Title: Predicting the risk of lymph node metastasis in colon cancer: development and validation
of an online dynamic nomogram based on multiple preoperative data
Version: 1 Date: 17 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
No - there are minor issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Not sure - I am not able to assess the statistics in this study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: dear authors
I read with great interest your research paper about the prediction of LNM in colon cancer.
This is a quite interesting topic since we are facing a new era of oncological treatment with
an imminent possibility of neoadjuvant treatment also in colonic cancer. The importance of
predicting advanced stages is therefore clear and it should be stressed in the paper.
Some comments:
- please reduce the length of the manuscript to less than 3000 words. The abstract to 250 (is too
long and detailed in methods!). Please focus the introduction on the topic.
- radiological images should be reviewed by a blinded dedicated radiologist in order to assess
the real predictive value of CT scan.
- the main limitation of the study is the relatively small number of patients included (300 patients
for such a common disease is a very small number). please mention it in the limitation section
- statistical method adopted is really very complex and it should be revised by a statistical editor.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
please see my comments above
Title: Predicting the risk of lymph node metastasis in colon cancer: development and validation
of an online dynamic nomogram based on multiple preoperative data
Version: 1 Date: 17 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
No - there are minor issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Not sure - I am not able to assess the statistics in this study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: dear authors
I read with great interest your research paper about the prediction of LNM in colon cancer.
This is a quite interesting topic since we are facing a new era of oncological treatment with
an imminent possibility of neoadjuvant treatment also in colonic cancer. The importance of
predicting advanced stages is therefore clear and it should be stressed in the paper.
Some comments:
- please reduce the length of the manuscript to less than 3000 words. The abstract to 250 (is too
long and detailed in methods!). Please focus the introduction on the topic.
- radiological images should be reviewed by a blinded dedicated radiologist in order to assess
the real predictive value of CT scan.
- the main limitation of the study is the relatively small number of patients included (300 patients
for such a common disease is a very small number). please mention it in the limitation section
- statistical method adopted is really very complex and it should be revised by a statistical editor.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
please see my comments above
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Predicting the risk of lymph node metastasis in colon cancer: development and validation
of an online dynamic nomogram based on multiple preoperative data
Version: 1 Date: 17 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
No - there are minor issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Not sure - I am not able to assess the statistics in this study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: dear authors
I read with great interest your research paper about the prediction of LNM in colon cancer.
This is a quite interesting topic since we are facing a new era of oncological treatment with
an imminent possibility of neoadjuvant treatment also in colonic cancer. The importance of
predicting advanced stages is therefore clear and it should be stressed in the paper.
Some comments:
- please reduce the length of the manuscript to less than 3000 words. The abstract to 250 (is too
long and detailed in methods!). Please focus the introduction on the topic.
- radiological images should be reviewed by a blinded dedicated radiologist in order to assess
the real predictive value of CT scan.
- the main limitation of the study is the relatively small number of patients included (300 patients
for such a common disease is a very small number). please mention it in the limitation section
- statistical method adopted is really very complex and it should be revised by a statistical editor.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
please see my comments above
assistant