Title: Prognosis Prediction in Esophageal Signet-Ring-Cell Carcinoma: A competing risk
analysis
Version: 2 Date: 06 Apr 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. The authors made a risk nomogram
for the cancer-specific survival of esophageal signet ring cell carcinoma.
This manuscript is well-written and valuable. However, there are some points to be addressed
before publication.
1. What do the authors think is the clinical implication of this study? How do the authors think
this results apply the clinical practice?
2. The reason why  CSS was poorer in the male than in the female was insufficient. Please add
the reason in the discussion.
3. SHR of T3-4 were significantly lower than T1 in Validation cohort in Table 2. What made
this result?
Title: Prognosis Prediction in Esophageal Signet-Ring-Cell Carcinoma: A competing risk
analysis
Version: 2 Date: 06 Apr 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. The authors made a risk nomogram
for the cancer-specific survival of esophageal signet ring cell carcinoma.
This manuscript is well-written and valuable. However, there are some points to be addressed
before publication.
1. What do the authors think is the clinical implication of this study? How do the authors think
this results apply the clinical practice?
2. The reason why  CSS was poorer in the male than in the female was insufficient. Please add
the reason in the discussion.
3. SHR of T3-4 were significantly lower than T1 in Validation cohort in Table 2. What made
this result?
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Prognosis Prediction in Esophageal Signet-Ring-Cell Carcinoma: A competing risk
analysis
Version: 2 Date: 06 Apr 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. The authors made a risk nomogram
for the cancer-specific survival of esophageal signet ring cell carcinoma.
This manuscript is well-written and valuable. However, there are some points to be addressed
before publication.
1. What do the authors think is the clinical implication of this study? How do the authors think
this results apply the clinical practice?
2. The reason why  CSS was poorer in the male than in the female was insufficient. Please add
the reason in the discussion.
3. SHR of T3-4 were significantly lower than T1 in Validation cohort in Table 2. What made
this result?
assistant