Title: Inflammation and nutritional status indicators as prognostic indicators for patients with
locally advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumors treated with neoadjuvant imatinib
Version: 0 Date: 14 Oct 2022
Reviewer's report:
Your study examined the significant relationship between pre-treatment SII, PNI, and prognosis
in patients with GIST who underwent neoadjuvant imatinib therapy.
Major comments
1. I am unable to confirm the duration and dosage of imatinib use following surgery. It would
be beneficial to describe how imatinib was given in this study following surgery in order to aid
in interpreting PFS or OS.
2. It might be good to double-check the SII and PNI values in the Optimal cut-off values section
of the result. Please check to see if there is a typo because it is displayed differently from the
value indicated in Figure 2.
3. It is unclear from Table 3 why the HR was more significantly higher in the cases of better
tumor response and post-treatment imatinib. Please verify that the analysis has not been reversed.
Minor comments
1. The spacing and periods are incorrect in a number of places. Please confirm.
2. Why was the presence of lumbar spine metal implant included in the exclusion criteria?
3.  In the Assessment section of the method, in the part explaining the criteria for response
group, moderate effect and medium effect seem to be the same, so it would be better to write
it in one word.
Title: Inflammation and nutritional status indicators as prognostic indicators for patients with
locally advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumors treated with neoadjuvant imatinib
Version: 0 Date: 14 Oct 2022
Reviewer's report:
Your study examined the significant relationship between pre-treatment SII, PNI, and prognosis
in patients with GIST who underwent neoadjuvant imatinib therapy.
Major comments
1. I am unable to confirm the duration and dosage of imatinib use following surgery. It would
be beneficial to describe how imatinib was given in this study following surgery in order to aid
in interpreting PFS or OS.
2. It might be good to double-check the SII and PNI values in the Optimal cut-off values section
of the result. Please check to see if there is a typo because it is displayed differently from the
value indicated in Figure 2.
3. It is unclear from Table 3 why the HR was more significantly higher in the cases of better
tumor response and post-treatment imatinib. Please verify that the analysis has not been reversed.
Minor comments
1. The spacing and periods are incorrect in a number of places. Please confirm.
2. Why was the presence of lumbar spine metal implant included in the exclusion criteria?
3.  In the Assessment section of the method, in the part explaining the criteria for response
group, moderate effect and medium effect seem to be the same, so it would be better to write
it in one word.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Inflammation and nutritional status indicators as prognostic indicators for patients with
locally advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumors treated with neoadjuvant imatinib
Version: 0 Date: 14 Oct 2022
Reviewer's report:
Your study examined the significant relationship between pre-treatment SII, PNI, and prognosis
in patients with GIST who underwent neoadjuvant imatinib therapy.
Major comments
1. I am unable to confirm the duration and dosage of imatinib use following surgery. It would
be beneficial to describe how imatinib was given in this study following surgery in order to aid
in interpreting PFS or OS.
2. It might be good to double-check the SII and PNI values in the Optimal cut-off values section
of the result. Please check to see if there is a typo because it is displayed differently from the
value indicated in Figure 2.
3. It is unclear from Table 3 why the HR was more significantly higher in the cases of better
tumor response and post-treatment imatinib. Please verify that the analysis has not been reversed.
Minor comments
1. The spacing and periods are incorrect in a number of places. Please confirm.
2. Why was the presence of lumbar spine metal implant included in the exclusion criteria?
3.  In the Assessment section of the method, in the part explaining the criteria for response
group, moderate effect and medium effect seem to be the same, so it would be better to write
it in one word.
assistant