Title: Predictors of pathological complete response after total neoadjuvant treatment using short
course radiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer
Version: 1 Date: 14 Dec 2024
Reviewer's report:
1. There is no question that Pathologic Complete Response (PCR) after neoadjuvant therapy for
rectal cancer is a favorable prognostic sign.
Was there a routine standardized pre- and post- therapy endoscopic assessment? Watchful
monitoring (see Habr-Gama's work) is an option.
2.  What was the stated aim of the study? Why were age, gender, tumor size, location,
circumferential spread, and CEA cutoff walue considered as prognostic factors? did they affect
treatment choice?
3. What criteria were used to assign patients to treatment  1 or 2?
4. Were the two patient groups comparable in terms of patient and tumor variables?
5. Why did you include in study patients with T2 tumors?
6. Why was CT or MRI used for staging rather than same diagnostic tests?
7. What criteria were used to assign patients to group 1 or 2?
8. Chemotherapy interruptions are obviously not a desirable step. How does such piece of
information add to our knowledge or treatment strategy?
9. A mucinous component is not a modifiable variable.  Does that affect treatment strategy?
10. Age is also not modifiable. Why use 60 y.o. as an age cutoff?
Title: Predictors of pathological complete response after total neoadjuvant treatment using short
course radiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer
Version: 1 Date: 14 Dec 2024
Reviewer's report:
1. There is no question that Pathologic Complete Response (PCR) after neoadjuvant therapy for
rectal cancer is a favorable prognostic sign.
Was there a routine standardized pre- and post- therapy endoscopic assessment? Watchful
monitoring (see Habr-Gama's work) is an option.
2.  What was the stated aim of the study? Why were age, gender, tumor size, location,
circumferential spread, and CEA cutoff walue considered as prognostic factors? did they affect
treatment choice?
3. What criteria were used to assign patients to treatment  1 or 2?
4. Were the two patient groups comparable in terms of patient and tumor variables?
5. Why did you include in study patients with T2 tumors?
6. Why was CT or MRI used for staging rather than same diagnostic tests?
7. What criteria were used to assign patients to group 1 or 2?
8. Chemotherapy interruptions are obviously not a desirable step. How does such piece of
information add to our knowledge or treatment strategy?
9. A mucinous component is not a modifiable variable.  Does that affect treatment strategy?
10. Age is also not modifiable. Why use 60 y.o. as an age cutoff?
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Predictors of pathological complete response after total neoadjuvant treatment using short
course radiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer
Version: 1 Date: 14 Dec 2024
Reviewer's report:
1. There is no question that Pathologic Complete Response (PCR) after neoadjuvant therapy for
rectal cancer is a favorable prognostic sign.
Was there a routine standardized pre- and post- therapy endoscopic assessment? Watchful
monitoring (see Habr-Gama's work) is an option.
2.  What was the stated aim of the study? Why were age, gender, tumor size, location,
circumferential spread, and CEA cutoff walue considered as prognostic factors? did they affect
treatment choice?
3. What criteria were used to assign patients to treatment  1 or 2?
4. Were the two patient groups comparable in terms of patient and tumor variables?
5. Why did you include in study patients with T2 tumors?
6. Why was CT or MRI used for staging rather than same diagnostic tests?
7. What criteria were used to assign patients to group 1 or 2?
8. Chemotherapy interruptions are obviously not a desirable step. How does such piece of
information add to our knowledge or treatment strategy?
9. A mucinous component is not a modifiable variable.  Does that affect treatment strategy?
10. Age is also not modifiable. Why use 60 y.o. as an age cutoff?
assistant