Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Innovationen der gynäkologischen Onkologie

Blick in die Klinik

Innovations in gynecological oncology

View of clinical aspects

  • Leitthema
  • Published:
Der Gynäkologe Aims and scope

Zusammenfassung

„Innovation“ bedeutet wörtlich „Neuerung“ oder „Erneuerung“. Die gynäkologische Onkologie durfte in den letzten Jahren nicht nur Zeuge, sondern v. a. Motor einer Vielzahl von Innovationen sein, die von der Primärprävention, wie der Humanen-Papillomvirus(HPV)-Vakzinierung, bis hin zu bislang ungeahnten Langzeitremissionen durch die zielgerichtete Therapie des metastasierten Mammakarzinom reicht. Solche Entwicklungen kritisch zu begleiten und aktiv mitzugestalten, ist einer der besten Garanten für die erfolgreiche Positionierung und Zukunftssicherung des Faches. In diesem Beitrag werden exemplarisch 4 Beispiele genannt, die demonstrieren sollen, dass die Gynäkologie in der Lage ist, Neuerungen des medizinischen Fortschritts aktiv zu gestalten und international Akzente zu setzen, aber auch durch die notwendige kritische Auseinandersetzung mit den neuen Methoden bislang erzielte Therapieergebnisse nicht in Gefahr zu bringen. Gerade in der interdisziplinären Zusammenarbeit liegt eine wesentliche Chance für die Gynäkologie, eine führende Rolle als Innovationsmotor einzunehmen.

Abstract

“Innovation” literally means “improvement” or “renewal”. In recent years gynecological oncology was witness to a multitude of innovations which ranged from primary prevention, such as human papillomavirus (PV) vaccination, to previously unimagined long-term remission by targeted therapy of metastasized breast cancer. One of the best guarantees for successful positioning and securing the future of this discipline is to critically accompany and actively participate in such developments. In this article four examples are named to demonstrate that gynecology has the ability to actively participate in innovations in medical progress and to set international accents but by the critical appraisal of the new methods not to endanger previously achieved therapy results. Especially in interdisciplinary cooperation gynecology has a major chance to play a leading role as a driver of innovation.

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

Literatur

  1. Neis KJ et al (2008) Laparoskopische Operation von Ovarialtumoren. Leitlinien der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe.

  2. Wimberger P et al (2007) Prognostic factors for complete debulking in advanced ovarian cancer and its impact on survival. An exploratory analysis of a prospectively randomized phase III study of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynaekologische Onkologie Ovarian Cancer Study Group (AGO-OVAR). Gynecol Oncol 106:69–74

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Reich H, DeCaprio J, McGlynn F (1989) Laparascopic hysterectomy. J Gynecol Surg 5:213–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ju W et al (2009) Comparison of laparoscopy and laparotomy for management of endometrial carcinoma: a meta-analysis. Int J Gynecol Cancer 19:400–406

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Scholz C et al (2010) Cervical cancer – minimally invasive treatment. MMW Fortschr Med 152:36–37

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Marnitz S et al (2005) Is there a benefit of pretreatment laparoscopic transperitoneal surgical staging in patients with advanced cervical cancer? Gynecol Oncol 99:536–544

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hockel M et al (2009) Resection of the embryologically defined uterovaginal (Mullerian) compartment and pelvic control in patients with cervical cancer: a prospective analysis. Lancet Oncol 10:683–692

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Fader AN, Escobar PF (2009) Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) in gynecologic oncology: technique and initial report. Gynecol Oncol 114:157–161

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bell MC et al (2008) Comparison of outcomes and cost for endometrial cancer staging via traditional laparotomy, standard laparoscopy and robotic techniques. Gynecol Oncol 111:407–411

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Goldhirsch A et al (2005) Meeting highlights: international expert consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2005. Ann Oncol 16:1569–1583

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Goldhirsch A et al (2011) Strategies for subtypes – dealing with the diversity of breast cancer: highlights of the St. Gallen International expert consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2011. Ann Oncol 22:1736–1747

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Sorlie T et al (2001) Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 98:10869–10874

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Sotiriou C, Pusztai L (2009) Gene-expression signatures in breast cancer. N Engl J Med 360:790–800

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Filipits M et al (2011) A new molecular predictor of distant recurrence in ER-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer adds independent information to conventional clinical risk factors. Clin Cancer Res 17:6012–6020

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Albain KS et al (2010) Prognostic and predictive value of the 21-gene recurrence score assay in postmenopausal women with node-positive, oestrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer on chemotherapy: a retrospective analysis of a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol 11:55–65

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Bois A du et al (2009) Role of surgical outcome as prognostic factor in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: a combined exploratory analysis of 3 prospectively randomized phase 3 multicenter trials: by the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynaekologische Onkologie Studiengruppe Ovarialkarzinom (AGO-OVAR) and the Groupe d’Investigateurs Nationaux Pour les Etudes des Cancers de l’Ovaire (GINECO). Cancer 115:1234–1244

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Harter P et al (2011) Impact of a structured quality management program on surgical outcome in primary advanced ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 121:615–619

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Burger RA et al (2011) Incorporation of bevacizumab in the primary treatment of ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med 365:2473–2483

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Perren TJ et al (2011) A phase 3 trial of bevacizumab in ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med 365:2484–2496

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Aghajanian C et al (2012) OCEANS: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trial of chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab in patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer. J Clin Oncol 30:2039–2045

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Pujade-Lauraine E (2012) AURELIA: a randomized, phase III trial evaluating bevacizumab (BEV) plus chemotherapy (CT) for platinum (PT)-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer (OC), in ASCO 2012; LBA 5002; 2012

  22. Ledermann J et al (2012) Olaparib maintenance therapy in platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med 366:1382–1392

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Harter P et al (2011) Prospective validation study of a predictive score for operability of recurrent ovarian cancer: the Multicenter Intergroup Study DESKTOP II. A project of the AGO Kommission OVAR, AGO Study Group, NOGGO, AGO-Austria, and MITO. Int J Gynecol Cancer 21:289–295

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Darby S et al (2011) Effect of radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery on 10-year recurrence and 15-year breast cancer death: meta-analysis of individual patient data for 10,801 women in 17 randomised trials. Lancet 378:1707–1716

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Friedrichs SU (2012) AGO-Diagnostik und Therapie primärer und metatsasierter Mammakarzinome – Adjuvante Strahlentherapie. Version 2012

  26. Fisher B et al (2002) Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing total mastectomy, lumpectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradiation for the treatment of invasive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 347:1233–1241

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Sedlmayer F et al (2007) IORT with electrons as boost strategy during breast conserving therapy in limited stage breast cancer: results of an ISIORT pooled analysis. Strahlenther Onkol 183:32–34

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Wenz F et al (2010) Intraoperative radiotherapy as a boost during breast-conserving surgery using low-kilovoltage X-rays: the first 5 years of experience with a novel approach. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 77:1309–1314

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Vaidya JS et al (2010) Targeted intraoperative radiotherapy versus whole breast radiotherapy for breast cancer (TARGIT-A trial): an international, prospective, randomised, non-inferiority phase 3 trial. Lancet 376:91–102

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Veronesi U et al (2010) Intraoperative radiotherapy during breast conserving surgery: a study on 1,822 cases treated with electrons. Breast Cancer Res Treat 124:141–151

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Neumaier C et al (2012) TARGIT-E(lderly) – Prospective phase II study of intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) in elderly patients with small breast cancer. BMC Cancer 12:171

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Wenz F et al (2009) Accelerated partial-breast irradiation (APBI) – ready for prime time? Strahlenther Onkol 185:653–655

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. DEGRO http://www.degro.org: Positionspapiere der DEGRO: Stellungsnahme zur intraoperativen-Teilbrustbestrahlung

  34. Sautter-Bihl ML et al (2010) Intraoperative radiotherapy as accelerated partial breast irradiation for early breast cancer: beware of one-stop shops? Strahlenther Onkol 186:651–657

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Danksagung

Die Autoren bedanken sich bei Prof. Dr. F. Kainer und Prof. Dr. J. Krüssel für deren Einschätzungen zu zukünftigen Innovationen in den Bereichen Geburts- und Reproduktionsmedizin.

Interessenkonflikt

Der korrespondierende Autor gibt für sich und seine Koautoren an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Frauenklinik, Heinrich-Heine-Universität, Moorenstr. 5, 40225, Düsseldorf, Deutschland

    W. Janni, M.C. Fleisch, J. Huober, J. Salmen, C. Scholz & B. Thürlimann

Authors
  1. W. Janni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M.C. Fleisch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. Huober
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. J. Salmen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. C. Scholz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. B. Thürlimann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to W. Janni.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Janni, W., Fleisch, M., Huober, J. et al. Innovationen der gynäkologischen Onkologie. Gynäkologe 45, 669–677 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00129-012-2962-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00129-012-2962-4

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation