Title: Developing and Validation a Prognostic Model for Predicting Prognosis Among
Synchronous Colorectal Cancers Patients Using Combined Log Odds Ratio of Positive Lymph
Nodes: a SEER Database Study
Version: 2 Date: 15 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
I commend the authors for their innovative approach in identifying prognostic risk factors
associated with overall survival and cancer-specific survival in patients with synchronous
colorectal cancer. The creation of functional nomograms to predict overall and cancer-specific
survival is particularly noteworthy and represents a significant advancement in personalized
medicine for this patient population. The results are well-represented, and the manuscript
adheres commendably to most of the TRIPOD statement’s checklist (doi: 10.7326/M14-0698).
In my opinion, this great work deserves some revisions to increase the quality of reporting:
1. The title should identify the study as developing and validating the prediction model. Also,
the outcome should be mentioned in the title. The LODDS should not be written abbreviated
in the title.
2. The purpose in the abstract: Since the purpose is prognostic and not diagnostic, the purpose
was not to identify risk factors for the disease, this should be corrected to show that the purpose
was to  identify factors associated with survival in synchronous colorectal cancer. Additionally,
the purpose should clearly include that it was a development and validation study.
3. The methods in the abstract: “Risk factors for synchronous colorectal cancer were determined
using univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses”: Again, this should be corrected to
show that the purpose was to  identify factors associated with survival in synchronous colorectal
cancer using univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses (they are associated with death
in those patients and not with the occurrence of synchronous colorectal cancer.
4. The results in the abstract: The results should identify the predictors included in the final
model. The grammar should be checked.
5. The background section: At the end you mentioned: “Given the special characteristics
mentioned above, a more comprehensive and specific tool to predict SCRCs is needed”. The
tool is not for predicting SCRCs but for predicting prognosis of SCRCs (survival). Include
the potential clinical uses or decisions related to SCRCs patients that could be based on the
developed nomograms.
6. Patients and Methods section:
• The start and end dates of the training cohort should be specified. Additionally, more
information about the type, number, and location of the centers from which the training cohort
data were retrieved using the SEER database.
• Provide explanation about how the study sample size was arrived at for both the training and
external validation cohorts
• Provide details on how risk groups were divided to low, medium and high risk groups; for
example, using the 25th and 75th percentiles of the model’s risk score distribution
7. In the results section: Provide the full model equation; the one used to calculate the survival
probabilities.
Title: Developing and Validation a Prognostic Model for Predicting Prognosis Among
Synchronous Colorectal Cancers Patients Using Combined Log Odds Ratio of Positive Lymph
Nodes: a SEER Database Study
Version: 2 Date: 15 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
I commend the authors for their innovative approach in identifying prognostic risk factors
associated with overall survival and cancer-specific survival in patients with synchronous
colorectal cancer. The creation of functional nomograms to predict overall and cancer-specific
survival is particularly noteworthy and represents a significant advancement in personalized
medicine for this patient population. The results are well-represented, and the manuscript
adheres commendably to most of the TRIPOD statement’s checklist (doi: 10.7326/M14-0698).
In my opinion, this great work deserves some revisions to increase the quality of reporting:
1. The title should identify the study as developing and validating the prediction model. Also,
the outcome should be mentioned in the title. The LODDS should not be written abbreviated
in the title.
2. The purpose in the abstract: Since the purpose is prognostic and not diagnostic, the purpose
was not to identify risk factors for the disease, this should be corrected to show that the purpose
was to  identify factors associated with survival in synchronous colorectal cancer. Additionally,
the purpose should clearly include that it was a development and validation study.
3. The methods in the abstract: “Risk factors for synchronous colorectal cancer were determined
using univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses”: Again, this should be corrected to
show that the purpose was to  identify factors associated with survival in synchronous colorectal
cancer using univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses (they are associated with death
in those patients and not with the occurrence of synchronous colorectal cancer.
4. The results in the abstract: The results should identify the predictors included in the final
model. The grammar should be checked.
5. The background section: At the end you mentioned: “Given the special characteristics
mentioned above, a more comprehensive and specific tool to predict SCRCs is needed”. The
tool is not for predicting SCRCs but for predicting prognosis of SCRCs (survival). Include
the potential clinical uses or decisions related to SCRCs patients that could be based on the
developed nomograms.
6. Patients and Methods section:
• The start and end dates of the training cohort should be specified. Additionally, more
information about the type, number, and location of the centers from which the training cohort
data were retrieved using the SEER database.
• Provide explanation about how the study sample size was arrived at for both the training and
external validation cohorts
• Provide details on how risk groups were divided to low, medium and high risk groups; for
example, using the 25th and 75th percentiles of the model’s risk score distribution
7. In the results section: Provide the full model equation; the one used to calculate the survival
probabilities.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Developing and Validation a Prognostic Model for Predicting Prognosis Among
Synchronous Colorectal Cancers Patients Using Combined Log Odds Ratio of Positive Lymph
Nodes: a SEER Database Study
Version: 2 Date: 15 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
I commend the authors for their innovative approach in identifying prognostic risk factors
associated with overall survival and cancer-specific survival in patients with synchronous
colorectal cancer. The creation of functional nomograms to predict overall and cancer-specific
survival is particularly noteworthy and represents a significant advancement in personalized
medicine for this patient population. The results are well-represented, and the manuscript
adheres commendably to most of the TRIPOD statement’s checklist (doi: 10.7326/M14-0698).
In my opinion, this great work deserves some revisions to increase the quality of reporting:
1. The title should identify the study as developing and validating the prediction model. Also,
the outcome should be mentioned in the title. The LODDS should not be written abbreviated
in the title.
2. The purpose in the abstract: Since the purpose is prognostic and not diagnostic, the purpose
was not to identify risk factors for the disease, this should be corrected to show that the purpose
was to  identify factors associated with survival in synchronous colorectal cancer. Additionally,
the purpose should clearly include that it was a development and validation study.
3. The methods in the abstract: “Risk factors for synchronous colorectal cancer were determined
using univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses”: Again, this should be corrected to
show that the purpose was to  identify factors associated with survival in synchronous colorectal
cancer using univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses (they are associated with death
in those patients and not with the occurrence of synchronous colorectal cancer.
4. The results in the abstract: The results should identify the predictors included in the final
model. The grammar should be checked.
5. The background section: At the end you mentioned: “Given the special characteristics
mentioned above, a more comprehensive and specific tool to predict SCRCs is needed”. The
tool is not for predicting SCRCs but for predicting prognosis of SCRCs (survival). Include
the potential clinical uses or decisions related to SCRCs patients that could be based on the
developed nomograms.
6. Patients and Methods section:
• The start and end dates of the training cohort should be specified. Additionally, more
information about the type, number, and location of the centers from which the training cohort
data were retrieved using the SEER database.
• Provide explanation about how the study sample size was arrived at for both the training and
external validation cohorts
• Provide details on how risk groups were divided to low, medium and high risk groups; for
example, using the 25th and 75th percentiles of the model’s risk score distribution
7. In the results section: Provide the full model equation; the one used to calculate the survival
probabilities.
assistant