Title: Survival after Curative Resection for Stage I Colorectal Mucinous Adenocarcinoma
Version: 1 Date: 14 Sep 2021
Reviewer's report:
The authors answer an interesting question and do this with a large cohort. I think the conclusions
and methods are sound. No big concerns on my behalf.
1. The authors use OS as an endpoint, but have already excluded patients that have died of non-
CRC causes. Then this is more like cancer (disease) specific survival. In my opinion CSS is
good to use, but then don't exclude patients who die of other causes, but just censor them in
survival analyses. Easy to do. Or then use the true overall survival.
2. Figures and tables need some polishing, but this is a small thing.
3. Reference 15 that should explain about the MMR IHC methods, but the referenced article
does truly talk about it. Could a another reference be better?
4. Some grammatical problems and misspelled words are in the results section, please check
them.
Title: Survival after Curative Resection for Stage I Colorectal Mucinous Adenocarcinoma
Version: 1 Date: 14 Sep 2021
Reviewer's report:
The authors answer an interesting question and do this with a large cohort. I think the conclusions
and methods are sound. No big concerns on my behalf.
1. The authors use OS as an endpoint, but have already excluded patients that have died of non-
CRC causes. Then this is more like cancer (disease) specific survival. In my opinion CSS is
good to use, but then don't exclude patients who die of other causes, but just censor them in
survival analyses. Easy to do. Or then use the true overall survival.
2. Figures and tables need some polishing, but this is a small thing.
3. Reference 15 that should explain about the MMR IHC methods, but the referenced article
does truly talk about it. Could a another reference be better?
4. Some grammatical problems and misspelled words are in the results section, please check
them.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Survival after Curative Resection for Stage I Colorectal Mucinous Adenocarcinoma
Version: 1 Date: 14 Sep 2021
Reviewer's report:
The authors answer an interesting question and do this with a large cohort. I think the conclusions
and methods are sound. No big concerns on my behalf.
1. The authors use OS as an endpoint, but have already excluded patients that have died of non-
CRC causes. Then this is more like cancer (disease) specific survival. In my opinion CSS is
good to use, but then don't exclude patients who die of other causes, but just censor them in
survival analyses. Easy to do. Or then use the true overall survival.
2. Figures and tables need some polishing, but this is a small thing.
3. Reference 15 that should explain about the MMR IHC methods, but the referenced article
does truly talk about it. Could a another reference be better?
4. Some grammatical problems and misspelled words are in the results section, please check
them.
assistant