Title: Long-term prognosis after endoscopic submucosal dissection for esophageal cancer in
older adult patients
Version: 1 Date: 21 Feb 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review your valuable paper.
This is a very interesting paper that discusses the safety and efficacy of ESD performed in elderly
patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.
This is a very valuable report showing that ESD in the elderly patients is safe and that the rate
of local control of esophageal cancer is high regardless of the presence or absence of additional
treatment after ESD.  The high-risk group without additional treatment had a lower overall
survival rate than the others, and there was no significant difference in DSS between the groups,
which was showed that other risk factors than esophageal cancer is significantly related to overall
survival rate. (Fig 1. e, f) I also think this is a very valuable paper showing that in patients
with ASA-PS III, because the low-risk group has better DSS than the high-risk group, and ESD
performed for some patients with ESCC is useful even if they have poor PS. (Fig 1. g, h)
This paper is very well written, but could you please allow me to confirm a few things about
this paper?
(1) Fig1.
The mean age is 73 years old. Why did you divide by 75 years old to investigate OS? Could
you explain me the reason?
(2) Were there different about the size and the depth of the lesion depending on the ASA-PS.
Title: Long-term prognosis after endoscopic submucosal dissection for esophageal cancer in
older adult patients
Version: 1 Date: 21 Feb 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review your valuable paper.
This is a very interesting paper that discusses the safety and efficacy of ESD performed in elderly
patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.
This is a very valuable report showing that ESD in the elderly patients is safe and that the rate
of local control of esophageal cancer is high regardless of the presence or absence of additional
treatment after ESD.  The high-risk group without additional treatment had a lower overall
survival rate than the others, and there was no significant difference in DSS between the groups,
which was showed that other risk factors than esophageal cancer is significantly related to overall
survival rate. (Fig 1. e, f) I also think this is a very valuable paper showing that in patients
with ASA-PS III, because the low-risk group has better DSS than the high-risk group, and ESD
performed for some patients with ESCC is useful even if they have poor PS. (Fig 1. g, h)
This paper is very well written, but could you please allow me to confirm a few things about
this paper?
(1) Fig1.
The mean age is 73 years old. Why did you divide by 75 years old to investigate OS? Could
you explain me the reason?
(2) Were there different about the size and the depth of the lesion depending on the ASA-PS.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Long-term prognosis after endoscopic submucosal dissection for esophageal cancer in
older adult patients
Version: 1 Date: 21 Feb 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review your valuable paper.
This is a very interesting paper that discusses the safety and efficacy of ESD performed in elderly
patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.
This is a very valuable report showing that ESD in the elderly patients is safe and that the rate
of local control of esophageal cancer is high regardless of the presence or absence of additional
treatment after ESD.  The high-risk group without additional treatment had a lower overall
survival rate than the others, and there was no significant difference in DSS between the groups,
which was showed that other risk factors than esophageal cancer is significantly related to overall
survival rate. (Fig 1. e, f) I also think this is a very valuable paper showing that in patients
with ASA-PS III, because the low-risk group has better DSS than the high-risk group, and ESD
performed for some patients with ESCC is useful even if they have poor PS. (Fig 1. g, h)
This paper is very well written, but could you please allow me to confirm a few things about
this paper?
(1) Fig1.
The mean age is 73 years old. Why did you divide by 75 years old to investigate OS? Could
you explain me the reason?
(2) Were there different about the size and the depth of the lesion depending on the ASA-PS.
assistant