Advertisement

Principes de l’ oncologie médicale

Chapter
  • 749 Downloads

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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Réf.

  1. 1.
    American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts and Figures 2003. Atlanta, GA, 2003Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jemal A, Siegel R., Ward E et al. Cancer Statistics, 2007. CA Cancer J Clin 2007;57:43–66PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lichtenstein P, Holm NV, Verkasalo PK et al. Environmental and heritable factors in the causation of cancer. N Engl J Med 2000;343:78–85PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kamangar F, Dores GM, Anderson WF. Patterns of Cancer incidence, mortality, and prevalence across five continents. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:2137–2150.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Réf.

  1. 1.
    Bergen AW, Caporaso N. Cigarette smoking. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999;91:1365–1375PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berrington de Gonzales A, Darby S. Risk of cancer from diagnostic X-rays. Lancet 004;363:345–351Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hahn WC, Weinberg RA. Rules for making tumor cells. N Eng J Med 2002;347:1593–1603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jordan CT, Guzman ML, Noble M. Cancer stem cell. N Engl J Med 2006;355:1253–1261PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lichtenstein P, Holm NV, Verkasalo PK et al. Environmentol and heritable factors in the causation of cancer. N Eng J Med 2000;343:78–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ponder BAJ. Cancer genetics. Nature 2001;411:336–341PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vogelstein B, Kinzler KW. Cancer genes and the pathways they control. Nat Med 2004; 10:789–799PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    World Health Organisation IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans, 1–74. Lyon, IARC, 1972–2000Google Scholar

Ref.

  1. 1.
    Akashi K, Traver D, Kondo M et al. Lymphoid development from hematopoietic stem cells. Int J Hematol 1999;69:217–226PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baraldi-Junkins CA, Beck AC, Rothstein G. Hematopoiesis and cytokines. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am 2000;14:45–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Broxmeyer HE, Kim CH. Regulation of hematopoiesis in a sea of chemokine family members with a plethora of redundant activities. Exp Hematol 1999;27:1113–1123PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fey ME Normal and malignant hematopoiesis. Ann Oncol 2007; 18(suppl. 1):i9–i13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gilliland DG, Griffin JD. The roles of FLT3 in hematopoiesis and leukemia. Blood 2002;100:1532–1542PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hoang T. The origin of hematopoietic cell type diversity. Oncogene 2004;23:7188–7198PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kondo M, Wagers AJ, Manz MG et al. Biology of hematopoietic stem cells and progenitors: implications for clinical application. Annu Rev Immunol 2003;21:759–806PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kyba M, Daley GQ. Hematopoiesis from embryonic stem cells: lessons from and for ontogeny. Exp Hematol 2003;31:994–1006PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    LeBien TW. Fates of human B-cell precursors. Blood 2000;96:9–23PubMedGoogle Scholar

Réf.

  1. 1.
    Boyle P, Autier P, Bartelink H et al. European Code Against Cancer and scientific justification: third version (2003). Ann Oncol 2003;14:973–1005PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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;20:3328–3343PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Imperiale TF. Aspirin and the prevention of colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2003;348:879–880PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jordan VC. Chemoprevention of breast cancer with selective oestrogenreceptor modulators. Nat Rev Cancer 2007,7:46–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Key TJ, Allen NE et al. The effect of diet on risk of cancer. Lancet 2002;360:861–868PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Koutsky LA, Ault KA et al. A controlled trial of a human papillomavirus type 16 vaccine. N Engl J Med 2002;347:1645–1651PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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;56:254–281PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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;57:90–104PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Réf.

  1. 1.
    OMS. Classification internationale des maladies, 10e édition (CIM-10). OMS, Genève, 1996Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    OMS. Classification internationale des maladies pour l’oncologie, 3e édition. OMS, Genève, 2000Google Scholar

Réf.

  1. 1.
    Greene FL, Page DL, Fleming ID et al. (eds) AJCC Cancer Staging Handbook. TNM Classification of Malignant Tumors, 6th edn. Springer, New York, 2002Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gospodarowicz MK, Miller D, Groome PA et al. The process for continuous improvement of the TNMclassification. Cancer 2004;100:1–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sobin LH, Wittekind C (eds). TNM Classification of Malignant Tumors, 6th edn. Wiley, New York, 2002Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    WHO. International Classification of Diseases, 10th edn (ICD-10). WHO, Genf, 1996Google Scholar

Réf.

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

Réf.

  1. 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:1135–1131PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Garman KS, Cohen HJ. Functional status and the elderly patient. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2002;43:191–198PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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;53:2002–2007PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Oken MM, Creech RH, Tormey DC et al. Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Am J Clin Oncol 1982;5:649–655PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Réf.

  1. 1.
    Green S, Weiss GR. Southwest Oncology Group Standard response criteria, endpoint definitions and toxicity criteria. Invest New Drugs 1992; 10:239–253PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jaffe CC. Measures of response: RECIST, WHO, and new alternatives. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:3245–3251PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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;92:205–216PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    WHO. WHO handbook for reporting results of cancer treatment. WHO, 1979Google Scholar

Réf.

  1. 1.
    Brown EG, Wood L, Wood S. The medical dictionary for regulatory activities (MedDRA). Drug Saf 1999;20:109–117PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Edwards IR, Aronson JK. Adverse drug reactions: definitions, diagnosis, management. Lancet 2000;356:1255–1259PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hesslewood SR. European system for reporting adverse reactions to and defects in radiopharmaceuticals: annual report 1999. Eur J Nucl Med 2001;28:2–8Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pirmohamed M, Breckenridge AM, Kitteringham NR et al. Adverse drug reactions. BMJ 1998;316:1295–1298PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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; 13:176–181PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vincent C. Understanding and responding to adverse events. N Engl J Med 2003;348:1051–1056PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Réf.

  1. 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;36:821–825PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Giesler RB, Williams SD. Opportunities and challenges: assessing quality of life in clinical trials. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998;90:1498–1499PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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;42:3169–3177PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Réf.

  1. 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;22:2992–2996PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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;86:313–321PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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;22:2985–2991PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Vardy J, Tannock IF. Quality of cancer care. Ann Oncol 2004;15:1001–1006PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Réf.

  1. 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;10:769–773PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Eysenbach G. The impact of the internet on treatment outcomes. CA Cancer J Clin 2003;53:355–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag France, Paris 2011

Authors and Affiliations

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations