Reviewer’s report
Title: Prognoses of different pathological subtypes of colorectal cancer at different stages: A 
population-based retrospective cohort study
Version: 0 Date: 26 Jul 2019
Reviewer: Reviewer 2
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?
No - there are major issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
No - there are issues with the statistics in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not 
overstated?
No - there are minor issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically sound? If 
not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS: 
GENERAL COMMENTS: The study design is overall sound. The findings are fine and expected in 
light of current knowledge in the field. Data interpretation lacks depth. there is room for major 
improvements.
REQUESTED REVISIONS: 
The authors are comparing AC to MAC and SRCC prognoses in data from SEER database (2004-
2015). In the results section, the authors are lumping MAC and SRCC in their comparisons to AC. 
Since the values of MAC vs. AC differences were less dramatic than those of SRCC vs. AC, these two 
entities need to be presented separately in the results section, as it is in Table 3. Moreover, the authors 
need to run another comparison of MAC vs. SRCC as well. This reviewer expects that the difference 
will be significant and will affect the emphasis that the authors are putting on the mucin production 
alone as the main factor for the difference in prognoses.  Moreover, the discussion part on the 
molecular profiles within each of these 3 histologies  is shallow and needs further development if really
these histologies are associated with specific molecular profiles. 
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS: 
The manuscript writing needs a thorough revision. There are many typos and grammatical errors, some 
of which affect even the presented science 9e.g. are distinction should be are distinct, patients with 
MAC patients should be patients with MAC histology, on page 8 line 56: when compared to AC NOT 
to MAC, and many more mistakes all over that need fixing).
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
No
Does the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
No
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
No
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  further
assessment in your comments to the editors.
I am able to assess the statistics
Quality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
Needs some language corrections before being published
Declaration 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  this
manuscript, 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  has  agreed  to
publication of their comments online under a Creative Commons Attribution License attributed to
Research Square and was paid a small honorarium for completing the review within a specified time
frame. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewer recommendation.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors'
responses. 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/ ). I understand that any comments
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments
to the editors, which will not be published.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal
Reviewer’s report
Title: Prognoses of different pathological subtypes of colorectal cancer at different stages: A 
population-based retrospective cohort study
Version: 0 Date: 26 Jul 2019
Reviewer: Reviewer 2
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?
No - there are major issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
No - there are issues with the statistics in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not 
overstated?
No - there are minor issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically sound? If 
not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS: 
GENERAL COMMENTS: The study design is overall sound. The findings are fine and expected in 
light of current knowledge in the field. Data interpretation lacks depth. there is room for major 
improvements.
REQUESTED REVISIONS: 
The authors are comparing AC to MAC and SRCC prognoses in data from SEER database (2004-
2015). In the results section, the authors are lumping MAC and SRCC in their comparisons to AC. 
Since the values of MAC vs. AC differences were less dramatic than those of SRCC vs. AC, these two 
entities need to be presented separately in the results section, as it is in Table 3. Moreover, the authors 
need to run another comparison of MAC vs. SRCC as well. This reviewer expects that the difference 
will be significant and will affect the emphasis that the authors are putting on the mucin production 
alone as the main factor for the difference in prognoses.  Moreover, the discussion part on the 
molecular profiles within each of these 3 histologies  is shallow and needs further development if really
these histologies are associated with specific molecular profiles. 
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS: 
The manuscript writing needs a thorough revision. There are many typos and grammatical errors, some 
of which affect even the presented science 9e.g. are distinction should be are distinct, patients with 
MAC patients should be patients with MAC histology, on page 8 line 56: when compared to AC NOT 
to MAC, and many more mistakes all over that need fixing).
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
No
Does the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
No
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
No
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  further
assessment in your comments to the editors.
I am able to assess the statistics
Quality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
Needs some language corrections before being published
Declaration 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  this
manuscript, 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  has  agreed  to
publication of their comments online under a Creative Commons Attribution License attributed to
Research Square and was paid a small honorarium for completing the review within a specified time
frame. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewer recommendation.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors'
responses. 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/ ). I understand that any comments
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments
to the editors, which will not be published.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer’s report
Title: Prognoses of different pathological subtypes of colorectal cancer at different stages: A 
population-based retrospective cohort study
Version: 0 Date: 26 Jul 2019
Reviewer: Reviewer 2
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?
No - there are major issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
No - there are issues with the statistics in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not 
overstated?
No - there are minor issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically sound? If 
not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS: 
GENERAL COMMENTS: The study design is overall sound. The findings are fine and expected in 
light of current knowledge in the field. Data interpretation lacks depth. there is room for major 
improvements.
REQUESTED REVISIONS: 
The authors are comparing AC to MAC and SRCC prognoses in data from SEER database (2004-
2015). In the results section, the authors are lumping MAC and SRCC in their comparisons to AC. 
Since the values of MAC vs. AC differences were less dramatic than those of SRCC vs. AC, these two 
entities need to be presented separately in the results section, as it is in Table 3. Moreover, the authors 
need to run another comparison of MAC vs. SRCC as well. This reviewer expects that the difference 
will be significant and will affect the emphasis that the authors are putting on the mucin production 
alone as the main factor for the difference in prognoses.  Moreover, the discussion part on the 
molecular profiles within each of these 3 histologies  is shallow and needs further development if really
these histologies are associated with specific molecular profiles. 
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS: 
The manuscript writing needs a thorough revision. There are many typos and grammatical errors, some 
of which affect even the presented science 9e.g. are distinction should be are distinct, patients with 
MAC patients should be patients with MAC histology, on page 8 line 56: when compared to AC NOT 
to MAC, and many more mistakes all over that need fixing).
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
No
Does the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
No
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
No
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  further
assessment in your comments to the editors.
I am able to assess the statistics
Quality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
Needs some language corrections before being published
Declaration 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  this
manuscript, 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  has  agreed  to
publication of their comments online under a Creative Commons Attribution License attributed to
Research Square and was paid a small honorarium for completing the review within a specified time
frame. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewer recommendation.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors'
responses. 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/ ). I understand that any comments
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments
to the editors, which will not be published.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal
assistant