Reviewer's report
Title:Analysis of cell cycle-related proteins in gastric intramucosal
differentiated-type cancers based on mucin phenotypes: a new concept of
molecular carcinogenesis for early differentiated-type gastric cancers
Version: 1Date:22 November 2009
Reviewer: Byung Lee
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. Results, page 9, paragraph 1: the explanation about male/female ratio is
reversed. The description is the opposite of the data in Figure 2.
2. Discussion, paragraph 3, line 4: Is “Fig 5” mentioned in line 4 missing or does
it mean “Fig 4”?
Minor Essential Revisions
1. Most pathologists understand the discrepancy of cancer criteria between
Japan and Western countries. The cases shown in figure 1 and in figure 3 could
be tubular adenomas in most of the Western pathologists. If those cases do not
have lymph node metastasis as the authors believe, why those cases should be
called “cancer” rather than “precancerous lesion” (especially those cases of low
nuclear grade)?
2. Results, page 9, paragraph 2: Authors need to mention Figure 2 for the results
of cdx2 immunohistochemistry.
3. Figure 2: Arrows pointing upward or downward needs to be explained.
In addition, authors need to add the unit of the numbers by the vertical axis of
Figure 2.
4. Figure legends, page 25; The explanation for figure 2 is unclear.
5. Figure 3: Authors are recommended to rearrange the labels (a-h) in the same
location in each figure.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:Analysis of cell cycle-related proteins in gastric intramucosal
differentiated-type cancers based on mucin phenotypes: a new concept of
molecular carcinogenesis for early differentiated-type gastric cancers
Version: 1Date:22 November 2009
Reviewer: Byung Lee
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. Results, page 9, paragraph 1: the explanation about male/female ratio is
reversed. The description is the opposite of the data in Figure 2.
2. Discussion, paragraph 3, line 4: Is “Fig 5” mentioned in line 4 missing or does
it mean “Fig 4”?
Minor Essential Revisions
1. Most pathologists understand the discrepancy of cancer criteria between
Japan and Western countries. The cases shown in figure 1 and in figure 3 could
be tubular adenomas in most of the Western pathologists. If those cases do not
have lymph node metastasis as the authors believe, why those cases should be
called “cancer” rather than “precancerous lesion” (especially those cases of low
nuclear grade)?
2. Results, page 9, paragraph 2: Authors need to mention Figure 2 for the results
of cdx2 immunohistochemistry.
3. Figure 2: Arrows pointing upward or downward needs to be explained.
In addition, authors need to add the unit of the numbers by the vertical axis of
Figure 2.
4. Figure legends, page 25; The explanation for figure 2 is unclear.
5. Figure 3: Authors are recommended to rearrange the labels (a-h) in the same
location in each figure.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Analysis of cell cycle-related proteins in gastric intramucosal
differentiated-type cancers based on mucin phenotypes: a new concept of
molecular carcinogenesis for early differentiated-type gastric cancers
Version: 1Date:22 November 2009
Reviewer: Byung Lee
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. Results, page 9, paragraph 1: the explanation about male/female ratio is
reversed. The description is the opposite of the data in Figure 2.
2. Discussion, paragraph 3, line 4: Is “Fig 5” mentioned in line 4 missing or does
it mean “Fig 4”?
Minor Essential Revisions
1. Most pathologists understand the discrepancy of cancer criteria between
Japan and Western countries. The cases shown in figure 1 and in figure 3 could
be tubular adenomas in most of the Western pathologists. If those cases do not
have lymph node metastasis as the authors believe, why those cases should be
called “cancer” rather than “precancerous lesion” (especially those cases of low
nuclear grade)?
2. Results, page 9, paragraph 2: Authors need to mention Figure 2 for the results
of cdx2 immunohistochemistry.
3. Figure 2: Arrows pointing upward or downward needs to be explained.
In addition, authors need to add the unit of the numbers by the vertical axis of
Figure 2.
4. Figure legends, page 25; The explanation for figure 2 is unclear.
5. Figure 3: Authors are recommended to rearrange the labels (a-h) in the same
location in each figure.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
assistant