Reviewer's report
Title:Efficacy of Capillary Pattern Type IIIA/IIIB by Magnifying Narrow Band
Imaging for Estimating Depth of Invasion of Early Colorectal Neoplasms
Version: 2Date:16 November 2009
Reviewer: Jason Rogart
Reviewer's report:
I commend the authors on another well-executed study examining the use of NBI
in colorectal neoplasms. I believe the following suggested revisions (see below)
will further strengthen the manuscript.
Major Compulsory Revisions:
1. In the Methods section, please clarify what determined whether a patient
underwent endoscopic resection or surgery. Were all lesions potentially
endoscopically resectable?
2. The authors should consider stating more explicitly how magnifying NBI would
change their clinical practice (i.e. management of the patient) based on the
results of their current study. For example, if a lesion is diagnosed endoscopically
as capillary type IIIA, do the authors recommend proceeding directly to
endoscopic polypectomy / endoscopic mucosal resection (accepting that 5% will
have deep submucosal invasion)? Likewise, what do the authors suggest, if a
lesion is diagnosed endoscopically as capillary type IIIA? Should they all go to
surgery or undergo chromoendoscopy for pit pattern analysis and EUS
miniprobe?
3. In the Methods section, please clarify whether capillary pattern determination
was made real-time (during endoscopy), or whether it was done after the
procedure from still photos
Minor Essential Revisions:
1. In the abstract, the authors state that there are no studies regarding
effectiveness of magnifying NBI for determining depth of invasion in early
colorectal neoplasms, however reference #19 appears to be such a study. The
authors should consider changing “no studies” to “few studies.
2. Last sentence of introduction: the authors should consider softening the tone
of this sentence by, for example, changing “is crucial” to “may be important” as
the standard of care countries such as the U.S. for most colorectal carcinomas is
surgery.
3. In the Methods section (capillary pattern classification), please re-word “a
regular unarranged pattern,” as “regular” and “unarranged” seem to be
contradictory terms.
4. In the Discussion section, 1st paragraph, please change “sensibility” to
“sensitivity.”
5. Discussion, fourth paragraph: Please clarify the sentence “Therefore, it is
suggested that CP type IIIA were adaptation lesions associated with the
endoscopic treatment”--- it is difficult to understand what the author are trying to
say. What are adaptation lesions?
6. The authors should consider softening the tone of the first sentence of the
Discussion’s last paragraph by changing, for example, “…magnifying NBI is an
effective…” to “… magnifying NBI may be an effective…”
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Efficacy of Capillary Pattern Type IIIA/IIIB by Magnifying Narrow Band
Imaging for Estimating Depth of Invasion of Early Colorectal Neoplasms
Version: 2Date:16 November 2009
Reviewer: Jason Rogart
Reviewer's report:
I commend the authors on another well-executed study examining the use of NBI
in colorectal neoplasms. I believe the following suggested revisions (see below)
will further strengthen the manuscript.
Major Compulsory Revisions:
1. In the Methods section, please clarify what determined whether a patient
underwent endoscopic resection or surgery. Were all lesions potentially
endoscopically resectable?
2. The authors should consider stating more explicitly how magnifying NBI would
change their clinical practice (i.e. management of the patient) based on the
results of their current study. For example, if a lesion is diagnosed endoscopically
as capillary type IIIA, do the authors recommend proceeding directly to
endoscopic polypectomy / endoscopic mucosal resection (accepting that 5% will
have deep submucosal invasion)? Likewise, what do the authors suggest, if a
lesion is diagnosed endoscopically as capillary type IIIA? Should they all go to
surgery or undergo chromoendoscopy for pit pattern analysis and EUS
miniprobe?
3. In the Methods section, please clarify whether capillary pattern determination
was made real-time (during endoscopy), or whether it was done after the
procedure from still photos
Minor Essential Revisions:
1. In the abstract, the authors state that there are no studies regarding
effectiveness of magnifying NBI for determining depth of invasion in early
colorectal neoplasms, however reference #19 appears to be such a study. The
authors should consider changing “no studies” to “few studies.
2. Last sentence of introduction: the authors should consider softening the tone
of this sentence by, for example, changing “is crucial” to “may be important” as
the standard of care countries such as the U.S. for most colorectal carcinomas is
surgery.
3. In the Methods section (capillary pattern classification), please re-word “a
regular unarranged pattern,” as “regular” and “unarranged” seem to be
contradictory terms.
4. In the Discussion section, 1st paragraph, please change “sensibility” to
“sensitivity.”
5. Discussion, fourth paragraph: Please clarify the sentence “Therefore, it is
suggested that CP type IIIA were adaptation lesions associated with the
endoscopic treatment”--- it is difficult to understand what the author are trying to
say. What are adaptation lesions?
6. The authors should consider softening the tone of the first sentence of the
Discussion’s last paragraph by changing, for example, “…magnifying NBI is an
effective…” to “… magnifying NBI may be an effective…”
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Efficacy of Capillary Pattern Type IIIA/IIIB by Magnifying Narrow Band
Imaging for Estimating Depth of Invasion of Early Colorectal Neoplasms
Version: 2Date:16 November 2009
Reviewer: Jason Rogart
Reviewer's report:
I commend the authors on another well-executed study examining the use of NBI
in colorectal neoplasms. I believe the following suggested revisions (see below)
will further strengthen the manuscript.
Major Compulsory Revisions:
1. In the Methods section, please clarify what determined whether a patient
underwent endoscopic resection or surgery. Were all lesions potentially
endoscopically resectable?
2. The authors should consider stating more explicitly how magnifying NBI would
change their clinical practice (i.e. management of the patient) based on the
results of their current study. For example, if a lesion is diagnosed endoscopically
as capillary type IIIA, do the authors recommend proceeding directly to
endoscopic polypectomy / endoscopic mucosal resection (accepting that 5% will
have deep submucosal invasion)? Likewise, what do the authors suggest, if a
lesion is diagnosed endoscopically as capillary type IIIA? Should they all go to
surgery or undergo chromoendoscopy for pit pattern analysis and EUS
miniprobe?
3. In the Methods section, please clarify whether capillary pattern determination
was made real-time (during endoscopy), or whether it was done after the
procedure from still photos
Minor Essential Revisions:
1. In the abstract, the authors state that there are no studies regarding
effectiveness of magnifying NBI for determining depth of invasion in early
colorectal neoplasms, however reference #19 appears to be such a study. The
authors should consider changing “no studies” to “few studies.
2. Last sentence of introduction: the authors should consider softening the tone
of this sentence by, for example, changing “is crucial” to “may be important” as
the standard of care countries such as the U.S. for most colorectal carcinomas is
surgery.
3. In the Methods section (capillary pattern classification), please re-word “a
regular unarranged pattern,” as “regular” and “unarranged” seem to be
contradictory terms.
4. In the Discussion section, 1st paragraph, please change “sensibility” to
“sensitivity.”
5. Discussion, fourth paragraph: Please clarify the sentence “Therefore, it is
suggested that CP type IIIA were adaptation lesions associated with the
endoscopic treatment”--- it is difficult to understand what the author are trying to
say. What are adaptation lesions?
6. The authors should consider softening the tone of the first sentence of the
Discussion’s last paragraph by changing, for example, “…magnifying NBI is an
effective…” to “… magnifying NBI may be an effective…”
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
assistant