Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Clinical Outcomes of Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Rectal Neuroendocrine Tumor  
 
Version: 0 Date: 09 Nov 2017  
 
Reviewer: Chang Mo Moon  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
This article evaluated the rates of histologically complete resection (H -CR) and recurrence after 
endoscopic treatment for rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs). This study design was well 
organized and the manuscript was well written. AND, this issue is clinically interesting and 
important. However, there are several points to be  more explained or corrected.  
 
COMMENTS  
1. In this study, you retrospectively reviewed the medical records of all study subjects. 
Actually, the main outcomes were affected by endoscpists who underwent endoscopic 
resection of rectal NETs. Please describe fa ctors related to endoscopists that treated rectal 
NETs (experience, surgeon or gastroenterologist, etc.)  
 
2. Were all specimens examined microscopically by one pathologist? If not, please describe  
 
3. In the result, you showed four cases with tumor recurr ence after endoscopic complete 
resection. However, I am wondering that in one case (third case, 41/F, size 4 mm), recurrence 
was diagnosed 2 months after initial resection. In addition, that case had deep margin 
involved by NET at pathologic evaluation at initial resection. The outcome of this case may 
be more appropriate for "remnant lesion" rather than "recurred tumor".  
 
4. All local recurrence cases were treated by endoscopic method, not by operation. Please 
describe specific reason for this decision.  
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the auth ors. 
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
Not relevant to this manuscript  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing inter ests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an  
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this  
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose  
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the c ontent of the  
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds  or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below.  If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that I have no com peting interests  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included  
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report  
including any attachments I upload will be po sted on the website along with the authors'  
responses.  I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons 
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments 
which I do  not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments 
to the  editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Clinical Outcomes of Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Rectal Neuroendocrine Tumor  
 
Version: 0 Date: 09 Nov 2017  
 
Reviewer: Chang Mo Moon  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
This article evaluated the rates of histologically complete resection (H -CR) and recurrence after 
endoscopic treatment for rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs). This study design was well 
organized and the manuscript was well written. AND, this issue is clinically interesting and 
important. However, there are several points to be  more explained or corrected.  
 
COMMENTS  
1. In this study, you retrospectively reviewed the medical records of all study subjects. 
Actually, the main outcomes were affected by endoscpists who underwent endoscopic 
resection of rectal NETs. Please describe fa ctors related to endoscopists that treated rectal 
NETs (experience, surgeon or gastroenterologist, etc.)  
 
2. Were all specimens examined microscopically by one pathologist? If not, please describe  
 
3. In the result, you showed four cases with tumor recurr ence after endoscopic complete 
resection. However, I am wondering that in one case (third case, 41/F, size 4 mm), recurrence 
was diagnosed 2 months after initial resection. In addition, that case had deep margin 
involved by NET at pathologic evaluation at initial resection. The outcome of this case may 
be more appropriate for "remnant lesion" rather than "recurred tumor".  
 
4. All local recurrence cases were treated by endoscopic method, not by operation. Please 
describe specific reason for this decision.  
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the auth ors. 
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
Not relevant to this manuscript  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing inter ests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an  
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this  
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose  
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the c ontent of the  
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds  or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below.  If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that I have no com peting interests  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included  
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report  
including any attachments I upload will be po sted on the website along with the authors'  
responses.  I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons 
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments 
which I do  not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments 
to the  editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Clinical Outcomes of Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Rectal Neuroendocrine Tumor  
 
Version: 0 Date: 09 Nov 2017  
 
Reviewer: Chang Mo Moon  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
This article evaluated the rates of histologically complete resection (H -CR) and recurrence after 
endoscopic treatment for rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs). This study design was well 
organized and the manuscript was well written. AND, this issue is clinically interesting and 
important. However, there are several points to be  more explained or corrected.  
 
COMMENTS  
1. In this study, you retrospectively reviewed the medical records of all study subjects. 
Actually, the main outcomes were affected by endoscpists who underwent endoscopic 
resection of rectal NETs. Please describe fa ctors related to endoscopists that treated rectal 
NETs (experience, surgeon or gastroenterologist, etc.)  
 
2. Were all specimens examined microscopically by one pathologist? If not, please describe  
 
3. In the result, you showed four cases with tumor recurr ence after endoscopic complete 
resection. However, I am wondering that in one case (third case, 41/F, size 4 mm), recurrence 
was diagnosed 2 months after initial resection. In addition, that case had deep margin 
involved by NET at pathologic evaluation at initial resection. The outcome of this case may 
be more appropriate for "remnant lesion" rather than "recurred tumor".  
 
4. All local recurrence cases were treated by endoscopic method, not by operation. Please 
describe specific reason for this decision.  
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the auth ors. 
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
Not relevant to this manuscript  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing inter ests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an  
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this  
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose  
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the c ontent of the  
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds  or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below.  If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that I have no com peting interests  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included  
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report  
including any attachments I upload will be po sted on the website along with the authors'  
responses.  I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons 
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments 
which I do  not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments 
to the  editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
assistant