Reviewer’s report  
 
Title: Clinicopathologic characteristics of early gastric cancer acc ording to specific intragastric 
location  
 
Version: 0 Date: 08 Nov 2018  
 
Reviewer: Han Hong Lee  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Clinicopathologic characteristics of early gastric cancer according to specific  intragastric 
location  
 
In this retrospective study, authors have tried to evaluate clinicopathological differences on the 
different locational categories.  
 
The present analysis has strength of using merged tumor mapping system, however, the present 
result has critical issue to be explained.   
 
1. Characteristics of early gastric cancers should be presented in total as well as ac cording 
to the treatment modality at table 1.  
 
2. It would be more persuasive to the results if the authors could present statistical 
significances on the analysis of Figure 2.  
 
3. Only gastrectomized tumors were evaluated with the merged tumor mapping sy stem, so 
that this cohort of EGC has a huge selection bias to be concluded. Therefore, this analysis 
shouldn't be concluded through the results of merged tumor map system for EGC 
generally, because the characteristics of cancers according to two different treatment 
modalities (gastrectomy vs ESD) are very different  
 
4. In discussion, the authors are presenting the other reports of a similar concept to EGC, 
but some results are consistent and some are not. In addition to analytical differences 
with other stu dies, authors should be able to suggest some possible anatomical or 
physiological reasons for characteristics differences in the specific locations that this 
study has revealed.  
 
5. Please state some possible clinical applications from this study. It will be the most 
important objective of this study.  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please speci fy what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
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 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 publica tion 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 fin ancial 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 declare that I have no competing interests  
 
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 unde r 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 characteristics of early gastric cancer acc ording to specific intragastric 
location  
 
Version: 0 Date: 08 Nov 2018  
 
Reviewer: Han Hong Lee  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Clinicopathologic characteristics of early gastric cancer according to specific  intragastric 
location  
 
In this retrospective study, authors have tried to evaluate clinicopathological differences on the 
different locational categories.  
 
The present analysis has strength of using merged tumor mapping system, however, the present 
result has critical issue to be explained.   
 
1. Characteristics of early gastric cancers should be presented in total as well as ac cording 
to the treatment modality at table 1.  
 
2. It would be more persuasive to the results if the authors could present statistical 
significances on the analysis of Figure 2.  
 
3. Only gastrectomized tumors were evaluated with the merged tumor mapping sy stem, so 
that this cohort of EGC has a huge selection bias to be concluded. Therefore, this analysis 
shouldn't be concluded through the results of merged tumor map system for EGC 
generally, because the characteristics of cancers according to two different treatment 
modalities (gastrectomy vs ESD) are very different  
 
4. In discussion, the authors are presenting the other reports of a similar concept to EGC, 
but some results are consistent and some are not. In addition to analytical differences 
with other stu dies, authors should be able to suggest some possible anatomical or 
physiological reasons for characteristics differences in the specific locations that this 
study has revealed.  
 
5. Please state some possible clinical applications from this study. It will be the most 
important objective of this study.  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please speci fy what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
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 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 publica tion 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 fin ancial 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 declare that I have no competing interests  
 
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 unde r 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 characteristics of early gastric cancer acc ording to specific intragastric 
location  
 
Version: 0 Date: 08 Nov 2018  
 
Reviewer: Han Hong Lee  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Clinicopathologic characteristics of early gastric cancer according to specific  intragastric 
location  
 
In this retrospective study, authors have tried to evaluate clinicopathological differences on the 
different locational categories.  
 
The present analysis has strength of using merged tumor mapping system, however, the present 
result has critical issue to be explained.   
 
1. Characteristics of early gastric cancers should be presented in total as well as ac cording 
to the treatment modality at table 1.  
 
2. It would be more persuasive to the results if the authors could present statistical 
significances on the analysis of Figure 2.  
 
3. Only gastrectomized tumors were evaluated with the merged tumor mapping sy stem, so 
that this cohort of EGC has a huge selection bias to be concluded. Therefore, this analysis 
shouldn't be concluded through the results of merged tumor map system for EGC 
generally, because the characteristics of cancers according to two different treatment 
modalities (gastrectomy vs ESD) are very different  
 
4. In discussion, the authors are presenting the other reports of a similar concept to EGC, 
but some results are consistent and some are not. In addition to analytical differences 
with other stu dies, authors should be able to suggest some possible anatomical or 
physiological reasons for characteristics differences in the specific locations that this 
study has revealed.  
 
5. Please state some possible clinical applications from this study. It will be the most 
important objective of this study.  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please speci fy what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
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 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 publica tion 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 fin ancial 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 declare that I have no competing interests  
 
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 unde r 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