Title: Development and evaluation of a Japanese prediction model for low anterior resection
syndrome after rectal cancer surgery
Version: 1 Date: 25 Nov 2021
Reviewer's report:
The authors aim to clarify risk factors for LARS following rectal cancer surgery in Japanese
patients. Analysis has been conducted in 160 patients. They were retrospectively identified.
Patients were operated between 2017 and 2020.
- Background, Line 12-15. Authors cite work by Battersby et al, Gut 2018, 67(4):688-696 and
explain that published nomogram is based on European patients. Here it's adopted to Japanese
patients with same conditions. Aim is to clarify the risk factors in Japanese cohort. Since study
design is different (Age cutoff 75 years instead of 80, not TME vs PME, ISR vs HAR/LAR ...)
It's maybe better to analyze the research question and discuss within the discussion section of
the manuscript differences between publications. Maybe at the end, some differences maybe
accountable to ethnicity.
- Table 3, I guess there is a mistake. ISR was 13 and HAR,LAR 102. Please correct.
- What was the indication for ISR, given the median distance from anal verge of 10 cm?
- LAR would have more common with ISR than wit HAR. Why authors do not group LAR
with ISR and compare with HAR? Or best would be to exclude ISR. This would enhance the
comparability with other studies but is only possible with sufficient patient number in groups.
However, this is presently not the case and that is a major limitation of this analysis.
- language revision by native speaker is recommended.
Title: Development and evaluation of a Japanese prediction model for low anterior resection
syndrome after rectal cancer surgery
Version: 1 Date: 25 Nov 2021
Reviewer's report:
The authors aim to clarify risk factors for LARS following rectal cancer surgery in Japanese
patients. Analysis has been conducted in 160 patients. They were retrospectively identified.
Patients were operated between 2017 and 2020.
- Background, Line 12-15. Authors cite work by Battersby et al, Gut 2018, 67(4):688-696 and
explain that published nomogram is based on European patients. Here it's adopted to Japanese
patients with same conditions. Aim is to clarify the risk factors in Japanese cohort. Since study
design is different (Age cutoff 75 years instead of 80, not TME vs PME, ISR vs HAR/LAR ...)
It's maybe better to analyze the research question and discuss within the discussion section of
the manuscript differences between publications. Maybe at the end, some differences maybe
accountable to ethnicity.
- Table 3, I guess there is a mistake. ISR was 13 and HAR,LAR 102. Please correct.
- What was the indication for ISR, given the median distance from anal verge of 10 cm?
- LAR would have more common with ISR than wit HAR. Why authors do not group LAR
with ISR and compare with HAR? Or best would be to exclude ISR. This would enhance the
comparability with other studies but is only possible with sufficient patient number in groups.
However, this is presently not the case and that is a major limitation of this analysis.
- language revision by native speaker is recommended.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Development and evaluation of a Japanese prediction model for low anterior resection
syndrome after rectal cancer surgery
Version: 1 Date: 25 Nov 2021
Reviewer's report:
The authors aim to clarify risk factors for LARS following rectal cancer surgery in Japanese
patients. Analysis has been conducted in 160 patients. They were retrospectively identified.
Patients were operated between 2017 and 2020.
- Background, Line 12-15. Authors cite work by Battersby et al, Gut 2018, 67(4):688-696 and
explain that published nomogram is based on European patients. Here it's adopted to Japanese
patients with same conditions. Aim is to clarify the risk factors in Japanese cohort. Since study
design is different (Age cutoff 75 years instead of 80, not TME vs PME, ISR vs HAR/LAR ...)
It's maybe better to analyze the research question and discuss within the discussion section of
the manuscript differences between publications. Maybe at the end, some differences maybe
accountable to ethnicity.
- Table 3, I guess there is a mistake. ISR was 13 and HAR,LAR 102. Please correct.
- What was the indication for ISR, given the median distance from anal verge of 10 cm?
- LAR would have more common with ISR than wit HAR. Why authors do not group LAR
with ISR and compare with HAR? Or best would be to exclude ISR. This would enhance the
comparability with other studies but is only possible with sufficient patient number in groups.
However, this is presently not the case and that is a major limitation of this analysis.
- language revision by native speaker is recommended.
assistant