S-1 is an effective adjuvant treatment for East Asian patients who have undergone a D2 dissection for locally advanced gastric cancer. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00152217 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).

On the basis of 5-year follow-up data, postoperative adjuvant therapy with S-1 was confirmed to improve overall survival and relapse-free survival in patients with stage II or III gastric cancer who had undergone D2 gastrectomy.

Japanese mortality due to colorectal cancer is on the rise, surpassing 49,000 in 2015. Many new treatment methods have been developed during recent decades. The Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum Guidelines 2016 for the treatment of colorectal cancer (JSCCR Guidelines 2016) were prepared to show standard treatment strategies for colorectal cancer, to eliminate disparities among institutions in terms of treatment, to eliminate unnecessary treatment and insufficient treatment, and to deepen mutual understanding between health-care professionals and patients by making these Guidelines available to the general public. These Guidelines were prepared by consensus reached by the JSCCR Guideline Committee, based on a careful review of the evidence retrieved by literature searches, and in view of the medical health insurance system and actual clinical practice settings in Japan. Therefore, these Guidelines can be used as a tool for treating colorectal cancer in actual clinical practice settings. More specifically, they can be used as a guide to obtaining informed consent from patients and choosing the method of treatment for each patient. As a result of the discussions held by the Guideline Committee, controversial issues were selected as Clinical Questions, and recommendations were made. Each recommendation is accompanied by a classification of the evidence and a classification of recommendation categories based on the consensus reached by the Guideline Committee members. Here we present the English version of the JSCCR Guidelines 2016.

Guidelines 2014) have been prepared as standard treatment strategies for colorectal cancer, to eliminate treatment disparities among institutions, to eliminate unnecessary treatment and insufficient treatment, and to deepen mutual understanding among health-care professionals and patients by making these guidelines available to the general public. These guidelines have been prepared as a result Abstract Colorectal cancer is a major cause of death in Japan, where it accounts for the largest number of deaths from malignant neoplasms among women and the third largest number among men. Many new methods of treatment have been developed during recent decades. The Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum Guidelines 2014 for treatment of colorectal cancer (JSCCR

Colorectal cancer is a major cause of death in Japan, where it accounts for the largest number of deaths from malignant neoplasms among women and the third largest number among men. Many new methods of treatment have been developed during recent decades. The Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum Guidelines 2014 for treatment of colorectal cancer (JSCCR Guidelines 2014) have been prepared as standard treatment strategies for colorectal cancer, to eliminate treatment disparities among institutions, to eliminate unnecessary treatment and insufficient treatment, and to deepen mutual understanding among health-care professionals and patients by making these guidelines available to the general public. These guidelines have been prepared as a result of consensuses reached by the JSCCR Guideline Committee on the basis of careful review of evidence retrieved by literature searches and taking into consideration the medical health insurance system and actual clinical practice in Japan. They can, therefore, be used as a guide for treating colorectal cancer in clinical practice. More specifically, they can be used as a guide to obtaining informed consent from patients and choosing the method of treatment for each patient. As a result of the discussions of the Guideline Committee, controversial issues were selected as clinical questions, and recommendations were made. Each recommendation is accompanied by a classification of the evidence and a classification of recommendation categories, on the basis of consensus reached by Guideline Committee members. Here we present the English version of the JSCCR Guidelines 2014.

The LECS procedure for dissection of gastric submucosal tumors such as GIST may be performed safely with reasonable operation times, less bleeding, and adequate cut lines. In addition, the success of the procedure does not depend on the tumor location such as the vicinity of the esophagogastric junction or pyloric ring.

No abstract

Although hemihepatic portal vein embolization (PVE) has been used preoperatively to extend indications for hepatectomy in patients with colorectal metastases, the effects of this procedure on tumor growth and outcome remain controversial. To address this issue, we assessed the proliferative activity of intrahepatic metastases after PVE and the long-term outcome of this procedure. Eighteen patients with colorectal metastases underwent preoperative PVE between 1996 and 2000 (PVE group). Twenty-nine patients who underwent major hepatic resection without PVE served as control (non-PVE group). The hepatic parenchymal fraction of the left lobe had significantly increased from 38.1 ؎ 3.2% to 45.9 ؎ 2.9% 3 weeks after PVE (؉20.5%, P < .0001). Tumor volume and percent tumor volume had also significantly increased from 223 ؎ 89 mL to 270 ؎ 97 mL (؉20.8%, P ‫؍‬ .016) and from 13.7 ؎ 4.3% to 16.2 ؎ 4.9% (؉18.5%, P ‫؍‬ .014), respectively. There was no apparent correlation between the increase in parenchymal volume and that in tumor volume. The Ki-67 labeling index of metastatic lesions was 46.6 ؎ 7.2% in the PVE group and 35.4 ؎ 12.6% in the non-PVE group (P ‫؍‬ .013). Long-term survival was similar in the PVE and non-PVE groups, however, disease-free survival was significantly poorer in the PVE group than in the non-PVE group (P ‫؍‬ .004). We conclude that PVE increases tumor growth and probably is associated with enhanced recurrence of disease. Although PVE is effective in extending indications for surgery, patient selection for PVE should be cautious. (HEPATOLOGY 2001;34:267-272.)Hepatic resection provides the only chance for cure in patients with colorectal metastases. To extend indications for hepatectomy, hemihepatic portal vein embolization (PVE) has been performed in selected patients. 1-3 PVE induces homolateral atrophy of the portion of the liver scheduled for resection and contralateral compensatory hypertrophy of the remnant liver, thus decreasing the risk of postoperative liver failure. PVE is indicated when the remnant liver is expected to be very small, i.e., about 40% smaller than preoperative liver volume, or when tumor spread requires a right hemihepatectomy with partial resection of the left side of the liver. 4,5 The positive effects of PVE on hepatic function must be weighed against recent evidence suggesting that this procedure may promote oncogenesis. Elias et al., have reported that after PVE liver metastases may grow more rapidly than liver parenchyma. 6 This assumption was based on a study of only 5 patients who had tumors in the nonembolized lobe of the liver, rather than the embolized lobe. In addition, they focused on tumor growth in the nonembolized lobe. Consequently, their findings were considered too premature to warrant contraindication of PVE in patients with colorectal metastases. 7,8 When used in combination with arterial chemoembolization, PVE suppresses growth of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). 9 Long-term results of HCC resection after PVE have recently been shown to be better than or...