Reviewer's report
Title:Sub-dividing high-risk gastrointestinal stromal tumors help to precisely
predict prognosis and efficiency of imatinib adjuvant therapy
Version:2Date:24 April 2014
Reviewer: Yeong Yeh Lee
Reviewer's report:
The current paper reports on factors which can potentially provide better
prognostic information in high risk GISTs.
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. Please clarify in more details (including purpose served) on test and validation
cohorts described in the Methods section.
2. How is serosa invasion different from tumor rupture? This will need to be
explained. Serosa invasion has not been described in the GISTs’ literatures, why
is this so? Has this observation been validated?
3. For those patients that received imatinib, did measurements of KIT 11 and 9
exon mutations provide any prognostic information? Are there any associations
with these markers with serosa invasion and high mitotic counts?
4. P values were reported in Table 1, which I assume mean that there are no
differences between the test and validation cohorts in reported variables. If yes,
this should be mentioned in the results.
5. Please discuss on limitations of mitotic counting and serosa invasion.
6. Please explain the modified NIH criteria used as the reference to derive the
AUCs for ROC analysis in Figure 3.
Minor Essential Revisions
1. Please explain R0 resection; it would be relevant to those not familiar with
surgical terms.
2. For Figure 1, may need to revise title as “pathological performances of serosa
invasion” is not clear
2. For Tables 2 and 3, please include in legends, the statistical tests used for the
two different P values that were reported.
3. Please check spelling throughout the manuscript for example “mitoesis” in
Table 3 and 4.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
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:Sub-dividing high-risk gastrointestinal stromal tumors help to precisely
predict prognosis and efficiency of imatinib adjuvant therapy
Version:2Date:24 April 2014
Reviewer: Yeong Yeh Lee
Reviewer's report:
The current paper reports on factors which can potentially provide better
prognostic information in high risk GISTs.
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. Please clarify in more details (including purpose served) on test and validation
cohorts described in the Methods section.
2. How is serosa invasion different from tumor rupture? This will need to be
explained. Serosa invasion has not been described in the GISTs’ literatures, why
is this so? Has this observation been validated?
3. For those patients that received imatinib, did measurements of KIT 11 and 9
exon mutations provide any prognostic information? Are there any associations
with these markers with serosa invasion and high mitotic counts?
4. P values were reported in Table 1, which I assume mean that there are no
differences between the test and validation cohorts in reported variables. If yes,
this should be mentioned in the results.
5. Please discuss on limitations of mitotic counting and serosa invasion.
6. Please explain the modified NIH criteria used as the reference to derive the
AUCs for ROC analysis in Figure 3.
Minor Essential Revisions
1. Please explain R0 resection; it would be relevant to those not familiar with
surgical terms.
2. For Figure 1, may need to revise title as “pathological performances of serosa
invasion” is not clear
2. For Tables 2 and 3, please include in legends, the statistical tests used for the
two different P values that were reported.
3. Please check spelling throughout the manuscript for example “mitoesis” in
Table 3 and 4.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
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:Sub-dividing high-risk gastrointestinal stromal tumors help to precisely
predict prognosis and efficiency of imatinib adjuvant therapy
Version:2Date:24 April 2014
Reviewer: Yeong Yeh Lee
Reviewer's report:
The current paper reports on factors which can potentially provide better
prognostic information in high risk GISTs.
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. Please clarify in more details (including purpose served) on test and validation
cohorts described in the Methods section.
2. How is serosa invasion different from tumor rupture? This will need to be
explained. Serosa invasion has not been described in the GISTs’ literatures, why
is this so? Has this observation been validated?
3. For those patients that received imatinib, did measurements of KIT 11 and 9
exon mutations provide any prognostic information? Are there any associations
with these markers with serosa invasion and high mitotic counts?
4. P values were reported in Table 1, which I assume mean that there are no
differences between the test and validation cohorts in reported variables. If yes,
this should be mentioned in the results.
5. Please discuss on limitations of mitotic counting and serosa invasion.
6. Please explain the modified NIH criteria used as the reference to derive the
AUCs for ROC analysis in Figure 3.
Minor Essential Revisions
1. Please explain R0 resection; it would be relevant to those not familiar with
surgical terms.
2. For Figure 1, may need to revise title as “pathological performances of serosa
invasion” is not clear
2. For Tables 2 and 3, please include in legends, the statistical tests used for the
two different P values that were reported.
3. Please check spelling throughout the manuscript for example “mitoesis” in
Table 3 and 4.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
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