Title: Prognostic Role of Preoperative Inflammatory Markers in Postoperative Lung Metastasis
of Colorectal Cancer: A Retrospective Study
Version: 1 Date: 26 Dec 2024
Reviewer:  Shi-Yan Zhang
Reviewer's report:
Reviewer comments
The paper examines the prognostic significance of inflammatory markers for lung metastasis in
colorectal cancer (CRC). Below are specific suggestions for improvement:
Introduction:
1.Phrases such as "is one of the most common malignancies globally" and "a leading cause of
cancer-related deaths" can be condensed. The distinction between liver and lung metastasis is
repeated unnecessarily and should be streamlined.
2.The statement "a lack of reports on lung metastasis" is vague. Specify the absence of data on
inflammatory markers in relation to lung metastasis.
3.While many markers are introduced, their specific relevance to lung metastasis is not clearly
explained. Include a brief rationale for selecting these markers to strengthen the argument.
Materials and methods:
1."Patents underwent" should be "Patients underwent"
2.Some technical terms (e.g., "Youden index") could include a brief explanation for readers
unfamiliar with them.
3.The formulas section is incomplete ("The formulas for the relevant indices in this study are as
follows: ; ; ;; ;"). Ensure all formulas are provided and described.
4.Use bulleted or numbered lists for inclusion/exclusion criteria and follow-up procedures to
enhance readability.
5.Avoid redundancy by consolidating details about survival data that appear in multiple sections.
Results:
1.Some sentences are lengthy and could be broken down for readability. For example,
descriptions of statistical results and comparisons (e.g., Kaplan-Meier survival outcomes) could
be simplified.
2.Avoid repeating similar findings, such as PNI and CALLY being risk factors, in multiple
instances.
3.Improve transitions between baseline characteristics, PFS, and metastasis outcomes by
explicitly linking findings to patient outcomes.
While the results are well-presented, include brief interpretations to explain why certain markers
are significant and their implications for clinical practice
Discussion:
1.Reduce verbosity and avoid redundant mentions of findings, such as repeated references to
PNI and CALLY.
2.Ensure a logical progression between specific markers and general findings to maintain
coherence.
3.Limitations: Although limitations are mentioned, expand on them with specific suggestions
for future research to address these gaps.
Figures:
The y-axis labels should be made more visible and detailed with clearer descriptions such as
'Survival Probability' or 'Probability of Survival Over Time.' Legends for each panel should
clearly specify the groups being compared, using more descriptive terms (e.g., 'High vs. Low
CALLY' or 'High PNI vs. Low PNI') to enhance clarity and comprehension.
Title: Prognostic Role of Preoperative Inflammatory Markers in Postoperative Lung Metastasis
of Colorectal Cancer: A Retrospective Study
Version: 1 Date: 26 Dec 2024
Reviewer:  Shi-Yan Zhang
Reviewer's report:
Reviewer comments
The paper examines the prognostic significance of inflammatory markers for lung metastasis in
colorectal cancer (CRC). Below are specific suggestions for improvement:
Introduction:
1.Phrases such as "is one of the most common malignancies globally" and "a leading cause of
cancer-related deaths" can be condensed. The distinction between liver and lung metastasis is
repeated unnecessarily and should be streamlined.
2.The statement "a lack of reports on lung metastasis" is vague. Specify the absence of data on
inflammatory markers in relation to lung metastasis.
3.While many markers are introduced, their specific relevance to lung metastasis is not clearly
explained. Include a brief rationale for selecting these markers to strengthen the argument.
Materials and methods:
1."Patents underwent" should be "Patients underwent"
2.Some technical terms (e.g., "Youden index") could include a brief explanation for readers
unfamiliar with them.
3.The formulas section is incomplete ("The formulas for the relevant indices in this study are as
follows: ; ; ;; ;"). Ensure all formulas are provided and described.
4.Use bulleted or numbered lists for inclusion/exclusion criteria and follow-up procedures to
enhance readability.
5.Avoid redundancy by consolidating details about survival data that appear in multiple sections.
Results:
1.Some sentences are lengthy and could be broken down for readability. For example,
descriptions of statistical results and comparisons (e.g., Kaplan-Meier survival outcomes) could
be simplified.
2.Avoid repeating similar findings, such as PNI and CALLY being risk factors, in multiple
instances.
3.Improve transitions between baseline characteristics, PFS, and metastasis outcomes by
explicitly linking findings to patient outcomes.
While the results are well-presented, include brief interpretations to explain why certain markers
are significant and their implications for clinical practice
Discussion:
1.Reduce verbosity and avoid redundant mentions of findings, such as repeated references to
PNI and CALLY.
2.Ensure a logical progression between specific markers and general findings to maintain
coherence.
3.Limitations: Although limitations are mentioned, expand on them with specific suggestions
for future research to address these gaps.
Figures:
The y-axis labels should be made more visible and detailed with clearer descriptions such as
'Survival Probability' or 'Probability of Survival Over Time.' Legends for each panel should
clearly specify the groups being compared, using more descriptive terms (e.g., 'High vs. Low
CALLY' or 'High PNI vs. Low PNI') to enhance clarity and comprehension.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Prognostic Role of Preoperative Inflammatory Markers in Postoperative Lung Metastasis
of Colorectal Cancer: A Retrospective Study
Version: 1 Date: 26 Dec 2024
Reviewer:  Shi-Yan Zhang
Reviewer's report:
Reviewer comments
The paper examines the prognostic significance of inflammatory markers for lung metastasis in
colorectal cancer (CRC). Below are specific suggestions for improvement:
Introduction:
1.Phrases such as "is one of the most common malignancies globally" and "a leading cause of
cancer-related deaths" can be condensed. The distinction between liver and lung metastasis is
repeated unnecessarily and should be streamlined.
2.The statement "a lack of reports on lung metastasis" is vague. Specify the absence of data on
inflammatory markers in relation to lung metastasis.
3.While many markers are introduced, their specific relevance to lung metastasis is not clearly
explained. Include a brief rationale for selecting these markers to strengthen the argument.
Materials and methods:
1."Patents underwent" should be "Patients underwent"
2.Some technical terms (e.g., "Youden index") could include a brief explanation for readers
unfamiliar with them.
3.The formulas section is incomplete ("The formulas for the relevant indices in this study are as
follows: ; ; ;; ;"). Ensure all formulas are provided and described.
4.Use bulleted or numbered lists for inclusion/exclusion criteria and follow-up procedures to
enhance readability.
5.Avoid redundancy by consolidating details about survival data that appear in multiple sections.
Results:
1.Some sentences are lengthy and could be broken down for readability. For example,
descriptions of statistical results and comparisons (e.g., Kaplan-Meier survival outcomes) could
be simplified.
2.Avoid repeating similar findings, such as PNI and CALLY being risk factors, in multiple
instances.
3.Improve transitions between baseline characteristics, PFS, and metastasis outcomes by
explicitly linking findings to patient outcomes.
While the results are well-presented, include brief interpretations to explain why certain markers
are significant and their implications for clinical practice
Discussion:
1.Reduce verbosity and avoid redundant mentions of findings, such as repeated references to
PNI and CALLY.
2.Ensure a logical progression between specific markers and general findings to maintain
coherence.
3.Limitations: Although limitations are mentioned, expand on them with specific suggestions
for future research to address these gaps.
Figures:
The y-axis labels should be made more visible and detailed with clearer descriptions such as
'Survival Probability' or 'Probability of Survival Over Time.' Legends for each panel should
clearly specify the groups being compared, using more descriptive terms (e.g., 'High vs. Low
CALLY' or 'High PNI vs. Low PNI') to enhance clarity and comprehension.
assistant