Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Risk stratification for predicting postoperative recurrence/metastasis of
colorectal cancer by grade of venous invasion coupled with histological subtype
Version: 
0 
Date: 
04 Nov 2021
Reviewer: 
Jamshid Abdul-Ghafar
Reviewer's report:
A good study by Yasuo Imai and Masanori Ichinose about the effects of
histopathological subtypes and venous invasion on colorectal carcinoma. Even
though the effect of venous invasion on the prognosis and metastasis of cancers
of different organs are clear with many published papers about it, but the focus
of this study on different histopathologic types of CRC along with venous
invasion is very interesting topic. I have some minor points to be revise:
1. The Title of study is not clear. It should describe your finding (like high grade
venous invasion and/or poorly differentiated histopathologic type have what kind
of effect on the prognosis and/or metastasis of CRC). I recommend to revise the
title.
2. In the Background section, there is no citation on line 7 to 12. Also, I think
this is a very basic information and you do not need to explain it here. 
3. Information regarding the subtypes of CRC, venous and lymphatic invasions
are less in the background section. I recommend to add some more information
about these points.
4. Can you explain the reason why you have selected cases from different years
from 3 hospitals? 
5. Why did you used old versions of WHO and AJCC books, while the new
versions are already in the market?
6. I recommend English spelling and grammar revision as well. You have use
abbreviation with full word in the first time, P for p-value should be small letter
and italic and many more small corrections needed.
7. Figures quality is very low and difficult to see. I recommend to change them
with higher quality figures.
Publons Reviewer Recognition
. Springer Nature can send verification of this
review directly to Publons (a subsidiary of Clarivate Analytics). If you would
like to take advantage of this service, please click on the “Yes” option below.
Your name, email address, title of the reviewed manuscript, name of the journal,
and date of your review submission (the “Review Data”) will then be transmitted
to Publons after the final decision on the manuscript has been made. If you have
already registered at Publons, they will notify you of the receipt of this review
and update your profile 
as per your settings and their policy. If you are not
registered with Publons, you will receive an email from them asking you to
register in order for them to be able to recognize your review on your new
profile page. Publons may use the Review Data to generate derivative metadata
for the benefit of Publons and you as a reviewer, carefully considering the
sensitivity of such information. For example, Publons may verify your record as
a reviewer by updating your profile published on its webservice if you have
registered for such service or help editors to identify candidate reviewers. Please
find the details of processing in Publons’ privacy policy
https://publons.com/about/terms
Yes
Declaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing
interests, considering the following questions:
1
. 
Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or
salary from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially
from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
2
. 
Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way
gain or lose financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now
or in the future?
3
. 
Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the
content of the manuscript?
4
. 
Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an
organization that holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of
the manuscript?
5
. 
Do you have any other financial competing interests?
6
. 
Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this
paper?
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing
interests' below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Reviewer Publication Consent.
 I agree for my report to be made available
under an Open Access Creative Commons CC-BY License (
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
) if this manuscript is accepted for
publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the published
report have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not
be published.
If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the
editorial office before completing the review.
If you wish, you can include your
name in your published report. Please note you must decide whether to include
your name at the start of the process and confirm this decision whenever
prompted. If you change your decision later, we will not be able to publish your
name.
I agree to the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 license; please publish my name with my
report.
Is the study design appropriate to answer the research question (including the use
of appropriate controls), and are the conclusions supported by the evidence
presented?
Yes
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?
Yes
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
Yes
Is the presentation of the work clear?
Yes
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
No
Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Risk stratification for predicting postoperative recurrence/metastasis of
colorectal cancer by grade of venous invasion coupled with histological subtype
Version: 
0 
Date: 
04 Nov 2021
Reviewer: 
Jamshid Abdul-Ghafar
Reviewer's report:
A good study by Yasuo Imai and Masanori Ichinose about the effects of
histopathological subtypes and venous invasion on colorectal carcinoma. Even
though the effect of venous invasion on the prognosis and metastasis of cancers
of different organs are clear with many published papers about it, but the focus
of this study on different histopathologic types of CRC along with venous
invasion is very interesting topic. I have some minor points to be revise:
1. The Title of study is not clear. It should describe your finding (like high grade
venous invasion and/or poorly differentiated histopathologic type have what kind
of effect on the prognosis and/or metastasis of CRC). I recommend to revise the
title.
2. In the Background section, there is no citation on line 7 to 12. Also, I think
this is a very basic information and you do not need to explain it here. 
3. Information regarding the subtypes of CRC, venous and lymphatic invasions
are less in the background section. I recommend to add some more information
about these points.
4. Can you explain the reason why you have selected cases from different years
from 3 hospitals? 
5. Why did you used old versions of WHO and AJCC books, while the new
versions are already in the market?
6. I recommend English spelling and grammar revision as well. You have use
abbreviation with full word in the first time, P for p-value should be small letter
and italic and many more small corrections needed.
7. Figures quality is very low and difficult to see. I recommend to change them
with higher quality figures.
Publons Reviewer Recognition
. Springer Nature can send verification of this
review directly to Publons (a subsidiary of Clarivate Analytics). If you would
like to take advantage of this service, please click on the “Yes” option below.
Your name, email address, title of the reviewed manuscript, name of the journal,
and date of your review submission (the “Review Data”) will then be transmitted
to Publons after the final decision on the manuscript has been made. If you have
already registered at Publons, they will notify you of the receipt of this review
and update your profile 
as per your settings and their policy. If you are not
registered with Publons, you will receive an email from them asking you to
register in order for them to be able to recognize your review on your new
profile page. Publons may use the Review Data to generate derivative metadata
for the benefit of Publons and you as a reviewer, carefully considering the
sensitivity of such information. For example, Publons may verify your record as
a reviewer by updating your profile published on its webservice if you have
registered for such service or help editors to identify candidate reviewers. Please
find the details of processing in Publons’ privacy policy
https://publons.com/about/terms
Yes
Declaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing
interests, considering the following questions:
1
. 
Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or
salary from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially
from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
2
. 
Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way
gain or lose financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now
or in the future?
3
. 
Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the
content of the manuscript?
4
. 
Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an
organization that holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of
the manuscript?
5
. 
Do you have any other financial competing interests?
6
. 
Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this
paper?
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing
interests' below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Reviewer Publication Consent.
 I agree for my report to be made available
under an Open Access Creative Commons CC-BY License (
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
) if this manuscript is accepted for
publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the published
report have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not
be published.
If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the
editorial office before completing the review.
If you wish, you can include your
name in your published report. Please note you must decide whether to include
your name at the start of the process and confirm this decision whenever
prompted. If you change your decision later, we will not be able to publish your
name.
I agree to the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 license; please publish my name with my
report.
Is the study design appropriate to answer the research question (including the use
of appropriate controls), and are the conclusions supported by the evidence
presented?
Yes
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?
Yes
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
Yes
Is the presentation of the work clear?
Yes
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
No
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Risk stratification for predicting postoperative recurrence/metastasis of
colorectal cancer by grade of venous invasion coupled with histological subtype
Version: 
0 
Date: 
04 Nov 2021
Reviewer: 
Jamshid Abdul-Ghafar
Reviewer's report:
A good study by Yasuo Imai and Masanori Ichinose about the effects of
histopathological subtypes and venous invasion on colorectal carcinoma. Even
though the effect of venous invasion on the prognosis and metastasis of cancers
of different organs are clear with many published papers about it, but the focus
of this study on different histopathologic types of CRC along with venous
invasion is very interesting topic. I have some minor points to be revise:
1. The Title of study is not clear. It should describe your finding (like high grade
venous invasion and/or poorly differentiated histopathologic type have what kind
of effect on the prognosis and/or metastasis of CRC). I recommend to revise the
title.
2. In the Background section, there is no citation on line 7 to 12. Also, I think
this is a very basic information and you do not need to explain it here. 
3. Information regarding the subtypes of CRC, venous and lymphatic invasions
are less in the background section. I recommend to add some more information
about these points.
4. Can you explain the reason why you have selected cases from different years
from 3 hospitals? 
5. Why did you used old versions of WHO and AJCC books, while the new
versions are already in the market?
6. I recommend English spelling and grammar revision as well. You have use
abbreviation with full word in the first time, P for p-value should be small letter
and italic and many more small corrections needed.
7. Figures quality is very low and difficult to see. I recommend to change them
with higher quality figures.
Publons Reviewer Recognition
. Springer Nature can send verification of this
review directly to Publons (a subsidiary of Clarivate Analytics). If you would
like to take advantage of this service, please click on the “Yes” option below.
Your name, email address, title of the reviewed manuscript, name of the journal,
and date of your review submission (the “Review Data”) will then be transmitted
to Publons after the final decision on the manuscript has been made. If you have
already registered at Publons, they will notify you of the receipt of this review
and update your profile 
as per your settings and their policy. If you are not
registered with Publons, you will receive an email from them asking you to
register in order for them to be able to recognize your review on your new
profile page. Publons may use the Review Data to generate derivative metadata
for the benefit of Publons and you as a reviewer, carefully considering the
sensitivity of such information. For example, Publons may verify your record as
a reviewer by updating your profile published on its webservice if you have
registered for such service or help editors to identify candidate reviewers. Please
find the details of processing in Publons’ privacy policy
https://publons.com/about/terms
Yes
Declaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing
interests, considering the following questions:
1
. 
Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or
salary from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially
from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
2
. 
Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way
gain or lose financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now
or in the future?
3
. 
Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the
content of the manuscript?
4
. 
Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an
organization that holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of
the manuscript?
5
. 
Do you have any other financial competing interests?
6
. 
Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this
paper?
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing
interests' below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Reviewer Publication Consent.
 I agree for my report to be made available
under an Open Access Creative Commons CC-BY License (
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
) if this manuscript is accepted for
publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the published
report have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not
be published.
If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the
editorial office before completing the review.
If you wish, you can include your
name in your published report. Please note you must decide whether to include
your name at the start of the process and confirm this decision whenever
prompted. If you change your decision later, we will not be able to publish your
name.
I agree to the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 license; please publish my name with my
report.
Is the study design appropriate to answer the research question (including the use
of appropriate controls), and are the conclusions supported by the evidence
presented?
Yes
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?
Yes
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
Yes
Is the presentation of the work clear?
Yes
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
No
assistant