Inhalt 1. Informationen zu dieser Leitlinie 462 1.1. Herausgeber 462 1.1.1. Federführende Fachgesellschaft 462 1.1.2. Kontakt 462 1.1.3. Verfügbare Dokumente zur Leitlinie 462 1.2. Besonderer Hinweis 462 1.3. Autoren dieser Leitlinie 462 1.4. Ziele des Leitlinienprogramms Onkologie 462 2. Einführung 463 2.1. Geltungsbereich und Zweck 463 2.1.1. Zielsetzung und Fragestellung 463 2.1.2. Adressaten 464 2.1.3. Verbreitung u. Implementierung d. Leitlinien 464 2.1.4. Finanzierung der Leitlinie und Darlegung möglicher Interessenskonflikte 464 2.1.5. Gültigkeitsdauer u. Aktualisierungsverfahren 465 2.2. Grundlagen der Methodik 465 2.2.1. Schema der Evidenzgraduierung nach Oxford 465 2.3. Verwendete Abkürzungen 466 3. Konsentierte und abgestimmte Empfehlungen 466 3.1. Risikofaktoren 466 3.1.1. Helicobacter pylori 466 3.1.2. Weitere Risikofaktoren 467 3.2. Risikogruppen 468 3.2.1. Familiäres Risiko 468 3.2.2. Hereditäres nonpolypöses kolorektales Karzinom (HNPCC) 469 3.3. Screening und Prävention 470 3.3.1. Screening 470 3.3.2. Prävention 471 3.4. Primärdiagnostik 472 3.4.1. Endoskopische Untersuchung 472 3.4.2. Staging 472 3.4.3. Histologie 472 3.5. Staging 473 3.5.1. Ultraschalldiagnostik 473 3.5.2. Röntgendiagnostik 474 3.5.3. Laparoskopie 475 3.5.4. Laborchemische Parameter 476 3.6. Histopathologie 476 3.7. Endoskopische Therapie 477 3.7.1. Resektion 477 3.7.2. Rezidiv 479 3.7.3. Komplikationen 479 3.7.4. Nachsorge 479 3.8. Chirurgische Therapie 479 3.8.1. Resektion 479 3.8.2. Rezidiv 483 3.8.3. Definitive Radiochemotherapie 483 3.9. Multimodale Therapie 483 3.9.1. Perioperative Chemotherapie 483 3.9.2. Präoperative Radiochemotherapie 488 3.9.3. Präoperative Antikörper-Therapie 488 3.9.4. Restaging nach neoadjuvanter Therapie 488 3.9.5. Postoperative Therapie 489 3.9.6. Adjuvante Therapiekonzepte 491 3.10. Tumorgerichtete palliative Therapie 493 3.10.1. Medikamentöse Tumortherapie 493 3.10.2. Vorgehen bei Tumoren ohne HER-2-Überexpression 494 3.10.3. Vorgehen bei HER-2-überexprimierenden/-amplifizierenden Tumoren 498 3.10.4. Zweit-Chemotherapie 498 3.11. Weitere palliative Situationen u. deren Therapie 499 3.11.1. Palliative Therapieoptionen 499 3.11.2. Therapie der Tumorblutung 500 3.11.3. Palliative operative Therapie 500 3.11.4. Chemotherapie-refraktärer maligner Aszites 500 3.12. Supportive Maßnahmen 501 3.12.1. Fatigue-Syndrom 501 3.12.2. Zusammenfassung weiterer Maßnahmen 501 3.13. Ernährung 505 3.13.1. Allgemeine Entscheidungshilfen 505 3.13.2. Präoperative Ernährungstherapie 506 3.13.3. Postoperative Ernährungstherapie 507 3.13.4. Ernährung unter Chemotherapie oder Strahlentherapie 507 3.13.5. Ernährung in der Sterbephase 509 3.14. Nachsorge und Rehabilitation 509 3.14.1. Lebensqualität 509 3.14.2. Substitutionen nach Gastrektomie 509 3.14.3. Rehabilitationsmaßnahmen 509 3.14.4. Bestimmung von Tumormarkern 510 3.15. Psychoonkologie 510 3.15.1. Patientennahes Informationsmanagement 510 3.15.2. Lebensqualität 510 3.15.3. Psychoonkologische Betreuung 511 3.16. Komplementäre Therapie 512 3.16.1. Abgestimmte Empfehlungen 512 3.16.2. Weitere Hinweise der Arbeitsgruppe zur komplementären Therapie 514 4. Qualitätsindikatoren 515 Literatur 517

AIMTo investigate the effects of experimental partial hepatectomy and normothermic ischemia-reperfusion damage on the time course of the expression of four different growth factor receptors in liver regeneration. This is relevant due to the potential therapeutic use of growth factors in stimulating liver regeneration.METHODSFor partial hepatectomy (PH) 80% of the liver mass was resected in Sprague Dawley rats. Ischemia and reperfusion (I/R) were induced by occlusion of the portal vein and the hepatic artery for 15 min. The epidermal growth factor receptor, hepatic growth factor receptor, fibroblast growth factor receptor and tumour necrosis factor receptor-1 were analysed by immunohistochemistry up to 72 h after injury. Quantitative RT-PCR was performed at the time point of minimal receptor expression (24 h).RESULTSIn immunohistochemistry, EGFR, HGFR, FGFR and TNFR1 showed biphasic kinetics after partial hepatectomy with a peak up to 12 h, a nadir after 24 h and another weak increase up to 72 h. During liver regeneration, after ischemia and reperfusion, the receptor expression was lower; the nadir at 24 h after reperfusion was the same. To evaluate whether this nadir was caused by a lack of mRNA transcription, or due to a posttranslational regulation, RT-PCR was performed at 24 h and compared to resting liver. In every probe there was specific mRNA for the receptors. EGFR, FGFR and TNFR1 mRNA expression was equal or lower than in resting liver, HGFR expression after I/R was stronger than in the control.CONCLUSIONAt least partially due to a post-transcriptional process, there is a nadir in the expression of the analysed receptors 24 h after liver injury. Therefore, a therapeutic use of growth factors to stimulate liver regeneration 24 h after the damage might be not successful.

BACKGROUND:Spontaneous or iatrogenic esophageal perforations after endoscopic procedures are potentially life-threatening events with a considerable mortality rate. The aim of this study was to demonstrate that a nonoperative endoscopic treatment with self-expanding metal stents may have a lower morbidity and mortality rate compared with surgical treatment.METHODS:A nonrandomized observational study was conducted with 15 consecutive patients between January 1997 and June 2004. Benign spontaneous and iatrogenic esophageal perforations after endoscopic procedures were treated with self-expandable metal stents.RESULTS:Seven patients (group 1) underwent stent insertion with an average time delay of 45 minutes. In 8 patients (group 2), the median delay was 123 hours. All patients in group 1 had an uneventful recovery and left hospital 5 days (range, 3 to 9) after stent insertion. One patient in group 2 (1 of 8) died of pneumonia after 6 days. In any other cases, perforations healed successfully after stent placement, but the clinical course was generally complicated with sepsis and multiple organ failure. The average hospital stay was 44 days (range, 15 to 70).CONCLUSIONS:Immediate insertion of a self-expandable metal stent enables an excellent outcome with minimal mortality and morbidity without the need for operation. Even in cases of old esophageal perforations, sealing with self-expandable metal stents is still a good option although the clinical course is much less impressive than in early treated perforations.

Background: Pancreatic fistulas may arise secondary to several disorders of the pancreas. Although ~70% of pancreatic fistulas close with nonoperative management, this course of treatment usually takes several weeks or even months. To reduce this long period, closures with fibrin glue have been attempted in the past. In this study, we describe the course, management, and outcome of eight patients with postoperative external pancreatic fistulas of the pancreatic body and tail that arose after oncologic operations in the upper abdomen. Methods: All eight cases were treated by external drainage, insertion of an endoprosthesis into the pancreatic duct, and closure of the fistula with fibrin glue. Results: Immediately after this intervention, secretion from the fistulas was absent in all cases. None of the patients developed abscesses, recurrent fistulas, or complications associated with the fibrin glue. Conclusion: The early endoscopic management of postoperative pancreatic fistula with an approach combining internal drainage of the pancreatic duct and external occlusion of the fistula with fibrin glue is expeditious and beneficial.