Title: Endoscopic and Pathological Characteristics of Gastrointestinal Amyloidosis: A
Retrospective Analysis
Version: 1 Date: 19 Nov 2024
Reviewer's report:
Niu et al wrote the manuscript with the title of “Endoscopic and Pathological Characteristics of
Gastrointestinal Amyloidosis: A Retrospective Analysis” and concluded that small intestine is
the location with the high detection rate of GIA that may be attributed to its anatomical structure,
biopsy technique, lesion distribution characteristics, clinical awareness, and pathological
sensitivity. There are some concerns need to be addressed.
1. How does lesion morphology correlate with clinical symptoms, such as gastrointestinal
bleeding or malabsorption? And what is the endoscopic diagnosis of these lesions before the
pathology result of gastrointestinal amyloidosis come out? Usually, clinical symptoms lead to
relevant exams and endoscopic suspicion of diseases lead to biopsy of relevant lesion. The
readers might be interested in this information. I would suggest a table for this.
2. What are the clinical implications of the involvement of difference layers of gastrointestinal
layer? May add this to the discussion portion.
“Furthermore, there was a significant difference in submucosa involvement across different
lesion morphologies (Fisher’s exact test, p = 0.001), with elevated and flat lesions more likely
to involve the submucosa. Conversely, depressed lesions and normal mucosa were primarily
involved within the mucosal layer, with depressed lesions mainly involving the lamina propria,
while normal mucosa primarily involved the mucosal epithelial layer and lamina propria.”
3. There should be intercomparison of the result in this research with other published data in term
of endoscopic finding and histopathological finding. For examples the result from the following
researches:
Dias E, Santos-Antunes Jo, Marques M, et al.: Clinical and endoscopic findings in
gastrointestinal amyloidosis: a single-center experience. Revista Española de Enfermedades
Digestivas 2022;
Lea U. KrauB, Stephan Schmid, Patricia Mester et al: Clinical, Endoscopic, and Histopathologic
Observations in Gastrointestinal Amyloidosis
4. The conclusion made should be based on solid evidence from the result. Therefore, it would
be inappropriate to conclude that “The high detection rate of GIA in the small intestine may
be attributed to its anatomical structure, biopsy technique, lesion distribution characteristics,
clinical awareness, and pathological sensitivity.”
Title: Endoscopic and Pathological Characteristics of Gastrointestinal Amyloidosis: A
Retrospective Analysis
Version: 1 Date: 19 Nov 2024
Reviewer's report:
Niu et al wrote the manuscript with the title of “Endoscopic and Pathological Characteristics of
Gastrointestinal Amyloidosis: A Retrospective Analysis” and concluded that small intestine is
the location with the high detection rate of GIA that may be attributed to its anatomical structure,
biopsy technique, lesion distribution characteristics, clinical awareness, and pathological
sensitivity. There are some concerns need to be addressed.
1. How does lesion morphology correlate with clinical symptoms, such as gastrointestinal
bleeding or malabsorption? And what is the endoscopic diagnosis of these lesions before the
pathology result of gastrointestinal amyloidosis come out? Usually, clinical symptoms lead to
relevant exams and endoscopic suspicion of diseases lead to biopsy of relevant lesion. The
readers might be interested in this information. I would suggest a table for this.
2. What are the clinical implications of the involvement of difference layers of gastrointestinal
layer? May add this to the discussion portion.
“Furthermore, there was a significant difference in submucosa involvement across different
lesion morphologies (Fisher’s exact test, p = 0.001), with elevated and flat lesions more likely
to involve the submucosa. Conversely, depressed lesions and normal mucosa were primarily
involved within the mucosal layer, with depressed lesions mainly involving the lamina propria,
while normal mucosa primarily involved the mucosal epithelial layer and lamina propria.”
3. There should be intercomparison of the result in this research with other published data in term
of endoscopic finding and histopathological finding. For examples the result from the following
researches:
Dias E, Santos-Antunes Jo, Marques M, et al.: Clinical and endoscopic findings in
gastrointestinal amyloidosis: a single-center experience. Revista Española de Enfermedades
Digestivas 2022;
Lea U. KrauB, Stephan Schmid, Patricia Mester et al: Clinical, Endoscopic, and Histopathologic
Observations in Gastrointestinal Amyloidosis
4. The conclusion made should be based on solid evidence from the result. Therefore, it would
be inappropriate to conclude that “The high detection rate of GIA in the small intestine may
be attributed to its anatomical structure, biopsy technique, lesion distribution characteristics,
clinical awareness, and pathological sensitivity.”
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Endoscopic and Pathological Characteristics of Gastrointestinal Amyloidosis: A
Retrospective Analysis
Version: 1 Date: 19 Nov 2024
Reviewer's report:
Niu et al wrote the manuscript with the title of “Endoscopic and Pathological Characteristics of
Gastrointestinal Amyloidosis: A Retrospective Analysis” and concluded that small intestine is
the location with the high detection rate of GIA that may be attributed to its anatomical structure,
biopsy technique, lesion distribution characteristics, clinical awareness, and pathological
sensitivity. There are some concerns need to be addressed.
1. How does lesion morphology correlate with clinical symptoms, such as gastrointestinal
bleeding or malabsorption? And what is the endoscopic diagnosis of these lesions before the
pathology result of gastrointestinal amyloidosis come out? Usually, clinical symptoms lead to
relevant exams and endoscopic suspicion of diseases lead to biopsy of relevant lesion. The
readers might be interested in this information. I would suggest a table for this.
2. What are the clinical implications of the involvement of difference layers of gastrointestinal
layer? May add this to the discussion portion.
“Furthermore, there was a significant difference in submucosa involvement across different
lesion morphologies (Fisher’s exact test, p = 0.001), with elevated and flat lesions more likely
to involve the submucosa. Conversely, depressed lesions and normal mucosa were primarily
involved within the mucosal layer, with depressed lesions mainly involving the lamina propria,
while normal mucosa primarily involved the mucosal epithelial layer and lamina propria.”
3. There should be intercomparison of the result in this research with other published data in term
of endoscopic finding and histopathological finding. For examples the result from the following
researches:
Dias E, Santos-Antunes Jo, Marques M, et al.: Clinical and endoscopic findings in
gastrointestinal amyloidosis: a single-center experience. Revista Española de Enfermedades
Digestivas 2022;
Lea U. KrauB, Stephan Schmid, Patricia Mester et al: Clinical, Endoscopic, and Histopathologic
Observations in Gastrointestinal Amyloidosis
4. The conclusion made should be based on solid evidence from the result. Therefore, it would
be inappropriate to conclude that “The high detection rate of GIA in the small intestine may
be attributed to its anatomical structure, biopsy technique, lesion distribution characteristics,
clinical awareness, and pathological sensitivity.”
assistant