Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Principes de l’ oncologie médicale

  • Chapter
Précis d’hématologie et d’oncologie

  • 815 Accesses

Résumé

Déf.: Décrit la fréquence à laquelle une maladie survient et examine les relations possibles entre la survenue de la maladie et les facteurs de risque.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Réf.

  1. American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts and Figures 2003. Atlanta, GA, 2003

    Google Scholar 

  2. Jemal A, Siegel R., Ward E et al. Cancer Statistics, 2007. CA Cancer J Clin 2007;57:43–66

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Lichtenstein P, Holm NV, Verkasalo PK et al. Environmental and heritable factors in the causation of cancer. N Engl J Med 2000;343:78–85

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Kamangar F, Dores GM, Anderson WF. Patterns of Cancer incidence, mortality, and prevalence across five continents. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:2137–2150.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Réf.

  1. Bergen AW, Caporaso N. Cigarette smoking. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999;91:1365–1375

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Berrington de Gonzales A, Darby S. Risk of cancer from diagnostic X-rays. Lancet 004;363:345–351

    Google Scholar 

  3. Hahn WC, Weinberg RA. Rules for making tumor cells. N Eng J Med 2002;347:1593–1603

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Jordan CT, Guzman ML, Noble M. Cancer stem cell. N Engl J Med 2006;355:1253–1261

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Lichtenstein P, Holm NV, Verkasalo PK et al. Environmentol and heritable factors in the causation of cancer. N Eng J Med 2000;343:78–85

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Ponder BAJ. Cancer genetics. Nature 2001;411:336–341

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Vogelstein B, Kinzler KW. Cancer genes and the pathways they control. Nat Med 2004; 10:789–799

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. World Health Organisation IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans, 1–74. Lyon, IARC, 1972–2000

    Google Scholar 

Ref.

  1. Akashi K, Traver D, Kondo M et al. Lymphoid development from hematopoietic stem cells. Int J Hematol 1999;69:217–226

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Baraldi-Junkins CA, Beck AC, Rothstein G. Hematopoiesis and cytokines. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am 2000;14:45–61

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Broxmeyer HE, Kim CH. Regulation of hematopoiesis in a sea of chemokine family members with a plethora of redundant activities. Exp Hematol 1999;27:1113–1123

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Fey ME Normal and malignant hematopoiesis. Ann Oncol 2007; 18(suppl. 1):i9–i13

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Gilliland DG, Griffin JD. The roles of FLT3 in hematopoiesis and leukemia. Blood 2002;100:1532–1542

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Hoang T. The origin of hematopoietic cell type diversity. Oncogene 2004;23:7188–7198

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Kondo M, Wagers AJ, Manz MG et al. Biology of hematopoietic stem cells and progenitors: implications for clinical application. Annu Rev Immunol 2003;21:759–806

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Kyba M, Daley GQ. Hematopoiesis from embryonic stem cells: lessons from and for ontogeny. Exp Hematol 2003;31:994–1006

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. LeBien TW. Fates of human B-cell precursors. Blood 2000;96:9–23

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Réf.

  1. Boyle P, Autier P, Bartelink H et al. European Code Against Cancer and scientific justification: third version (2003). Ann Oncol 2003;14:973–1005

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Chlebowski RT, Col N et al. ASCO Technology Assessment of Pharmacology Interventions for Breast Cancer Risk Reduction Including Tamoxifen, Raloxifen and Aromatase Inhibition. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:3328–3343

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Imperiale TF. Aspirin and the prevention of colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2003;348:879–880

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Jordan VC. Chemoprevention of breast cancer with selective oestrogenreceptor modulators. Nat Rev Cancer 2007,7:46–53

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Key TJ, Allen NE et al. The effect of diet on risk of cancer. Lancet 2002;360:861–868

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Koutsky LA, Ault KA et al. A controlled trial of a human papillomavirus type 16 vaccine. N Engl J Med 2002;347:1645–1651

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Kushi LH, Byers T, Doyle C et al. ACS Guidelines on Nutrition and Physical Activity for Cancer Prevention: Reducing the Risk of Cancer With Healthy Food Choices and Physical Activity. CA Cancer J Clin 2006;56:254–281

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Smith RA, Cokkinides V, Eyre HJ. Cancer screening in the US, 2007: A review of current guidelines, practies, and prospects. CA Cancer J Clin 2007;57:90–104

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Réf.

  1. OMS. Classification internationale des maladies, 10e édition (CIM-10). OMS, Genève, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  2. OMS. Classification internationale des maladies pour l’oncologie, 3e édition. OMS, Genève, 2000

    Google Scholar 

Réf.

  1. Greene FL, Page DL, Fleming ID et al. (eds) AJCC Cancer Staging Handbook. TNM Classification of Malignant Tumors, 6th edn. Springer, New York, 2002

    Google Scholar 

  2. Gospodarowicz MK, Miller D, Groome PA et al. The process for continuous improvement of the TNMclassification. Cancer 2004;100:1–5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Sobin LH, Wittekind C (eds). TNM Classification of Malignant Tumors, 6th edn. Wiley, New York, 2002

    Google Scholar 

  4. WHO. International Classification of Diseases, 10th edn (ICD-10). WHO, Genf, 1996

    Google Scholar 

Réf.

  1. Julia H, Rowland JH, Hewitt M, Ganz PA. Cancer survivorship: a new challenge in delivering quality cancer care. J Clin Onc 2006;24:5101–5104

    Article  Google Scholar 

Réf.

  1. Buccheri G, Ferrigno D, Tamburini M. Karnofsky and ECOG performance status scoring in lung cancer: a prospective, longitudinal study of 536 patients from a single institution. Eur J Cancer 1996;32A:1135–1131

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Garman KS, Cohen HJ. Functional status and the elderly patient. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2002;43:191–198

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Mor V, Laliberte L, Morris JN et al. The Karnofsky Performance Status Scale. An examination of its reliability and validity in a research setting. Cancer 1984;53:2002–2007

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Oken MM, Creech RH, Tormey DC et al. Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Am J Clin Oncol 1982;5:649–655

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Réf.

  1. Green S, Weiss GR. Southwest Oncology Group Standard response criteria, endpoint definitions and toxicity criteria. Invest New Drugs 1992; 10:239–253

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Jaffe CC. Measures of response: RECIST, WHO, and new alternatives. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:3245–3251

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA et al. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:205–216

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. WHO. WHO handbook for reporting results of cancer treatment. WHO, 1979

    Google Scholar 

Réf.

  1. Brown EG, Wood L, Wood S. The medical dictionary for regulatory activities (MedDRA). Drug Saf 1999;20:109–117

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Edwards IR, Aronson JK. Adverse drug reactions: definitions, diagnosis, management. Lancet 2000;356:1255–1259

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Hesslewood SR. European system for reporting adverse reactions to and defects in radiopharmaceuticals: annual report 1999. Eur J Nucl Med 2001;28:2–8

    Google Scholar 

  4. Pirmohamed M, Breckenridge AM, Kitteringham NR et al. Adverse drug reactions. BMJ 1998;316:1295–1298

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Trotti A, Colevas AD, Setser A et al. CTCAE v3.0: development of a comprehensive grading system for the adverse effects of cancer treatment. Semin Radiat Oncol 2003; 13:176–181

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Vincent C. Understanding and responding to adverse events. N Engl J Med 2003;348:1051–1056

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Réf.

  1. de Haes J, Curran D, Young T et al. Quality of life evaluation in oncological clinical trials — the EORTC model. Eur J Cancer 2000;36:821–825

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Giesler RB, Williams SD. Opportunities and challenges: assessing quality of life in clinical trials. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998;90:1498–1499

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Holzner B, Bode RK, Hahn EA et al. Equating EORTC QLQ-C30 and FACT-G scores and its use in oncological research. Eur J Cancer 2006;42:3169–3177

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Réf.

  1. Ayanian JZ, Crischilles EA, Wallace RB et al. Understanding cancer treatment and outcomes: the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance Consortium. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:2992–2996

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ray-Coquard I, Philip T, de Laroche G et al. A controlled before-after study: impact of a clinical guidelines program and regional cancer network organization on medical practice. Br J Cancer 2002;86:313–321

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Schneider EC, Epstein AM, Malin JL et al. Developing a system to assess the quality of cancer care: ASCO’s National Initiative on Cancer Care Quality. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:2985–2991

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Vardy J, Tannock IF. Quality of cancer care. Ann Oncol 2004;15:1001–1006

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Réf.

  1. Casali P, Licitra L, Tondini C et al. START: a European state-of-the-art on-line instrument for clinical oncologists. Ann Oncol 1999;10:769–773

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Eysenbach G. The impact of the internet on treatment outcomes. CA Cancer J Clin 2003;53:355–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. D. P. Berger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. H. Henß
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. U. Martens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. C. I. Müller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. M. Engelhardt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. R. Engelhardt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. H. Bertz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. S. Fetscher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer-Verlag France, Paris

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Berger, D.P. et al. (2011). Principes de l’ oncologie médicale. In: Précis d’hématologie et d’oncologie. Springer, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-2-287-99342-8_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-2-287-99342-8_1

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Paris

  • Print ISBN: 978-2-287-99341-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-2-287-99342-8

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation