Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: The NETest Liquid Biopsy is Diagnostic for Gastric Neur oendocrine Tumors: 
Observations on the Blood -Based Identification of Microscopic and Macroscopic Residual 
Disease  
 
Version: 1 Date: 08 May 2020  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
The authors made a substantial effort and improved the manuscript which can be published after 
the following minor change will be performed:  
 
It is not correct to include NECs under the term GNEN type 3. The most optimal is to pr esent 
type 3 (well differentiated) separately from NECs (poorly differentiated). An alternative solution, 
if the previous will not be performed, is that the authors will add a meaning that they used the 
GNEN term including both Type 3 and NECs (and not as it is presented that GNEN type 3 
encompass also NECs). Likewise, a similar change it is suggested to be made at the table 1 page 
29 where Type 3 column appears (the column should be named GNEN and underneath to 
explain that includes both type 3 and NECs). Otherwise someone can argue, as I mentioned in 
my first review of the manuscript, that the classification is not correctly presented as type 3 
lesions are well differentiated and NECs are poorly differentiated lesions.  
 
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 nece ssary 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 manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please speci fy what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statis tics 
 
 
 
 
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, f ees, funding, or salary from an 
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financial ly from the publication of this 
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
2. Do you hold any s tocks or shares in an organisation t hat 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 compe ting 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.  
 
¨No 
 
Reviewer Publication Consent. 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 ) if this 
manuscript is accepted for publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the 
published report have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not be 
published.  If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the edi torial office 
before completing the review.  If you wish, you can include your name in your pu blish ed report. 
Please note you must decide whether to include your name at the start of the process and  confirm 
this decision whenever prompted. If you change your decision later, we will not be able to 
publish your name.  
 
I agree to the terms of the CC -BY 4.0 license; please do not publish my name with my report.  
(default)  
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: The NETest Liquid Biopsy is Diagnostic for Gastric Neur oendocrine Tumors: 
Observations on the Blood -Based Identification of Microscopic and Macroscopic Residual 
Disease  
 
Version: 1 Date: 08 May 2020  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
The authors made a substantial effort and improved the manuscript which can be published after 
the following minor change will be performed:  
 
It is not correct to include NECs under the term GNEN type 3. The most optimal is to pr esent 
type 3 (well differentiated) separately from NECs (poorly differentiated). An alternative solution, 
if the previous will not be performed, is that the authors will add a meaning that they used the 
GNEN term including both Type 3 and NECs (and not as it is presented that GNEN type 3 
encompass also NECs). Likewise, a similar change it is suggested to be made at the table 1 page 
29 where Type 3 column appears (the column should be named GNEN and underneath to 
explain that includes both type 3 and NECs). Otherwise someone can argue, as I mentioned in 
my first review of the manuscript, that the classification is not correctly presented as type 3 
lesions are well differentiated and NECs are poorly differentiated lesions.  
 
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 nece ssary 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 manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please speci fy what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statis tics 
 
 
 
 
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, f ees, funding, or salary from an 
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financial ly from the publication of this 
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
2. Do you hold any s tocks or shares in an organisation t hat 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 compe ting 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.  
 
¨No 
 
Reviewer Publication Consent. 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 ) if this 
manuscript is accepted for publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the 
published report have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not be 
published.  If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the edi torial office 
before completing the review.  If you wish, you can include your name in your pu blish ed report. 
Please note you must decide whether to include your name at the start of the process and  confirm 
this decision whenever prompted. If you change your decision later, we will not be able to 
publish your name.  
 
I agree to the terms of the CC -BY 4.0 license; please do not publish my name with my report.  
(default)  
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: The NETest Liquid Biopsy is Diagnostic for Gastric Neur oendocrine Tumors: 
Observations on the Blood -Based Identification of Microscopic and Macroscopic Residual 
Disease  
 
Version: 1 Date: 08 May 2020  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
The authors made a substantial effort and improved the manuscript which can be published after 
the following minor change will be performed:  
 
It is not correct to include NECs under the term GNEN type 3. The most optimal is to pr esent 
type 3 (well differentiated) separately from NECs (poorly differentiated). An alternative solution, 
if the previous will not be performed, is that the authors will add a meaning that they used the 
GNEN term including both Type 3 and NECs (and not as it is presented that GNEN type 3 
encompass also NECs). Likewise, a similar change it is suggested to be made at the table 1 page 
29 where Type 3 column appears (the column should be named GNEN and underneath to 
explain that includes both type 3 and NECs). Otherwise someone can argue, as I mentioned in 
my first review of the manuscript, that the classification is not correctly presented as type 3 
lesions are well differentiated and NECs are poorly differentiated lesions.  
 
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 nece ssary 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 manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please speci fy what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statis tics 
 
 
 
 
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, f ees, funding, or salary from an 
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financial ly from the publication of this 
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
2. Do you hold any s tocks or shares in an organisation t hat 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 compe ting 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.  
 
¨No 
 
Reviewer Publication Consent. 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 ) if this 
manuscript is accepted for publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the 
published report have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not be 
published.  If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the edi torial office 
before completing the review.  If you wish, you can include your name in your pu blish ed report. 
Please note you must decide whether to include your name at the start of the process and  confirm 
this decision whenever prompted. If you change your decision later, we will not be able to 
publish your name.  
 
I agree to the terms of the CC -BY 4.0 license; please do not publish my name with my report.  
(default)  
assistant