Reviewer's report
Title:Role of tumor size in the pre-operative management of rectal cancer
patients
Version: 1Date:12 February 2010
Reviewer: Hans-Joachim Schmoll
Reviewer's report:
This study reports on the value of preoperative tumor size in rectal cancer with
respect to pathological stage and final outcome in terms of survival. A large test
set has been generated from a retrospective analysis within one hospital, and a
small test set from another hospital. The data show that a cut off of 3.4 cm of
preop pathological stage is significantly predicting pathological stage after
surgery and survival. This information is interesting and even today where
modern MRI techniques can be used to identify possible lymphnode involvement.
Whether this knowledge is clinically relevant in terms of changing treatment
procedures is unclear since TME is done in all patients, and adjuvant
chemotherapy given in all pathological T3/ 4 or N+ patients as well. However, the
information is interesting. The paper is well written and contains most relevant
references.
Major:
The means to identify the preop and pre-treatment stage in both cohorts are not
described. Furthermore, which is more relevant, it is not given which patient had
preoperative radiation or chemoradiation. It can be assumed that a proportion of
locally advanced tumor patients had some preoperative treatment or some
postoperative as well. It is not clear which influence this treatment modalities
have had on relapse rate as well as on the cut off point and the relevance of 3.4
cm cut off.
Reviewer's report
Title:Role of tumor size in the pre-operative management of rectal cancer
patients
Version: 1Date:12 February 2010
Reviewer: Hans-Joachim Schmoll
Reviewer's report:
This study reports on the value of preoperative tumor size in rectal cancer with
respect to pathological stage and final outcome in terms of survival. A large test
set has been generated from a retrospective analysis within one hospital, and a
small test set from another hospital. The data show that a cut off of 3.4 cm of
preop pathological stage is significantly predicting pathological stage after
surgery and survival. This information is interesting and even today where
modern MRI techniques can be used to identify possible lymphnode involvement.
Whether this knowledge is clinically relevant in terms of changing treatment
procedures is unclear since TME is done in all patients, and adjuvant
chemotherapy given in all pathological T3/ 4 or N+ patients as well. However, the
information is interesting. The paper is well written and contains most relevant
references.
Major:
The means to identify the preop and pre-treatment stage in both cohorts are not
described. Furthermore, which is more relevant, it is not given which patient had
preoperative radiation or chemoradiation. It can be assumed that a proportion of
locally advanced tumor patients had some preoperative treatment or some
postoperative as well. It is not clear which influence this treatment modalities
have had on relapse rate as well as on the cut off point and the relevance of 3.4
cm cut off.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Role of tumor size in the pre-operative management of rectal cancer
patients
Version: 1Date:12 February 2010
Reviewer: Hans-Joachim Schmoll
Reviewer's report:
This study reports on the value of preoperative tumor size in rectal cancer with
respect to pathological stage and final outcome in terms of survival. A large test
set has been generated from a retrospective analysis within one hospital, and a
small test set from another hospital. The data show that a cut off of 3.4 cm of
preop pathological stage is significantly predicting pathological stage after
surgery and survival. This information is interesting and even today where
modern MRI techniques can be used to identify possible lymphnode involvement.
Whether this knowledge is clinically relevant in terms of changing treatment
procedures is unclear since TME is done in all patients, and adjuvant
chemotherapy given in all pathological T3/ 4 or N+ patients as well. However, the
information is interesting. The paper is well written and contains most relevant
references.
Major:
The means to identify the preop and pre-treatment stage in both cohorts are not
described. Furthermore, which is more relevant, it is not given which patient had
preoperative radiation or chemoradiation. It can be assumed that a proportion of
locally advanced tumor patients had some preoperative treatment or some
postoperative as well. It is not clear which influence this treatment modalities
have had on relapse rate as well as on the cut off point and the relevance of 3.4
cm cut off.
assistant