Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: The cut -off value of tumor size and appropriate timing of follow -up for management of 
minimal EUS -suspected gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors  
 
Version: 1 Date: 08 Oct 2016  
 
Reviewer: Mohamed Othman  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
This is a retrospective study examining the rate of progression of minimal GIST based on their 
initial EUS size. The authors concluded that, GIST with size larger t han 9.5 mm have a higher 
chance for progression in size and therefore require close surveillance in 6 to 12 months.   
 
General Comment:  
The study is well written. The methodology and result section are straightforward.  
Major comment:  
1- Lack of pertinen t information in all GIST which changed in size ( eg: mitotic figure).  
This may affect conclusion drawn by the study.  
2- Although the authors are proposing a single value cut off point to determine surveillance 
interval, it makes more sense to analyze th e data based on rate of change over one year (  
over one year per mm)  to determine surveillance interval.  
3- the conclusion stated that surveillance should be in less than 2 years for lesions less than 9.5 
mm, it is unclear to me what is the basis of the statement. Also what is less than 2 years 
means ?( one year or 18 months for example)  
Are the meth ods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the c onclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistica l review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration  of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an  
organisation that may in any way gain or lose fi nancially from the publication of this  
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose  
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the  
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds  or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below.  If you r reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
No 
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included  
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report  
including  any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors'  
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons  
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any c omments  
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments  
to the editors, which will not be published.   
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: The cut -off value of tumor size and appropriate timing of follow -up for management of 
minimal EUS -suspected gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors  
 
Version: 1 Date: 08 Oct 2016  
 
Reviewer: Mohamed Othman  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
This is a retrospective study examining the rate of progression of minimal GIST based on their 
initial EUS size. The authors concluded that, GIST with size larger t han 9.5 mm have a higher 
chance for progression in size and therefore require close surveillance in 6 to 12 months.   
 
General Comment:  
The study is well written. The methodology and result section are straightforward.  
Major comment:  
1- Lack of pertinen t information in all GIST which changed in size ( eg: mitotic figure).  
This may affect conclusion drawn by the study.  
2- Although the authors are proposing a single value cut off point to determine surveillance 
interval, it makes more sense to analyze th e data based on rate of change over one year (  
over one year per mm)  to determine surveillance interval.  
3- the conclusion stated that surveillance should be in less than 2 years for lesions less than 9.5 
mm, it is unclear to me what is the basis of the statement. Also what is less than 2 years 
means ?( one year or 18 months for example)  
Are the meth ods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the c onclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistica l review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration  of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an  
organisation that may in any way gain or lose fi nancially from the publication of this  
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose  
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the  
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds  or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below.  If you r reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
No 
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included  
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report  
including  any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors'  
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons  
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any c omments  
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments  
to the editors, which will not be published.   
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: The cut -off value of tumor size and appropriate timing of follow -up for management of 
minimal EUS -suspected gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors  
 
Version: 1 Date: 08 Oct 2016  
 
Reviewer: Mohamed Othman  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
This is a retrospective study examining the rate of progression of minimal GIST based on their 
initial EUS size. The authors concluded that, GIST with size larger t han 9.5 mm have a higher 
chance for progression in size and therefore require close surveillance in 6 to 12 months.   
 
General Comment:  
The study is well written. The methodology and result section are straightforward.  
Major comment:  
1- Lack of pertinen t information in all GIST which changed in size ( eg: mitotic figure).  
This may affect conclusion drawn by the study.  
2- Although the authors are proposing a single value cut off point to determine surveillance 
interval, it makes more sense to analyze th e data based on rate of change over one year (  
over one year per mm)  to determine surveillance interval.  
3- the conclusion stated that surveillance should be in less than 2 years for lesions less than 9.5 
mm, it is unclear to me what is the basis of the statement. Also what is less than 2 years 
means ?( one year or 18 months for example)  
Are the meth ods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the c onclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistica l review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration  of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an  
organisation that may in any way gain or lose fi nancially from the publication of this  
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose  
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the  
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds  or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below.  If you r reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
No 
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included  
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report  
including  any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors'  
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons  
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any c omments  
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments  
to the editors, which will not be published.   
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
assistant