Title: Sphincter saving surgery for failed organ preservation after a Neoadjuvant therapy and
Radiation boost : A Surgeons Perspective
Version: 1 Date: 25 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for writing this interesting article. Overall, I do think a severe revision is necessary.
To me it is still not clear what the reason was for giving certain patients a brachytherapy boost.
It was highly individualized as the authors describe, yet this introduces an enormous selection
bias after which fair comparison between the two groups (with or without brachytherapy) is not
possible. On the basis of what I read I don't believe the two groups can be compared, so the
paper should be come more observative.
There is no information on the brachytherapy boost (dose, technique, volume irradiated). As
this is essential to be able to interpret relevant toxicity, it is extremely necessary to include this
data in the paper.
Please take care to use the correct names for certain treatments. For example, "Contact radiation"
is not correct, it should be termed Contact brachytherapy (CXB). "Brachy boost" is also not a
professional term.
Revision of the entire text is warranted as the grammar and sentence structure is not adequate
now.
Title: Sphincter saving surgery for failed organ preservation after a Neoadjuvant therapy and
Radiation boost : A Surgeons Perspective
Version: 1 Date: 25 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for writing this interesting article. Overall, I do think a severe revision is necessary.
To me it is still not clear what the reason was for giving certain patients a brachytherapy boost.
It was highly individualized as the authors describe, yet this introduces an enormous selection
bias after which fair comparison between the two groups (with or without brachytherapy) is not
possible. On the basis of what I read I don't believe the two groups can be compared, so the
paper should be come more observative.
There is no information on the brachytherapy boost (dose, technique, volume irradiated). As
this is essential to be able to interpret relevant toxicity, it is extremely necessary to include this
data in the paper.
Please take care to use the correct names for certain treatments. For example, "Contact radiation"
is not correct, it should be termed Contact brachytherapy (CXB). "Brachy boost" is also not a
professional term.
Revision of the entire text is warranted as the grammar and sentence structure is not adequate
now.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Sphincter saving surgery for failed organ preservation after a Neoadjuvant therapy and
Radiation boost : A Surgeons Perspective
Version: 1 Date: 25 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for writing this interesting article. Overall, I do think a severe revision is necessary.
To me it is still not clear what the reason was for giving certain patients a brachytherapy boost.
It was highly individualized as the authors describe, yet this introduces an enormous selection
bias after which fair comparison between the two groups (with or without brachytherapy) is not
possible. On the basis of what I read I don't believe the two groups can be compared, so the
paper should be come more observative.
There is no information on the brachytherapy boost (dose, technique, volume irradiated). As
this is essential to be able to interpret relevant toxicity, it is extremely necessary to include this
data in the paper.
Please take care to use the correct names for certain treatments. For example, "Contact radiation"
is not correct, it should be termed Contact brachytherapy (CXB). "Brachy boost" is also not a
professional term.
Revision of the entire text is warranted as the grammar and sentence structure is not adequate
now.
assistant