Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Combined laparoscopic lymphadenectomy of lateral pelvic and inguinal
nodal metastases using indocyanine green fluorescence imaging guidance in low
rectal cancer after preoperative chemoradiotherapy: A case report
Version: 
0 
Date: 
19 Jan 2022
Reviewer's report:
"PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS: 
RELEVANCE - Does this case report make a contribution to medical
knowledge, have educational value, or highlight the need for a change in clinical
practice or diagnostic/prognostic approaches? 
Yes, this report contributes to medical knowledge
CASE DESCRIPTION - Are the details of the case sufficiently well described to
understand the patient's symptoms and course of treatment? 
No - there are minor issues
DIAGNOSIS/INTERPRETATION - Based on the facts presented, are the
diagnosis, interpretation, and course of treatment medically sound?
Yes, the work described is medically sound
DISCUSSION OF THE CASE - Does the discussion appropriately analyse the
importance of the findings and their relevance to future understanding of disease
processes, diagnosis or treatment? Has an adequate literature review pertinent to
the case been included?
Yes, the case is discussed fully in the context of the literature
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Could an appropriately REVISED
version of this work represent a technically sound contribution?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS: 
GENERAL COMMENTS: I had the pleasure to review the manuscript entitled
""Combined laparoscopic lymphadenectomy of lateral pelvic and inguinal nodal
metastases using indocyanine green fluorescence imaging guidance in low rectal
cancer after preoperative chemoradiotherapy: A case report"". I would like to
invite the authors to revise their manuscript considering the following points:
- There is no background information or description of the problem in the
abstract to support the study rationale. You have only mentioned the study
objectives in your abstract. I would add one or two sentences as the lead of the
abstract to provide an introduction to the main study topic, to highlight the gap in
knowledge and the motivation or rationale for the study for the abstract readers. 
- What is ""left lateral lymph node"". In anatomic stationing of the lymph nodes,
I am not familiar with ""left lateral"" position. Please use anatomic descriptors.
Based on the provided MR images, probably you mean ""left external iliac
lymph node/lymphadenopathy"".
- The conclusion section of your abstract only repeats your study findings with
no definite interpretation. It needs to be revised thoroughly. I suggest providing a
statement that mentions the overarching clinical implications of your findings
and explains why your findings are relevant/important and how they can shape
future research.
- Please provide more sequences of MR images, including fluid sensitive
sequence. Also, please have more radiologic description for the figure legends,
including the name of the sequence presented, the plane, whether they are post-
contrast or non-contrast, etc.
- More details of the technologic aspects of imaging, including the Tesla strength
of the MR machine, the vendor, contrast used, etc is appreciated. 
- Please provide the size of the lymphadenopathy before and after
chemoradiation.
- What was the SUV max of the lesion and lymphadenothy in PET/CT? You
may use term of ""hypermetabolism"" instead of FDG accumulation.
- Reference # 9 and 18 do not have page numbers.
REQUESTED REVISIONS: 
As above"
Publons Reviewer Recognition
. Springer Nature can send verification of this
review directly to Publons (a subsidiary of Clarivate Analytics). If you would
like to take advantage of this service, please click on the “Yes” option below.
Your name, email address, title of the reviewed manuscript, name of the journal,
and date of your review submission (the “Review Data”) will then be transmitted
to Publons after the final decision on the manuscript has been made. If you have
already registered at Publons, they will notify you of the receipt of this review
and update your profile 
as per your settings and their policy. If you are not
registered with Publons, you will receive an email from them asking you to
register in order for them to be able to recognize your review on your new
profile page. Publons may use the Review Data to generate derivative metadata
for the benefit of Publons and you as a reviewer, carefully considering the
sensitivity of such information. For example, Publons may verify your record as
a reviewer by updating your profile published on its webservice if you have
registered for such service or help editors to identify candidate reviewers. Please
find the details of processing in Publons’ privacy policy
https://publons.com/about/terms
No
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.
This reviewer was recruited by a partner organization, Research Square (RS).
Reviewers with competing interests are excluded. This reviewer agrees to
publication of their comments under a CC License attributed to RS and was paid
a small honorarium (paid regardless of the reviewer recommendation).
Reviewer Publication Consent.
 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
) if this manuscript is accepted for
publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the published
report have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not
be published.
If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the
editorial office before completing the review.
If you wish, you can include your
name in your published report. Please note you must decide whether to include
your name at the start of the process and confirm this decision whenever
prompted. If you change your decision later, we will not be able to publish your
name.
I agree to the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 license; please publish my name with my
report.
Is the study design appropriate to answer the research question (including the use
of appropriate controls), and are the conclusions supported by the evidence
presented?
No
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?
No
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
Yes
Is the presentation of the work clear?
Yes
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes
Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Combined laparoscopic lymphadenectomy of lateral pelvic and inguinal
nodal metastases using indocyanine green fluorescence imaging guidance in low
rectal cancer after preoperative chemoradiotherapy: A case report
Version: 
0 
Date: 
19 Jan 2022
Reviewer's report:
"PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS: 
RELEVANCE - Does this case report make a contribution to medical
knowledge, have educational value, or highlight the need for a change in clinical
practice or diagnostic/prognostic approaches? 
Yes, this report contributes to medical knowledge
CASE DESCRIPTION - Are the details of the case sufficiently well described to
understand the patient's symptoms and course of treatment? 
No - there are minor issues
DIAGNOSIS/INTERPRETATION - Based on the facts presented, are the
diagnosis, interpretation, and course of treatment medically sound?
Yes, the work described is medically sound
DISCUSSION OF THE CASE - Does the discussion appropriately analyse the
importance of the findings and their relevance to future understanding of disease
processes, diagnosis or treatment? Has an adequate literature review pertinent to
the case been included?
Yes, the case is discussed fully in the context of the literature
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Could an appropriately REVISED
version of this work represent a technically sound contribution?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS: 
GENERAL COMMENTS: I had the pleasure to review the manuscript entitled
""Combined laparoscopic lymphadenectomy of lateral pelvic and inguinal nodal
metastases using indocyanine green fluorescence imaging guidance in low rectal
cancer after preoperative chemoradiotherapy: A case report"". I would like to
invite the authors to revise their manuscript considering the following points:
- There is no background information or description of the problem in the
abstract to support the study rationale. You have only mentioned the study
objectives in your abstract. I would add one or two sentences as the lead of the
abstract to provide an introduction to the main study topic, to highlight the gap in
knowledge and the motivation or rationale for the study for the abstract readers. 
- What is ""left lateral lymph node"". In anatomic stationing of the lymph nodes,
I am not familiar with ""left lateral"" position. Please use anatomic descriptors.
Based on the provided MR images, probably you mean ""left external iliac
lymph node/lymphadenopathy"".
- The conclusion section of your abstract only repeats your study findings with
no definite interpretation. It needs to be revised thoroughly. I suggest providing a
statement that mentions the overarching clinical implications of your findings
and explains why your findings are relevant/important and how they can shape
future research.
- Please provide more sequences of MR images, including fluid sensitive
sequence. Also, please have more radiologic description for the figure legends,
including the name of the sequence presented, the plane, whether they are post-
contrast or non-contrast, etc.
- More details of the technologic aspects of imaging, including the Tesla strength
of the MR machine, the vendor, contrast used, etc is appreciated. 
- Please provide the size of the lymphadenopathy before and after
chemoradiation.
- What was the SUV max of the lesion and lymphadenothy in PET/CT? You
may use term of ""hypermetabolism"" instead of FDG accumulation.
- Reference # 9 and 18 do not have page numbers.
REQUESTED REVISIONS: 
As above"
Publons Reviewer Recognition
. Springer Nature can send verification of this
review directly to Publons (a subsidiary of Clarivate Analytics). If you would
like to take advantage of this service, please click on the “Yes” option below.
Your name, email address, title of the reviewed manuscript, name of the journal,
and date of your review submission (the “Review Data”) will then be transmitted
to Publons after the final decision on the manuscript has been made. If you have
already registered at Publons, they will notify you of the receipt of this review
and update your profile 
as per your settings and their policy. If you are not
registered with Publons, you will receive an email from them asking you to
register in order for them to be able to recognize your review on your new
profile page. Publons may use the Review Data to generate derivative metadata
for the benefit of Publons and you as a reviewer, carefully considering the
sensitivity of such information. For example, Publons may verify your record as
a reviewer by updating your profile published on its webservice if you have
registered for such service or help editors to identify candidate reviewers. Please
find the details of processing in Publons’ privacy policy
https://publons.com/about/terms
No
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.
This reviewer was recruited by a partner organization, Research Square (RS).
Reviewers with competing interests are excluded. This reviewer agrees to
publication of their comments under a CC License attributed to RS and was paid
a small honorarium (paid regardless of the reviewer recommendation).
Reviewer Publication Consent.
 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
) if this manuscript is accepted for
publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the published
report have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not
be published.
If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the
editorial office before completing the review.
If you wish, you can include your
name in your published report. Please note you must decide whether to include
your name at the start of the process and confirm this decision whenever
prompted. If you change your decision later, we will not be able to publish your
name.
I agree to the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 license; please publish my name with my
report.
Is the study design appropriate to answer the research question (including the use
of appropriate controls), and are the conclusions supported by the evidence
presented?
No
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?
No
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
Yes
Is the presentation of the work clear?
Yes
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Combined laparoscopic lymphadenectomy of lateral pelvic and inguinal
nodal metastases using indocyanine green fluorescence imaging guidance in low
rectal cancer after preoperative chemoradiotherapy: A case report
Version: 
0 
Date: 
19 Jan 2022
Reviewer's report:
"PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS: 
RELEVANCE - Does this case report make a contribution to medical
knowledge, have educational value, or highlight the need for a change in clinical
practice or diagnostic/prognostic approaches? 
Yes, this report contributes to medical knowledge
CASE DESCRIPTION - Are the details of the case sufficiently well described to
understand the patient's symptoms and course of treatment? 
No - there are minor issues
DIAGNOSIS/INTERPRETATION - Based on the facts presented, are the
diagnosis, interpretation, and course of treatment medically sound?
Yes, the work described is medically sound
DISCUSSION OF THE CASE - Does the discussion appropriately analyse the
importance of the findings and their relevance to future understanding of disease
processes, diagnosis or treatment? Has an adequate literature review pertinent to
the case been included?
Yes, the case is discussed fully in the context of the literature
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Could an appropriately REVISED
version of this work represent a technically sound contribution?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS: 
GENERAL COMMENTS: I had the pleasure to review the manuscript entitled
""Combined laparoscopic lymphadenectomy of lateral pelvic and inguinal nodal
metastases using indocyanine green fluorescence imaging guidance in low rectal
cancer after preoperative chemoradiotherapy: A case report"". I would like to
invite the authors to revise their manuscript considering the following points:
- There is no background information or description of the problem in the
abstract to support the study rationale. You have only mentioned the study
objectives in your abstract. I would add one or two sentences as the lead of the
abstract to provide an introduction to the main study topic, to highlight the gap in
knowledge and the motivation or rationale for the study for the abstract readers. 
- What is ""left lateral lymph node"". In anatomic stationing of the lymph nodes,
I am not familiar with ""left lateral"" position. Please use anatomic descriptors.
Based on the provided MR images, probably you mean ""left external iliac
lymph node/lymphadenopathy"".
- The conclusion section of your abstract only repeats your study findings with
no definite interpretation. It needs to be revised thoroughly. I suggest providing a
statement that mentions the overarching clinical implications of your findings
and explains why your findings are relevant/important and how they can shape
future research.
- Please provide more sequences of MR images, including fluid sensitive
sequence. Also, please have more radiologic description for the figure legends,
including the name of the sequence presented, the plane, whether they are post-
contrast or non-contrast, etc.
- More details of the technologic aspects of imaging, including the Tesla strength
of the MR machine, the vendor, contrast used, etc is appreciated. 
- Please provide the size of the lymphadenopathy before and after
chemoradiation.
- What was the SUV max of the lesion and lymphadenothy in PET/CT? You
may use term of ""hypermetabolism"" instead of FDG accumulation.
- Reference # 9 and 18 do not have page numbers.
REQUESTED REVISIONS: 
As above"
Publons Reviewer Recognition
. Springer Nature can send verification of this
review directly to Publons (a subsidiary of Clarivate Analytics). If you would
like to take advantage of this service, please click on the “Yes” option below.
Your name, email address, title of the reviewed manuscript, name of the journal,
and date of your review submission (the “Review Data”) will then be transmitted
to Publons after the final decision on the manuscript has been made. If you have
already registered at Publons, they will notify you of the receipt of this review
and update your profile 
as per your settings and their policy. If you are not
registered with Publons, you will receive an email from them asking you to
register in order for them to be able to recognize your review on your new
profile page. Publons may use the Review Data to generate derivative metadata
for the benefit of Publons and you as a reviewer, carefully considering the
sensitivity of such information. For example, Publons may verify your record as
a reviewer by updating your profile published on its webservice if you have
registered for such service or help editors to identify candidate reviewers. Please
find the details of processing in Publons’ privacy policy
https://publons.com/about/terms
No
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.
This reviewer was recruited by a partner organization, Research Square (RS).
Reviewers with competing interests are excluded. This reviewer agrees to
publication of their comments under a CC License attributed to RS and was paid
a small honorarium (paid regardless of the reviewer recommendation).
Reviewer Publication Consent.
 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
) if this manuscript is accepted for
publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the published
report have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not
be published.
If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the
editorial office before completing the review.
If you wish, you can include your
name in your published report. Please note you must decide whether to include
your name at the start of the process and confirm this decision whenever
prompted. If you change your decision later, we will not be able to publish your
name.
I agree to the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 license; please publish my name with my
report.
Is the study design appropriate to answer the research question (including the use
of appropriate controls), and are the conclusions supported by the evidence
presented?
No
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?
No
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
Yes
Is the presentation of the work clear?
Yes
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes
assistant