Advertisement

Versorgungsstruktur, Qualitätssicherung und klinische Studien beim invasiven Ovarialkarzinom in Deutschland — Aktionsprogramm QS-OVAR der AGO und Aktivitäten der AGO-Studiengruppe

  • A. du Bois
  • J. Rochon
  • C. Lamparter
  • G. Elser
  • J. Pfisterer
Part of the Onkologie aktuell book series (ONKAKTUELL)

Auszug

Das Ovarialkarzinom ist unverändert die führende Todesursache bei den gynäkologischen Tumoren. Das Lebenszeitrisiko variiert zwischen 1,1 und 1,6 in Europa und den USA (Parkin et al. 2002). Unter dem ICD-Code für maligne Ovarialtumoren verbergen sich so unterschiedliche Entitäten wie Keimzelltumoren, Stromazelltumoren, Sarkome und epitheliale Tumoren. Legt man die amerikanischen Daten zugrunde, so sind 78,7% der malignen Ovarialtumoren invasive Karzinome (Goodmann u. Howe 2003). Dies entspräche gemäß den Daten aus dem Robert-Koch-Institut einer jährlichen Inzidenz von etwa 6000–8000 Neudiagnosen eines epithelialen Ovarialkarzinoms für Deutschland.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. Antman K., Amato D, Wood W et al.: Selection bias in clincal trials. J Clin Oncol 3: 1142–1147, 1985.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynäkologische Onkologie Organkommission OVAR: Ovarialkarzinom State of the Art 2003, ISBN 3-00-011911-6, 2003.Google Scholar
  3. Bauknecht T, Breitbach GP, Bois A du et al.: Maligne Ovarialtumoren. In: Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft e. V., Qualitätssicherung in der On kologie, kurzgefasste interdisziplinäre Leitlinien 2000. München, Zuckschwerdt, 2000, S 301–318Google Scholar
  4. Belau A, Pfisterer J, Wimberger P, Kurzeder C, du Bois A, Sehouli J, Loibl S, Burchardi N, Vergote I, Wagner U (2007) Randomized, multicenter, 2-dose-level, open-label, phase lla study with the intraperitoneally infused trifunctional bispecific antibody catumaxomab (anti-EpCAM x anti-CD3) to select the better dose level in patinum refractory epithelial ovarian cancer patients, J Clin Oncol 25, 18S: 5556Google Scholar
  5. Berrino F, Capocaccia R, Esteve J et al. (eds.): Survival of cancer patients in Europe: the EUROCARE-2 study. IARC Scientific Publications No. 151, Lyon, 1999.Google Scholar
  6. Berrino F, Capocaccia R, Coleman MP et al. (eds.): Survival of cancer patients in Europe: the EUROCARE-3 study. Ann Oncol 14 (Suppl 3): v100, 2003Google Scholar
  7. Boros L, Chuang C, Butler FO, Bennett JM: Leukemia in Rochester (NY). A 17-year experience with an analysis of the role of Cooperative Group (ECOG) participation. Cancer 56: 2161–2169, 1985PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Braunholtz DA, Edwards SJL, Lilford RJ: Are randomized clinical trials good for us (in short term)? Evidence for a »trial effect«. J Clin Epidemiol 54: 217–224, 2001PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burger JA, Arance A, Ashcroft L et al.: Identical chemotherapy schedules given on and off trial protocol in small cell lung cancer reponse and survival results. Br J Cancer 87: 562–566, 2002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cottin V, Arpin D, Lasset C et al.: Small-cell lung cancer: Patients included in clinical trials are not representative of the patient population as a whole. Ann Oncol 10: 809–815 1999.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cress RD, O’Malley CD, Leiserowitz GS et al: Patterns of chemotherapy use for women with ovarian cancer: a population-based study. J Clin Oncol 21: 1530–1535, 2003PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davis S, Wright PW, Schulman SF et al.: Participants in prospective, randomized clinical trials for resected non-small cell lung cancer have improved survival compared with nonparticipants in such trials. Cancer 56: 1710–1718, 1985PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. du Dois A, Pfisterer J, Kellermann L, et al.: Die Therapie, des fortgeschrittenen Ovarialkarzinoms in Deutschland: Welchen Einfluss hat die Teilnahme an klinischen Studien? Geburtsch. u. Frauenheilked 61: 863–871, 2001aCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. du Bois A, Pfisterer J, Kellermann L: Die Therapie des fortgeschrittenen Ovarialkarzinoms in Deutschland: Ergebnisse einer Umfrage der Organkommission OVAR der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynäkologische Onkologie (AGO) in der Deutschen Krebsgesellschaft. Gynäkologe 34: 1029–1040, 2001bCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. du Bois A, Quinn M, Thigpen T et al.: 2004 Consensus statements on the management of ovarian cancer: final document of the 3rd International Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup Ovarian Cancer Consensus Conference (GCIG OCCC 2004), Ann Oncol 16 (Suppl. 8): viii7–viii12, 2005aGoogle Scholar
  16. du Bois A, Rochon J, Lamparter C et al: Pattern of care and impact of participation in clinical trials on outcome in ovarian oancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 15: 183–191, 2005bPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. du Bois A, Rochon J, Lamparter C, Pfisterer J: Das Qualitätssicherungsprogramm der AGO Organkommission OVAR (QS-OVAR): Ver sorgungsstruktur und Realität in Deutschland 2001. Zentralbl Gynakol 127: 9–17, 2005cPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. du Bois A, Rochon J, Lamparter C, Pfisterer: Welchen Einfluss haben Klinikmerkmale auf die Prognose des Ovarialkarzinoms in Deutschland? Zentralbl Gynakol 127: 18–30, 2005dPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. du Bois A, Rochon J, Lamparter C, Pfisterer J: Ovarialkarzinom — Versorgungsstruktur und-qualität in Deutschland 2001–2004, Frauenarzt 7/2005: 560–567, 2005eGoogle Scholar
  20. Eisenkop SM, Spirtos NM: What are current surgical objectives, strategies, and technical capabilities of gynecologic oncologists treating advanced epithelial ovarian cancer? Gynecol Oncol 82: 489–497, 2001PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gnant M on behalf of the Austrian Breast & Colorectal Cancer Study Group: Impact of participation in randomized clinical trials on survival of women with early stage breast cancer. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 19: 74a, 2000 (Abstr)Google Scholar
  22. Goodmann MT, Howe HL: Descriptive epidemiology of ovarian cancer in the United States, 1992–1997. Cancer 97 (Suppl): 2615–2630, 2003Google Scholar
  23. Harlan LC, Clegg LX, Trimble EL: Trends in surgery and chemotherapy for women diagnosed with ovarian cancer in the United States. J Clin Oncol 21:3488–3494, 2003PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Heintz APM, Odincino F, Maisonneuve P et al. Carcinoma of the ovary. In: Pecorelli S (ed) FIGO Annual report on the results of treatment in gynaecological cancer. J Epidemiology Biostatistics 6 107–138, 2001Google Scholar
  25. Hjorth M, Holmberg E, Rödjer S, Westin J: Impact of active and passive exclusions on the results of a clinical trial in multiple myeloma. Br J Haematol 80: 55–61, 1992PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Karjalainen S, Palva I: Do treatment protocols improve end results? A study of survival of patients with multiple myeloma in Finland. BMJ 299: 1069–1989, 1989PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lin PS, Gershenson DM, Bevers M, Lucas K, Burke TW, Silva EG: The current status of surgical staging of ovarian serous borderline tumors. Cancer 85: 905–911, 1999PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McGowan L, Lesher LP, Norris HJ et al.: Misstaging of ovarian cancer. Obstet Gynecol 65: 568–572, 1985PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Meier W, du Bois A, Reuss A, Kuhn W, Gropp M, Pfisterer J, Kimmig R, Olbricht S, Wagner U, Richter B, Moebus V (2004) Topotecan versus treosulfan in early recurrent ovarian cancer after primary platinum/paditaxel chemotherapy. A prospective randomized phase III trial of the AGO Ovarian Cancer Study Group, Int J Gynecol Cancer 2004, 14 (Suppl 1), 2Google Scholar
  30. Munoz KA, Harlan LC, Trimble EL: Patterns of care for women with ovarian cancer in the United States. J Clin Oncol 15: 3408–3415, 1997PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. O’Malley CD, Cress RD, Campleman SL, Leiserowitz GS: Survival of California women with epithelial ovarian cancer, 1994–1996: A population-based study. Gynecol Oncol 91:608–615, 2003PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Obermair A, Sevelda P, Oberaigner W, Marth C: Wie gut ist die Behandlung des Ovarialkarzinoms in Österreich? Frauenarzt 44: 732–736, 2003Google Scholar
  33. Parkin DM, Whelan SL, Ferlay J, Teppo L, Thomas DB (eds.): Cancer incidence infive continents. Vol. VIII, IARC Scientific Publications No. 155, Lyon, France, 2002Google Scholar
  34. Peppercorn JM, Weeks JC, Cook EF et al.: Comparison of outcomes in cancer patients treated within and outside clinical trials: conceptual framework and structured review. Lancet 363: 263–270, 2004PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rahman ZU, Frye DK, Buzdar AU et al.: Impact of selection process on response rate and long-term survival of potential high-dose chemotherapy candidates treated with standard-dose doxorubicin-containing chemotherapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 15:3171–3177, 1997PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Tingulstad S, Skjeldestad FE, Halvorsen TB, Hagen B: Survival and prognostic factors in patients with ovarian cancer. Obstet Gynecol 101: 885–891, 2003PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wagner HP, Dingeldein-Bettler I, Berchthold W et al.: Childhood NHL in Swizerland: Incidence and survival of 120 study and 42 non-study patients. Med Pediatr Oncol 24: 281–286, 1995PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ward LC, Fielding JWL, Dunn JA et al.: The selection of cases for randomised, trials: a registry survey of concurrent trial and non-trial patients. Br J Cancer 66: 943–930, 1992PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Winger MJ, Macdonald DR, Schold C, Cairncross JG: Selection bias in clinical trials of anaplastic glioma. Ann Neurol 26: 531–534, 1989PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wolfe CDA, Tilling K, Raju KS: Management and survival of ovarian cancer patients in South East England. Eur J Cancer 33: 1835–1840, 1997PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Medizin Verlag Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. du Bois
    • 1
  • J. Rochon
    • 2
  • C. Lamparter
    • 3
  • G. Elser
    • 4
  • J. Pfisterer
    • 5
  1. 1.Klinik für Gynäkologie und Gyn. OnkologieDr.-Horst-Schmidt-KlinikenWiesbaden
  2. 2.Zentrum für Klinische StudienKlinikum der Universität RegensburgRegensburg
  3. 3.MMF Marktforschung GmbHHerdecke
  4. 4.AGO-StudiengruppeWiesbaden
  5. 5.Klinik für Gunäkologie und Geburtshilfe Campus KielUniversitätsklinikum Schleswig-HolsteinKiel

Personalised recommendations