the patients in this study.Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Effective Palliation of Intractable Bleeding from Noonan Syndrome-associated Lymphatic Malformations by Radiotherapy. - Acta dermato-venereologica
is missing (Short communication).
Adjuvant radiation therapy improves local control after surgical resection in patients with localized adrenocortical carcinoma. - International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics
Adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC) is a rare malignancy known for high rates of local recurrence, though the benefit of postoperative radiation therapy (RT) has not been established. In this study of grossly resected ACC, we compare local control of patients treated with surgery followed by adjuvant RT to a matched cohort treated with surgery alone.We retrospectively identified patients with localized disease who underwent R0 or R1 resection followed by adjuvant RT. Only patients treated with RT at our institution were included. Matching to surgical controls was on the basis of stage, surgical margin status, tumor grade, and adjuvant mitotane.From 1991 to 2011, 360 ACC patients were evaluated for ACC at the University of Michigan (Ann Arbor, MI). Twenty patients with localized disease received postoperative adjuvant RT. These were matched to 20 controls. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups with regard to stage, margins, grade, or mitotane. Median RT dose was 55 Gy (range, 45-60 Gy). Median follow-up was 34 months. Local recurrence occurred in 1 patient treated with RT, compared with 12 patients not treated with RT (P=.0005; hazard ratio [HR] 12.59; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.62-97.88). However, recurrence-free survival was no different between the groups (P=.17; HR 1.52; 95% CI 0.67-3.45). Overall survival was also not significantly different (P=.13; HR 1.97; 95% CI 0.57-6.77), with 4 deaths in the RT group compared with 9 in the control group.Postoperative RT significantly improved local control compared with the use of surgery alone in this case-matched cohort analysis of grossly resected ACC patients. Although this retrospective series represents the largest study to date on adjuvant RT for ACC, its findings need to be prospectively confirmed.Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Pencil-beam scanning proton therapy for anal cancer: a dosimetric comparison with intensity-modulated radiotherapy. - Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden)
Background. Concurrent chemoradiotherapy cures most patients with anal squamous cell carcinoma at the cost of significant treatment-related toxicities. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) reduces side effects compared to older techniques, but whether proton beam therapy (PBT) offers additional advantages is unclear. Material and methods. Eight patients treated with PBT for anal cancer were chosen for this study. We conducted detailed plan comparisons between pencil-beam scanning PBT via two posterior oblique fields and seven-field IMRT. Cumulative dose-volume histograms were analyzed by Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and plan delivery robustness was assessed via verification computed tomography (CT) scans obtained during treatment. Results. Compared to IMRT, PBT reduced low dose radiation (≤ 30 Gy) to the small bowel, total pelvic bone marrow, external genitalia, femoral heads, and bladder (all p < 0.05) without compromising target coverage. For PBT versus IMRT, mean small bowel volume receiving ≥ 15 Gy (V15) was 81 versus 151 cm(3), mean external genitalia V20 was 14 versus 40%, and mean total pelvic bone marrow V15 was 66 versus 83% (all p = 0.008). The lumbosacral bone marrow dose was higher with PBT due to beam geometry. PBT was delivered with ≤ 1.3% interfraction deviation in the dose received by 98% of the clinical target volumes. Conclusion. Pencil-beam scanning PBT is clinically feasible and can be robustly delivered for anal cancer patients. Compared with IMRT, PBT reduces low dose radiation to important organs at risk in this population. While the clinical benefit of these differences remains to be shown, existing data suggest that limiting low dose to the small bowel and pelvic bone marrow may reduce treatment toxicity.
Clinical decision tool for optimal delivery of liver stereotactic body radiation therapy: Photons versus protons. - Practical radiation oncology
Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for treatment of liver tumors is often limited by liver dose constraints. Protons offer potential for more liver sparing, but clinical situations in which protons may be superior to photons are not well described. We developed and validated a treatment decision model to determine whether liver tumors of certain sizes and locations are more suited for photon versus proton SBRT.Six spherical mock tumors from 1 to 6 cm in diameter were contoured on computed tomography images of 1 patient at 4 locations: dome, caudal, left medial, and central. Photon and proton plans were generated to deliver 50 Gy in 5 fractions to each tumor and optimized to deliver equivalent target coverage and maximal liver sparing. Using these plans, we developed a hypothesis-generating model to predict the optimal modality for maximal liver sparing based on tumor size and location. We then validated this model in 10 patients with liver tumors.Protons spared significantly more liver than photons for dome or central tumors ≥3 cm (dome: 134 ± 21 cm(3), P = .03; central: 108 ± 4 cm(3), P = .01). Our model correctly predicted the optimal SBRT modality for all 10 patients. For patients with dome or central tumors ≥3 cm, protons significantly increased the volume of liver spared (176 ± 21 cm(3), P = .01) and decreased the mean liver dose (8.4 vs 12.2 Gy, P = .01) while offering no significant advantage for tumors <3 cm at any location or for caudal and left medial tumors of any size.When feasible, protons should be considered as the radiation modality of choice for dome and central tumors >3 cm to allow maximal liver sparing and potentially reduce radiation toxicity. Protons should also be considered for any tumor >5 cm if photon plans fail to achieve adequate coverage or exceed the mean liver threshold.Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier Inc.
DEPTOR has growth suppression activity against pancreatic cancer cells. - Oncotarget
DEPTOR was reported as a naturally occurring inhibitor of mTORC1 and mTORC2. The role of DEPTOR in the growth and survival of pancreatic cancer cells has not previously been determined. Here we report that while DEPTOR shows a cytoplasmic expression in both normal pancreatic acinar and islet cells in a patchy manner, its expression is reduced in PanIN1 and PanIN2 and completely lost in 100 out of 101 pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) tissues. Ectopic DEPTOR expression in two pancreatic cancer cell lines, Panc-1 and Miapaca-2, caused a significant 1) suppression of anchorage-dependent growth in monolayer culture, particularly under conditions with growth factor deprivation; 2) decreased clonogenic survival, and 3) suppressed anchorage-independent growth in soft agar. These effects are attributable to moderate induction of apoptosis and growth arrest at the S and G2/M phases, in a cell line dependent manner. Furthermore, ectopic DEPTOR expression moderately inhibited mTORC1 activity, as demonstrated by reduced phosphorylation of S6K, S6, and 4E-BP1. Taken together, these data suggest that DEPTOR has a tumor suppressive activity against pancreatic cancer cells, and its loss of expression may contribute to pancreatic tumorigenesis.
The use of proton therapy in the treatment of gastrointestinal cancers: liver. - Cancer journal (Sudbury, Mass.)
This article reviews the role of proton therapy in the treatment of primary liver cancer focusing on hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The dose-sparing physical properties of protons are of great advantage in the treatment of HCC. To date, the clinical experience with the use of protons for HCC is encouraging. Most studies come from East Asia and show improved local control and survival with low toxicity. More importantly, when high-enough radiation doses are delivered to early liver cancers, a substantial fraction of patients are alive at 5 years, results not dissimilar from surgical resection. The technical details related to the use of proton therapy for HCC are also reviewed. The combination of proton therapy with other locoregional or systemic therapies is currently being tested and holds promise to improve survival while maintaining an acceptable level of toxicity.
A pilot study of diffusion-weighted MRI in patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiation for pancreatic cancer. - Translational oncology
In the current study we examined the ability of diffusion MRI (dMRI) to predict pathologic response in pancreatic cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiation.We performed a prospective pilot study of dMRI in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer. Patients underwent dMRI prior to neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Surgical specimens were graded according to the percent tumor cell destruction. Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps were used to generate whole-tumor derived ADC histogram distributions and mean ADC values. The primary objective of the study was to correlate ADC parameters with pathologic and CT response.Ten of the 12 patients enrolled on the study completed chemoradiation and had surgery. Three were found to be unresectable at the time of surgery and no specimen was obtained. Out of the 7 patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy, 3 had a grade III histopathologic response (> 90% tumor cell destruction), 2 had a grade IIB response (51% to 90% tumor cell destruction), 1 had a grade IIA response (11% to 50% tumor cell destruction), and 1 had a grade I response (> 90% viable tumor). Median survival for patients with a grade III response, grade I-II response, and unresectable disease were 25.6, 18.7, and 6.1 months, respectively. There was a significant correlation between pre-treatment mean tumor ADC values and the amount of tumor cell destruction after chemoradiation with a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.94 (P = .001). Mean pre-treatment ADC was 161 × 10(- 5) mm(2)/s (n = 3) in responding patients (> 90% tumor cell destruction) compared to 125 × 10(- 5) mm(2)/s (n = 4) in non-responding patients (> 10% viable tumor). CT imaging showed no significant change in tumor size in responders or non-responders.dMRI may be useful to predict response to chemoradiation in pancreatic cancer. In our study, tumors with a low ADC mean value at baseline responded poorly to standard chemoradiation and would be candidates for intensified therapy.
Quality of life in a prospective, multicenter phase 2 trial of neoadjuvant full-dose gemcitabine, oxaliplatin, and radiation in patients with resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma. - International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics
To determine the health-related quality of life (QOL) during and after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy and surgery for patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma.Participants of a prospective, phase 2 multi-institutional trial treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by surgery completed QOL questionnaires (European Organization for Research and Treatment in Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire version 3.0 [EORTC-QLQ C30], EORTC-Pancreatic Cancer module [EORTC-PAN 26], and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic subscale [FACT-Hep]) at baseline, after 2 cycles of neoadjuvant therapy, after surgery, at 6 months from initiation of therapy, and at 6-month intervals for 2 years. Mean scores were compared with baseline. A change >10% was considered a minimal clinically important difference.Of 71 participants in the trial, 55 were eligible for QOL analysis. Compliance ranged from 32% to 74%. The EORTC-QLQ C30 global QOL did not significantly decline after neoadjuvant therapy, whereas the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy global health measure showed a statistically, but not clinically significant decline (-8, P=.02). This was in parallel with deterioration in physical functioning (-14.1, P=.001), increase in diarrhea (+16.7, P=.044), and an improvement in pancreatic pain (-13, P=.01) as per EORTC-PAN 26. Because of poor patient compliance in the nonsurgical group, long-term analysis was performed only from surgically resected participants (n=36). Among those, global QOL returned to baseline levels after 6 months, remaining near baseline through the 24-month visit.The study regimen consisting of 2 cycles of neoadjuvant therapy was completed without a clinically significant QOL deterioration. A transient increase in gastrointestinal symptoms and a decrease in physical functioning were seen after neoadjuvant chemoradiation. In those patients who underwent surgical resection, most domains returned back to baseline levels by 6 months.Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Map & Directions

3400 Civic Center Concourse Level Philadelphia, PA 19104
View Directions In Google Maps

Nearby Doctors

34Th Street & Civic Ctr Blvd
Philadelphia, PA 19104
215 907-7555
3401 Civic Ctr Blvd Children's Hsptl Of Philadelphia - Emergency Med
Philadelphia, PA 19104
215 901-1944
3401 Civic Ctr Blvd Children's Hospital Of Philadelphia - Cardiology
Philadelphia, PA 19104
215 904-4040
34Th & Civic Ctr Blvd Children's Hospital Of Philadelphia
Philadelphia, PA 19104
215 903-3440
3401 Civic Ctr Blvd Children's Hospital Of Philadelphia - Neurology
Philadelphia, PA 19104
215 901-1719
3400 Spruce St 1 Maloney Building
Philadelphia, PA 19104
215 624-4829
34Th & Civic Ctr Blvd Children's Hospital Of Philadelphia
Philadelphia, PA 19104
215 902-2708
34Th And Civic Ctr Blvd Children's Hsptl Of Philadelphia - Dept Of Radiology
Philadelphia, PA 19104
215 902-2564
3400 Spruce St
Philadelphia, PA 19104
215 622-2200
3400 Civic Ctr Blvd East Pavilion, 2Nd Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19104
215 154-4949