Title: Risk factors for pathological upgrading and noncurative resection in patients with gastric
mucosal lesions after endoscopic submucosal dissection
Version: 1 Date: 23 May 2024
Reviewer:  Panagiotis Tsibouris
Reviewer's report:
Evaluation of risk factors for pathologic upgrading and non curative resection of gastric lesions
undergoing ESD is a hot topic in early gastric cancer and HGD  treatment  The authors can
reduce the size of their abstract introduction and provide more details in results and method.
In the results its better to present only the results of multivariate analysis so that their is no
confusion  Conclusions can also be  brief  The authors should define criteria for the number
of speciments recieved from each lesion Was it the practicality, fear of fibrosis, macroscopic
appearance , or any other factor that guided their decision. They should also define if the
endoscopist has given any data on the appearnce of the lesion using any criteria (using Kudo,
NICE  or any other classification) Was there any difference between cases were NBI and WLE
were used in the effeciency and diadnostic precision ? If NBI was used in high enough number
of cases these data should be presented as well .  Diagnostic accuracy for EFB in comparison
to ESD should be calculated as well  ESD tecnique should be described in more details. Were
there any patients excluded due to poor performance status? Possible commorbidities other than
those described  (cognitive impairment, psychosis, lactation, or a history of malignancy) were
included ? Poor life expectancy extreme age or poor performance status not permiting endoscopy
werenot exclusion criteria? Pathologic techniques and biomarkers requested if any should be
defined at least in brief.  Percentages should be calculated for all parameters presenting in the
results Only significant parameters should be presented in the text The others should appear
in the Tables. The last paragraph should present the three factors that are significant and they
appear once. Discussion should be adjusted accordingly The first paragraph should provide a
brief precis and the rest should compare study findings to medical literature  with speculations
about possible causalities
Title: Risk factors for pathological upgrading and noncurative resection in patients with gastric
mucosal lesions after endoscopic submucosal dissection
Version: 1 Date: 23 May 2024
Reviewer:  Panagiotis Tsibouris
Reviewer's report:
Evaluation of risk factors for pathologic upgrading and non curative resection of gastric lesions
undergoing ESD is a hot topic in early gastric cancer and HGD  treatment  The authors can
reduce the size of their abstract introduction and provide more details in results and method.
In the results its better to present only the results of multivariate analysis so that their is no
confusion  Conclusions can also be  brief  The authors should define criteria for the number
of speciments recieved from each lesion Was it the practicality, fear of fibrosis, macroscopic
appearance , or any other factor that guided their decision. They should also define if the
endoscopist has given any data on the appearnce of the lesion using any criteria (using Kudo,
NICE  or any other classification) Was there any difference between cases were NBI and WLE
were used in the effeciency and diadnostic precision ? If NBI was used in high enough number
of cases these data should be presented as well .  Diagnostic accuracy for EFB in comparison
to ESD should be calculated as well  ESD tecnique should be described in more details. Were
there any patients excluded due to poor performance status? Possible commorbidities other than
those described  (cognitive impairment, psychosis, lactation, or a history of malignancy) were
included ? Poor life expectancy extreme age or poor performance status not permiting endoscopy
werenot exclusion criteria? Pathologic techniques and biomarkers requested if any should be
defined at least in brief.  Percentages should be calculated for all parameters presenting in the
results Only significant parameters should be presented in the text The others should appear
in the Tables. The last paragraph should present the three factors that are significant and they
appear once. Discussion should be adjusted accordingly The first paragraph should provide a
brief precis and the rest should compare study findings to medical literature  with speculations
about possible causalities
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Risk factors for pathological upgrading and noncurative resection in patients with gastric
mucosal lesions after endoscopic submucosal dissection
Version: 1 Date: 23 May 2024
Reviewer:  Panagiotis Tsibouris
Reviewer's report:
Evaluation of risk factors for pathologic upgrading and non curative resection of gastric lesions
undergoing ESD is a hot topic in early gastric cancer and HGD  treatment  The authors can
reduce the size of their abstract introduction and provide more details in results and method.
In the results its better to present only the results of multivariate analysis so that their is no
confusion  Conclusions can also be  brief  The authors should define criteria for the number
of speciments recieved from each lesion Was it the practicality, fear of fibrosis, macroscopic
appearance , or any other factor that guided their decision. They should also define if the
endoscopist has given any data on the appearnce of the lesion using any criteria (using Kudo,
NICE  or any other classification) Was there any difference between cases were NBI and WLE
were used in the effeciency and diadnostic precision ? If NBI was used in high enough number
of cases these data should be presented as well .  Diagnostic accuracy for EFB in comparison
to ESD should be calculated as well  ESD tecnique should be described in more details. Were
there any patients excluded due to poor performance status? Possible commorbidities other than
those described  (cognitive impairment, psychosis, lactation, or a history of malignancy) were
included ? Poor life expectancy extreme age or poor performance status not permiting endoscopy
werenot exclusion criteria? Pathologic techniques and biomarkers requested if any should be
defined at least in brief.  Percentages should be calculated for all parameters presenting in the
results Only significant parameters should be presented in the text The others should appear
in the Tables. The last paragraph should present the three factors that are significant and they
appear once. Discussion should be adjusted accordingly The first paragraph should provide a
brief precis and the rest should compare study findings to medical literature  with speculations
about possible causalities
assistant