Title: Immunohistochemical Staining for IMP3 in Patients with Duodenal Papilla Tumors:
Assessment of the Potential for Diagnosing Endoscopic Resectability and Predicting Prognosis
Version: 5 Date: 07 Apr 2021
Reviewer's report:
Thank you to the authors for addressing all comments from both reviewers and revising the
manuscript accordingly improving clarity.
Further comments on revised manuscript:
The revised method sections still leaves some uncertainty regarding patient selection and
pathological assessment of IPM3 immunohistochemistry:
1. What were the exact criteria for sufficient data that lead to only 25 out of 151 patients to be
included? Is it possible to include this into the flowchart?
2. Was percentage of IPM3 positive cells semiquantatively estimated by the two researchers or
was another method used?
Minor suggestions:
Abstract: Would it be worth specifying ‘no method’ in the second sentence as ‘However, there is
currently no reliable pre-operative method to diagnose the infiltration in the sphincter of Oddi.’?
Would it be best to replace ‘each carcinoma’ with something more appropriate such as ‘many’
or ‘several carcinoma types’?
Introduction: Might it be best to remove the word ‘level’ after T-stage? Is it worth specifying PD
as ‘a major invasive surgical procedure’ as strictly speaking an endoscopic papillectomy might
also be regarded as an invasive surgical procedure.
Results: What is meant by ‘degree of malignancy of the background tissue’ in the sentence: ‘The
distribution of IMP3-positive cells was relatively homogeneous within the tumor, regardless of
the degree of malignancy of the background tissue.’?
Title: Immunohistochemical Staining for IMP3 in Patients with Duodenal Papilla Tumors:
Assessment of the Potential for Diagnosing Endoscopic Resectability and Predicting Prognosis
Version: 5 Date: 07 Apr 2021
Reviewer's report:
Thank you to the authors for addressing all comments from both reviewers and revising the
manuscript accordingly improving clarity.
Further comments on revised manuscript:
The revised method sections still leaves some uncertainty regarding patient selection and
pathological assessment of IPM3 immunohistochemistry:
1. What were the exact criteria for sufficient data that lead to only 25 out of 151 patients to be
included? Is it possible to include this into the flowchart?
2. Was percentage of IPM3 positive cells semiquantatively estimated by the two researchers or
was another method used?
Minor suggestions:
Abstract: Would it be worth specifying ‘no method’ in the second sentence as ‘However, there is
currently no reliable pre-operative method to diagnose the infiltration in the sphincter of Oddi.’?
Would it be best to replace ‘each carcinoma’ with something more appropriate such as ‘many’
or ‘several carcinoma types’?
Introduction: Might it be best to remove the word ‘level’ after T-stage? Is it worth specifying PD
as ‘a major invasive surgical procedure’ as strictly speaking an endoscopic papillectomy might
also be regarded as an invasive surgical procedure.
Results: What is meant by ‘degree of malignancy of the background tissue’ in the sentence: ‘The
distribution of IMP3-positive cells was relatively homogeneous within the tumor, regardless of
the degree of malignancy of the background tissue.’?
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Immunohistochemical Staining for IMP3 in Patients with Duodenal Papilla Tumors:
Assessment of the Potential for Diagnosing Endoscopic Resectability and Predicting Prognosis
Version: 5 Date: 07 Apr 2021
Reviewer's report:
Thank you to the authors for addressing all comments from both reviewers and revising the
manuscript accordingly improving clarity.
Further comments on revised manuscript:
The revised method sections still leaves some uncertainty regarding patient selection and
pathological assessment of IPM3 immunohistochemistry:
1. What were the exact criteria for sufficient data that lead to only 25 out of 151 patients to be
included? Is it possible to include this into the flowchart?
2. Was percentage of IPM3 positive cells semiquantatively estimated by the two researchers or
was another method used?
Minor suggestions:
Abstract: Would it be worth specifying ‘no method’ in the second sentence as ‘However, there is
currently no reliable pre-operative method to diagnose the infiltration in the sphincter of Oddi.’?
Would it be best to replace ‘each carcinoma’ with something more appropriate such as ‘many’
or ‘several carcinoma types’?
Introduction: Might it be best to remove the word ‘level’ after T-stage? Is it worth specifying PD
as ‘a major invasive surgical procedure’ as strictly speaking an endoscopic papillectomy might
also be regarded as an invasive surgical procedure.
Results: What is meant by ‘degree of malignancy of the background tissue’ in the sentence: ‘The
distribution of IMP3-positive cells was relatively homogeneous within the tumor, regardless of
the degree of malignancy of the background tissue.’?
assistant