The number of deaths from colorectal cancer in Japan continues to increase. Colorectal cancer deaths exceeded 50,000 in 2016. In the 2019 edition, revision of all aspects of treatments was performed, with corrections and additions made based on knowledge acquired since the 2016 version (drug therapy) and the 2014 version (other treatments). The Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum guidelines 2019 for the treatment of colorectal cancer (JSCCR guidelines 2019) 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 healthcare 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. 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 2019.

Purpose Improvements in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), total mesorectal excision (TME) surgery, and the use of (chemo)radiotherapy ([C]RT) have improved local control of rectal cancer; however, we have been unable to eradicate local recurrence (LR). Even in the face of TME and negative resection margins (R0), a significant proportion of patients with enlarged lateral lymph nodes (LLNs) suffer from lateral LR (LLR). Japanese studies suggest that the addition of an LLN dissection (LLND) could reduce LLR. This multicenter pooled analysis aims to ascertain whether LLNs actually pose a problem and whether LLND results in fewer LLRs. Patients and Methods Data from 1,216 consecutive patients with cT3/T4 rectal cancers up to 8 cm from the anal verge who underwent surgery in a 5-year period were collected. LLND was performed in 142 patients (12%). MRIs were re-evaluated with a standardized protocol to assess LLN features. Results On pretreatment MRI, 703 patients (58%) had visible LLN, and 192 (16%) had a short axis of at least 7 mm. One hundred eight patients developed LR (5-year LR rate, 10.0%), of which 59 (54%) were LLRs (5-year LLR rate, 5.5%). After multivariable analyses, LLNs with a short axis of at least 7 mm resulted in a significantly higher risk of LLR (hazard ratio, 2.060; P = .045) compared with LLNs of less than 7 mm. In patients with LLNs at least 7 mm, (C)RT plus TME plus LLND resulted in a 5-year LLR of 5.7%, which was significantly lower than that in patients who underwent (C)RT plus TME (5-year LLR, 19.5%; P = .042). Conclusion LLR is still a significant problem after (C)RT plus TME in LLNs with a short axis at least 7 mm on pretreatment MRI. The addition of LLND results in a significantly lower LLR rate.

There has been an explosion of research using transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for investigating and modulating human cognitive and motor function in healthy populations. It has also been used in many studies seeking to improve deficits in disease populations. With the slew of studies reporting “promising results” for everything from motor recovery after stroke to boosting memory function, one could be easily seduced by the idea of tDCS being the next panacea for all neurological ills. However, huge variability exists in the reported effects of tDCS, with great variability in the effect sizes and even contradictory results reported. In this review, we consider the interindividual factors that may contribute to this variability. In particular, we discuss the importance of baseline neuronal state and features, anatomy, age and the inherent variability in the injured brain. We additionally consider how interindividual variability affects the results of motor-evoked potential (MEP) testing with transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), which, in turn, can lead to apparent variability in response to tDCS in motor studies.

[1] Two-dimensional paleotidal simulations have been undertaken to investigate tidal and tide-dependent changes (tidal amplitudes, tidal current velocities, seasonal stratification, peak bed stress vectors) that have occurred in the NW European shelf seas during the last 20 ka. The simulations test the effect of shelf-wide isostatic changes of sea level by incorporating results from two different crustal rebound models, and the effect of the ocean-tide variability by setting open boundary values either fixed to the present state or variable according to the results of a global paleotidal model. The use of the different crustal rebound models does not affect the overall changes in tidal patterns, but the timing of the changes is sensitive to the local isostatic effects that differ between the models. The incorporation of ocean-tide changes greatly augments the amplitude of tides and tidal currents in the Celtic and Malin seas before 10 ka BP, and has a large impact on the distribution of seasonally stratified conditions, magnitude of peak bed stress vectors and tidal dissipation in the shelf seas. The predictions on seasonal stratification are supported by well-dated evidence on tidal mixing front migration in the Celtic Sea. Additional experiments using the global model suggest that the variability of offshore tides has been caused mainly by changes of eustatic sea level and ice-sheet extent. In particular, a large decrease observed at 10-8 ka BP is attributed to the opening of Hudson Strait accompanied by the retreat of the Laurentide Ice Sheet.