Title: Endoscopic Resection of Rectal Neuroendocrine Tumors: Zero Disease-Related Deaths
During a 10-Year Follow-up Period
Version: 2 Date: 09 Dec 2024
Reviewer's report:
The paper of Hayashi et al represents an original article on the outcomes of endoscopic resection
for rectal NET. The work is well-written, with clear main text, and acceptable methodology.
The main point of strength is the long follow-up recorded, even if the relatively small number
of patients still limits the reproducibility of the data. In addition, a few points should be revised
and corrected.
Introduction:
The definition of rectal NET as benign carcinoid tumors is quite outdated, and they are currently
classified according to the WHO Classification that does not include the term “carcinoid”. I
suggest removing this sentence.
Methods
Clarify if follow-up imaging frequency was consistent among institutions.
Discussion
The recruitment involved a relevant number of Center, with a small number of patients for
each Institute, please address potential biases due to the retrospective design and variability in
follow-up procedures across institutions. Was a Multidiscipilinary team available in the different
hospitals?
Lines 205-206: The authors state “EMR methods include cEMR, mEMR, and ESD”. This is
incorrect as ESD is not a mucosal resection but a submucosal dissection, please correct
Figures
"R0 resection" is not explained in figure legends, please add brief definitions or context in figure
legends to improve clarity.
General comments
Please have the entire manuscript proof-read as there are spelling and language errors in the text.
Title: Endoscopic Resection of Rectal Neuroendocrine Tumors: Zero Disease-Related Deaths
During a 10-Year Follow-up Period
Version: 2 Date: 09 Dec 2024
Reviewer's report:
The paper of Hayashi et al represents an original article on the outcomes of endoscopic resection
for rectal NET. The work is well-written, with clear main text, and acceptable methodology.
The main point of strength is the long follow-up recorded, even if the relatively small number
of patients still limits the reproducibility of the data. In addition, a few points should be revised
and corrected.
Introduction:
The definition of rectal NET as benign carcinoid tumors is quite outdated, and they are currently
classified according to the WHO Classification that does not include the term “carcinoid”. I
suggest removing this sentence.
Methods
Clarify if follow-up imaging frequency was consistent among institutions.
Discussion
The recruitment involved a relevant number of Center, with a small number of patients for
each Institute, please address potential biases due to the retrospective design and variability in
follow-up procedures across institutions. Was a Multidiscipilinary team available in the different
hospitals?
Lines 205-206: The authors state “EMR methods include cEMR, mEMR, and ESD”. This is
incorrect as ESD is not a mucosal resection but a submucosal dissection, please correct
Figures
"R0 resection" is not explained in figure legends, please add brief definitions or context in figure
legends to improve clarity.
General comments
Please have the entire manuscript proof-read as there are spelling and language errors in the text.
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: 09 Dec 2024
Reviewer's report:
The paper of Hayashi et al represents an original article on the outcomes of endoscopic resection
for rectal NET. The work is well-written, with clear main text, and acceptable methodology.
The main point of strength is the long follow-up recorded, even if the relatively small number
of patients still limits the reproducibility of the data. In addition, a few points should be revised
and corrected.
Introduction:
The definition of rectal NET as benign carcinoid tumors is quite outdated, and they are currently
classified according to the WHO Classification that does not include the term “carcinoid”. I
suggest removing this sentence.
Methods
Clarify if follow-up imaging frequency was consistent among institutions.
Discussion
The recruitment involved a relevant number of Center, with a small number of patients for
each Institute, please address potential biases due to the retrospective design and variability in
follow-up procedures across institutions. Was a Multidiscipilinary team available in the different
hospitals?
Lines 205-206: The authors state “EMR methods include cEMR, mEMR, and ESD”. This is
incorrect as ESD is not a mucosal resection but a submucosal dissection, please correct
Figures
"R0 resection" is not explained in figure legends, please add brief definitions or context in figure
legends to improve clarity.
General comments
Please have the entire manuscript proof-read as there are spelling and language errors in the text.
assistant