Title: Endoscopic Resection of Rectal Neuroendocrine Tumors: Zero Disease-Related Deaths
During a 10-Year Follow-up Period
Version: 2 Date: 04 Dec 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review this article. Authors described long-term
prognosis of endoscopically resected rectal NET. There are very few studies that provide data on
the clinical course over a follow-up period of more than 10 years. Therefore,  this manuscript is
valuable and provides meaningful contributions to clinical practice, however, there are several
concerns for publication in its current form.
Major Points
1. The authors limited their analysis to patients who underwent endoscopic resection between
1999 and 2012 and had a follow-up of over 10 years. This approach may have inadvertently
excluded cases with recurrence or death within 10 years, which could underestimate the risk of
rNET. The authors should also include data on cases with shorter follow-up periods.
2. Given the points raised above, the statement in the conclusion, "The endoscopically resected
rNETs did not affect the 10-year survival rate of the patients," is an  overstatement.
3. In this study, only a few non-CR cases underwent additional surgery. The authors should
discuss why the rate of additional surgical resection was lower compared to the rates reported
in clinical practice as cited in the references.
4. Detail pathological findings of the cases that underwent additional resection should be
provided.
5. Were D2-40 and EVG staining performed at the time of treatment, or were they additional
stains conducted specifically for this study?
Minor Points
• The in-text citation numbers and the content of the references do not match. Please ensure that
the correct numbers are assigned to the references.
Title: Endoscopic Resection of Rectal Neuroendocrine Tumors: Zero Disease-Related Deaths
During a 10-Year Follow-up Period
Version: 2 Date: 04 Dec 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review this article. Authors described long-term
prognosis of endoscopically resected rectal NET. There are very few studies that provide data on
the clinical course over a follow-up period of more than 10 years. Therefore,  this manuscript is
valuable and provides meaningful contributions to clinical practice, however, there are several
concerns for publication in its current form.
Major Points
1. The authors limited their analysis to patients who underwent endoscopic resection between
1999 and 2012 and had a follow-up of over 10 years. This approach may have inadvertently
excluded cases with recurrence or death within 10 years, which could underestimate the risk of
rNET. The authors should also include data on cases with shorter follow-up periods.
2. Given the points raised above, the statement in the conclusion, "The endoscopically resected
rNETs did not affect the 10-year survival rate of the patients," is an  overstatement.
3. In this study, only a few non-CR cases underwent additional surgery. The authors should
discuss why the rate of additional surgical resection was lower compared to the rates reported
in clinical practice as cited in the references.
4. Detail pathological findings of the cases that underwent additional resection should be
provided.
5. Were D2-40 and EVG staining performed at the time of treatment, or were they additional
stains conducted specifically for this study?
Minor Points
• The in-text citation numbers and the content of the references do not match. Please ensure that
the correct numbers are assigned to the references.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Endoscopic Resection of Rectal Neuroendocrine Tumors: Zero Disease-Related Deaths
During a 10-Year Follow-up Period
Version: 2 Date: 04 Dec 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review this article. Authors described long-term
prognosis of endoscopically resected rectal NET. There are very few studies that provide data on
the clinical course over a follow-up period of more than 10 years. Therefore,  this manuscript is
valuable and provides meaningful contributions to clinical practice, however, there are several
concerns for publication in its current form.
Major Points
1. The authors limited their analysis to patients who underwent endoscopic resection between
1999 and 2012 and had a follow-up of over 10 years. This approach may have inadvertently
excluded cases with recurrence or death within 10 years, which could underestimate the risk of
rNET. The authors should also include data on cases with shorter follow-up periods.
2. Given the points raised above, the statement in the conclusion, "The endoscopically resected
rNETs did not affect the 10-year survival rate of the patients," is an  overstatement.
3. In this study, only a few non-CR cases underwent additional surgery. The authors should
discuss why the rate of additional surgical resection was lower compared to the rates reported
in clinical practice as cited in the references.
4. Detail pathological findings of the cases that underwent additional resection should be
provided.
5. Were D2-40 and EVG staining performed at the time of treatment, or were they additional
stains conducted specifically for this study?
Minor Points
• The in-text citation numbers and the content of the references do not match. Please ensure that
the correct numbers are assigned to the references.
assistant