Title: The prognostic significance of desmoplastic reaction, tumor budding, and tumor-
infiltrating lymphocytes in esophageal squamous cell carcinomas
Version: 1 Date: 14 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
In this manuscript, the authors assessed the efficacy of desmoplastic reaction (DR), tumor
budding, tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL), and other clinicopathological factors in
predicting the prognosis of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. It is an original production,
as the majority of published papers on DR are on colorectal cancer and fewer on esophageal
cancer. Since the methods in this manuscript are in part poorly explained, some of the results
seem unreproducible. The conclusions are interesting and consistent with previously published
papers and hypotheses, but overall it does not seem to be well written. No ethical problems are
found in this study. My comments and suggestions are listed below.
Specific points)
1. The abstract is inappropriate. It contains only background and objectives.
2. The information (age, sex, tumor size, grade, etc.) of this cohort of 98 patients should first
be presented in a table.
3. In Materials and Methods. The definition of DR here seems to differ from that of the colon.
In general, DR in colorectal cancer is evaluated at the invasive front outside the muscularis
propria layer. However, this manuscript seems to include cases of early-stage cancer, i.e., pT1-2.
Therefore, it seems necessary to explain in detail how to search for DR.
4. The method of TIL identification is also not specified; a careful explanation is necessary to
keep the subsets of TILs in mind.
5. The Results section is partial and too simplified. Some figures are not explained here.
6. The second paragraph of the Discussion (page 4, lines 8-21): Although the positive data
previously reported were listed, I had the impression that it was difficult to understand what was
the important point.
7. The paragraph #4 of the Discussion (page 4, line 7 from the bottom - page 5, line 7): it would
be easier to understand if they first discuss the data in this study and then describe the differences
from the previous reports.
8. Page 5, line 12; the cited paper #32 is not appropriate. There is a divergence from the intent
of the statement here.
Title: The prognostic significance of desmoplastic reaction, tumor budding, and tumor-
infiltrating lymphocytes in esophageal squamous cell carcinomas
Version: 1 Date: 14 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
In this manuscript, the authors assessed the efficacy of desmoplastic reaction (DR), tumor
budding, tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL), and other clinicopathological factors in
predicting the prognosis of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. It is an original production,
as the majority of published papers on DR are on colorectal cancer and fewer on esophageal
cancer. Since the methods in this manuscript are in part poorly explained, some of the results
seem unreproducible. The conclusions are interesting and consistent with previously published
papers and hypotheses, but overall it does not seem to be well written. No ethical problems are
found in this study. My comments and suggestions are listed below.
Specific points)
1. The abstract is inappropriate. It contains only background and objectives.
2. The information (age, sex, tumor size, grade, etc.) of this cohort of 98 patients should first
be presented in a table.
3. In Materials and Methods. The definition of DR here seems to differ from that of the colon.
In general, DR in colorectal cancer is evaluated at the invasive front outside the muscularis
propria layer. However, this manuscript seems to include cases of early-stage cancer, i.e., pT1-2.
Therefore, it seems necessary to explain in detail how to search for DR.
4. The method of TIL identification is also not specified; a careful explanation is necessary to
keep the subsets of TILs in mind.
5. The Results section is partial and too simplified. Some figures are not explained here.
6. The second paragraph of the Discussion (page 4, lines 8-21): Although the positive data
previously reported were listed, I had the impression that it was difficult to understand what was
the important point.
7. The paragraph #4 of the Discussion (page 4, line 7 from the bottom - page 5, line 7): it would
be easier to understand if they first discuss the data in this study and then describe the differences
from the previous reports.
8. Page 5, line 12; the cited paper #32 is not appropriate. There is a divergence from the intent
of the statement here.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: The prognostic significance of desmoplastic reaction, tumor budding, and tumor-
infiltrating lymphocytes in esophageal squamous cell carcinomas
Version: 1 Date: 14 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
In this manuscript, the authors assessed the efficacy of desmoplastic reaction (DR), tumor
budding, tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL), and other clinicopathological factors in
predicting the prognosis of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. It is an original production,
as the majority of published papers on DR are on colorectal cancer and fewer on esophageal
cancer. Since the methods in this manuscript are in part poorly explained, some of the results
seem unreproducible. The conclusions are interesting and consistent with previously published
papers and hypotheses, but overall it does not seem to be well written. No ethical problems are
found in this study. My comments and suggestions are listed below.
Specific points)
1. The abstract is inappropriate. It contains only background and objectives.
2. The information (age, sex, tumor size, grade, etc.) of this cohort of 98 patients should first
be presented in a table.
3. In Materials and Methods. The definition of DR here seems to differ from that of the colon.
In general, DR in colorectal cancer is evaluated at the invasive front outside the muscularis
propria layer. However, this manuscript seems to include cases of early-stage cancer, i.e., pT1-2.
Therefore, it seems necessary to explain in detail how to search for DR.
4. The method of TIL identification is also not specified; a careful explanation is necessary to
keep the subsets of TILs in mind.
5. The Results section is partial and too simplified. Some figures are not explained here.
6. The second paragraph of the Discussion (page 4, lines 8-21): Although the positive data
previously reported were listed, I had the impression that it was difficult to understand what was
the important point.
7. The paragraph #4 of the Discussion (page 4, line 7 from the bottom - page 5, line 7): it would
be easier to understand if they first discuss the data in this study and then describe the differences
from the previous reports.
8. Page 5, line 12; the cited paper #32 is not appropriate. There is a divergence from the intent
of the statement here.
assistant