Reviewer's report
Title:Role of tumor size in the pre-operative management of rectal cancer
patients
Version: 1Date:20 January 2010
Reviewer: Gaetano Magro
Reviewer's report:
The paper is potentially interesting and it has been well planned and illustrated.
However, I think it needs a major compulsory revision
Although rectal and colon carcinomas share common controversial pathological
issues, however, it is also true that rectal carcinoma poses exclusive issues,
owing to its peculiar anatomical location. Infact, apart from tumor hystotype and
pTN, pathologist should evaluate: i) gross evaluation of the total mesorectal
excision; ii) possible extension of tumor to the surgically created circumferential
(radial) margin; iii) possible extension to peritoneum, if tumor is localized in the
anterior wall of the rectum; iv) perirectal tumor deposits (TDs).
All these pathologic features are not optional, but routinely required by clinicians.
Why did not the authors evaluate all the above mentioned points?
Their inclusion in the clinicopathologic characteristics of rectal cancer patients
(Table 1,2)could greatly improve the quality of the paper.
The authors should provide a convincing explanation about this important
omission.
Pag. 11
When the authors use the acronym TEM should specify: transanal endoscopic
microsurgery
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Role of tumor size in the pre-operative management of rectal cancer
patients
Version: 1Date:20 January 2010
Reviewer: Gaetano Magro
Reviewer's report:
The paper is potentially interesting and it has been well planned and illustrated.
However, I think it needs a major compulsory revision
Although rectal and colon carcinomas share common controversial pathological
issues, however, it is also true that rectal carcinoma poses exclusive issues,
owing to its peculiar anatomical location. Infact, apart from tumor hystotype and
pTN, pathologist should evaluate: i) gross evaluation of the total mesorectal
excision; ii) possible extension of tumor to the surgically created circumferential
(radial) margin; iii) possible extension to peritoneum, if tumor is localized in the
anterior wall of the rectum; iv) perirectal tumor deposits (TDs).
All these pathologic features are not optional, but routinely required by clinicians.
Why did not the authors evaluate all the above mentioned points?
Their inclusion in the clinicopathologic characteristics of rectal cancer patients
(Table 1,2)could greatly improve the quality of the paper.
The authors should provide a convincing explanation about this important
omission.
Pag. 11
When the authors use the acronym TEM should specify: transanal endoscopic
microsurgery
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Role of tumor size in the pre-operative management of rectal cancer
patients
Version: 1Date:20 January 2010
Reviewer: Gaetano Magro
Reviewer's report:
The paper is potentially interesting and it has been well planned and illustrated.
However, I think it needs a major compulsory revision
Although rectal and colon carcinomas share common controversial pathological
issues, however, it is also true that rectal carcinoma poses exclusive issues,
owing to its peculiar anatomical location. Infact, apart from tumor hystotype and
pTN, pathologist should evaluate: i) gross evaluation of the total mesorectal
excision; ii) possible extension of tumor to the surgically created circumferential
(radial) margin; iii) possible extension to peritoneum, if tumor is localized in the
anterior wall of the rectum; iv) perirectal tumor deposits (TDs).
All these pathologic features are not optional, but routinely required by clinicians.
Why did not the authors evaluate all the above mentioned points?
Their inclusion in the clinicopathologic characteristics of rectal cancer patients
(Table 1,2)could greatly improve the quality of the paper.
The authors should provide a convincing explanation about this important
omission.
Pag. 11
When the authors use the acronym TEM should specify: transanal endoscopic
microsurgery
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
assistant