Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title:  Two staging systems for gastrointestinal stromal tumors in the stomach: Which is better?  
 
Version: 0 Date: 01 Oct 2016 
 
Reviewer:  Irene  Coati  
 
Reviewer’s report:  
 
I appreciate the aim of the article, but I find some important points which is necessary to change.  
 
The background is quite good and the authors explain clearly the aim of the study.  
 
I can not accept the following section "methods", because of many mistakes and semplifications.  
 
I invite the authors to follow the majority of scientific articles and to cre ate a section named 
"materials and methods" and not olny "methods". About "patients and the exclusion criteria" the 
authors have to be meticulous and to write all concomitant malignancies they did not accept.  
 
Then, has the histological diagnosis been conf irmed by more pathologists? Are these 
pathologists dedicated in GIST? I think it is necessary to explain this point, in order to support 
the trust of the histological field of the article.  
 
It is not possible to focus the article on the comparison between t wo systems without a specific 
attention on them. I mean to say, I invite the authors to write these two ones in the separate 
sentence of section "materials and methods" and maybe to create another table where the criteria 
of NIH consensus and UICC/AJCC sta ging system are clearly compared. I think it is not 
sufficient to explain them only in a very brief way in the introduction. Furthermore, these 
systems include essential histological elements; I invite the authors to add histological imagines 
of their case s with attention to mitoses and subtypes.  
 
Is there also histological diagnosis and confirmation about the cases of recurrence? It is better if 
the authors specify this aspect.  
 
I think that statistical analyses are correct and sufficient for the investigate d factors. The sections 
"results and discussion" are well explained and I appreciate the final comparison between eastern 
and western studies.  
 
It is also commandable the list of possible limitations of the study.  
 
Finally, I can not accept the article witho ut an important change of its first part.  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Unable to assess  
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript  or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
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 a n 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 relat ion 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  
 
I agree to the open peer review  policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' 
responses. 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/ ). I understand that any comments 
which I do not wis h to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published . 
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title:  Two staging systems for gastrointestinal stromal tumors in the stomach: Which is better?  
 
Version: 0 Date: 01 Oct 2016 
 
Reviewer:  Irene  Coati  
 
Reviewer’s report:  
 
I appreciate the aim of the article, but I find some important points which is necessary to change.  
 
The background is quite good and the authors explain clearly the aim of the study.  
 
I can not accept the following section "methods", because of many mistakes and semplifications.  
 
I invite the authors to follow the majority of scientific articles and to cre ate a section named 
"materials and methods" and not olny "methods". About "patients and the exclusion criteria" the 
authors have to be meticulous and to write all concomitant malignancies they did not accept.  
 
Then, has the histological diagnosis been conf irmed by more pathologists? Are these 
pathologists dedicated in GIST? I think it is necessary to explain this point, in order to support 
the trust of the histological field of the article.  
 
It is not possible to focus the article on the comparison between t wo systems without a specific 
attention on them. I mean to say, I invite the authors to write these two ones in the separate 
sentence of section "materials and methods" and maybe to create another table where the criteria 
of NIH consensus and UICC/AJCC sta ging system are clearly compared. I think it is not 
sufficient to explain them only in a very brief way in the introduction. Furthermore, these 
systems include essential histological elements; I invite the authors to add histological imagines 
of their case s with attention to mitoses and subtypes.  
 
Is there also histological diagnosis and confirmation about the cases of recurrence? It is better if 
the authors specify this aspect.  
 
I think that statistical analyses are correct and sufficient for the investigate d factors. The sections 
"results and discussion" are well explained and I appreciate the final comparison between eastern 
and western studies.  
 
It is also commandable the list of possible limitations of the study.  
 
Finally, I can not accept the article witho ut an important change of its first part.  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Unable to assess  
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript  or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
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 a n 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 relat ion 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  
 
I agree to the open peer review  policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' 
responses. 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/ ). I understand that any comments 
which I do not wis h to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published . 
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title:  Two staging systems for gastrointestinal stromal tumors in the stomach: Which is better?  
 
Version: 0 Date: 01 Oct 2016 
 
Reviewer:  Irene  Coati  
 
Reviewer’s report:  
 
I appreciate the aim of the article, but I find some important points which is necessary to change.  
 
The background is quite good and the authors explain clearly the aim of the study.  
 
I can not accept the following section "methods", because of many mistakes and semplifications.  
 
I invite the authors to follow the majority of scientific articles and to cre ate a section named 
"materials and methods" and not olny "methods". About "patients and the exclusion criteria" the 
authors have to be meticulous and to write all concomitant malignancies they did not accept.  
 
Then, has the histological diagnosis been conf irmed by more pathologists? Are these 
pathologists dedicated in GIST? I think it is necessary to explain this point, in order to support 
the trust of the histological field of the article.  
 
It is not possible to focus the article on the comparison between t wo systems without a specific 
attention on them. I mean to say, I invite the authors to write these two ones in the separate 
sentence of section "materials and methods" and maybe to create another table where the criteria 
of NIH consensus and UICC/AJCC sta ging system are clearly compared. I think it is not 
sufficient to explain them only in a very brief way in the introduction. Furthermore, these 
systems include essential histological elements; I invite the authors to add histological imagines 
of their case s with attention to mitoses and subtypes.  
 
Is there also histological diagnosis and confirmation about the cases of recurrence? It is better if 
the authors specify this aspect.  
 
I think that statistical analyses are correct and sufficient for the investigate d factors. The sections 
"results and discussion" are well explained and I appreciate the final comparison between eastern 
and western studies.  
 
It is also commandable the list of possible limitations of the study.  
 
Finally, I can not accept the article witho ut an important change of its first part.  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Unable to assess  
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript  or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
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 a n 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 relat ion 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  
 
I agree to the open peer review  policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' 
responses. 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/ ). I understand that any comments 
which I do not wis h to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published . 
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
assistant