Title: Tumor size as a significant prognostic factor in T1 gastric cancer: a Surveillance,
Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Database analysis
Version: 4 Date: 01 Feb 2023
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript uses public databases to explore the value of tumor size in the prognosis
of gastric cancer. This study has certain innovation, language expression is standardized, the
workload is relatively sufficient, and the statistical analysis method is reasonable and effective.
It showed promising application for complementary method of determining the prognosis of
gastric cancer. Therefore, I think this paper can be accepted after addressing several major issues
as noted below:
1. In section of Abstract, does “Uni and multi regression analysis” means to univariate and
multivariate cox regression in the following text?
2. Acronyms only need to be listed at first occurrence, and some are repeated in the article. Such
as CSS and OS on line 87.
3. On line 97, Why 68 years old was chosen as the cut-off value? And why should marital status
be included in the patient's general profile? Are there any special considerations?
4. The authors claim that tumor size is an independent risk factor for patient prognosis, but do
not give a cut-off value for tumor size. The authors should consider calculating a clear tumor size
cut-off in patients with different T stages and then plotting survival curves to analyze differences
in prognosis in patients, which may make the article more readable.
5. This work only makes some speculations based on public data, there is still a lot of work
that needs to be studied and supplemented, and as a stage work, this article needs to express the
shortcomings in the research.
Title: Tumor size as a significant prognostic factor in T1 gastric cancer: a Surveillance,
Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Database analysis
Version: 4 Date: 01 Feb 2023
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript uses public databases to explore the value of tumor size in the prognosis
of gastric cancer. This study has certain innovation, language expression is standardized, the
workload is relatively sufficient, and the statistical analysis method is reasonable and effective.
It showed promising application for complementary method of determining the prognosis of
gastric cancer. Therefore, I think this paper can be accepted after addressing several major issues
as noted below:
1. In section of Abstract, does “Uni and multi regression analysis” means to univariate and
multivariate cox regression in the following text?
2. Acronyms only need to be listed at first occurrence, and some are repeated in the article. Such
as CSS and OS on line 87.
3. On line 97, Why 68 years old was chosen as the cut-off value? And why should marital status
be included in the patient's general profile? Are there any special considerations?
4. The authors claim that tumor size is an independent risk factor for patient prognosis, but do
not give a cut-off value for tumor size. The authors should consider calculating a clear tumor size
cut-off in patients with different T stages and then plotting survival curves to analyze differences
in prognosis in patients, which may make the article more readable.
5. This work only makes some speculations based on public data, there is still a lot of work
that needs to be studied and supplemented, and as a stage work, this article needs to express the
shortcomings in the research.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Tumor size as a significant prognostic factor in T1 gastric cancer: a Surveillance,
Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Database analysis
Version: 4 Date: 01 Feb 2023
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript uses public databases to explore the value of tumor size in the prognosis
of gastric cancer. This study has certain innovation, language expression is standardized, the
workload is relatively sufficient, and the statistical analysis method is reasonable and effective.
It showed promising application for complementary method of determining the prognosis of
gastric cancer. Therefore, I think this paper can be accepted after addressing several major issues
as noted below:
1. In section of Abstract, does “Uni and multi regression analysis” means to univariate and
multivariate cox regression in the following text?
2. Acronyms only need to be listed at first occurrence, and some are repeated in the article. Such
as CSS and OS on line 87.
3. On line 97, Why 68 years old was chosen as the cut-off value? And why should marital status
be included in the patient's general profile? Are there any special considerations?
4. The authors claim that tumor size is an independent risk factor for patient prognosis, but do
not give a cut-off value for tumor size. The authors should consider calculating a clear tumor size
cut-off in patients with different T stages and then plotting survival curves to analyze differences
in prognosis in patients, which may make the article more readable.
5. This work only makes some speculations based on public data, there is still a lot of work
that needs to be studied and supplemented, and as a stage work, this article needs to express the
shortcomings in the research.
assistant