Reviewer’s report
Title: Application value of nomogram and prognostic factors of gastric cancer patients who underwent
D2 radical lymphadenectomy
Version: 0 Date: 29 Jul 2019
Reviewer: Amy Tyberg
Reviewer's report:
This is a nicely written retrospective study looking at prognostic factors of gastric cancer survival after
surgical resection, as well as evaluating a new nomogram to predict post-surgical survival. 
A few comments: 
1. The  authors  state  that  patients  who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy were excluded.
However, there are some patients with stage III tumors included in the study which generally would
quality for neoadjuvant therapy. Why were these patients not given neoadjuvant therapy? 
2. I am surprised that tumor histology was not a prognostic factor. Signet cell tumors are considered
more aggressive and higher risk tumors. How do you explain in this study that the histology was not
significant? Were these tumors all earlier stage than other tumor histologies? 
3. Was any subgroup analysis done on survival? Aka could BMI be more associated with surgical
risk/mortality rather than disease recurrence mortality? It might be useful to have a nomogram looking
at disease-free survival rather than overall survival. 
4. Negative margins was not listed as a data point - was this looked at? 
5. The authors state that having a nomogram could be helpful in formulating individualized treatment
decision-making for patients - how do they anticipate this would change clinical practice? Changing
surveillance intervals? Neoadjuvant therapy for higher risk patients?
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Does the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
Yes
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 recommend additional statistical review
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 an 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 relation 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 wish 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: Application value of nomogram and prognostic factors of gastric cancer patients who underwent
D2 radical lymphadenectomy
Version: 0 Date: 29 Jul 2019
Reviewer: Amy Tyberg
Reviewer's report:
This is a nicely written retrospective study looking at prognostic factors of gastric cancer survival after
surgical resection, as well as evaluating a new nomogram to predict post-surgical survival. 
A few comments: 
1. The  authors  state  that  patients  who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy were excluded.
However, there are some patients with stage III tumors included in the study which generally would
quality for neoadjuvant therapy. Why were these patients not given neoadjuvant therapy? 
2. I am surprised that tumor histology was not a prognostic factor. Signet cell tumors are considered
more aggressive and higher risk tumors. How do you explain in this study that the histology was not
significant? Were these tumors all earlier stage than other tumor histologies? 
3. Was any subgroup analysis done on survival? Aka could BMI be more associated with surgical
risk/mortality rather than disease recurrence mortality? It might be useful to have a nomogram looking
at disease-free survival rather than overall survival. 
4. Negative margins was not listed as a data point - was this looked at? 
5. The authors state that having a nomogram could be helpful in formulating individualized treatment
decision-making for patients - how do they anticipate this would change clinical practice? Changing
surveillance intervals? Neoadjuvant therapy for higher risk patients?
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Does the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
Yes
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 recommend additional statistical review
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 an 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 relation 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 wish 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: Application value of nomogram and prognostic factors of gastric cancer patients who underwent
D2 radical lymphadenectomy
Version: 0 Date: 29 Jul 2019
Reviewer: Amy Tyberg
Reviewer's report:
This is a nicely written retrospective study looking at prognostic factors of gastric cancer survival after
surgical resection, as well as evaluating a new nomogram to predict post-surgical survival. 
A few comments: 
1. The  authors  state  that  patients  who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy were excluded.
However, there are some patients with stage III tumors included in the study which generally would
quality for neoadjuvant therapy. Why were these patients not given neoadjuvant therapy? 
2. I am surprised that tumor histology was not a prognostic factor. Signet cell tumors are considered
more aggressive and higher risk tumors. How do you explain in this study that the histology was not
significant? Were these tumors all earlier stage than other tumor histologies? 
3. Was any subgroup analysis done on survival? Aka could BMI be more associated with surgical
risk/mortality rather than disease recurrence mortality? It might be useful to have a nomogram looking
at disease-free survival rather than overall survival. 
4. Negative margins was not listed as a data point - was this looked at? 
5. The authors state that having a nomogram could be helpful in formulating individualized treatment
decision-making for patients - how do they anticipate this would change clinical practice? Changing
surveillance intervals? Neoadjuvant therapy for higher risk patients?
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Does the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
Yes
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 recommend additional statistical review
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 an 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 relation 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 wish 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