Peer Review History

Original SubmissionOctober 27, 2023

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Paolo Aurello, Editor

PONE-D-23-34928A Retrospective Cohort Study to Observe the Efficacy and Safety of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection (ESD) with Additional Radiotherapy for T1a-MM/T1b-SM Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma(ESCC)PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Xuesong,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 25 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.
If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Paolo Aurello

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2.  Did you know that depositing data in a repository is associated with up to a 25% citation advantage (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230416)? If you’ve not already done so, consider depositing your raw data in a repository to ensure your work is read, appreciated and cited by the largest possible audience. You’ll also earn an Accessible Data icon on your published paper if you deposit your data in any participating repository (https://plos.org/open-science/open-data/#accessible-data).

3. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

4. One of the noted authors is a group or consortium Department of Gastroenterology, Ningbo Medical Center Lihuili Hospital,Ningbo Clinical and Pathological Diagnosis Center, Zhejiang. In addition to naming the author group, please list the individual authors and affiliations within this group in the acknowledgments section of your manuscript. Please also indicate clearly a lead author for this group along with a contact email address.

5. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Though it is a retrospective study, still some questions are there to find out.

1. It will remain a question to authors why radiotherapy is used in case of T1a-MM without LVSI.

2. What is craniocaudal margin used in radiotherapy portal.

3. Grades of Radiotherapy toxicity (Grade 1,2,3) data will be interesting to know.

Reviewer #2: 1. Its better to replace word "additional" with "Adjuvant" in Title and elsewhere

2. Abstract- line 25, replace received with underwent.

3. Introduction

a. Rewrite 45-48 line as your data do not match with reference

b. Reference 10, may not exactly show LN mets incidence cause its done as salvage so may not be appropriate reference here

c. Rewrite sentence 61-63

d. In Radiotherapy section, in line 128, was Left Anterior descending artery contour as OAR? It is considered most important OAR in heart.

e. Dose of Radiotherapy have differed significantly (41.4 Gy vs 50.4Gy). how was dose decided?

f. In follow up section, How frequently was CT scan done?

g. In result section, complication should be reported based on grade rather than using word like mild.

h. In discussion section, since it is retrospective study of small sample rather than comparing RT vs Non RT group, it is better for author to conclude that adjuvant RT is safe and effective with good results

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: ABHIJIT DAS MD. DNB

Reviewer #2: Yes: Dr Simit SApkota

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Revision 1

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

________________________________________

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

________________________________________

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reply:

Due to the nature of this clinical study and privacy considerations, the provision of personal information is restricted.

________________________________________

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

________________________________________

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Though it is a retrospective study, still some questions are there to find out.

1. It will remain a question to authors why radiotherapy is used in case of T1a-MM without LVSI.

Reply:

Thank you for the feedback.

In the background, it has been mentioned that for patients with T1a-MM esophageal squamous cell carcinoma without vascular invasion after endoscopic resection, the metastasis rate in the follow-up observation group is 5.6%. However, considering that additional surgical resection may result in a decreased quality of life and potential treatment-related mortality, as well as the delayed adverse events and treatment-related mortality associated with additional chemoradiotherapy, the guidance committee did not reach a conclusion on whether to recommend additional treatment.

2. What is craniocaudal margin used in radiotherapy portal.

Reply:

The margin is described in the radiotherapy section: “A titanium clip was endoscopically placed in the tumor bed (post-ESD scar) before the localization CT to indicate the upper and lower borders. The GTVtb defined as the upper and lower esophageal border was determined by these titanium clips, and the PGTVtb was the 1 cm outward expansion of GTVtb.”

3. Grades of Radiotherapy toxicity (Grade 1,2,3) data will be interesting to know.

Reply:

Thank you for the feedback, we revised the term according to the criteria listed in the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0.

Reviewer #2:

1. Its better to replace word "additional" with "Adjuvant" in Title and elsewhere

Reply:

Thank you for your feedback. We have made revisions accordingly.

2. Abstract- line 25, replace received with underwent.

Reply:

Thank you for your feedback. We have made revisions accordingly.

3. Introduction

a. Rewrite 45-48 line as your data do not match with reference

Reply:

Thank you for your observation. The data used in lines 45-48 is derived from reference 4, and we have modified it and changed the citation. We'll be happy to revisit and make adjustments as needed. If you have any specific concerns or suggestions, please feel free to share.

(4) Ishihara R, Arima M, Iizuka T, Oyama T, Katada C, Kato M, et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection/endoscopic mucosal resection guidelines for esophageal cancer. Dig Endosc. 2020 May;32(4):452–93.

b. Reference 10, may not exactly show LN mets incidence cause its done as salvage so may not be appropriate reference here

Reply:

Thank you for the feedback. Upon review, we agree that this reference does not suit this context and, as a result, it has been removed.

c. Rewrite sentence 61-63

Reply:

Thank you for your feedback. We have made revisions accordingly to have a clearer view of the background and the guidelines.

d. In Radiotherapy section, in line 128, was Left Anterior descending artery contour as OAR? It is considered most important OAR in heart.

Reply:

Thank you for your feedback. We consider Left Anterior descending artery as OAR, and have made revisions accordingly.

e. Dose of Radiotherapy have differed significantly (41.4 Gy vs 50.4Gy). how was dose decided?

Reply:

The radiotherapy doses have been determined based on historical references, and we have incorporated this information in the methods section.

f. In follow up section, How frequently was CT scan done?

Reply:

Thank you for the feedback, CT was done every 6 months during the first year after gastroscopy, and then annually afterward.

g. In result section, complication should be reported based on grade rather than using word like mild.

Reply:

Thank you for the feedback, we revised the term according to the criteria listed in the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0.

h. In discussion section, since it is retrospective study of small sample rather than comparing RT vs Non RT group, it is better for author to conclude that adjuvant RT is safe and effective with good results

Reply:

Thank you for the feedback, we have made revisions accordingly.

________________________________________

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers (v2.3 Jan-19-2024).pdf
Decision Letter - Paolo Aurello, Editor

A Retrospective Cohort Study to Observe the Efficacy and Safety of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection (ESD) with Adjuvant Radiotherapy for T1a-MM/T1b-SM Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma (ESCC)

PONE-D-23-34928R1

Dear Dr. Xuesong Zhang

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Paolo Aurello

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Paolo Aurello, Editor

PONE-D-23-34928R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zhang,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Paolo Aurello

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .