Title: The necessarity of treatment for small gastric subepithelial tumors#1cm-2cm# originating
from muscularis propria: An analysis of 972 tumors
Version: 0 Date: 19 Sep 2021
Reviewer:  Szu-chia Liao
Reviewer's report:
1. Please mention about the inclusion and exclusion criteria of your enrolled patients more
detailedly. In your study, if the tumors involved more layers including muscularis propria, did
you enroll them into your study?
2. For your study groups, how about the EUS characteristics of the lesions and the correlation
between pathological diagnosis and EUS characteristics? If there were no high-risk features
under EUS image of the lesions, would endoscopic treatment be performed in your study? And
Why?
3. In Table 1, the age of your inclusion patients ranged from 16-78. Were the patients below 18
years old approved by The Institutional Review Board?
4. In table 1, how about the subgroup analysis for SETs with size < 1cm or > 1cm for the risk
of GIST and non-GIST? Could you discuss about the result?
5. In table 2, how about subgroup analysis in GIST group for size <1 cm or > 1cm about the risk
in the pathological diagnosis? Could you discuss about the result?
6. In your conclusion, you only focus on safe and effective treatment. However, it is not correlate
with your topic ” The necessarity of treatment”. Would you adjust your topic or talk more about
the necessarity of the treatment according to your study result?
Title: The necessarity of treatment for small gastric subepithelial tumors#1cm-2cm# originating
from muscularis propria: An analysis of 972 tumors
Version: 0 Date: 19 Sep 2021
Reviewer:  Szu-chia Liao
Reviewer's report:
1. Please mention about the inclusion and exclusion criteria of your enrolled patients more
detailedly. In your study, if the tumors involved more layers including muscularis propria, did
you enroll them into your study?
2. For your study groups, how about the EUS characteristics of the lesions and the correlation
between pathological diagnosis and EUS characteristics? If there were no high-risk features
under EUS image of the lesions, would endoscopic treatment be performed in your study? And
Why?
3. In Table 1, the age of your inclusion patients ranged from 16-78. Were the patients below 18
years old approved by The Institutional Review Board?
4. In table 1, how about the subgroup analysis for SETs with size < 1cm or > 1cm for the risk
of GIST and non-GIST? Could you discuss about the result?
5. In table 2, how about subgroup analysis in GIST group for size <1 cm or > 1cm about the risk
in the pathological diagnosis? Could you discuss about the result?
6. In your conclusion, you only focus on safe and effective treatment. However, it is not correlate
with your topic ” The necessarity of treatment”. Would you adjust your topic or talk more about
the necessarity of the treatment according to your study result?
Please review this paper.
user
Title: The necessarity of treatment for small gastric subepithelial tumors#1cm-2cm# originating
from muscularis propria: An analysis of 972 tumors
Version: 0 Date: 19 Sep 2021
Reviewer:  Szu-chia Liao
Reviewer's report:
1. Please mention about the inclusion and exclusion criteria of your enrolled patients more
detailedly. In your study, if the tumors involved more layers including muscularis propria, did
you enroll them into your study?
2. For your study groups, how about the EUS characteristics of the lesions and the correlation
between pathological diagnosis and EUS characteristics? If there were no high-risk features
under EUS image of the lesions, would endoscopic treatment be performed in your study? And
Why?
3. In Table 1, the age of your inclusion patients ranged from 16-78. Were the patients below 18
years old approved by The Institutional Review Board?
4. In table 1, how about the subgroup analysis for SETs with size < 1cm or > 1cm for the risk
of GIST and non-GIST? Could you discuss about the result?
5. In table 2, how about subgroup analysis in GIST group for size <1 cm or > 1cm about the risk
in the pathological diagnosis? Could you discuss about the result?
6. In your conclusion, you only focus on safe and effective treatment. However, it is not correlate
with your topic ” The necessarity of treatment”. Would you adjust your topic or talk more about
the necessarity of the treatment according to your study result?
assistant