Title: Prognosis Prediction in Esophageal Signet-Ring-Cell Carcinoma: A competing risk
analysis
Version: 2 Date: 15 Apr 2023
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript presents interesting risk nomogram model for esophageal signet-ring-cell
carcinoma which is very rare histologic type in esophageal cancer.
I have some question for this manuscript as indicated below.
1) Once the author has defined the abbreviation of “Esophageal Signet-ring cell carcinoma” as
ESRCC in Page 2, the terms that appears in subsequent sentences (Page 2 and 3) should use
that abbreviation.
2) I think that signet ring cell carcinoma is a special subtype of poorly differentiated
adenocarcinoma, and which is defined as differentiated grade III (or IV). Although the subject
include grade of differentiation I-II, does this mean that patients with even a small amount of
signet-ring-cell carcinoma component are included in this study? Is that appropriate as a study
to examine the characteristics of signet-ring-cell carcinoma.
3) I think that the number of all include patients described in Line 2, Page 6, Line 24, Page 8
is incorrect.
4) In the first paragraph of 2.2 (Page 3-4), the covariates are described as “A and B” in the first
half, but described as “A or B” in the latter half, why not unify them?
5) About “which was exactly consistent with previous findings…” in Line 10, Page 10.
I think that this sentence gives a false impression because the cited articles reported a tendency
for higher incidence in men, but not a poor prognosis in men.
6) Do the results of this study suggest that being highly advanced Stage which is no indication of
surgery is a prognostic factor? Or, if there are ESRCC patients with same level of progression,
would patients receiving surgery have a worse prognosis?
7) Because surgery is one of the factors of this nomogram in the study, we can only use this
nomogram after we have opted for treatment. How the use of the nomogram for clinical decision
making?
I hope those comments will be helpful for the improvement of the article.
Title: Prognosis Prediction in Esophageal Signet-Ring-Cell Carcinoma: A competing risk
analysis
Version: 2 Date: 15 Apr 2023
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript presents interesting risk nomogram model for esophageal signet-ring-cell
carcinoma which is very rare histologic type in esophageal cancer.
I have some question for this manuscript as indicated below.
1) Once the author has defined the abbreviation of “Esophageal Signet-ring cell carcinoma” as
ESRCC in Page 2, the terms that appears in subsequent sentences (Page 2 and 3) should use
that abbreviation.
2) I think that signet ring cell carcinoma is a special subtype of poorly differentiated
adenocarcinoma, and which is defined as differentiated grade III (or IV). Although the subject
include grade of differentiation I-II, does this mean that patients with even a small amount of
signet-ring-cell carcinoma component are included in this study? Is that appropriate as a study
to examine the characteristics of signet-ring-cell carcinoma.
3) I think that the number of all include patients described in Line 2, Page 6, Line 24, Page 8
is incorrect.
4) In the first paragraph of 2.2 (Page 3-4), the covariates are described as “A and B” in the first
half, but described as “A or B” in the latter half, why not unify them?
5) About “which was exactly consistent with previous findings…” in Line 10, Page 10.
I think that this sentence gives a false impression because the cited articles reported a tendency
for higher incidence in men, but not a poor prognosis in men.
6) Do the results of this study suggest that being highly advanced Stage which is no indication of
surgery is a prognostic factor? Or, if there are ESRCC patients with same level of progression,
would patients receiving surgery have a worse prognosis?
7) Because surgery is one of the factors of this nomogram in the study, we can only use this
nomogram after we have opted for treatment. How the use of the nomogram for clinical decision
making?
I hope those comments will be helpful for the improvement of the article.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Prognosis Prediction in Esophageal Signet-Ring-Cell Carcinoma: A competing risk
analysis
Version: 2 Date: 15 Apr 2023
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript presents interesting risk nomogram model for esophageal signet-ring-cell
carcinoma which is very rare histologic type in esophageal cancer.
I have some question for this manuscript as indicated below.
1) Once the author has defined the abbreviation of “Esophageal Signet-ring cell carcinoma” as
ESRCC in Page 2, the terms that appears in subsequent sentences (Page 2 and 3) should use
that abbreviation.
2) I think that signet ring cell carcinoma is a special subtype of poorly differentiated
adenocarcinoma, and which is defined as differentiated grade III (or IV). Although the subject
include grade of differentiation I-II, does this mean that patients with even a small amount of
signet-ring-cell carcinoma component are included in this study? Is that appropriate as a study
to examine the characteristics of signet-ring-cell carcinoma.
3) I think that the number of all include patients described in Line 2, Page 6, Line 24, Page 8
is incorrect.
4) In the first paragraph of 2.2 (Page 3-4), the covariates are described as “A and B” in the first
half, but described as “A or B” in the latter half, why not unify them?
5) About “which was exactly consistent with previous findings…” in Line 10, Page 10.
I think that this sentence gives a false impression because the cited articles reported a tendency
for higher incidence in men, but not a poor prognosis in men.
6) Do the results of this study suggest that being highly advanced Stage which is no indication of
surgery is a prognostic factor? Or, if there are ESRCC patients with same level of progression,
would patients receiving surgery have a worse prognosis?
7) Because surgery is one of the factors of this nomogram in the study, we can only use this
nomogram after we have opted for treatment. How the use of the nomogram for clinical decision
making?
I hope those comments will be helpful for the improvement of the article.
assistant