Title: The nomograph predicting the recurrence of Solid Pseudopapillary Neoplasm of the
Pancreas: a study of the SEER database and a Chinese cohort
Version: 2 Date: 17 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
Comments to author,
The author has appropriately responded to almost all of the previous reviewer's questions;
however, the current manuscript is still insufficient. Therefore, the author must adequately
address the following comments.
Major comments
1. The term "synchronous metastasis" in this manuscript is highly ambiguous and must be
defined more precisely. Does this refer to distant metastasis detected on preoperative imaging,
such as CT or MRI? Or does it refer to the presence of enlarged lymph nodes suspected of
metastasis? In Supplemental Table 1, the "synchronous metastasis" column for Case 3 is marked
as "vascular invasion." Does the author define vascular invasion in pathological findings as
"synchronous metastasis"? Or does this indicate a finding of direct invasions on preoperative
imaging? These findings represent ”invasion,” and "metastasis" is inappropriate. Generally,
"synchronous metastasis" refers to distant metastasis, such as to the liver or lungs, detected
before pancreatic resection. The definition of "synchronous metastasis" must be explicitly stated
in the Materials and Methods section.
2. In the section "Analysis of recurrence factors," "chemoradiotherapy" is listed as a univariate
risk factor. However, it must be clearly specified whether this refers to cases that underwent
chemoradiotherapy or those that did not.
3. In Figure 3, the p-value for age is 0.193, indicating no significant difference. Therefore, the
figure legend in Figure 3 is incorrect. The authors must create an appropriate Figure 3 in the
revised manuscript.
Minor comments
1. In Figure 4, appropriate spacing should be added between "tumorsize" and
"regionalnodespositive."
Title: The nomograph predicting the recurrence of Solid Pseudopapillary Neoplasm of the
Pancreas: a study of the SEER database and a Chinese cohort
Version: 2 Date: 17 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
Comments to author,
The author has appropriately responded to almost all of the previous reviewer's questions;
however, the current manuscript is still insufficient. Therefore, the author must adequately
address the following comments.
Major comments
1. The term "synchronous metastasis" in this manuscript is highly ambiguous and must be
defined more precisely. Does this refer to distant metastasis detected on preoperative imaging,
such as CT or MRI? Or does it refer to the presence of enlarged lymph nodes suspected of
metastasis? In Supplemental Table 1, the "synchronous metastasis" column for Case 3 is marked
as "vascular invasion." Does the author define vascular invasion in pathological findings as
"synchronous metastasis"? Or does this indicate a finding of direct invasions on preoperative
imaging? These findings represent ”invasion,” and "metastasis" is inappropriate. Generally,
"synchronous metastasis" refers to distant metastasis, such as to the liver or lungs, detected
before pancreatic resection. The definition of "synchronous metastasis" must be explicitly stated
in the Materials and Methods section.
2. In the section "Analysis of recurrence factors," "chemoradiotherapy" is listed as a univariate
risk factor. However, it must be clearly specified whether this refers to cases that underwent
chemoradiotherapy or those that did not.
3. In Figure 3, the p-value for age is 0.193, indicating no significant difference. Therefore, the
figure legend in Figure 3 is incorrect. The authors must create an appropriate Figure 3 in the
revised manuscript.
Minor comments
1. In Figure 4, appropriate spacing should be added between "tumorsize" and
"regionalnodespositive."
Please review this paper.
user
Title: The nomograph predicting the recurrence of Solid Pseudopapillary Neoplasm of the
Pancreas: a study of the SEER database and a Chinese cohort
Version: 2 Date: 17 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
Comments to author,
The author has appropriately responded to almost all of the previous reviewer's questions;
however, the current manuscript is still insufficient. Therefore, the author must adequately
address the following comments.
Major comments
1. The term "synchronous metastasis" in this manuscript is highly ambiguous and must be
defined more precisely. Does this refer to distant metastasis detected on preoperative imaging,
such as CT or MRI? Or does it refer to the presence of enlarged lymph nodes suspected of
metastasis? In Supplemental Table 1, the "synchronous metastasis" column for Case 3 is marked
as "vascular invasion." Does the author define vascular invasion in pathological findings as
"synchronous metastasis"? Or does this indicate a finding of direct invasions on preoperative
imaging? These findings represent ”invasion,” and "metastasis" is inappropriate. Generally,
"synchronous metastasis" refers to distant metastasis, such as to the liver or lungs, detected
before pancreatic resection. The definition of "synchronous metastasis" must be explicitly stated
in the Materials and Methods section.
2. In the section "Analysis of recurrence factors," "chemoradiotherapy" is listed as a univariate
risk factor. However, it must be clearly specified whether this refers to cases that underwent
chemoradiotherapy or those that did not.
3. In Figure 3, the p-value for age is 0.193, indicating no significant difference. Therefore, the
figure legend in Figure 3 is incorrect. The authors must create an appropriate Figure 3 in the
revised manuscript.
Minor comments
1. In Figure 4, appropriate spacing should be added between "tumorsize" and
"regionalnodespositive."
assistant