Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Clinicopathologic and endoscopic features of early -stage colorectal serrated 
adenocarcinoma  
 
Version: 0 Date: 04 Sep 2017  
 
Reviewer: Jeong Mo Bae  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
1. The authors classified SACs to SACs with all serrated morphology and SACs with non -
serrated morphology. However, the explanation for this classification is  vague. The authors 
should describe the criteria for this classification in detail.  
2. The authors classified 40 early -stage SACs into 4 subgroups according to JNET 
classification, pit pattern, and serrated component, respectively. Moreover, the authors 
performed statistical analysis for those subgroups. However, the number of cases in each 
subgroup is too small to adjust statistical analysis. Moreover, the statistical significance is 
exaggerated by multiple testing. I think that the authors should not perf orm statistical 
analysis for those small subgroups.  
3. The resolution of Figure 1 and 2 are too low. Moreover, it is uncertain that those polyps are 
carcinomas. I think that the figures for H&E stain should be shown in more high power and 
in more high res olution.  
4. In table 5, total number of SACS with serrated morphology is 17. However, the number of 
SACs with serrated morphology size between 11 -20mm is 6, and that of SACs with serrated 
morphology size over 20mm is 17. The authors should check the exact  number of those 
cases.  
Are the methods appr opriate 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.  
 
Yes 
 
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 s tatistical 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:  
 
Acceptable  
 
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 o r 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 futur e? 
 
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 t he 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.  
 
I have no competing interests' below.  
 
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 pate nts relating to the content of the 
manuscript?  
 
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?  
 
4. Do you have any other financial competing int erests?  
 
5. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
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 man uscript 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: Clinicopathologic and endoscopic features of early -stage colorectal serrated 
adenocarcinoma  
 
Version: 0 Date: 04 Sep 2017  
 
Reviewer: Jeong Mo Bae  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
1. The authors classified SACs to SACs with all serrated morphology and SACs with non -
serrated morphology. However, the explanation for this classification is  vague. The authors 
should describe the criteria for this classification in detail.  
2. The authors classified 40 early -stage SACs into 4 subgroups according to JNET 
classification, pit pattern, and serrated component, respectively. Moreover, the authors 
performed statistical analysis for those subgroups. However, the number of cases in each 
subgroup is too small to adjust statistical analysis. Moreover, the statistical significance is 
exaggerated by multiple testing. I think that the authors should not perf orm statistical 
analysis for those small subgroups.  
3. The resolution of Figure 1 and 2 are too low. Moreover, it is uncertain that those polyps are 
carcinomas. I think that the figures for H&E stain should be shown in more high power and 
in more high res olution.  
4. In table 5, total number of SACS with serrated morphology is 17. However, the number of 
SACs with serrated morphology size between 11 -20mm is 6, and that of SACs with serrated 
morphology size over 20mm is 17. The authors should check the exact  number of those 
cases.  
Are the methods appr opriate 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.  
 
Yes 
 
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 s tatistical 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:  
 
Acceptable  
 
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 o r 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 futur e? 
 
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 t he 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.  
 
I have no competing interests' below.  
 
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 pate nts relating to the content of the 
manuscript?  
 
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?  
 
4. Do you have any other financial competing int erests?  
 
5. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
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 man uscript 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: Clinicopathologic and endoscopic features of early -stage colorectal serrated 
adenocarcinoma  
 
Version: 0 Date: 04 Sep 2017  
 
Reviewer: Jeong Mo Bae  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
1. The authors classified SACs to SACs with all serrated morphology and SACs with non -
serrated morphology. However, the explanation for this classification is  vague. The authors 
should describe the criteria for this classification in detail.  
2. The authors classified 40 early -stage SACs into 4 subgroups according to JNET 
classification, pit pattern, and serrated component, respectively. Moreover, the authors 
performed statistical analysis for those subgroups. However, the number of cases in each 
subgroup is too small to adjust statistical analysis. Moreover, the statistical significance is 
exaggerated by multiple testing. I think that the authors should not perf orm statistical 
analysis for those small subgroups.  
3. The resolution of Figure 1 and 2 are too low. Moreover, it is uncertain that those polyps are 
carcinomas. I think that the figures for H&E stain should be shown in more high power and 
in more high res olution.  
4. In table 5, total number of SACS with serrated morphology is 17. However, the number of 
SACs with serrated morphology size between 11 -20mm is 6, and that of SACs with serrated 
morphology size over 20mm is 17. The authors should check the exact  number of those 
cases.  
Are the methods appr opriate 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.  
 
Yes 
 
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 s tatistical 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:  
 
Acceptable  
 
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 o r 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 futur e? 
 
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 t he 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.  
 
I have no competing interests' below.  
 
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 pate nts relating to the content of the 
manuscript?  
 
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?  
 
4. Do you have any other financial competing int erests?  
 
5. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
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 man uscript 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