Title: Young adults with colon cancer: clinical features and surgical outcomes
Version: 0 Date: 04 Dec 2022
Reviewer:  Khaled Farid
Reviewer's report:
The authors in this manuscript aimed  to identify the clinicopathological features and long-term
survival in young-onset colon cancer patients through a retrospective study.
It is a good idea and acceptable work presented by a fairly readable language.
My first comment is that the manuscript language should be revised by a native English writer as
it contains many errors regarding the grammar, punctuation, and even the phrases in some parts.
you should spell out any abbreviations when first used in the manuscript.
Regarding the manuscript contents:
1. the abstract is well written and informative but in the result section it is better to separate
overall survival and progression free survival percentages.
2. the background is concise but more or less informative
3. Materials and methods: why you select to analyze the data of young onset patients only...why
you did not compare it with data of old onset colon cancer which i think available for you and
will be more confirmative to your conclusion?
4.Results: in all your tables you compare stages I-III against  stage V but regarding survival
analysis you compare stages I-II against stage III and V....why?
When you analyze risk factors of survival you did not comment on the results of univariate
analysis and did not put the results of multivariate analysis in a separate table...why??
5. Discussion: is informative and sufficient but contains many statements that needs  language
revision.
Title: Young adults with colon cancer: clinical features and surgical outcomes
Version: 0 Date: 04 Dec 2022
Reviewer:  Khaled Farid
Reviewer's report:
The authors in this manuscript aimed  to identify the clinicopathological features and long-term
survival in young-onset colon cancer patients through a retrospective study.
It is a good idea and acceptable work presented by a fairly readable language.
My first comment is that the manuscript language should be revised by a native English writer as
it contains many errors regarding the grammar, punctuation, and even the phrases in some parts.
you should spell out any abbreviations when first used in the manuscript.
Regarding the manuscript contents:
1. the abstract is well written and informative but in the result section it is better to separate
overall survival and progression free survival percentages.
2. the background is concise but more or less informative
3. Materials and methods: why you select to analyze the data of young onset patients only...why
you did not compare it with data of old onset colon cancer which i think available for you and
will be more confirmative to your conclusion?
4.Results: in all your tables you compare stages I-III against  stage V but regarding survival
analysis you compare stages I-II against stage III and V....why?
When you analyze risk factors of survival you did not comment on the results of univariate
analysis and did not put the results of multivariate analysis in a separate table...why??
5. Discussion: is informative and sufficient but contains many statements that needs  language
revision.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Young adults with colon cancer: clinical features and surgical outcomes
Version: 0 Date: 04 Dec 2022
Reviewer:  Khaled Farid
Reviewer's report:
The authors in this manuscript aimed  to identify the clinicopathological features and long-term
survival in young-onset colon cancer patients through a retrospective study.
It is a good idea and acceptable work presented by a fairly readable language.
My first comment is that the manuscript language should be revised by a native English writer as
it contains many errors regarding the grammar, punctuation, and even the phrases in some parts.
you should spell out any abbreviations when first used in the manuscript.
Regarding the manuscript contents:
1. the abstract is well written and informative but in the result section it is better to separate
overall survival and progression free survival percentages.
2. the background is concise but more or less informative
3. Materials and methods: why you select to analyze the data of young onset patients only...why
you did not compare it with data of old onset colon cancer which i think available for you and
will be more confirmative to your conclusion?
4.Results: in all your tables you compare stages I-III against  stage V but regarding survival
analysis you compare stages I-II against stage III and V....why?
When you analyze risk factors of survival you did not comment on the results of univariate
analysis and did not put the results of multivariate analysis in a separate table...why??
5. Discussion: is informative and sufficient but contains many statements that needs  language
revision.
assistant