Colorectal cancer is a major cause of death in Japan, where it accounts for the largest number of deaths from malignant neoplasms in women and the third largest number in men. Many new treatment methods have been developed over the last few decades. The Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum (JSCCR) guidelines 2010 for the treatment of colorectal cancer (JSCCR Guidelines 2010) have been 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 have been prepared by consensuses 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 2010.

/pdf/japanese-society-for-cancer-of-the-colon-and-rectum-jsccr-4p1pxkp3e3.pdf

Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum (JSCCR) guidelines 2010 for the treatment of colorectal cancer

Purpose A number of studies have investigated the relationship between microsatellite instability (MSI) and colorectal cancer (CRC) prognosis. Although many have reported a better survival with MSI, estimates of the hazard ratio (HR) among studies differ. To derive a more precise estimate of the prognostic significance of MSI, we have reviewed and pooled data from published studies. Methods Studies stratifying survival in CRC patients by MSI status were eligible for analysis. The principal outcome measure was the HR. Data from eligible studies were pooled using standard techniques. Results Thirty-two eligible studies reported survival in a total of 7,642 cases, including 1,277 with MSI. There was no evidence of publication bias. The combined HR estimate for overall survival associated with MSI was 0.65 (95% CI, 0.59 to 0.71; heterogeneity P = .16; I2 = 20%). This benefit was maintained restricting analyses to clinical trial patients (HR = 0.69; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.85) and patients with locally advanced CRC ...

Systematic Review of Microsatellite Instability and Colorectal Cancer Prognosis

https://www.cinj.org/sites/cinj/files/documents/CLASSIC.pdf

Adjuvant capecitabine and oxaliplatin for gastric cancer after D2 gastrectomy (CLASSIC): a phase 3 open-label, randomised controlled trial

Purpose Prior reports have indicated that patients with colon cancer who demonstrate high-level microsatellite instability (MSI-H) or defective DNA mismatch repair (dMMR) have improved survival and receive no benefit from fluorouracil (FU) -based adjuvant therapy compared with patients who have microsatellite-stable or proficient mismatch repair (pMMR) tumors. We examined MMR status as a predictor of adjuvant therapy benefit in patients with stages II and III colon cancer. Methods MSI assay or immunohistochemistry for MMR proteins were performed on 457 patients who were previously randomly assigned to FU-based therapy (either FU + levamisole or FU + leucovorin; n = 229) versus no postsurgical treatment (n = 228). Data were subsequently pooled with data from a previous analysis. The primary end point was disease-free survival (DFS). Results Overall, 70 (15%) of 457 patients exhibited dMMR. Adjuvant therapy significantly improved DFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.67; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.93; P = .02) in patients with ...

/pdf/defective-mismatch-repair-as-a-predictive-marker-for-lack-of-3y653mwqim.pdf

Defective Mismatch Repair As a Predictive Marker for Lack of Efficacy of Fluorouracil-Based Adjuvant Therapy in Colon Cancer

ESMO Consensus Guidelines for management of patients with colon and rectal cancer. A personalized approach to clinical decision making

Purpose To address whether all medically fit patients with curatively resected stage II colon cancer should be offered adjuvant chemotherapy as part of routine clinical practice, to identify patients with poor prognosis characteristics, and to describe strategies for oncologists to use to discuss adjuvant chemotherapy in practice.

https://ascopubs.org/doi/pdfdirect/10.1200/JCO.2004.05.063

American Society of Clinical Oncology Recommendations on Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Stage II Colon Cancer

Purpose This multicenter, randomized trial compared capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) with bolus fluorouracil (FU) and folinic acid (FA) as adjuvant therapy for patients with stage III colon cancer. Patients and Methods Patients who had undergone curative resection were randomly assigned to XELOX (oxaliplatin 130 mg/m 2 on day 1 plus capecitabine 1,000 mg/m 2 twice daily on days 1 to 14 every 3 weeks for 24 weeks) or a standard bolus FU/FA adjuvant regimen (Mayo Clinic for 24 weeks or Roswell Park for 32 weeks). The primary study end point was disease-free survival (DFS). Results The intention-to-treat population comprised 1,886 patients; 944 patients were randomly assigned to XELOX and 942 to FU/FA (Mayo Clinic, n 664; Roswell Park, n 278). After 57 months of follow-up for the primary analysis, 295 patients (31.3%) in the XELOX group had relapsed, developed a new primary colon cancer, or died compared with 353 patients (37.5%) in the FU/FA group (hazard ratio [HR] for DFS, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.93; P .0045). The 3-year DFS rate was 70.9% with XELOX and 66.5% with FU/FA. The HR for overall survival (OS) for XELOX compared to FU/FA was 0.87 (95% CI, 0.72 to 1.05; P .1486). The 5-year OS for XELOX and FU/FA were 77.6% and 74.2%, respectively. Follow-up is ongoing. Preplanned multivariate and subgroup analyses supported the robustness of these findings. Conclusion The addition of oxaliplatin to capecitabine improves DFS in patients with stage III colon cancer. XELOX is an additional adjuvant treatment option for these patients. J Clin Oncol 29. © 2011 by American Society of Clinical Oncology

https://ascopubs.org/doi/pdf/10.1200/jco.2010.33.6297

Capecitabine Plus Oxaliplatin Compared With Fluorouracil and Folinic Acid As Adjuvant Therapy for Stage III Colon Cancer

Purpose To report the final efficacy findings and biomarker analysis from the NO16968 trial comparing bolus fluorouracil/folinic acid (FU/FA) with capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) in resected stage III colon cancer. Patients and Methods After curative resection, patients were randomly assigned to receive XELOX, as oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 on day 1 and capecitabine 1,000 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1 to 14 every 3 weeks, or bolus FU/FA, as the Mayo Clinic or Roswell Park regimens, for 6 months. The primary end point was disease-free survival (DFS). Secondary end points included overall survival (OS). Results The intention-to-treat population comprised 1,886 patients (XELOX, n = 944; FU/FA, n = 942). Seven-year DFS rates were 63% and 56% in the XELOX and FU/FA groups, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.93; P = .004). Seven-year OS rates were 73% and 67% in the XELOX and FU/FA groups, respectively (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.99; P = .04). A total of 68% and 77% of patients who experien...

https://ascopubs.org/doi/pdf/10.1200/JCO.2015.60.9107

Capecitabine Plus Oxaliplatin Compared With Fluorouracil/Folinic Acid As Adjuvant Therapy for Stage III Colon Cancer: Final Results of the NO16968 Randomized Controlled Phase III Trial

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Eric Van Cutsem

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

American Society of Clinical Oncology Recommendations on Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Stage II Colon Cancer

Capecitabine Plus Oxaliplatin Compared With Fluorouracil and Folinic Acid As Adjuvant Therapy for Stage III Colon Cancer

Capecitabine Plus Oxaliplatin Compared With Fluorouracil/Folinic Acid As Adjuvant Therapy for Stage III Colon Cancer: Final Results of the NO16968 Randomized Controlled Phase III Trial