Next Article in Journal
Challenges of Secondary Glaucoma Management Following Congenital Cataract Surgery, Penetrating Keratoplasty and Vitreoretinal Surgery
Next Article in Special Issue
A Cost-Effective Model for Predicting Recurrent Gastric Cancer Using Clinical Features
Previous Article in Journal
Can Plasma Volume Determination in Cirrhosis Be Replaced by an Algorithm Using Body Weight and Hematocrit?
Previous Article in Special Issue
Prospective Evaluation of a New Liquid-Type Rapid Urease Test Kit for Diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Diagnostics
Volume 14
Issue 8
10.3390/diagnostics14080836
Review Report
diagnostics-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

Unselective Measurement of Tumor-to-Stroma Proportion in Colon Cancer at the Invasion Front—An Elusive Prognostic Factor: Original Patient Data and Review of the Literature

Diagnostics 2024, 14(8), 836; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/diagnostics14080836
by Zsolt Fekete 1,2,*, Patricia Ignat 1,2, Amelia Cristina Resiga 3, Nicolae Todor 2, Alina-Simona Muntean 2, Liliana Resiga 2, Sebastian Curcean 1,2, Gabriel Lazar 1, Alexandra Gherman 1,2 and Dan Eniu 1,3
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2:
Matthew Benesch
Diagnostics 2024, 14(8), 836; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/diagnostics14080836
Submission received: 6 April 2024 / Revised: 11 April 2024 / Accepted: 12 April 2024 / Published: 18 April 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in the Diagnosis of Gastrointestinal Diseases—Volume 2)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The previous version of this manuscript was reviewed by me, and it seems that authors improved manuscript in as much as possible. However, the authors should be mentioned low sample size as a limitation at the end of discussion.

 

Author Response

We appreciate your relevant feedback and assistance! The manuscript has been revised as recommended.

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments and concerns addressed

Author Response

Thank you again, it has been very helpful! We appreciate your input!

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.


Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1- sample size is low

2- Authors  must be used cox regression for cotrol of covariate

Author Response

Attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper is a short communication describing an attempt to correlate tumor stroma percentage on pathological slides to patient outcomes.  Ultimately, the results were negative, but such a finding is important to share.

Despite this paper meant to a short communication, I have some suggestions:

1. In the discussion, please provide a table to summarize a comparison of your findings with those discussed in the beginning of the discussion.

2. The introduction is very short. Please summarize what is known about the colon cancer tumor stroma and patient outcomes, and what additional value your study adds, especially since there have been others published looking at similar items.

3. Can you provide any information on tumor microsatillite status, PNI, LVI, etc?

4. Is the stage and grading as per AJCC, and if so, which version?

5. Details on chemotherapy/radiotherapy regimens.  It appears that this study is primarily rectal tumors.  Is it appropriate to merge colon and rectal tumor into the same analysis.

Author Response

Attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop