Clinical Outcomes of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Early Gastric Cancer in Different Indications

Clinical Outcomes of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Early Gastric Cancer in Different Indications

Review Data

Q: Is the topic relevant to the journal area of interest? Is it contemporary and interesting for


A: Very good


Abstract & Keywords

Q: Are all required components included in the abstract? Are the keywords appropriately chosen?

A: Excellent



Q: Is the goal explicitly stated in the Introduction? Is its formulation clear and unambiguous?

A: Very good



Q: Is the paper's structure coherent? Is it in coherence with the goal of the paper?

A: Good



Minor errors found in the manuscript (already corrected in the Galley Proof) are as follows:

  • The 4th sentence of the 1st paragraph of Introduction, “Eastern Asia and Eastern Europe are the highest morbidity, particularly” should be reframed as “Eastern Asia and Eastern Europe particularly have the highest morbidities”.
  • In the 5th sentence under Endoscopic Resection (ER), the term “that submucosal” should be corrected to “the submucosal”.
  • In the 9th sentence under Indications for Endoscopic Resection, “tumors that absolute” should be corrected to “tumors that have absolute” and in the 11th sentence, “expected be equivalent” should be corrected to “expected to be equivalent”.
  • In the 43rd sentence under Efficacy and Long-term Outcome of ESD for EGC, “a retrospectively study” must be corrected to “a retrospective study” and in the 3rd last sentence, “patients in beyond the” should be reframed as “patients beyond the”.
  • Commas, articles and prepositions such as “a”, “the” were missing throughout the text.


Tools and Methods

Q: Are methods the author uses adequate and well used?

A: Not applicable.


Discussion & Conclusion

Q: Is it related to the results presented before? Do you consider them as coherent?

A: Very good



The Introduction lays down the basics for taking up the present study. The review offers a thorough and detailed analysis of the findings of the present study taking all the relevant literature into account. The review adequately discusses the role of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in treating early gastric cancer under different indications including, indications for endoscopic resection, evaluation of curability, efficacy and long-term outcome of ESD for early gastric cancer (EGC), endoscopic submucosal dissection versus surgery for EGC and the efficacy of non-curative endoscopic submucosal dissection. Based on the data obtained from relevant literature, the study concludes that patients with undifferentiated type EGC may have better long-term outcomes after curative resection. The article aptly recommends additional surgical resection with lymph node dissection for non-curative ESD with high risk of lymph node metastasis.



Q: Does the author utilize relevant literature?

A: Very good


Author's knowledge

Q: What is the level of the author’s knowledge? Does the author utilize all recent contributions relevant to the topic?

A: Very good



Q: Is the length of the paper adequate to the significance of the topic? Do you suggest shortening the paper without losing its value?

A: Good


Figures & Tables

Q: Does the author use them suitably? Are legend and notations clear?

A: Very good


Writing style

Q: Is it clear and understandable?

A: Good


Further comments on the paper

Comments: This review article elaborates about the clinical outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for early gastric cancer in different indications. The study holds significance as gastric cancer still threatens the health of people with the stage of the disease being critical for the 5-year survival of gastric cancer. Currently, the main treatment for early gastric cancer (EGC) is endoscopic submucosal dissection. Due to the high recurrence rate of gastric cancer after ESD, regular follow-up and careful examination are required, even for patients with early gastric cancer who have met absolute indications.


Q: Would you recommend this manuscript for further publication?

A: Yes - Suitable to be published

If you have any questions and clarifications you can write to the journal.

Science Repository Team 


Author Info

Corresponding Author
Ruihua Shi
Department of Gastroenterology, Southeast University Affiliated Zhongda Hospital, Nanjing, China

Article Info

Article Type
Review Article
Publication history
Received: Tue 11, Jan 2022
Accepted: Wed 26, Jan 2022
Published: Wed 09, Feb 2022
© 2021 Ruihua Shi. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Hosting by Science Repository.
DOI: 10.31487/j.COR.2022.01.03