Reviewer's report
Title:Giant flat adenomas of rectum successfully treated in two steps by
endoscopic submucosal dissection and endoscopic mucosal resection.
Version: 2Date:7 April 2010
Reviewer: Hiroyuki Imaeda
Reviewer's report:
Stroppa et al. revised the manuscript about usefulness of treatment by combined
ESD and EMR for giant flat adenomas of rectum. But major revisions are
necessary on the points described below.
I have the following comments and remarks.
The major problems
1. Authors mentioned that two-three large pieces not less than 3 cm in diameter
were obtained. However, authors showed excised lesion less than 2cm in
diameter in Figure 3e. Authors should show larger excised lesions.
2. Authors mentioned that Figure 1d and 1e showed removal of the lesion.
However, these figures were not taken on the same day (Figure 1d showed the
date of 10/ 2006 and Figure 1e showed that of 2/ 2007). Moreover, authors
showed Figure 1f 3 months after ESD/EMR, however, authors had showed this
figure as 12 months after ESD/ EMR before.
The minor problems
1. p6, line 5: Although authors described results of ESD for early gastric cancer
reported by Imagawa. Authors should omit this paragraph.
2. p8, line 23: Authors had better omit ‘‘nongranular laterally spreading
tumors···biopsy,’’ and change ‘‘rectal polyps’’ to ‘‘rectal laterally spreading
tumors.’’
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
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:Giant flat adenomas of rectum successfully treated in two steps by
endoscopic submucosal dissection and endoscopic mucosal resection.
Version: 2Date:7 April 2010
Reviewer: Hiroyuki Imaeda
Reviewer's report:
Stroppa et al. revised the manuscript about usefulness of treatment by combined
ESD and EMR for giant flat adenomas of rectum. But major revisions are
necessary on the points described below.
I have the following comments and remarks.
The major problems
1. Authors mentioned that two-three large pieces not less than 3 cm in diameter
were obtained. However, authors showed excised lesion less than 2cm in
diameter in Figure 3e. Authors should show larger excised lesions.
2. Authors mentioned that Figure 1d and 1e showed removal of the lesion.
However, these figures were not taken on the same day (Figure 1d showed the
date of 10/ 2006 and Figure 1e showed that of 2/ 2007). Moreover, authors
showed Figure 1f 3 months after ESD/EMR, however, authors had showed this
figure as 12 months after ESD/ EMR before.
The minor problems
1. p6, line 5: Although authors described results of ESD for early gastric cancer
reported by Imagawa. Authors should omit this paragraph.
2. p8, line 23: Authors had better omit ‘‘nongranular laterally spreading
tumors···biopsy,’’ and change ‘‘rectal polyps’’ to ‘‘rectal laterally spreading
tumors.’’
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
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:Giant flat adenomas of rectum successfully treated in two steps by
endoscopic submucosal dissection and endoscopic mucosal resection.
Version: 2Date:7 April 2010
Reviewer: Hiroyuki Imaeda
Reviewer's report:
Stroppa et al. revised the manuscript about usefulness of treatment by combined
ESD and EMR for giant flat adenomas of rectum. But major revisions are
necessary on the points described below.
I have the following comments and remarks.
The major problems
1. Authors mentioned that two-three large pieces not less than 3 cm in diameter
were obtained. However, authors showed excised lesion less than 2cm in
diameter in Figure 3e. Authors should show larger excised lesions.
2. Authors mentioned that Figure 1d and 1e showed removal of the lesion.
However, these figures were not taken on the same day (Figure 1d showed the
date of 10/ 2006 and Figure 1e showed that of 2/ 2007). Moreover, authors
showed Figure 1f 3 months after ESD/EMR, however, authors had showed this
figure as 12 months after ESD/ EMR before.
The minor problems
1. p6, line 5: Although authors described results of ESD for early gastric cancer
reported by Imagawa. Authors should omit this paragraph.
2. p8, line 23: Authors had better omit ‘‘nongranular laterally spreading
tumors···biopsy,’’ and change ‘‘rectal polyps’’ to ‘‘rectal laterally spreading
tumors.’’
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
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