Reviewer’ s report
Title: Expression of tumor pyruvate kinase M2 isoform in plasma and stool of patients with
colorectal cancer or adenomatous polyps
Version: 1Date: 06 May 2020
Reviewer: Research Square Reviewer 1
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for the
objective?Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically sound?
If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors have studied the performance characteristics of both blood
and stool detection kits of the tumor pyruvate kinase isoform M2, for diagnosis of colorectalcancer and adenomatous polyps. This study was done on a local cohort. Although the detectionkits are not novel, the results on the specific cohort are important for the clinical practice in thearea. Therefore the study offers supporting data for oncologists to assess whether these tests wouldimprove diagnosis on their clinical practice. Besides, other researchers can choose to evaluate thesame detection tools in their own local cohorts and assess there the performance of the methods.
Overall, a valuable clinical study.
The authors describe the performance of blood and stool tests for diagnosis of colorectal cancer
tumors and adenomatous polyps through the detection of the pyruvate kinase M2 isoform. Thestudy is well designed and described, the inclusion and exclusion methods are clearly written andall the information needed for the readers is given.My only (minor) suggestions are:- add information about the tumor stage; from the diagnostic point of view, there is more relevanceon detection of early tumor stages (A, B) than metastatic ones (C, D). I understand that by addingpolyps the authors account for premalignant lesions and give an indication of the performance onearly stages, but in any case the information would be very valuable for the readers.
- remove part of the numerical data given in the Discussion to reduce that section, moving
everything possible to the results. Alternatively, if allowed by the journal, Results and Discussioncould be combined. Another possibility would be to limit the number of studies referred to(although they are interesting), and just compare the authors´ data to the most similar/relevantstudy/few studies.
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
YesDoes the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
YesAre the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an
additional statistical review?If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require furtherassessment in your comments to the editors.
I am able to assess the statisticsQuality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
AcceptableDeclaration 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 financially from the publication of thismanuscript, 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 your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square. Reviewers with
declared or apparent competing interests are not utilized for these reviews. This reviewer hasagreed to publication of their comments online under a Creative Commons Attribution Licenseattributed to Research Square and was paid a small honorarium for completing the review within aspecified timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewerrecommendation.
Reviewer Publication Consent. 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) if this manu-script is accepted for publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the publishedreport have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not be published.Ifyou are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the editorial office before completingthe review.If you wish, you can include your name in your published report. Please note you mustdecide whether to include your name at the start of the process and confirm this decision wheneverprompted. If you change your decision later, we will not be able to publish your name.
I agree to the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 license; please publish my name with my report.
Reviewer’ s report
Title: Expression of tumor pyruvate kinase M2 isoform in plasma and stool of patients with
colorectal cancer or adenomatous polyps
Version: 1Date: 06 May 2020
Reviewer: Research Square Reviewer 1
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for the
objective?Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically sound?
If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors have studied the performance characteristics of both blood
and stool detection kits of the tumor pyruvate kinase isoform M2, for diagnosis of colorectalcancer and adenomatous polyps. This study was done on a local cohort. Although the detectionkits are not novel, the results on the specific cohort are important for the clinical practice in thearea. Therefore the study offers supporting data for oncologists to assess whether these tests wouldimprove diagnosis on their clinical practice. Besides, other researchers can choose to evaluate thesame detection tools in their own local cohorts and assess there the performance of the methods.
Overall, a valuable clinical study.
The authors describe the performance of blood and stool tests for diagnosis of colorectal cancer
tumors and adenomatous polyps through the detection of the pyruvate kinase M2 isoform. Thestudy is well designed and described, the inclusion and exclusion methods are clearly written andall the information needed for the readers is given.My only (minor) suggestions are:- add information about the tumor stage; from the diagnostic point of view, there is more relevanceon detection of early tumor stages (A, B) than metastatic ones (C, D). I understand that by addingpolyps the authors account for premalignant lesions and give an indication of the performance onearly stages, but in any case the information would be very valuable for the readers.
- remove part of the numerical data given in the Discussion to reduce that section, moving
everything possible to the results. Alternatively, if allowed by the journal, Results and Discussioncould be combined. Another possibility would be to limit the number of studies referred to(although they are interesting), and just compare the authors´ data to the most similar/relevantstudy/few studies.
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
YesDoes the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
YesAre the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an
additional statistical review?If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require furtherassessment in your comments to the editors.
I am able to assess the statisticsQuality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
AcceptableDeclaration 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 financially from the publication of thismanuscript, 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 your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square. Reviewers with
declared or apparent competing interests are not utilized for these reviews. This reviewer hasagreed to publication of their comments online under a Creative Commons Attribution Licenseattributed to Research Square and was paid a small honorarium for completing the review within aspecified timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewerrecommendation.
Reviewer Publication Consent. 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) if this manu-script is accepted for publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the publishedreport have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not be published.Ifyou are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the editorial office before completingthe review.If you wish, you can include your name in your published report. Please note you mustdecide whether to include your name at the start of the process and confirm this decision wheneverprompted. If you change your decision later, we will not be able to publish your name.
I agree to the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 license; please publish my name with my report.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer’ s report
Title: Expression of tumor pyruvate kinase M2 isoform in plasma and stool of patients with
colorectal cancer or adenomatous polyps
Version: 1Date: 06 May 2020
Reviewer: Research Square Reviewer 1
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for the
objective?Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically sound?
If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors have studied the performance characteristics of both blood
and stool detection kits of the tumor pyruvate kinase isoform M2, for diagnosis of colorectalcancer and adenomatous polyps. This study was done on a local cohort. Although the detectionkits are not novel, the results on the specific cohort are important for the clinical practice in thearea. Therefore the study offers supporting data for oncologists to assess whether these tests wouldimprove diagnosis on their clinical practice. Besides, other researchers can choose to evaluate thesame detection tools in their own local cohorts and assess there the performance of the methods.
Overall, a valuable clinical study.
The authors describe the performance of blood and stool tests for diagnosis of colorectal cancer
tumors and adenomatous polyps through the detection of the pyruvate kinase M2 isoform. Thestudy is well designed and described, the inclusion and exclusion methods are clearly written andall the information needed for the readers is given.My only (minor) suggestions are:- add information about the tumor stage; from the diagnostic point of view, there is more relevanceon detection of early tumor stages (A, B) than metastatic ones (C, D). I understand that by addingpolyps the authors account for premalignant lesions and give an indication of the performance onearly stages, but in any case the information would be very valuable for the readers.
- remove part of the numerical data given in the Discussion to reduce that section, moving
everything possible to the results. Alternatively, if allowed by the journal, Results and Discussioncould be combined. Another possibility would be to limit the number of studies referred to(although they are interesting), and just compare the authors´ data to the most similar/relevantstudy/few studies.
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
YesDoes the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
YesAre the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an
additional statistical review?If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require furtherassessment in your comments to the editors.
I am able to assess the statisticsQuality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
AcceptableDeclaration 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 financially from the publication of thismanuscript, 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 your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square. Reviewers with
declared or apparent competing interests are not utilized for these reviews. This reviewer hasagreed to publication of their comments online under a Creative Commons Attribution Licenseattributed to Research Square and was paid a small honorarium for completing the review within aspecified timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewerrecommendation.
Reviewer Publication Consent. 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) if this manu-script is accepted for publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the publishedreport have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not be published.Ifyou are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the editorial office before completingthe review.If you wish, you can include your name in your published report. Please note you mustdecide whether to include your name at the start of the process and confirm this decision wheneverprompted. If you change your decision later, we will not be able to publish your name.
I agree to the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 license; please publish my name with my report.
assistant