http://archsurg.jamanetwork.com/ en-us Wed, 24 Apr 2013 00:00:00 GMT Mon, 29 Apr 2013 22:44:37 GMT Silverchair editor@archsurg.jamanetwork.com webmaster@archsurg.jamanetwork.com http://archsurg.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleID=1679629 Mon, 01 Apr 2013 00:00:00 GMT Hawkins WG. <span class="paragraphSection">Pacelli et al reported the Italian experience with multivisceral resection for locally advanced gastric cancer, and they concluded that “en bloc multivisceral resection should be the therapeutic choice.” In truth, the case for a more selective approach, such as the response to chemotherapy, is better supported by their data. The expertise of the authors and contributing surgeons is not in question. The surgical results of this selected experience are commendable. However, a critical review demonstrates that the most important contribution to the outcomes was careful patient selection, and the conclusion encouraging surgery in an unselective manner is potentially a disservice to most patients with locally advanced gastric cancer.</span> 148 4 361 361 10.1001/2013.jamasurg.331 http://archsurg.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleID=1679629 http://archsurg.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleID=1679635 Mon, 01 Apr 2013 00:00:00 GMT Klein A. <span class="paragraphSection">Jegatheeswaran et al have evaluated pooled data from 4 single-center series of patients with colorectal cancer and synchronous hepatic metastases treated witha “liver-first” management strategy. This well-written article tackles a particularly challenging topic given the heterogeneity of patient inclusion criteria and treatment protocols. However, the title is somewhat misleading. The first treatment in all 4 series was, in fact, systemic chemotherapy, the importance of which will be revisited herein. Liver resection was the first surgical intervention, followed by chemoradiotherapy, and then resection of the colorectal primary.</span> 148 4 392 392 10.1001/jamasurg.2013.1236 http://archsurg.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleID=1679635