Title: The prognostic significance of tumor-specific growth factor in colorectal cancer: An
observation study
Version: 2 Date: 15 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
This study is interesting and organized by aims to evaluate the potential of tumor-specific growth
factor as a predictive marker for the prognosis of patients with colorectal cancer. However, there
are serious corrections need to be followed-up:
• The objective(s) of the study should be also mentioned in the end of “Background” section.
• The single-center with retrospective nature data collection increase selection bias, limiting
generalizability. Consider validating findings in a multi-center study.
• The study focuses only on 3-year overall survival without incorporating recurrence or
metastasis data. A longer follow-up would provide a more comprehensive prognostic evaluation.
• Although clinical characteristics were adjusted for, additional possible confounders, such as
treatment modalities and lifestyle factors, were not thoroughly investigated.
• The selection of 66 U/ml as the cutoff for high versus. low TSGF should be clarified in more
details (for example, based on previous studies or clinical relevance).
• More details are needed in “Methods” section. For example, what is a sampling method used
in? Who are the study population? What are the age ranges included in the study? Where was
the ethical approval obtained? What did the instruments use in the study?
• Some sentences are complex and could be simplified for better clarity. For example; in
“Discussion” section, "Prevailing research trajectories have predominantly concentrated on the
diagnostic utility and therapeutic implications of TSGF for both benign and malignant entities,
culminating in a notable dearth of inquiries into the prognostic relevance of TSGF among cancer
patients" could be rewritten in a more concise manner.
Title: The prognostic significance of tumor-specific growth factor in colorectal cancer: An
observation study
Version: 2 Date: 15 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
This study is interesting and organized by aims to evaluate the potential of tumor-specific growth
factor as a predictive marker for the prognosis of patients with colorectal cancer. However, there
are serious corrections need to be followed-up:
• The objective(s) of the study should be also mentioned in the end of “Background” section.
• The single-center with retrospective nature data collection increase selection bias, limiting
generalizability. Consider validating findings in a multi-center study.
• The study focuses only on 3-year overall survival without incorporating recurrence or
metastasis data. A longer follow-up would provide a more comprehensive prognostic evaluation.
• Although clinical characteristics were adjusted for, additional possible confounders, such as
treatment modalities and lifestyle factors, were not thoroughly investigated.
• The selection of 66 U/ml as the cutoff for high versus. low TSGF should be clarified in more
details (for example, based on previous studies or clinical relevance).
• More details are needed in “Methods” section. For example, what is a sampling method used
in? Who are the study population? What are the age ranges included in the study? Where was
the ethical approval obtained? What did the instruments use in the study?
• Some sentences are complex and could be simplified for better clarity. For example; in
“Discussion” section, "Prevailing research trajectories have predominantly concentrated on the
diagnostic utility and therapeutic implications of TSGF for both benign and malignant entities,
culminating in a notable dearth of inquiries into the prognostic relevance of TSGF among cancer
patients" could be rewritten in a more concise manner.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: The prognostic significance of tumor-specific growth factor in colorectal cancer: An
observation study
Version: 2 Date: 15 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
This study is interesting and organized by aims to evaluate the potential of tumor-specific growth
factor as a predictive marker for the prognosis of patients with colorectal cancer. However, there
are serious corrections need to be followed-up:
• The objective(s) of the study should be also mentioned in the end of “Background” section.
• The single-center with retrospective nature data collection increase selection bias, limiting
generalizability. Consider validating findings in a multi-center study.
• The study focuses only on 3-year overall survival without incorporating recurrence or
metastasis data. A longer follow-up would provide a more comprehensive prognostic evaluation.
• Although clinical characteristics were adjusted for, additional possible confounders, such as
treatment modalities and lifestyle factors, were not thoroughly investigated.
• The selection of 66 U/ml as the cutoff for high versus. low TSGF should be clarified in more
details (for example, based on previous studies or clinical relevance).
• More details are needed in “Methods” section. For example, what is a sampling method used
in? Who are the study population? What are the age ranges included in the study? Where was
the ethical approval obtained? What did the instruments use in the study?
• Some sentences are complex and could be simplified for better clarity. For example; in
“Discussion” section, "Prevailing research trajectories have predominantly concentrated on the
diagnostic utility and therapeutic implications of TSGF for both benign and malignant entities,
culminating in a notable dearth of inquiries into the prognostic relevance of TSGF among cancer
patients" could be rewritten in a more concise manner.
assistant