Title: Endoluminal ultrasound versus magnetic resonance imaging in assessment of rectal cancer
after neoadjuvant therapy
Version: 1 Date: 03 Oct 2022
Reviewer:  Thomas Togliani
Reviewer's report:
The study is very interesting, the topic is of crucal importance  and its double-technique fashion
is worthy. Nevertheless:
1) the english language is sometimes weak:
- page 2: malignancies (malignancy)
- page 3: presence lymph node (of)
- page 3: lymph node (nodes)
- page 4: fibrosis make (fibrosis, that make)
- page 5: all tumors...was (were)
- page 6:  the tumor appear (appears)
- page 6: considered (was considered)
- page 13: complementary tool (tools)
2) there are some typos:
- page 3: the acronym NAT (for neo-adjuvant therapy) should be placed here, not at page 4
- page 6: sensitivity...sensitivity (specificity) (twice)
- table 5 and 6: early and late stages (the tables show a T vs N comparison of EUS and MRI;
I can not see any early vs late stage data)
- page 12: sensitivity...sensitivity (specificity) (twice)
3) there are some remarks about the methods and the results:
- inclusion and exclusion criteria are not clearly stated
- some interesting pre-NAT data lack: initial  staging? by which technique? presence of rectal
stenosis?
- about EUS methods: have Sonovue, sonoelastography or FNA on LN been done?
- what about the comparison  of EUS and MRI on advanced stages?
- how has the statistical significance of the results been assessed?
4) who reads this paper wonders if the autors suggest to use always both EUS and MRI or in
which circumstances only one of these lasts
Title: Endoluminal ultrasound versus magnetic resonance imaging in assessment of rectal cancer
after neoadjuvant therapy
Version: 1 Date: 03 Oct 2022
Reviewer:  Thomas Togliani
Reviewer's report:
The study is very interesting, the topic is of crucal importance  and its double-technique fashion
is worthy. Nevertheless:
1) the english language is sometimes weak:
- page 2: malignancies (malignancy)
- page 3: presence lymph node (of)
- page 3: lymph node (nodes)
- page 4: fibrosis make (fibrosis, that make)
- page 5: all tumors...was (were)
- page 6:  the tumor appear (appears)
- page 6: considered (was considered)
- page 13: complementary tool (tools)
2) there are some typos:
- page 3: the acronym NAT (for neo-adjuvant therapy) should be placed here, not at page 4
- page 6: sensitivity...sensitivity (specificity) (twice)
- table 5 and 6: early and late stages (the tables show a T vs N comparison of EUS and MRI;
I can not see any early vs late stage data)
- page 12: sensitivity...sensitivity (specificity) (twice)
3) there are some remarks about the methods and the results:
- inclusion and exclusion criteria are not clearly stated
- some interesting pre-NAT data lack: initial  staging? by which technique? presence of rectal
stenosis?
- about EUS methods: have Sonovue, sonoelastography or FNA on LN been done?
- what about the comparison  of EUS and MRI on advanced stages?
- how has the statistical significance of the results been assessed?
4) who reads this paper wonders if the autors suggest to use always both EUS and MRI or in
which circumstances only one of these lasts
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Endoluminal ultrasound versus magnetic resonance imaging in assessment of rectal cancer
after neoadjuvant therapy
Version: 1 Date: 03 Oct 2022
Reviewer:  Thomas Togliani
Reviewer's report:
The study is very interesting, the topic is of crucal importance  and its double-technique fashion
is worthy. Nevertheless:
1) the english language is sometimes weak:
- page 2: malignancies (malignancy)
- page 3: presence lymph node (of)
- page 3: lymph node (nodes)
- page 4: fibrosis make (fibrosis, that make)
- page 5: all tumors...was (were)
- page 6:  the tumor appear (appears)
- page 6: considered (was considered)
- page 13: complementary tool (tools)
2) there are some typos:
- page 3: the acronym NAT (for neo-adjuvant therapy) should be placed here, not at page 4
- page 6: sensitivity...sensitivity (specificity) (twice)
- table 5 and 6: early and late stages (the tables show a T vs N comparison of EUS and MRI;
I can not see any early vs late stage data)
- page 12: sensitivity...sensitivity (specificity) (twice)
3) there are some remarks about the methods and the results:
- inclusion and exclusion criteria are not clearly stated
- some interesting pre-NAT data lack: initial  staging? by which technique? presence of rectal
stenosis?
- about EUS methods: have Sonovue, sonoelastography or FNA on LN been done?
- what about the comparison  of EUS and MRI on advanced stages?
- how has the statistical significance of the results been assessed?
4) who reads this paper wonders if the autors suggest to use always both EUS and MRI or in
which circumstances only one of these lasts
assistant