Review History


All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.

Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.

View examples of open peer review.

Summary

  • The initial submission of this article was received on July 21st, 2021 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on September 23rd, 2021.
  • The first revision was submitted on November 30th, 2021 and was reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • A further revision was submitted on January 20th, 2022 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on February 18th, 2022.

Version 0.3 (accepted)

· Feb 18, 2022 · Academic Editor

Accept

I am glad to accept this manuscript.

Version 0.2

· Jan 10, 2022 · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

Dear Dr. Wu

There is a very minor revision needed before accepting your manuscript for publication in PeerJ. Please see reviewer 1's comments and provide data as requested. I think this will improve the manuscript.

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

nothing

Experimental design

nothing

Validity of the findings

Thank you for your sincere answer to my question. I have a further question for your answer.

1. In general, factors that show significant differences in univariate analysis are examined in multivariate analysis and the results are presented. Even if there is no significant difference, the results of multivariate analysis for PFS in stage N and M , and the results of multivariate analysis for OS in stage N should be presented.
2. If lactate dehydrogenase alone is significantly correlated with OS and PFS in colorectal cancer patients, I think it should be included as a factor to be evaluated. Lactate dehydrogenase alone is not significant compared to LAR?

Additional comments

nothing

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Sep 23, 2021 · Academic Editor

Major Revisions

I think it will be important to highlight the importance of LAR and lactate dehydrogenase using recommendations from both reviewers.

[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.  It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the response letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the response letter.  Directions on how to prepare a response letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]

[# PeerJ Staff Note: The Academic Editor has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

no comment.

Experimental design

I think it is quite a small number, only 126 cases in 3.5 years of case accumulation. Is this the number of consecutive cases that were included in the study?

Lines 84, 85
I suggest you add "before."
Serum biochemical examination was performed within 1 week before surgery and the data were complete.

All eligible cases are assumed to have undergone radical resection, but can even M1 cases be considered radical surgery?

Are there any errors in the PNI formula? I think this is a very serious error.

Validity of the findings

Lines 127
CONUT's scoring criteria and groupings are in Table 1.

Where are the multivariate results for PFS in N stage and M stage? And what are the multivariate results for OS in N stage?

Does the value of lactate dehydrogenase alone not show a significant difference in PFS or OS? I would like to know.

In other reports, what is the cut-off value for LAR that makes a difference in the prognosis of malignancy? Is there an increase or decrease compared to this study? And why?

Is there a difference between predicting prognosis with LAR and the currently widely used stage? What is the usefulness of preoperative LAR in predicting prognosis? Isn't the stage alone sufficient?

Additional comments

I thought it was very interesting to read that the preoperative lactate dehydrogenase/albumin ratio is useful in predicting the prognosis of colorectal cancer. However, I think some alterations are necessary.

·

Basic reporting

no comment

Experimental design

no comment

Validity of the findings

no comment

Additional comments

see attached PDF

All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.