Reviewer's report
Title:Management of esophageal stricture after complete circular endoscopic
submucosal dissection for superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma
Version: 1Date:4 December 2010
Reviewer: Nobuyuki Matsuhashi
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. This is an interesting observation. The sample size, however, is too small. In
addition, the analysis is retrospective. Therefore, although the manuscript is
prepared as a research article, it should be presented as a case report.
Minor Essential Revisions
2. "There have been neither nodal nor distal metastases in all patients including
the 2 patients with minimally invasive submucosal tumor." (first paragraph of
Result section): The authors have to state how the metastases were ruled out.
3. "The present study showed that ESD could provide sufficient resectability for
the superficially extended esophageal epithelial tumor. En bloc resection was
achieved in all the 7 patients, and lateral and basal margins were free from tumor
cells in each case. No local recurrence occurred with relatively short-term
follow-up periods."(the 4th paragraph in Discussion): This study does not indicate
the curability of ESD procedure in the investigated cases. The depth is reported
to be m2~sm1, and lymph node metastases, which may become apparent within
the following several years, cannot be ruled out. Therefore, the above cited
sentences are inadequate, and should be deleted.
4. Quality of written English, including that in Abstract, is unacceptable. Extensive
review by a native speaker is necessary.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:Management of esophageal stricture after complete circular endoscopic
submucosal dissection for superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma
Version: 1Date:4 December 2010
Reviewer: Nobuyuki Matsuhashi
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. This is an interesting observation. The sample size, however, is too small. In
addition, the analysis is retrospective. Therefore, although the manuscript is
prepared as a research article, it should be presented as a case report.
Minor Essential Revisions
2. "There have been neither nodal nor distal metastases in all patients including
the 2 patients with minimally invasive submucosal tumor." (first paragraph of
Result section): The authors have to state how the metastases were ruled out.
3. "The present study showed that ESD could provide sufficient resectability for
the superficially extended esophageal epithelial tumor. En bloc resection was
achieved in all the 7 patients, and lateral and basal margins were free from tumor
cells in each case. No local recurrence occurred with relatively short-term
follow-up periods."(the 4th paragraph in Discussion): This study does not indicate
the curability of ESD procedure in the investigated cases. The depth is reported
to be m2~sm1, and lymph node metastases, which may become apparent within
the following several years, cannot be ruled out. Therefore, the above cited
sentences are inadequate, and should be deleted.
4. Quality of written English, including that in Abstract, is unacceptable. Extensive
review by a native speaker is necessary.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Management of esophageal stricture after complete circular endoscopic
submucosal dissection for superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma
Version: 1Date:4 December 2010
Reviewer: Nobuyuki Matsuhashi
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. This is an interesting observation. The sample size, however, is too small. In
addition, the analysis is retrospective. Therefore, although the manuscript is
prepared as a research article, it should be presented as a case report.
Minor Essential Revisions
2. "There have been neither nodal nor distal metastases in all patients including
the 2 patients with minimally invasive submucosal tumor." (first paragraph of
Result section): The authors have to state how the metastases were ruled out.
3. "The present study showed that ESD could provide sufficient resectability for
the superficially extended esophageal epithelial tumor. En bloc resection was
achieved in all the 7 patients, and lateral and basal margins were free from tumor
cells in each case. No local recurrence occurred with relatively short-term
follow-up periods."(the 4th paragraph in Discussion): This study does not indicate
the curability of ESD procedure in the investigated cases. The depth is reported
to be m2~sm1, and lymph node metastases, which may become apparent within
the following several years, cannot be ruled out. Therefore, the above cited
sentences are inadequate, and should be deleted.
4. Quality of written English, including that in Abstract, is unacceptable. Extensive
review by a native speaker is necessary.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
assistant