Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
, 19 (1), 23-42

Molecular Lesions in Colorectal Cancer: Impact on Prognosis? Original Data and Review of the Literature

Affiliations
Review

Molecular Lesions in Colorectal Cancer: Impact on Prognosis? Original Data and Review of the Literature

B Klump et al. Int J Colorectal Dis.

Abstract

Background: In the Dukes' B and C stages of colorectal carcinoma there are considerable variations in the observed courses of the disease. Since post-operative chemotherapy in patients with Dukes' C (node-positive) colon carcinoma has been demonstrated to be effective in improving overall-survival, a more exact prognosis assessment gains additional significance and therapeutic relevance.

Discussion: One also hopes to derive improved prognostic factors from the clarification of the molecular pathogenesis. Because of its frequency and the accessibility and recognizability of its developmental stages colorectal carcinoma is among the best investigated of all solid tumors. Despite a multitude of suggested molecular candidate markers none of these changes has yet been able enter the everyday life of the clinic. However, it is to be expected that some of the molecular alterations presently discussed will gain importance before long in the clinical treatment of patients with colorectal carcinoma.

Conclusion: Considering also our own findings, this review presents the latest developments in the scientific discussion of the tumor suppressor/oncogenes p53, k-ras, and DCC, biochemical determinants of the 5-fluorouracil metabolism, and defects of the DNA repair system.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 18 PubMed Central articles

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Nature. 1987 May 28-Jun 3;327(6120):298-303 - PubMed
    1. Oncogene. 1996 Aug 15;13(4):787-95 - PubMed
    1. Cancer Lett. 1997 Sep 16;118(1):29-35 - PubMed
    1. Br J Cancer. 1994 Oct;70(4):585-90 - PubMed
    1. N Engl J Med. 1994 Jul 28;331(4):213-21 - PubMed

Substances

Feedback