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.
Please address any minor grammatical issues at the proof stage.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Although the Academic and Section Editors are happy to accept your article as being scientifically sound, a final check of the manuscript shows that it would benefit from further English editing. Therefore, if you can identify further edits, please work with our production group to address them while in proof stage #]
Much improved
There remain some grammatical errors that could be corrected by the editorial team
They have responded satisfactorily to the reviewers comments
Better presented
Minor grammatical errors remain
Please respond to the reviewers. More information on KRAS in the introduction and 95% confidence intervals on results, please.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in a rebuttal 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 rebuttal 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 rebuttal letter. Directions on how to prepare a rebuttal letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at editorial.support@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
The manuscript was written well and English is good.
I would like to ask IRB approved at hospital for this clinical study
this study seems to use a more specific statistical method and nomogram was made.
Please explain this more easiler to readers.
this study was done whether K ras mutaiton can impact the prognosis of CRC using large patiens cohort ( SEERS data). author analyze prognostic factor including K ras mutation in CRC, In addition to that, they also want to develop nomogram to predict prognosis. But data itself showed too hetergenous and detailed information about chemotherapy regimen and radiotherapy in rectal cancer, as well known, there have been many prognositc factos TNM etc. but only K ras mutation was compared with other clinicopathologic factors, Author also indicated the limitation of this stduy it need a other genetic mutation such as BRAF and MSI etc . Regading nomogram and many figures did not geve us confidence,
Written in a language foreign to the authors
There are a good number of grammatical and linguistic errors.
The introduction and discussion do not provide sufficient information about the known status of KRAS mutation and prognosis form colorectal cancer
There is another paper by Charlton et al
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2017 Dec;15(12):1484-1493. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2017.7011.
KRAS Testing, Tumor Location, and Survival in Patients With Stage IV Colorectal Cancer: SEER 2010-2013.
Charlton ME1, Kahl AR1, Greenbaum AA2, Karlitz JJ3, Lin C4, Lynch CF1, Chen VW5
This study has used the same data and included a similar number of patient and reported largely similar findings. The differences between the current study and the Charlton study should be clearly detailed.
This is a statistical study and it would be appropriate to get a statistics expert to review the statistical methods used.
If the statistical methods are appropriate the results appear valid and will be of some clinical value
There is some novel data about the effect of KRAS mutation status in Stage III cancer patients.
Written in a language foreign to the authors
There are a good number of grammatical and linguistic errors.
The introduction and discussion do not provide sufficient information about the known status of KRAS mutation and prognosis form colorectal cancer
Re the paper by Charlton et al
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2017 Dec;15(12):1484-1493. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2017.7011.
KRAS Testing, Tumor Location, and Survival in Patients With Stage IV Colorectal Cancer: SEER 2010-2013.
Charlton ME1, Kahl AR1, Greenbaum AA2, Karlitz JJ3, Lin C4, Lynch CF1, Chen VW5
This study has used the same data and included a similar number of patient and reported largely similar findings. The similarities and differences between the current study and the Charlton study should be clearly detailed.
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.