Title: Endoluminal ultrasound versus magnetic resonance imaging in assessment of rectal cancer
after neoadjuvant therapy
Version: 2 Date: 10 Dec 2022
Reviewer:  Thomas Togliani
Reviewer's report:
In the revised version the authors have changed the language mistakes and typos I suggested.
The description of the inclusion/exclusion criteria has been added but it seems not so fluent.
I would rather say: Included patients were affected by non-metastatic non-stenotic locally
advanced rectal adenocarcinoma (the detail on the successive NAT must be specified elsewhere,
in the methods, and not among the inclusion criteria). Patients with metastatic rectal cancer,
unfit for surgery, early stages (not requiring NAT), affected by rectal tumors other than
adenocarcinoma, with previous surgical or radiation therapy (I guess in the rectum/pelvis) or
rectal stenosis were excluded.
The statistics have been added.
The conclusions are still weak: the authors conclude that EUS has a better performance than
MRI in staging rectal cancer after NAT; nevertheless, a suggestion whether to use only EUS
or both still lacks
Title: Endoluminal ultrasound versus magnetic resonance imaging in assessment of rectal cancer
after neoadjuvant therapy
Version: 2 Date: 10 Dec 2022
Reviewer:  Thomas Togliani
Reviewer's report:
In the revised version the authors have changed the language mistakes and typos I suggested.
The description of the inclusion/exclusion criteria has been added but it seems not so fluent.
I would rather say: Included patients were affected by non-metastatic non-stenotic locally
advanced rectal adenocarcinoma (the detail on the successive NAT must be specified elsewhere,
in the methods, and not among the inclusion criteria). Patients with metastatic rectal cancer,
unfit for surgery, early stages (not requiring NAT), affected by rectal tumors other than
adenocarcinoma, with previous surgical or radiation therapy (I guess in the rectum/pelvis) or
rectal stenosis were excluded.
The statistics have been added.
The conclusions are still weak: the authors conclude that EUS has a better performance than
MRI in staging rectal cancer after NAT; nevertheless, a suggestion whether to use only EUS
or both still lacks
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Endoluminal ultrasound versus magnetic resonance imaging in assessment of rectal cancer
after neoadjuvant therapy
Version: 2 Date: 10 Dec 2022
Reviewer:  Thomas Togliani
Reviewer's report:
In the revised version the authors have changed the language mistakes and typos I suggested.
The description of the inclusion/exclusion criteria has been added but it seems not so fluent.
I would rather say: Included patients were affected by non-metastatic non-stenotic locally
advanced rectal adenocarcinoma (the detail on the successive NAT must be specified elsewhere,
in the methods, and not among the inclusion criteria). Patients with metastatic rectal cancer,
unfit for surgery, early stages (not requiring NAT), affected by rectal tumors other than
adenocarcinoma, with previous surgical or radiation therapy (I guess in the rectum/pelvis) or
rectal stenosis were excluded.
The statistics have been added.
The conclusions are still weak: the authors conclude that EUS has a better performance than
MRI in staging rectal cancer after NAT; nevertheless, a suggestion whether to use only EUS
or both still lacks
assistant