Clinicopathologic Characteristics and Treatment Outcomes of Rectal Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors: A Retrospective Study

Review Data

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

researchers?

A: Good

Abstract & Keywords

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

A: Very Good

Goal

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

A: Good

Structure

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

A: Good

Tools and Methods

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

A: Good

Discussion & Conclusion

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

A: Good

Comments: The Discussion establishes that the study analyses the clinicopathologic characteristics, surgery approach, the usage of imatinib and follow-up outcomes of rectal gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) in a study population of 49 patients. The Discussion highlights that the rectal GISTs have a much lesser prevalence as compared to GISTs occurring in the stomach and small intestine. Also, the clinical features and treatment outcomes of the rectal GISTs are not well documented. Digital rectal examination can be used to detect the lesions and gastrointestinal endoscopy, contrast-enhanced CT and MRI are the common diagnostic methods. The Discussion illustrates that clinical characteristics, development and outcome of rectal stromal tumors should be properly understood to implement individualized treatment plans for patients. The study concludes that the complete resection of the tumor is the cornerstone of treatment for localized GISTs. Although, in the study population, the recurrence rate showed no difference in each group in the present follow-up, long term follow-up is needed to better understand the outcome.

Literature

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: Good

Length

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: Good

Writing style

Q: Is it clear and understandable?

A: Good

Comments: Except the following errors were detected:

1.     The words “clinicopathologic” and “abdominoperineal” have been misspelled in the text.

Further comments on the paper

Comments: The study analyses the clinicopathologic characteristics, surgery approach, the usage of imatinib and follow-up outcomes of rectal gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) in a study population of 49 patients. Four kinds of surgeries were used out of which trans-anal/trans-perineal and trans-sacral were the commonly used surgical methods. The complications and mortality rate associated with surgery is extremely low. The possible reasons for recurrence rate and metastasis rate not being statistically significant in the two groups could be that the sample size is not large enough and the follow-up time is relatively short. Future multi-centered prospective researches will be needed to improve the diagnosis rate before the operation, to correctly choose the operation method, to determine the dose and time limit of imatinib treatment in the perioperative period.

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.

Thanks,
Science Repository Team