Download PDF
Endoskopie heute 2011; 24(3): 154-159
DOI: 10.1055/s-0031-1283746
Originalarbeit

© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart ˙ New York

Früherkennung – was lässt sich optimieren?

Screening – What Can be Optimized?A. Eickhoff1 , A. Genthner1 , J. F. Riemann2
  • 1Medizinische Klinik II, Klinikum Hanau
  • 2Stiftung LebensBlicke, Ludwigshafen
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
26 September 2011 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Das kolorektale Karzinom (KRK) bleibt trotz aller Fortschritte in Prophylaxe, Früherkennung und Therapie ein Tumor mit anhaltend hoher Inzidenz und Sterblichkeit. Eine Verbesserung der Früh­erkennungsmaßnahmen ist für die Zukunft un­abdingbar. Neben der Verbesserung der Sensiti­vität und Spezifität der einzelnen Verfahren ist dabei auch die Patientenaufklärung, Compliance und Akzeptanz ein entscheidender Zielparameter. Allerdings bleibt zu beachten, dass eine 100 %-ige Sensitivität mit keiner Methode erreichbar ist, da jede Screeningmethode Vorteile, Limitationen und Nachteile birgt. Unabdingbar erscheint in ­Zukunft aber auch eine individuelle, risikoadaptierte Allokation der Screeningverfahren mit dem Ziel einer größtmöglichen Vorsorgequalität. Zukünftige Screeningstrategien basieren daher neben dem individuellen KRK-Risiko auch auf den Wünschen und Bedürfnissen des zu unter­suchenden Patienten und verbesserten Einladungsstrategien („Organisiertes Darmkrebsscreening“). Denn nur bei einem gut informierten Patienten kann sich die Akzeptanz und Qualität der KRK-Vorsorge verbessern. 

Abstract

Colorectal cancer remains as one of the leading causes of cancer death throughout the world. Major approaches to optimize the screening is based on the improvement of the well-known and evidence based screening methods, i. e. FOBT and ­colonoscopy. However, improvement of patient acceptance, compliance and adherence are im­portant elements of program effectiveness. The mainstay of screening for the future seems to be a more risk adapted and individual approach ­based also on patient wishes and surrounding factors. Every screening program has advantages and limitations, but each program ultimately depends on quality and patient adherence. 

Schlüsselwörter

Kolonkarzinom-Screening - Koloskopie - CT-Kolonografie - Fäkaler Okkult-Bluttest - Patientenakzeptanz

Key words

colon cancer screening - colonoscopy - CT colonography - fecal occult blood test - patient acceptance

Literatur

  • 1 Klug S J. Colonoscopy Screening in Germany – a success story?.  Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2010;  107 751-752
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Robert-Koch-Institut. Krebs in Deutschland 2005/2006 – Häufigkeiten und Trends. 2010 2010
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Brenner H, Altenhofen L, Hoffmeister M. Eight years of colonoscopic bowel cancer screening in Germany: initial findings and projections.  Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2010;  107 753-759
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Jasperson K W et al. Herederity and familial Colon Cancer.  Gastroenterology. 2010;  138 2044-2058
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Schmiegel W et al. S3 Leitlinie „Kolorektales Karzinom“ 2004 / 2008.  Zeitschrift für Gastroenterologie. 2009;  47 37-54
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Liebermann D. Progress and Challenges in Colorectal Cancer Screening und Surveillance.  Gastroenterology. 2010;  138 2115-2212
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Towler B et al. A systematic review of the effects of screening for colorectal cancer using the faecal occult blood test, hemoccult.  Bmj. 1998;  317 559-565
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Hundt S, Haug U, Brenner H. Comparative evaluation of immunochemical fecal occult blood tests for colorectal adenoma detection.  Ann Intern Med. 2009;  150 162-169
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Muralidharan K. Titel fehlt.  J Clin Oncol (Meeting Abstracts). 2010;  28 no. 15
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Leman E S, Schoen R E, Weissfeld J L et al. Initial analyses of colon cancer-specific antigen (CCSA)-3 and CCSA-4 as colorectal cancer-associated serum markers.  Cancer Res. 2007;  67 5600-5605
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Baxter N N, Goldwasser M A, Paszat L F et al. Association of colonoscopy and death from colorectal cancer: a population-based, case-control study.  Ann Intern Med. 2009;  150 1-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Muller A D, Sonnenberg A. Prevention of colorectal cancer by flexible endoscopy and polypectomy: a case control study of 32 702 veterans.  Ann Intern Med. 1995;  123 904-910
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Singh H, Turner D, Xue L et al. Risk of developing colorectal cancer following a negative colonoscopy examination. Evindence for 10-year interval between colonoscopies.  JAMA. 2006;  295 2366-2373
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Lieberman D A. Screening for colorectal cancer.  N Engl J Med. 2009;  361 1179-1187
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Winawer S J, Zauber A G, Ho M N et al. Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. The National Polyp Study Workgroup.  N Engl J Med. 1993;  329 1977-1981
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Brenner H, Hoffmeister M, Brenner G et al. Expected reduction of co­lorectal cancer incidence within 8 years after introduction of the German screening colonoscopy programme: Estimates based on 1 875 708 screening colonoscopies.  Eur J Cancer.. 2009;  45 2027
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Brenner H, Hoffmeister M, Arndt V et al. Protection from right- and left-sided colorectal neoplasms after colonoscopy: population-based study.  J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;  102 89-95
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Lieberman D A, Weiss D G, Harford W V et al. Five-year colon surveillance after screening colonoscopy.  Gastroenterology. 2007;  133 1077-1085
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Imperiale T F, Glowinski E A, Lin-Cooper C et al. Five-year risk of colorectal neoplasia after negative screening colonoscopy.  N Engl J Med. 2008;  359 1218-1224
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Martínez M E, Baron J A, Lieberman D A et al. A pooled analysis of advanced colorectal neoplasia diagnoses after colonoscopic polypectomy.  Gastroenterology. 2009;  136 832-841
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Friedland S, Soetikno R et al. Reasons for adenoma miss rate in colonoscopy.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;  73 AB: # 1256
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Barclay R L, Vicari J J, Doughty A S et al. Colonoscopic withdrawal times and adenoma detection during screening colonoscopy.  N Engl J Med. 2006;  355 2533-2541
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Kiesslich R, Schuster N, Halpern Z. Medjet – a New CO2 Based Disposable Cleaning Device Allows Safe and Effective Colon Cleansing During ­Colonoscopy. A Prospective Open Labeled Controlled Trial.  Gastro­intest Endosc. 2011;  73 AB: TU1451
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Leufkens A M, Siersema P et al. Factors Affecting Miss Rate of Polyps During Colonoscopy: Results From a Prospective, Multicenter Back-to-Back Colonoscopy Study.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;  73 AB: #1178
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 de Wijkerslooth T, Stoop E M, Bossuyt P M et al. Adenoma Detection With Cap-Assisted Colonoscopy Versus Regular Colonoscopy: A Randomized Controlled Trial.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;  73 AB: #1171
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Ramirez F C, Leung F W. The Water Method is Associated With Higher Adenoma Detection Rate (ADR) – A Head-to-Head Comparative Study.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;  73 AB: # 601
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Amato A, Radaelli F, Paggi S et al. Carbon Dioxide Insufflation (CO2) and Warm Water Infusion (WWI) Versus Standard Air Insufflation (AI): Preliminary Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial in Unsedated ­Colonoscopy.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;  73 AB: # 601. 
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Johnson C D, Chen M H, Toledano A Y et al. Accuracy of CT colonography for detection of large adenomas and cancers.  N Engl J Med. 2008;  359 1207-1217
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Pickhardt P J et al. Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults.  N Engl J Med. 2003;  349 2191-2200
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Hartmann D, Bassler B, Schilling D et al. Colorectal polyps: detection with dark-lumen MR colonography versus conventional colonoscopy.  Radiology. 2006;  238 143-149
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Van Gossum A, Munoz-Navas M, Fernandez-Urien et al. Capsule endoscopy versus colonoscopy for the detection of polyps and cancer.  N Engl J Med. 2009;  361 264-270
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Wuppermann D, Wuppermann U, Riemann J F. [Actual state of knowl­edge of the german population about the early detection of colorectal cancer – a study by the “Stiftung LebensBlicke” in cooperation with the institute for demoscopy in Allensbach].  Z Gastroenterol. 2009;  47 ((11)) 1132-1136 Epub 2009 Nov 6
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar

PD Dr. med. Axel Eickhoff

Medizinische Klinik II · Klinikum Hanau

Leimenstr. 20

63450 Hanau

Phone: 0 61 81 / 2 96 42 00

Fax: 0 61 81 / 2 96 42 14

Email: axel_eickhoff@klinikum-hanau.de

Prof. Dr. med. J. F. Riemann

Stiftung LebensBlicke – Früherkennung Darmkrebs · Klinikum Ludwigshafen

Bremserstr. 79

67063 Ludwigshafen

Phone: 06 21 / 5 87 78 10

Fax: 06 21 / 5 87 78 11

Email: riemannj@garps.de

      >