Reviewer’s report
Title:  Comparison of different endoscopic resection techniques for submucosal tumors originating
from muscularis propria at the esophagogastric junction
Version: 0 Date: 16 May 2019
Reviewer: Amol Bapaye
Reviewer's report:
The authors report an interesting retrospective comparison of two techniques - STER and ESE for
resection of esophago-gastric SET's. The observations are interesting and applicable for endoscopists
dealing with treatment of such lesions. The paper is well written; and the results and conclusions are
well summarized. 
A few clarifications would be required prior to accepting this paper for publication - 
1.Authors mention that in 4 patients in ESE group, complete resection was not possible and the
histology was confirmed to be GIST. What was the further management of these patients? 
2.Could the authors elaborate on the contents of Monsel's solution? 
3.Was pre-procedure tissue diagnosis using EUS FNA attempted in any of these patients - if yes,
please give details and if not, please provide justification for not performing EUS FNA. 
4.As per guidelines, SET's &lt; 1cm can be observed. How many lesions were &lt; 1cm and what
was the justification for resection in these patients? 
5.Did the authors encounter any additional difficulty in locating lesions on the greater curvature /
fundus  vs. the lesser curvature in  the cardia-gastric STER  group?  If so, how  was  this  difficulty
managed? 
6.ESE is an excellent technique for SET's limited to the superficial muscle layer (from mucosal
side); however, if the lesion involves the entire thickness of the muscle a full-thickness resection is
required. Did the authors encounter any instances to perform full-thickness resection? 
The authors are requested to respond to the above comments so that they can be reviewed prior to
acceptance of the manuscript. My recommendation for the manuscript in its current form is - 'Minor
Revision needed'. 
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 authors.
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.
I am able to assess the statistics
Quality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
Acceptable
Declaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, 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 content 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 competing 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 posted 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:  Comparison of different endoscopic resection techniques for submucosal tumors originating
from muscularis propria at the esophagogastric junction
Version: 0 Date: 16 May 2019
Reviewer: Amol Bapaye
Reviewer's report:
The authors report an interesting retrospective comparison of two techniques - STER and ESE for
resection of esophago-gastric SET's. The observations are interesting and applicable for endoscopists
dealing with treatment of such lesions. The paper is well written; and the results and conclusions are
well summarized. 
A few clarifications would be required prior to accepting this paper for publication - 
1.Authors mention that in 4 patients in ESE group, complete resection was not possible and the
histology was confirmed to be GIST. What was the further management of these patients? 
2.Could the authors elaborate on the contents of Monsel's solution? 
3.Was pre-procedure tissue diagnosis using EUS FNA attempted in any of these patients - if yes,
please give details and if not, please provide justification for not performing EUS FNA. 
4.As per guidelines, SET's &lt; 1cm can be observed. How many lesions were &lt; 1cm and what
was the justification for resection in these patients? 
5.Did the authors encounter any additional difficulty in locating lesions on the greater curvature /
fundus  vs. the lesser curvature in  the cardia-gastric STER  group?  If so, how  was  this  difficulty
managed? 
6.ESE is an excellent technique for SET's limited to the superficial muscle layer (from mucosal
side); however, if the lesion involves the entire thickness of the muscle a full-thickness resection is
required. Did the authors encounter any instances to perform full-thickness resection? 
The authors are requested to respond to the above comments so that they can be reviewed prior to
acceptance of the manuscript. My recommendation for the manuscript in its current form is - 'Minor
Revision needed'. 
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 authors.
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.
I am able to assess the statistics
Quality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
Acceptable
Declaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, 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 content 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 competing 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 posted 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:  Comparison of different endoscopic resection techniques for submucosal tumors originating
from muscularis propria at the esophagogastric junction
Version: 0 Date: 16 May 2019
Reviewer: Amol Bapaye
Reviewer's report:
The authors report an interesting retrospective comparison of two techniques - STER and ESE for
resection of esophago-gastric SET's. The observations are interesting and applicable for endoscopists
dealing with treatment of such lesions. The paper is well written; and the results and conclusions are
well summarized. 
A few clarifications would be required prior to accepting this paper for publication - 
1.Authors mention that in 4 patients in ESE group, complete resection was not possible and the
histology was confirmed to be GIST. What was the further management of these patients? 
2.Could the authors elaborate on the contents of Monsel's solution? 
3.Was pre-procedure tissue diagnosis using EUS FNA attempted in any of these patients - if yes,
please give details and if not, please provide justification for not performing EUS FNA. 
4.As per guidelines, SET's &lt; 1cm can be observed. How many lesions were &lt; 1cm and what
was the justification for resection in these patients? 
5.Did the authors encounter any additional difficulty in locating lesions on the greater curvature /
fundus  vs. the lesser curvature in  the cardia-gastric STER  group?  If so, how  was  this  difficulty
managed? 
6.ESE is an excellent technique for SET's limited to the superficial muscle layer (from mucosal
side); however, if the lesion involves the entire thickness of the muscle a full-thickness resection is
required. Did the authors encounter any instances to perform full-thickness resection? 
The authors are requested to respond to the above comments so that they can be reviewed prior to
acceptance of the manuscript. My recommendation for the manuscript in its current form is - 'Minor
Revision needed'. 
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 authors.
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.
I am able to assess the statistics
Quality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
Acceptable
Declaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, 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 content 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 competing 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 posted 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