Download PDF
Z Gastroenterol 2009; 47(3): 296-306
DOI: 10.1055/s-2008-1027989
Übersicht

© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Gastrointestinale Onkologie – Therapieupdate 2008 / 2009

Gastrointestinal Oncology – Therapy Update 2008 / 2009M. P. Ebert1 , C. Auernhammer2 , K. Caca3 , F. Eckel1 , W. Fischbach4 , M. Geissler5 , B. Göke2 , T. Greten6 , S. Kubicka6 , M. P. Lutz7 , M. Möhler8 , O. Opitz9 , M. Pavel10 , R. Porschen11 , A. Reinacher-Schick12 , W. Schmiegel12 , T. Seufferlein13 , B. Wiedenmann10 , R. M. Schmid1
  • 1II. Medizinische Klinik, Klinikum rechts der Isar, TU München
  • 2Medizinische Klinik und Poliklinik II, Klinikum der Universität München
  • 3Medizinische Klinik I, Klinikum Ludwigsburg-Bietigheim
  • 4Medizinische Klinik II, Klinikum Aschaffenburg
  • 5Medizinische Klinik, Städtische Kliniken, Esslingen
  • 6Abteilung Gastroenterologie, Hepatologie und Endokrinologie, Medizinische Hochschule Hannover
  • 7Medizinische Klinik, Caritasklinik St. Theresia, Saarbrücken
  • 8I. Medizinische Klinik und Poliklinik, Universitätsklinikum Mainz
  • 9Tumorzentrum Ludwig Heilmeyer-CCCF, Universitätsklinikum Freiburg
  • 10Medizinische Klinik, Charité Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Berlin
  • 11Medizinische Klinik, Klinikum Bremen-Ost
  • 12Ruhr-Universität Bochum Medizinische Universitätsklinik, Knappschaftskrankenhaus, Bochum
  • 13Klinik für Innere Medizin I, Universitätsklinikum Halle (Saale)
Further Information

Publication History

Manuskript eingetroffen: 22.10.2008

Manuskript akzeptiert: 9.11.2008

Publication Date:
06 March 2009 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Die Therapie gastrointestinaler Malignome wird zunehmend komplexer und ist immer neuen Aspekten aktueller klinischer Studien unterworfen. Die Steuerungsgruppe der AGIO hat sich zum Ziel gemacht, über die derzeitig gültigen Behandlungsrichtlinien gastrointestinaler Tumoren hinausgehend die aktuelle Studienlage 2008 zeitgerecht zusammenzufassen, um neueste Behandlungoptionen für die wesentlichen gastrointestinalen Tumoren darzustellen. In dieser Übersichtsarbeit werden daher aktuelle Daten aus klinischen Studien zum Ösophagus-, Magen-, Pankreas, Cholangio- und Leberzellkarzinom sowie für kolorektalen Karzinome, neuroendokrine Tumoren und Lymphome des Gastrointestinaltrakts dargestellt. Dabei wurden sowohl aktuelle Kombinationen mit zielgerichteten „Targeted Therapies” als auch erste prädiktive Biomarker als Grundlage für die Therapieentscheidung berücksichtigt.

Abstract

As a consequence of recent studies the treatment of gastrointestinal cancers has become challenging and is undergoing constant changes on the basis of the results of new trials. The steering committee of the working group on gastrointestinal cancers of the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Verdauungs- und Stoffwechselkrankheiten has decided to summarise and present recent updates of the current treatment guidelines and recommendations for the most relevant gastrointestinal malignancies. In this review we have included recent findings from large trials on esophageal, gastric, pancreatic, cholangiocellular and liver cancers, as well as colorectal cancers, neuroendocrine tumours and lymphomas. This includes an update on the combination with novel targeted agents and the introduction of potential predictive biomarkers in the selection of the appropriate treatment strategy.

Schlüsselwörter

kolorektales Karzinom - Magenkarzinom - Gastro-entero-pankreatische Tumoren - Onkologie - Tumortherapie

Key words

colorectal cancer - stomach cancer - gastro-entero-pancreatic tumours - oncology - tumour therapy

Literatur

  • 1 Siewert J R, Ott K. Are squamous and adenocarcinomas of the esophagus the same disease?.  Semin Radiat Oncol. 2007;  17 38-44
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Groth S S, Whitson B A, Li Z. et al . Determination of the ideal number of lymph nodes to examine to optimize survival in patients with esophageal carcinoma: Data from the surveillance epidemiology and end results database.  J Clin Oncol. 2008;  26 A4528
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Pech O, May A, Gossner L. et al . Curative endoscopic therapy in patients with early esophageal squamous-cell carcinoma or high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia.  Endoscopy. 2007;  39 30-35
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Ishii N, Tsukamoto M, Izuka Y. et al . Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection Is a Safe and Effective Treatment for Superficial Esophageal Cancer. First Results in a Primary Hospital.  Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 2008;  67 A184
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Deprez P H, Yeung R C, Aouattah T. et al . Prospective Randomized Comparison Between EMR and ESD for Endoscopic Removal of Superficial Esophageal Cancer.  Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 2008;  67 A187
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Shimada H, Nabeya Y, Matsubara H. et al . Prediction of lymph node status in patients with superficial esophageal carcinoma: analysis of 160 surgically resected cancers.  Am J Surg. 2006;  191 250-254
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Konda V J, Chennat J S, Ross A S. et al . Low Rate of Invasive Cancer in Patients Undergoing Mucosectomy for Barrett’s Esophagus (BE) and High Grade Dysplasia (HGD) Or Intramucosal Carcinoma (IMC).  Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 2008;  67 A76
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Oyama T, Kitamura Y, Hotta K. Long Term Prognosis of ESD for the Superficial Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma.  Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 2008;  67 A182
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Gockel I, Hansen T, Sultanov F S. et al . High Prevalence of Lymph Node Metastases in pT1 Esophageal Cancer: Is Local Therapy Justified?.  Gastroenterology. 2008;  134 A-904
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Igaki H, Kato H, Ando N. et al . A randomized trial of postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy with cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy for clinical stage II/III squamous cell carcinoma of the thoracic esophagus (JCOG 9907).  J Clin Oncol. 2008;  26 A4510
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Tepper J, Krasna M J, Niedzwiecki D. et al . Phase III trial of trimodality therapy with cisplatin, fluorouracil, radiotherapy, and surgery compared with surgery alone for esophageal cancer: CALGB 9781.  J Clin Oncol. 2008;  26 1086-1092
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Gebski V, Burmeister B, Smithers B M. et al . Survival benefits from neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or chemotherapy in oesophageal carcinoma: a meta-analysis.  Lancet Oncol. 2007;  8 226-234
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Boige V, Pignon J, Saint-Aubert B. et al . Final results of a randomized trial comparing preoperative 5-fluorouracil (F)/cisplatin (P) to surgery alone in adenocarcinoma of stomach and lower esophagus (ASLE): FNLCC ACCORD07-FFCD 9703 trial.  J Clin Oncol. 2007;  25 A4510
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Cunningham D, Allum W H, Stenning S P. et al . Perioperative chemotherapy versus surgery alone for resectable gastroesophageal cancer.  N Engl J Med. 2006;  355 11-20
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Di Fiore F, Lecleire S, Rigal O. et al . Predictive factors of survival in patients treated with definitive chemoradiotherapy for squamous cell esophageal carcinoma.  World J Gastroenterol. 2006;  12 4185-4190
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Lordick F, Ott K, Krause B J. et al . PET to assess early metabolic response and to guide treatment of adenocarcinoma of the oesophagogastric junction: the MUNICON phase II trial.  Lancet Oncol. 2007;  8 797-805
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Lecleire S, Di Fiore F, Antonietti M. et al . Double Stenting of Esophagus and Airways in Patients with Locally Advanced Esophageal Cancer: Feasibility, Efficacy and Complications.  Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 2006;  63 A123
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Chadha K S, Schiff M D, Sitrin M D. et al . Analysis of Clinical Outcomes of Esophageal Stent Placement for Palliation of Malignant Dysphagia.  Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 2008;  67 A188
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Chen Y K, Schefter T, Newman F. Esophageal Cancer Patients Undergoing External Beam Radiation After Placement of Self-Expandable Metal Stents (SEMS): Is There a Risk of Radiation Dose Enhancement?.  Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 2008;  67 A184
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Van Cutsem E, Moiseyenko V M, Tjulandin S. et al . V325 Study Group. Phase III study of docetaxel and cisplatin plus fluorouracil compared with cisplatin and fluorouracil as first-line therapy for advanced gastric cancer: a report of the V 325 Study Group.  J Clin Oncol. 2006;  24 4991-4997
    Google Scholar
  • 21 Allum W H, Fogarty P J, Stenning J P. et al . Long term results of the MRC OEO2 randomized trial of surgery with or without preoperative chemotherapy in resectable esophageal cancer.  Proc ASCO GI Symposium. 2008;  Abstract #9
    Google Scholar
  • 22 Lutz M P, Wilke H, Wagener D J. et al . Weekly infusional high-dose fluorouracil (HD-FU), HD-FU plus folinic acid (HD-FU/FA), or HD-FU/FA plus biweekly cisplatin in advanced gastric cancer: randomized phase II trial 40 953 of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Gastrointestinal Group and the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Internistische Onkologie.  J Clin Oncol. 2007;  25 2580-2585
    Google Scholar
  • 23 Ridwelski K, Fahlke J, Kettner E. et al . Docetaxel-cisplatin versus 5-fluorouracil-leukovorin-cisplatin as first-line treatment for locally advanced or metastatic gastric cancer: Preliminary results of a phase III study.  J Clin Oncol. 2008;  26 A4512
    Google Scholar
  • 24 Neoptolemos J P, Stocken D D, Friess H. et al . A randomized trial of chemoradiotherapy and chemotherapy after resection of pancreatic cancer.  N Engl J Med. 2004;  350 1200-1210
    Google Scholar
  • 25 Oettle H, Post S, Neuhaus P. et al . Adjuvant chemotherapy with gemcitabine vs observation in patients undergoing curative-intent resection of pancreatic cancer: a randomized controlled trial.  JAMA. 2007;  297 267-277
    Google Scholar
  • 26 Neuhaus P, Riess H, Post S. et al . CONKO-001: Final results of the randomised, prospective, multicenter phase III trial of adjuvant chemotherapy with gemicitabine vs. observation in patients with resected pancreatic cancer.  J Clin Oncol. 2008;  26 A4504
    Google Scholar
  • 27 Van Laethem J, Van Cutsem E, Hammel P. et al . Adjuvant chemotherapy alone versus chemoradiationafter curative resection for pancreatic cancer: feasibility resultsof a randomised EORTC/FFCD/GERCOR phase II/III study (40 013 / 2201 / 00 304).  J Clin Oncol. 2008;  26 A4514
    Google Scholar
  • 28 Picozzi V J, Abrams R A, Traverso L W. et al . ACOSOG Z 05 031: Report on a multicenter, phase II trial for adjuvant therapy of resected pancreatic cancer using cisplatin, 5-FU, and alpha-interferon.  J Clin Oncol. 2008;  26 A4505
    Google Scholar
  • 29 Moore M J, Goldstein D, Hamm J. et al . Erlotinib plus gemcitabine compared with gemcitabine alone in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer: a phase III trial of the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group.  J Clin Oncol. 2007;  25 1960-1966
    Google Scholar
  • 30 Heinemann V, Boeck S, Hinke A. et al . Meta-analysis of randomized trials: evaluation of benefit from gemcitabine-based combination chemotherapy applied in advanced pancreatic cancer.  BMC Cancer. 2008;  8 82
    Google Scholar
  • 31 Vervenne W, Bennouna J, Humblet Y. et al . A randomized, double-blind, placebo (P) controlled, multicenter phase III trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of adding bevacizumab (B) to erlotinib (E) and gemcitabine (G) in patients (pts) with metastatic pancreatic cancer.  J Clin Oncol. 2008;  26 A4507
    Google Scholar
  • 32 Kindler H L, Gangadhar T, Karrison T. et al . Final analysis of a randomized phase II study of bevacizumab and gemcitabine plus cetuximab or erlotinib in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer.  J Clin Oncol. 2008;  26 A4502
    Google Scholar
  • 33 Tuinmann G, Müller L, Hossfeld D. et al . A randomised phase II study of gemcitabine versus mitomycin C versus gemcitabine/mitomycin C in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer.  J Clin Oncol. 2008;  26 A15658
    Google Scholar
  • 34 Pelzer U, Kubica K, Stieler J. et al . A randomized trial in patients with gemcitabine refractory pancreatic cancer. Final results of the CONKO 003 study.  J Clin Oncol. 2008;  26 A4508
    Google Scholar
  • 35 Mitry E, Dahan L, Ychou M. et al . LV5FU2-cisplatin followed by gemcitabine or the reverse sequence in metastatic pancreatic cancer: Preliminary results of a randomized phase III trial (FFCD 0301).  J Clin Oncol. 2008;  26 A4513
    Google Scholar
  • 36 Loehrer P J, Powell M E, Cardenes H R. et al . A randomized phase III study of gemcitabine in combination with radiation therapy versus gemcitabine alone in patients with localized, unresectable pancreatic cancer: E 4201.  J Clin Oncol. 2008;  26 A4506
    Google Scholar
  • 37 Chauffert B, Mornex F, Bonnetain F. et al . Phase III trial comparing initial chemoradiotherapy (intermittent cisplatin and infusional 5-FU) followed by gemcitabine vs. gemcitabine alone in patients with locally advanced non metastatic pancreatic cancer: A FFCD-SFRO study.  J Clin Oncol. 2006;  24 A4008
    Google Scholar
  • 38 Javle M M, Okazaki T, Evans D B. et al . Polymorphisms of genes involved in gemcitabine metabolism correlate with prognosis in patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy for pancreatic cancer.  J Clin Oncol. 2008;  26 A4501
    Google Scholar
  • 39 Marelli L, Stigliano R, Triantos C. et al . Transarterial therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma: which technique is more effective? A systematic review of cohort and randomized studies.  Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2007;  30 6-25
    Google Scholar
  • 40 Hanks B A, Suhocki P V, DeLong D M. et al . The efficacy and tolerability of transarterial chemo-embolization (TACE) compared with transarterial embolization (TAE) for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).  J Clin Oncol. 2008;  26 A4595
    Google Scholar
  • 41 Vit A, De Pauli F, Sponza M. et al . Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) with doxorubicin eluting beads (DEB) for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).  J Clin Oncol. 2008;  26 A4598
    Google Scholar
  • 42 Graf H, Jüngst C, Straub G. et al . Chemoembolization Combined with Pravastatin Improves Survival in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma.  Digestion. 2008;  78 34-38
    Google Scholar
  • 43 Llovet J M, Ricci S, Mazzaferro V. et al . Sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.  N Engl J Med. 2008;  359 378-390
    Google Scholar
  • 44 Cheng A, Kang Y, Chen Z. et al . Randomized phase III trial of sorafenib versus placebo in Asian patients with advance hepatocellular carcinoma.  J Clin Oncol. 2008;  26 A4509
    Google Scholar
  • 45 Raoul J, Santoro A, Beaugrand M. et al . Efficacy and safety of sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma according to ECOG performance status: A subanalysis from the SHARP trial.  J Clin Oncol. 2008;  26 A4587
    Google Scholar
  • 46 Sherman M, Mazzaferro V, Amadori D. et al . Efficacy and safety of sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma and vascular invasion or extrahepatic spread: A subanalysis from the SHARP trial.  J Clin Oncol. 2008;  26 A4584
    Google Scholar
  • 47 Craxi A, Porta C, Sangiovanni A. et al . Efficacy and safety of sorafenib in patients with alcohol-related hepatocellular carcinoma: A sub-analysis from the SHARP trial.  J Clin Oncol. 2008;  26 A15591
    Google Scholar
  • 48 Abou-Alfa G K, Amadori D, Santoro A. et al . Is sorafenib (S) safe and effective in patients (pts) with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and Child-Pugh B (CPB) cirrhosis?.  J Clin Oncol. 2008;  26 A4518
    Google Scholar
  • 49 Dollinger M M, Lautenschläger C, Lesske J. et al . Thymostimulin versus placebo for treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: A randomized, controlled, double-blind, multicenter study.  J Clin Oncol. 2008;  26 A4519
    Google Scholar
  • 50 Kim H, Lee S, Bae S. et al . Phase II study of gemcitabine and oxaliplatin as first-line chemotherapy in patients with inoperable biliary tract cancer.  J Clin Oncol. 2008;  26 A15536
    Google Scholar
  • 51 Gerber D, Dietrich D, Koeberle D. et al . Clinical benefit and quality of life in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer receiving gemcitabine plus capecitabine: Results from a multicenter phase II trial (SAKK 44 / 02).  J Clin Oncol. 2008;  26 A15531
    Google Scholar
  • 52 Grünberger B, Schueller J, Kaczirek K. et al . Efficacy results of cetuximab plus gemcitabine-oxaliplatin (GEMOX) in patients with advanced or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma: A single center phase II study.  J Clin Oncol. 2008;  26 A4586
    Google Scholar
  • 53 Holen K D, Mahoney M R, LoConte N K. et al . Efficacy report of a multicenter phase II trial testing a biologic-only combination of biweekly bevacizumab and daily erlotinib in patients with unresectable biliary cancer: A Phase II Consortium study.  J Clin Oncol. 2008;  26 A4522
    Google Scholar
  • 54 Dealis C, Bertolini F, Malavasi N. et al . A phase II trial of sorafenib in patients with advanced cholangiocarcinoma.  J Clin Oncol. 2008;  26 A4590
    Google Scholar
  • 55 Ribic C M, Sargent D J, Moore M J. et al . Tumor microsatellite-instability status as a predictor of benefit from fluorouracil-based adjuvant chemotherapy for colon cancer.  N Engl J Med. 2003;  349 247-257
    Google Scholar
  • 56 Sargent D J, Marsoni S, Thibodeau S N. et al . Confirmation of deficient mismatch repair (dMMR) as a predictive marker for lack of benefit from 5-FU based chemotherapy in stage II and III colon cancer (CC): A pooled molecular reanalysis of randomized chemotherapy trials.  J Clin Oncol. 2008;  26 A4008
    Google Scholar
  • 57 Reinacher-Schick A C, Kubicka S, Freier W. et al . Activity of the combination of bevacizumab (Bev) with capecitabine/irinotecan (CapIri/Bev) or capecitabine/oxaliplatin (CapOx/Bev) in advanced colorectal cancer (ACRC): A randomized phase II study of the AIO Colorectal Study Group (AIO trial 0604).  J Clin Oncol. 2008;  26 A4030
    Google Scholar
  • 58 Heinemann V, Fischer von Weikersthal L, Vehling-Kaiser U. et al . Randomized trial comparing cetuximab plus XELIRI versus cetuximab plus XELOX as first line treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): A study of the german AIO CRC study group.  J Clin Oncol. 2008;  26 A4033
    Google Scholar
  • 59 Artale S, Sartore-Bianchi A, Veronese S M. et al . Mutations of KRAS and BRAF in primary and matched metastatic sites of colorectal cancer.  J Clin Oncol. 2008;  26 4217-4219
    Google Scholar
  • 60 Amado R G, Wolf M, Peeters M. et al . Wild-type KRAS is required for panitumumab efficacy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.  J Clin Oncol. 2008;  26 1626-1634
    Google Scholar
  • 61 Bokemeyer C, Bondarenko I, Hartmann J T. et al . KRAS status and efficacy of first-line treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) with FOLFOX with or without cetuximab: The OPUS experience.  J Clin Oncol. 2008;  26 A4000
    Google Scholar
  • 62 Van Cutsem E, Lang I, D’haens G. et al . KRAS status and efficacy in the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) treated with FOLFIRI with or without cetuximab: The CRYSTAL experience.  J Clin Oncol. 2008;  26 A2
    Google Scholar
  • 63 Ince W L, Jubb A M, Holden S N. et al . Association of k-ras, b-raf, and p53 status with the treatment effect of bevacizumab.  J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;  97 981-989
    Google Scholar
  • 64 Tejpar S, Peeters M, Humblet Y. et al . Relationship of efficacy with KRAS status (wild type versus mutant) in patients with irinotecan-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), treated with irinotecan (q2w) and escalating doses of cetuximab (q1w): The EVEREST experience (preliminary data).  J Clin Oncol. 2008;  26 A4001
    Google Scholar
  • 65 Loupakis F, Pollina L, Stasi I. et al . Evaluation of PTEN expression in colorectal cancer (CRC) metastases (mets) and in primary tumors as predictors of activity of cetuximab plus irinotecan treatment.  J Clin Oncol. 2008;  26 A4003
    Google Scholar
  • 66 4 ENETS Guidelines.  Neuroendocrinology. 2006;  84 155-215
    Google Scholar
  • 67 5 ENETS Guidelines.  Neuroendocrinology. 2008;  87 8-39
    Google Scholar
  • 68 Rindi G, Klöppel G, Alhman H. et al . European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society (ENETS). TNM staging of foregut (neuro)endocrine tumors: a consensus proposal including a grading system.  Virchows Arch. 2006;  449 395-401
    Google Scholar
  • 69 Rindi G, Klöppel G, Couvelard A. et al . TNM staging of midgut and hindgut (neuro) endocrine tumors: a consensus proposal including a grading system.  Virchows Arch. 2007;  451 757-762
    Google Scholar
  • 70 Pape U F, Jann H, Müller-Nordhorn J. et al . Prognostic relevance of a novel TNM classification system for upper gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors.  Cancer. 2008;  113 256-265
    Google Scholar
  • 71 Hörsch D, Prasad V, Baum R P. Longterm outcome of peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) in 454 patients with progressive neuroendocrine tumors using yttrium-90 and lutetium-177 labelled somatostatin receptor targeting peptides.  J Clin Oncol. 2008;  26 A4517
    Google Scholar
  • 72 Kwekkeboom D J, Herder W W, Kam B L. et al . Treatment with the radiolabeled somatostatin analog [177 Lu-DOTA 0,Tyr3]octreotate: toxicity, efficacy, and survival.  J Clin Oncol. 2008;  26 2124-2123
    Google Scholar
  • 73 Kennedy A S, Dezarn W A, McNeillie de P. et al . Radioembolization for unresectable neuroendocrine hepatic metastases using resin 90Y-microspheres: early results in 148 patients.  Am J Clin Oncol. 2008;  31 271-279
    Google Scholar
  • 74 Rhee T K, Lewandowski R J, Liu D M. et al . 90Y Radioembolization for metastatic neuroendocrine liver tumors: preliminary results from a multi-institutional experience.  Ann Surg. 2008;  247 1029-1035
    Google Scholar
  • 75 King J, Glenn D, Quinn R. et al . Radioactive microspheres in liver metastases from neuroendocrine cancer (NETML).  J Clin Oncol. 2008;  26 A15541
    Google Scholar
  • 76 Yao J C, Phan A T, Chang D Z. et al . Efficacy of RAD001 (everolimus) and octreotide LAR in advanced low- to intermediate-grade neuroendocrine tumors: results of a phase II study.  J Clin Oncol. 2008;  26 4311-4318
    Google Scholar
  • 77 Yao J C, Lombard-Bohas C, Baudin E. et al . A phase II trial of daily oral RAD001(Everolimus) in patients with metastatic pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors after failure of cytotoxic chemotherapy.  ESMO. 2008;  Abstract 508PD
    Google Scholar
  • 78 Kulke M H, Lenz H J, Meropol N J. et al . Activity of sunitinib in patients with advanced neuroendocrine tumors.  J Clin Oncol. 2008;  26 3403-3410
    Google Scholar
  • 79 Yao J C, Phan A, Hoff P M. et al . Targeting vascular endothelial growth factor in advanced carcinoid tumor: a random assignment phase II study of depot octreotide with bevacizumab and pegylated interferon alpha-2b.  J Clin Oncol. 2008;  26 1316-1323
    Google Scholar
  • 80 Hobday J, Rubin J, Holen K. et al . MC044h, a phase II trial of sorafenib in patients (pts) with metastatic neuroendocrine tumors (NET): A Phase II Consortium (P2C) study.  J Clin Oncol. 2007;  25 A4504
    Google Scholar
  • 81 Pavel M E, Bartel C, Heuck F. et al . Open-label, non-randomized, multicenter phase II study evaluating the angiogenesis inhibitor PTK787 / ZK 222 584 (PTK/ZK) in patients with advanced neuroendocrine carcinomas (NEC).  J Clin Oncol. 2008;  26 A1468
    Google Scholar
  • 82 Duran I, Kortmansky J, Singh D. et al . A phase II clinical and pharmacodynamic study of temsirolimus in advanced neuroendocrine carcinomas.  Br J Cancer. 2006;  95 1148-1154
    Google Scholar
  • 83 Sung M W, Kvols L, Jacob G. et al . Phase II proof-of-concept study of atiprimod in patients with advanced low- to intermediate-grade neuroendocrine carcinoma.  J Clin Oncol. 2008;  26 A4611
    Google Scholar
  • 84 Varker K A, Campbell J, Shah M H. Phase II study of thalidomide in patients with metastatic carcinoid and islet cell tumors.  Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2008;  61 661-668
    Google Scholar
  • 85 Kulke M H, Bergsland E K, Ryan D P. et al . Phase II study of recombinant human endostatin in patients with advanced neuroendocrine tumors.  J Clin Oncol. 2006;  24 3555-3561
    Google Scholar
  • 86 Dogliotti L, Brizzi M P, Ferrero A. et al . Phase II trial of continuous/metronomic 5-fluorouracil infusion plus long acting Octreotide in advanced neuroendocrine carcinoma.  J Clin Oncol. 2007;  256 A15003
    Google Scholar
  • 87 Ekeblad S, Sundin A, Janson E T. et al . Temozolomide as monotherapy is effective in treatment of advanced malignant neuroendocrine tumors.  Clin Cancer Res. 2007;  13 2986-2991
    Google Scholar
  • 88 Kulke M H, Stuart K, Enzinger P C. et al . Phase II Study of Temozolomide and Thalidomide in Patients With Metastatic Neuroendocrine Tumors.  J Clin Oncol. 2006;  24 401-406
    Google Scholar
  • 89 Kulke M H, Stuart K, Earle C C. et al . A phase II study of temozolomide and bevacizumab in patients with advanced neuroendocrine tumors.  J Clin Oncol. 2008;  26 A4044
    Google Scholar
  • 90 Strosberg J R, Choi J, Gardner N. et al . First-line treatment of metastastic pancreatic endocrine carcinomas with capecitabine and temozolomide.  J Clin Oncol. 2008;  26 A4612
    Google Scholar
  • 91 Bajetta E, Catena L, Procopio G. et al . Are capecitabine and oxaliplatin (XELOX) suitable treatments for progressing low-grade and high-grade neuroendocrine tumours ?.  Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2007;  59 637-642
    Google Scholar
  • 92 Venook A P, Ko A H, Tempero M A. et al . Phase II trial of FOLFOX plus bevacizumab in advanced, progressive neuroendocrine tumors.  J Clin Oncol. 2008;  26 A15545
    Google Scholar
  • 93 Kunz P L, Kuo T, Kaiser H L. et al . A phase II study of capecitabine, oxaliplatin and bevacizumab for metastatic or unresectable neuroendocrine tumors: preliminary results.  J Clin Oncol. 2008;  26 A15502
    Google Scholar
  • 94 Capelle L G, Vries A C, Looman C W. et al . Epidemiology of Gastric MALT Lymphoma: A Long-Term Nationwide Study in the Netherlands.  Gastroenterology. 2008;  134 A618
    Google Scholar
  • 95 Fischbach de W, Dietrich C G, Al-Taie O H. et al . Value of Routine Capsule Endoscopy in the Strategy of Patients with Primary Gastric Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma.  Gastroenterology. 2008;  134 A296
    Google Scholar
  • 96 Fischbach W, Goebeler M, Schramm S. et al . Outcome and Quality of Life Favor a Conservative Treatment of Patients with Primary Gastric NHL’s. Results of a Prospective Randomized Study.  Gastroenterology. 2008;  134 A296
    Google Scholar
  • 97 Wündisch T, Dieckhoff P, Gunther A. et al . 10-year follow up of 120 patients with gastric MALT lymphoma after Helicobacter pylori eradication – Histological residual disease and second cancers.  J Clin Oncol. 2008;  26 A8536
    Google Scholar
  • 98 Capelle L G, Vries A C, Looman C W. et al . High Adenocarcinoma Risk After Diagnosis of Gastric MALT Lymphoma: A Long-Term Nationwide Study.  Gastroenterology. 2008;  134 A12
    Google Scholar
  • 99 Spadaio de P, Pitini V, Toscano G. et al . Clinical activity of bortezomib in relapsed or refractory gastric marginal zone b-cell lymphoma of malt type.  J Clin Oncol. 2008;  26 A8567
    Google Scholar
  • 100 Salar A, Domingo-Domenech E, Estany C. et al . First-line treatment with rituximab combined with intravenous or oral fludarabine for patients with extranodal mucosa associated lymphoid tissue (MALT) lymphoma.  J Clin Oncol. 2008;  26 A8608
    Google Scholar
  • 101 Aguiar Bujanda D, Cabrera Suárez M A, Llorca Martínez I. et al . Rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) for treatment of primary gastrointestinal B-cell lymphoma.  J Clin Oncol. 2008;  26 A19536
    Google Scholar

Prof. Matthias P. A. Ebert

II. Medizinische Klinik, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München

Ismaninger Str. 22

81675 München

Phone: ++ 49/89/41 40 48 72

Fax: ++ 49/89/41 40 22 59

Email: ebertm@gmx.de