Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Kolonkarzinom-Update

Darmkrebs — das Neueste in Diagnostik und Therapie

  • Gastroonkologie
  • Zertifizierte Fortbildung
  • Published:
Im Focus Onkologie Aims and scope

Zusammenfassung

Das kolorektale Karzinom hat nicht an epidemiologischer Relevanz verloren. Nach wie vor ist es bei Männern die zweithäufigste, bei Frauen die dritthäufigste krebsbedingte Todesursache. Erfahren Sie hier, was sich in den letzten Jahren in puncto Diagnostik und Therapie getan hat.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3

Literatur

  1. Bericht zum Krebsgeschehen in Deutschland 2016. Zentrum für Krebsregisterdaten im Robert Koch-Institut (Hrsg). Berlin; 2016.

  2. Majek O et al. Survival from colorectal cancer in Germany in the early 21st century. Br J Cancer. 2012;106(11):1875–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. S3-Leitlinie kolorektales Karzinom; Stand: 30.11.2017; AWMF-Registernummer: 021/007OL.

  4. Haug U et al. Immunochemical faecal occult blood testing to screen for colorectal cancer: can the screening interval be extended? Gut. 2017;66(7):1262–1267.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lee JK et al. Accuracy of fecal immunochemical tests for colorectal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2014;160(3):171.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. http://www.kbv.de/html/1150_28517.php. Zugegriffen am 06.05.2017

  7. Imperiale TF et al. Multitarget stool DNA testing for colorectal cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(14):1287–97.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Brenner H et al. Multitarget stool DNA testing for colorectal-cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(2):184–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Church TR et al. Prospective evaluation of methylated SEPT9 in plasma for detection of asymptomatic colorectal cancer. Gut. 2014;63(2):317–25.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. de Haan MC et al. Diagnostic value of CT-colonography as compared to colonoscopy in an asymptomatic screening population: a metaanalysis. Eur Radiol. 2011;21(8):1747–63.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. El-Maraghi RH, Kielar AZ. CT colonography versus optical colonoscopy for screening asymptomatic patients for colorectal cancer a patient, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) analysis. Acad Radiol. 2009;16(5):564–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ragnhammar P et al. A systematic overview of chemotherapy effects in colorectal cancer. Acta Oncol. 2001;40(2-3):282–308.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Andre T et al. Oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin as adjuvant treatment for colon cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;350(23):2343–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Haller DG et al. Capecitabine plus oxaliplatin compared with fluorouracil and folinic acid as adjuvant therapy for stage III colon cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(11):1465–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Yothers G et al. Oxaliplatin as adjuvant therapyfor coloncancer:updatedresults of NSABP C-07 trial, including survival and subset analyses. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(28):3768–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Saltz LB et al. Irinotecan fluorouracil plus leucovorin is not superior to fluorouracil plus leucovorin alone as adjuvant treatment for stage III colon cancer: Results of CALGB 89803. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(23):3456–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hohenberger W et al. Standardized surgery for colonic cancer: completen mesocolic excision and central ligation — technical notes and outcome. Colorectal Dis. 2009;11(4):354–64

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Bernhoff R et al. Improved survival after an educational project on colon cancer management in the county of Stockholm — A population based cohort study. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2015;41(11):1479–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Bertelsen CA et al. Disease-free survival after complete mesocolic excision compared with conventional colon cancer surgery: a retrospective, population-based study. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(2):161–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Buunen M et al. Survival after laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer: long-term outcome of a randomised clinical trial. Lancet Oncol. 2009;10(1):44–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Fleshman J et al. Laparoscopic colectomy for cancer is not inferior to open surgery based on 5-year data from the COST Study Group trial. Ann Surg. 2007;246(4):655–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Green BL et al. Long-term follow-up of the Medical Research Council CLASICC trial of conventional versus laparoscopically assisted resection in colorectal cancer. Br J Surg. 2013;100(1):75–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Heinrich S, Lang H. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy or primary surgery for colorectal liver metastases. Pro primary surgery. Chirurg. 2014;85(1):17–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Verwaal VJ et al. Randomized trial of cytoreduction and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy versus systemic chemotherapy and palliative surgery in patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis of colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21(20):3737–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Klinik für Allgemein-, Viszeral- und Gefäßchirurgie, Charité — Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Benjamin Franklin, Hindenburgdamm 30, 12200, Berlin, Deutschland

    Christoph Holmer

  2. http://www.springermedizin.de

    Martin E. Kreis

Authors
  1. Christoph Holmer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Martin E. Kreis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christoph Holmer.

Additional information

Interessenkonflikt

Die Autoren erklären, dass sie sich bei der Erstellung des Beitrages von keinen wirtschaftlichen Interessen leiten ließen. Sie legen folgende potenzielle Interessenkonflikte offen: PD Dr. med. Christoph Holmer: keine; Prof. Dr. med. Martin E. Kreis: Vorträge für die Firma Coloplast.

Der Verlag erklärt, dass die inhaltliche Qualität des Beitrags von zwei unabhängigen Gutachtern geprüft wurde. Werbung in dieser Zeitschriftenausgabe hat keinen Bezug zur CME-Fortbildung. Der Verlag garantiert, dass die CME-Fortbildung sowie die CME-Fragen frei sind von werblichen Aussagen und keinerlei Produktempfehlungen enthalten. Dies gilt insbesondere für Präparate, die zur Therapie des dargestellten Krankheitsbildes geeignet sind.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Holmer, C., Kreis, M.E. Darmkrebs — das Neueste in Diagnostik und Therapie. Im Focus Onkologie 21, 59–67 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s15015-018-3603-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s15015-018-3603-0

Search

Navigation