Title: Long-term prognosis of curative endoscopic submucosal dissection for early colorectal
cancer according to submucosal invasion: A multicenter cohort study
Version: 1 Date: 02 Aug 2022
Reviewer's report:
Shin J et al. reported the results of multicenter retrospective study for long term prognosis of
early colorectal cancers treated by endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). They emphasized
good recurrence free survival rate in curative resection group. Almost previous reports of long
term prognosis were form single center, so this report seemed to be valuable. However, results
of them were as we predicted without remarkable knowledge. I will propose some suggestion
to improve manuscripts.
Major comments
1) In abstract, inclusion period was between 2003 and 2015. On the other hand, in method
section, it was between 2003 and 2013. Which period was correct?
2) In method, sub category surveillance after ESD, please describe about interval of CT and
tumor markers.
3) In results, they described all included cases were stage #. However, in UICC and JSCCR, Tis
N0 M0 was classified as Stage 0. Please re-confirm about them.
4) In results, they did not describe about morphology of included cases in main text and table
1. Morphology data seemed to be essential for investigation of colorectal ESD. Please add their
information.
5) They should insert figure 1 into result section. Moreover, please add information after non
curative resection such as additional surgery and recurrence.
6) In result section and table 1, type of recurrence such as local, regional and distant should
be presented separately. For readers, type of recurrence was important information comparing
with previous reports.
7) In figure 2 and 3, please add information of number at risk instead of number at event.
8) In discussion (page 13, line 260~262), contents of significant factors associated with
recurrence are different from original article of Oka S et al in AJG. Please re-confirm it.
Minor comments
1# In page 11, line 216, spell of discussion was misspelled.
2# In page 12, line 238, mm2 should be changed to mm2.
3# In reference, essential information of ref. 20 were lacked.
Title: Long-term prognosis of curative endoscopic submucosal dissection for early colorectal
cancer according to submucosal invasion: A multicenter cohort study
Version: 1 Date: 02 Aug 2022
Reviewer's report:
Shin J et al. reported the results of multicenter retrospective study for long term prognosis of
early colorectal cancers treated by endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). They emphasized
good recurrence free survival rate in curative resection group. Almost previous reports of long
term prognosis were form single center, so this report seemed to be valuable. However, results
of them were as we predicted without remarkable knowledge. I will propose some suggestion
to improve manuscripts.
Major comments
1) In abstract, inclusion period was between 2003 and 2015. On the other hand, in method
section, it was between 2003 and 2013. Which period was correct?
2) In method, sub category surveillance after ESD, please describe about interval of CT and
tumor markers.
3) In results, they described all included cases were stage #. However, in UICC and JSCCR, Tis
N0 M0 was classified as Stage 0. Please re-confirm about them.
4) In results, they did not describe about morphology of included cases in main text and table
1. Morphology data seemed to be essential for investigation of colorectal ESD. Please add their
information.
5) They should insert figure 1 into result section. Moreover, please add information after non
curative resection such as additional surgery and recurrence.
6) In result section and table 1, type of recurrence such as local, regional and distant should
be presented separately. For readers, type of recurrence was important information comparing
with previous reports.
7) In figure 2 and 3, please add information of number at risk instead of number at event.
8) In discussion (page 13, line 260~262), contents of significant factors associated with
recurrence are different from original article of Oka S et al in AJG. Please re-confirm it.
Minor comments
1# In page 11, line 216, spell of discussion was misspelled.
2# In page 12, line 238, mm2 should be changed to mm2.
3# In reference, essential information of ref. 20 were lacked.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Long-term prognosis of curative endoscopic submucosal dissection for early colorectal
cancer according to submucosal invasion: A multicenter cohort study
Version: 1 Date: 02 Aug 2022
Reviewer's report:
Shin J et al. reported the results of multicenter retrospective study for long term prognosis of
early colorectal cancers treated by endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). They emphasized
good recurrence free survival rate in curative resection group. Almost previous reports of long
term prognosis were form single center, so this report seemed to be valuable. However, results
of them were as we predicted without remarkable knowledge. I will propose some suggestion
to improve manuscripts.
Major comments
1) In abstract, inclusion period was between 2003 and 2015. On the other hand, in method
section, it was between 2003 and 2013. Which period was correct?
2) In method, sub category surveillance after ESD, please describe about interval of CT and
tumor markers.
3) In results, they described all included cases were stage #. However, in UICC and JSCCR, Tis
N0 M0 was classified as Stage 0. Please re-confirm about them.
4) In results, they did not describe about morphology of included cases in main text and table
1. Morphology data seemed to be essential for investigation of colorectal ESD. Please add their
information.
5) They should insert figure 1 into result section. Moreover, please add information after non
curative resection such as additional surgery and recurrence.
6) In result section and table 1, type of recurrence such as local, regional and distant should
be presented separately. For readers, type of recurrence was important information comparing
with previous reports.
7) In figure 2 and 3, please add information of number at risk instead of number at event.
8) In discussion (page 13, line 260~262), contents of significant factors associated with
recurrence are different from original article of Oka S et al in AJG. Please re-confirm it.
Minor comments
1# In page 11, line 216, spell of discussion was misspelled.
2# In page 12, line 238, mm2 should be changed to mm2.
3# In reference, essential information of ref. 20 were lacked.
assistant