nach oben

Erschienen in:

01.08.2019 | Ösophagusresektion | Leitthema

Aktuelle Möglichkeiten und Evidenz roboterassistierter Eingriffe in der chirurgischen Onkologie

verfasst von: PD Dr. Marian Grade, Hannah Flebbe, Frederike Sophia Franke, Jan‑Hendrik Egberts, Ionel Valentin Popeneciu, Lutz Trojan, Jens-Carsten Rückert, Aron Elsner, Rainer Kimmig, B. Michael Ghadimi

Erschienen in: Die Onkologie | Sonderheft 1/2019

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Zusammenfassung

Die roboterassistierte Chirurgie repräsentiert einen deutlichen Fortschritt in der minimal-invasiven Chirurgie, da sie viele technische Limitationen der konventionellen Laparoskopie überwindet. Aktuell kommt in der chirurgischen Onkologie überwiegend das Da-Vinci-Op.-System zum Einsatz, welches als „Master-Slave-System“ im Prinzip einem computerassistierten Telemanipulator entspricht. Trotz hoher Kosten und weitgehend fehlender klinischer Evidenz hat die Da-Vinci-assistierte Chirurgie in den letzten Jahren stetig an Bedeutung gewonnen und wird mit steigender Frequenz eingesetzt. Ziel dieser Übersichtsarbeit ist es, aktuelle Möglichkeiten in der roboterassistierten Chirurgie aufzuzeigen und die Evidenz für ausgewählte Eingriffe in der chirurgischen Onkologie zu diskutieren. Es handelt sich nicht um eine systematische Übersichtsarbeit oder Metaanalyse. Exemplarisch werden folgende Disziplinen betrachtet: Viszeralchirurgie, Thoraxchirurgie, Gynäkologie und Urologie.

Ahmed K, Ibrahim A, Wang TT et al (2012) Assessing the cost effectiveness of robotics in urological surgery—A systematic review. BJU Int 110:1544–1556CrossRefPubMed

Asawabharuj K, Ramart P, Nualyong C et al (2014) Comparison of urinary continence outcome between robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Med Assoc Thai 97:393–398PubMed

Asimakopoulos AD, Pereira Fraga CT, Annino F et al (2011) Randomized comparison between laparoscopic and robot-assisted nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. J Sex Med 8:1503–1512CrossRefPubMed

Barbash GI, Glied SA (2010) New technology and health care costs—The case of robot-assisted surgery. N Engl J Med 363:701–704CrossRefPubMed

Bekelman JE, Rumble RB, Chen RC et al (2018) Clinically localized prostate cancer: ASCO clinical practice guideline endorsement of an American Urological Association/American Society for Radiation Oncology/Society of Urologic Oncology Guideline. J Clin Oncol. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.18.00606 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Binder J, Kramer W (2001) Robotically-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 87:408–410CrossRef

Bobo Z, Xin W, Jiang L et al (2019) Robotic gastrectomy versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: Meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of prospective observational studies. Surg Endosc 33:1033–1048CrossRefPubMed

Breda A, Territo A, Gausa L et al (2018) Robot-assisted kidney transplantation: The European experience. Eur Urol 73:273–281CrossRefPubMed

Cardenas-Goicoechea J, Wang Y, McGorray S et al (2019) Minimally invasive interval cytoreductive surgery in ovarian cancer: Systematic review and meta-analysis. J Robot Surg 13:23–33CrossRefPubMed

10.

Casarin J, Multinu F, Ubl DS et al (2018) Adoption of minimally invasive surgery and decrease in surgical morbidity for endometrial cancer treatment in the United States. Obstet Gynecol 131:304–311CrossRefPubMed

11.

Cheng CL, Rezac C (2018) The role of robotics in colorectal surgery. BMJ 360:j5304CrossRefPubMed

12.

Coughlin GD, Yaxley JW, Chambers SK et al (2018) Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: 24-month outcomes from a randomised controlled study. Lancet Oncol 19:1051–1060CrossRefPubMed

13.

de Rooij T, van Hilst J, van Santvoort H et al (2019) Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy (LEOPARD): A multicenter patient-blinded randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 269:2–9CrossRefPubMed

14.

Egberts JH, Biebl M, Perez DR et al (2019) Robot-assisted oesophagectomy: Recommendations towards a standardised Ivor Lewis procedure. J Gastrointest Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-019-04207-y CrossRefPubMed

15.

Finkelstein J, Eckersberger E, Sadri H et al (2010) Open versus laparoscopic versus robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: The European and US experience. Rev Urol 12:35–43PubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Finley D, Sherman JH, Avila E et al (2014) Thorascopic resection of an apical paraspinal schwannoma using the da Vinci surgical system. J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg 75:58–63CrossRefPubMed

17.

Flebbe H, Beham AW, Schuler P et al (2018) Stellenwert des intraoperativen Neuromonitorings in der roboterassistierten Rektumchirurgie. Zentralbl Chir 143:215–219CrossRefPubMed

18.

Friedant AJ, Handorf EA, Su S et al (2016) Minimally invasive versus open thymectomy for thymic malignancies: Systematic review and meta-analysis. J Thorac Oncol 11:30–38CrossRefPubMed

19.

Gallotta V, Giudice MT, Conte C et al (2018) Minimally invasive salvage lymphadenectomy in gynecological cancer patients: A single institution series. Eur J Surg Oncol 44:1568–1572CrossRefPubMed

20.

Gkegkes ID, Mamais IA, Iavazzo C (2017) Robotics in general surgery: A systematic cost assessment. J Minim Access Surg 13:243–255CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Grade M, Beham AW, Schuler P et al (2016) Pelvic intraoperative neuromonitoring during robotic-assisted low anterior resection for rectal cancer. J Robot Surg 10:157–160CrossRefPubMed

22.

Guerrini GP, Lauretta A, Belluco C et al (2017) Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: An up-to-date meta-analysis. BMC Surg 17:105CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

23.

Hemal AK, Kumar A (2009) A prospective comparison of laparoscopic and robotic radical nephrectomy for T1-2N0M0 renal cell carcinoma. World J Urol 27:89–94CrossRefPubMed

24.

Herlemann A, Cowan JE, Carroll PR et al (2018) Community-based outcomes of open versus robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 73:215–223CrossRefPubMed

25.

van Hilst J, de Rooij T, Bosscha K et al (2019) Laparoscopic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic or periampullary tumours (LEOPARD-2): A multicentre, patient-blinded, randomised controlled phase 2/3 trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 4:199–207CrossRefPubMed

26.

van Hilst J, Korrel M, de Rooij T et al (2019) Oncologic outcomes of minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol 45:719–727CrossRefPubMed

27.

Holmer C, Kreis ME (2018) Systematic review of robotic low anterior resection for rectal cancer. Surg Endosc 32:569–581CrossRefPubMed

28.

Ilic D, Evans SM, Allan CA et al (2017) Laparoscopic and robotic-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy for the treatment of localised prostate cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 9:CD9625PubMed

29.

Janda M, Gebski V, Davies LC et al (2017) Effect of total laparoscopic hysterectomy vs total abdominal hysterectomy on disease-free survival among women with stage I endometrial cancer: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA 317:1224–1233CrossRefPubMed

30.

Jayne D, Pigazzi A, Marshall H et al (2017) Effect of robotic-assisted vs conventional laparoscopic surgery on risk of conversion to open laparotomy among patients undergoing resection for rectal cancer: The ROLARR randomized clinical trial. JAMA 318:1569–1580CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

31.

Jeong IG, Khandwala YS, Kim JH et al (2017) Association of robotic-assisted vs laparoscopic radical nephrectomy with perioperative outcomes and health care costs, 2003 to 2015. JAMA 318:1561–1568CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

32.

Jiang Y, Zhao Y, Qian F et al (2018) The long-term clinical outcomes of robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: A large-scale single institutional retrospective study. Am J Transl Res 10:3233–3242PubMedPubMedCentral

33.

Jin D, Yao L, Yu J et al (2019) Robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy versus the conventional minimally invasive one: A meta-analysis and systematic review. Int J Med Robot 15:e1988CrossRefPubMed

34.

Jørgensen SL, Mogensen O, Wu C et al (2019) Nationwide introduction of minimally invasive robotic surgery for early-stage endometrial cancer and its association with severe complications. Jama Surg. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2018.5840 CrossRefPubMed

35.

Kajiwara N, Kakihana M, Usuda J et al (2012) Extended indications for robotic surgery for posterior mediastinal tumors. Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann 20:308–313CrossRefPubMed

36.

Keijzers M, Dingemans AM, Blaauwgeers H et al (2014) 8 years’ experience with robotic thymectomy for thymomas. Surg Endosc 28:1202–1208CrossRefPubMed

37.

Kim MJ, Park SC, Park JW et al (2018) Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: A phase II open label prospective randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 267:243–251CrossRefPubMed

38.

Kim SI, Cho JH, Seol A et al (2019) Comparison of survival outcomes between minimally invasive surgery and conventional open surgery for radical hysterectomy as primary treatment in patients with stage IB1-IIA2 cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol 153:3–12CrossRefPubMed

39.

Kimmig R, Buderath P, Mach P et al (2017) Surgical treatment of early ovarian cancer with compartmental resection of regional lymphatic network and indocyanine-green-guided targeted compartmental lymphadenectomy (TCL, paraaortic part). J Gynecol Oncol 28:e41CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

40.

Kimmig R, Ind T (2018) Minimally invasive surgery for cervical cancer: Consequences for treatment after LACC Study. J Gynecol Oncol 29:e75CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

41.

Klompmaker S, van Hilst J, Wellner UF et al (2018) Outcomes after minimally-invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy: A pan-European propensity score matched study. Ann Surg. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002850 CrossRefPubMed

42.

Kneuertz PJ, Kamel MK, Stiles BM et al (2017) Robotic thymectomy is feasible for large thymomas: A propensity-matched comparison. Ann Thorac Surg 104:1673–1678CrossRefPubMed

43.

Lee SH, Seo HJ, Lee NR et al (2017) Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy has lower biochemical recurrence than laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Investig Clin Urol 58:152–163CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

44.

Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie (Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft, Deutsche Krebshilfe, AWMF) (2017) S3-Leitlinie Kolorektales Karzinom, Langversion 2.0. http://www.leitlinienprogramm-onkologie.de/leitlinien/kolorektales-karzinom/. Zugegriffen: 1. Dez. 2018 (AWMF Registrierungsnummer: 021/007OL)

45.

Leow JJ, Heah NH, Chang SL et al (2016) Outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: An updated meta-analysis of 4,919 patients. J Urol 196:1371–1377CrossRefPubMed

46.

Li JT, Liu PY, Huang J et al (2019) Perioperative outcomes of radical lobectomies using robotic-assisted thoracoscopic technique vs. video-assisted thoracoscopic technique: Retrospective study of 1,075 consecutive p‑stage I non-small cell lung cancer cases. J Thorac Dis 11:882–891CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

47.

Lu J, Zheng HL, Li P et al (2018) A propensity score-matched comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: Oncological, cost, and surgical stress analysis. J Gastrointest Surg 22:1152–1162CrossRefPubMed

48.

Lucidi A, Chiantera V, Gallotta V et al (2017) Role of robotic surgery in ovarian malignancy. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 45:74–82CrossRefPubMed

49.

Marulli G, Comacchio GM, Schiavon M et al (2018) Comparing robotic and trans-sternal thymectomy for early-stage thymoma: A propensity score-matching study. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 54:579–584CrossRefPubMed

50.

Marulli G, Maessen J, Melfi F et al (2016) Multi-institutional European experience of robotic thymectomy for thymoma. Ann Cardiothorac Surg 5:18–25PubMedPubMedCentral

51.

Marulli G, Rea F, Melfi F et al (2012) Robot-aided thoracoscopic thymectomy for early-stage thymoma: A multicenter European study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 144:1125–1130CrossRefPubMed

52.

Masson-Lecomte A, Yates DR, Hupertan V et al (2013) A prospective comparison of the pathologic and surgical outcomes obtained after elective treatment of renal cell carcinoma by open or robot-assisted partial nephrectomy. Urol Oncol 31:924–929CrossRefPubMed

53.

Melamed A, Margul DJ, Chen L et al (2018) Survival after minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 379:1905–1914CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

54.

Melfi FM, Fanucchi O, Davini F et al (2014) Robotic lobectomy for lung cancer: Evolution in technique and technology. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 46:626–630CrossRefPubMed

55.

Nasioudis D, Minis E, Chapman-Davis E et al (2019) Minimally invasive staging of apparent stage I malignant ovarian germ cell tumors: Prevalence and outcomes. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 26:471–476CrossRefPubMed

56.

Ng CSH, MacDonald JK, Gilbert S et al (2019) Optimal approach to lobectomy for non-small cell lung cancer: Systemic review and meta-analysis. Innovations (Phila) 14:90–116CrossRef

57.

Ojima T, Nakamura M, Nakamori M et al (2018) Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy with lymph node dissection for gastric cancer: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 19:409CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

58.

Pacchiarotti G, Wang MY, Kolcun JPG et al (2017) Robotic paravertebral schwannoma resection at extreme locations of the thoracic cavity. Neurosurg Focus 42:E17CrossRefPubMed

59.

Paley PJ, Veljovich DS, Shah CA et al (2011) Surgical outcomes in gynecologic oncology in the era of robotics: Analysis of first 1000 cases. Am J Obstet Gynecol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2011.01.059 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

60.

Parekh DJ, Reis IM, Castle EP et al (2018) Robot-assisted radical cystectomy versus open radical cystectomy in patients with bladder cancer (RAZOR): An open-label, randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial. Lancet 391:2525–2536CrossRef

61.

Park JS, Choi GS, Park SY et al (2012) Randomized clinical trial of robot-assisted versus standard laparoscopic right colectomy. Br J Surg 99:1219–1226CrossRef

62.

Park JS, Kang H, Park SY et al (2018) Long-term oncologic after robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy: A prospective randomized study. Surg Endosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6563-8 CrossRef

63.

Park SY, Kim DJ, Yu WS et al (2016) Robot-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy with extensive mediastinal lymphadenectomy: Experience with 114 consecutive patients with intrathoracic esophageal cancer. Dis Esophagus 29:326–332CrossRefPubMed

64.

Prete FP, Pezzolla A, Prete F et al (2018) Robotic versus laparoscopic minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ann Surg 267:1034–1046CrossRefPubMed

65.

Ramirez PT, Frumovitz M, Pareja R et al (2018) Minimally invasive versus abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 379:1895–1904CrossRef

66.

Renz M, Diver E, English D et al (2019) Sentinel lymph node biopsies in endometrial cancer: Practice patterns among gynecologic oncologists in the United States. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2019.04.006 CrossRefPubMed

67.

Rueckert J, Swierzy M, Badakhshi H et al (2015) Robotic-assisted thymectomy: Surgical procedure and results. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 63:194–200CrossRefPubMed

68.

Rueckert JC, Swierzy M, Neudecker J et al (2016) Die roboter-assistierte Thymektomie – Ergebnisse bei 500 Operationen. Zentralbl Chir. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0036-1587548 CrossRef

69.

Schiemer JF, Zimniak L, Grimminger P et al (2018) Robot-guided neuromapping during nerve-sparing taTME for low rectal cancer. Int J Colorectal Dis 33:1803–1805CrossRefPubMed

70.

Shadmehr MB, Gaissert HA, Wain JC et al (2003) The surgical approach to “dumbbell tumors” of the mediastinum. Ann Thorac Surg 76:1650–1654CrossRefPubMed

71.

Shin SH, Kim YJ, Song KB et al (2017) Totally laparoscopic or robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy versus open surgery for periampullary neoplasms: Separate systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Surg Endosc 31:3459–3474CrossRefPubMed

72.

van der Sluis PC, van der Horst S, May AM et al (2019) Robot-assisted minimally invasive thoracolaparoscopic esophagectomy versus open transthoracic esophagectomy for resectable esophageal cancer: A randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 269:621–630CrossRefPubMed

73.

Sodergren MH, Darzi A (2013) Robotic cancer surgery. Br J Surg 100:3–4CrossRefPubMed

74.

Solaini L, Bazzocchi F, Cavaliere D et al (2018) Robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 32:1104–1110CrossRefPubMed

75.

Tang K, Jiang K, Chen H et al (2017) Robotic vs. retropubic radical prostatectomy in prostate cancer: A systematic review and an meta-analysis update. Oncotarget 8:32237–32257PubMed

76.

Thompson JE, Egger S, Bohm M et al (2018) Superior biochemical recurrence and long-term quality-of-life outcomes are achievable with robotic radical prostatectomy after a long learning curve-Updated analysis of a prospective single-surgeon cohort of 2206 consecutive cases. Eur Urol 73:664–671CrossRefPubMed

77.

Tooher R, Swindle P, Woo H et al (2006) Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer: A systematic review of comparative studies. J Urol 175:2011–2017CrossRefPubMed

78.

Tsuda S, Oleynikov D, Gould J et al (2015) SAGES TAVAC safety and effectiveness analysis: da Vinci (R) surgical system (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA). Surg Endosc 29:2873–2884CrossRefPubMed

79.

Vercellino GF, Erdemoglu E, Lichtenberg P et al (2019) A GCIG international survey: Clinical practice patterns of sentinel lymph node biopsies in cervical cancer. Arch Gynecol Obstet 300(1):191–199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-019-05164-2 CrossRefPubMed

80.

Veronesi G, Solinas M (2017) From manual to robotic video-assisted resection of posterior mediastinal masses. J Thorac Dis 9:2884–2887CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

81.

Visser E, Markar SR, Ruurda JP et al (2019) Prognostic value of lymph node yield on overall survival in esophageal cancer patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg 269:261–268CrossRefPubMed

82.

Walker JL, Piedmonte MR, Spirtos NM et al (2012) Recurrence and survival after random assignment to laparoscopy versus laparotomy for comprehensive surgical staging of uterine cancer: Gynecologic Oncology Group LAP2 Study. J Clin Oncol 30:695–700CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

83.

Wei B, Cerfolio RJ (2017) Robotic lobectomy and segmentectomy: Technical details and results. Surg Clin North Am 97:771–782CrossRefPubMed

84.

Wei B, Eldaif SM, Cerfolio RJ (2016) Robotic lung resection for non-small cell lung cancer. Surg Oncol Clin N Am 25:515–531CrossRefPubMed

85.

Wilshire CL, Vallieres E, Shultz D et al (2016) Robotic resection of 3 cm and larger thymomas is associated with low perioperative morbidity and mortality. Innovations (Phila) 11:321–326CrossRef

86.

Wilson JL, Louie BE, Cerfolio RJ et al (2014) The prevalence of nodal upstaging during robotic lung resection in early stage non-small cell lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg 97:1901–1906 (discussion 1906–1907)CrossRefPubMed

87.

Wright JD (2017) Robotic-assisted surgery: Balancing evidence and implementation. JAMA 318:1545–1547CrossRefPubMed

88.

Wright JD, Tergas AI, Hou JY et al (2016) Effect of regional hospital competition and hospital financial status on the use of robotic-assisted surgery. JAMA Surg 151:612–620CrossRefPubMed

89.

Yang HX, Woo KM, Sima CS et al (2017) Long-term survival based on the surgical approach to lobectomy for clinical stage I nonsmall cell lung cancer: Comparison of robotic, video-assisted thoracic surgery, and thoracotomy lobectomy. Ann Surg 265:431–437CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

90.

Yaxley JW, Coughlin GD, Chambers SK et al (2016) Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: Early outcomes from a randomised controlled phase 3 study. Lancet 388:1057–1066CrossRefPubMed

91.

Ye B, Li W, Ge XX et al (2014) Surgical treatment of early-stage thymomas: Robot-assisted thoracoscopic surgery versus transsternal thymectomy. Surg Endosc 28:122–126CrossRefPubMed

92.

Zhao W, Liu C, Li S et al (2018) Safety and efficacy for robot-assisted versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Oncol 27:468–478CrossRefPubMed

93.

Zimmerman AM, Roye DG, Charpentier KP (2018) A comparison of outcomes between open, laparoscopic and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. HPB (Oxford) 20:364–369CrossRef

94.

Zirafa CC, Romano G, Key TH et al (2019) The evolution of robotic thoracic surgery. Ann Cardiothorac Surg 8:210–217CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Titel: Aktuelle Möglichkeiten und Evidenz roboterassistierter Eingriffe in der chirurgischen Onkologie
verfasst von: PD Dr. Marian Grade
Hannah Flebbe
Frederike Sophia Franke
Jan‑Hendrik Egberts
Ionel Valentin Popeneciu
Lutz Trojan
Jens-Carsten Rückert
Aron Elsner
Rainer Kimmig
B. Michael Ghadimi
Publikationsdatum: 01.08.2019
Verlag: Springer Medizin
Schlagwörter: Ösophagusresektion
Ösophagusresektion
Laparoskopie
Erschienen in: Die Onkologie / Ausgabe Sonderheft 1/2019
Print ISSN: 2731-7226
Elektronische ISSN: 2731-7234
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00761-019-0622-1

Neu im Fachgebiet Onkologie

25.04.2024 | Nierenkarzinom | Nachrichten

Springer Medizin

Aktuelle Möglichkeiten und Evidenz roboterassistierter Eingriffe in der chirurgischen Onkologie

Zusammenfassung

Neu im Fachgebiet Onkologie

Adjuvante Immuntherapie verlängert Leben bei RCC

Alectinib verbessert krankheitsfreies Überleben bei ALK-positivem NSCLC

Bei Senioren mit Prostatakarzinom auf Anämie achten!

ICI-Therapie in der Schwangerschaft wird gut toleriert

Update Onkologie

Springer Medizin

Zusammenfassung

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Sonderheft 1/2019

Grenzbereiche zwischen kurativer und palliativer Medizin

Molekularpathologie zur Prädiktion von Prognose und Therapie bei Krebs

Molekulare und zellbasierte Krebstherapie – Quo vadis?

Ein daten- und modellgesteuerter Ansatz zur Behandlung maligner Tumoren

Paradigmenwechsel für stereotaktische Strahlentherapie bei Oligometastasierung

Fortschritte durch intraoperatives Imaging und Neuromonitoring in der viszeralonkologischen Chirurgie

Neu im Fachgebiet Onkologie

Adjuvante Immuntherapie verlängert Leben bei RCC

Alectinib verbessert krankheitsfreies Überleben bei ALK-positivem NSCLC

Bei Senioren mit Prostatakarzinom auf Anämie achten!

ICI-Therapie in der Schwangerschaft wird gut toleriert

Update Onkologie