Hereditary Diffuse Gastric Cancer—Update Based on the Current Consort Recommendations

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is an update on hereditary diffuse gastric cancer, it is not an original study. It is well done, references are appropriate, but it adds nothing to scientific knowledge.

I answer point by point:

1. What is the main question addressed by the research? This paper is an update on hereditary diffuse gastric cancer, it is not an original study
2.  Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field, and if so, why? It is a well done review based on the current consort recommendations, but it adds nothing to scientific knowledge
3.  What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material? No adds new data
4. What specific improvements could the authors consider regarding the methodology? N.A.
5. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed? N.A.
6. Are the references appropriate? yes, they are
7. Please include any additional comments on the tables and figures. There is a single figure, clear and easy to read.

Author Response

Dear Editors,

please, find enclosed the revised review/ commentary on the updated criteria for hereditary diffuse gastric cancer for the special issue of "In Search of More Effective and Less Invasive Ways to Treat Esophagus and Stomach Cancer".

Our aim was to present an updated and comprise version, easy to read and by this means to spread the information.

Thank you for considering our manuscript for publication.

best regards,

Severin Daum

Reviewer #1

The paper is an update on hereditary diffuse gastric cancer, it is not an original study. It is well done, references are appropriate, but it adds nothing to scientific knowledge.

I answer point by point:

What is the main question addressed by the research? This paper is an update on hereditary diffuse gastric cancer, it is not an original study

Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field, and if so, why? It is a well done review based on the current consort recommendations, but it adds nothing to scientific knowledge

Thank you for the comment: we did not intend to present an original paper, but a Commentary as is described in the headings of the manuscript. We think that this Commentary on hereditary gastric cancer brings the new findings in a more concise form to the readers of this special issue.

     What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material? No adds new data

See above.

    What specific improvements could the authors consider regarding the methodology? N.A.

See above.

    Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed? N.A.

See above.

    Are the references appropriate? yes, they are

    Please include any additional comments on the tables and figures. There is a single figure, clear and easy to read

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper summarizes the Clinical Practice Guidelines for Hereditary Diffuse Gastirc Cancer. It is concisely described, but there are some inadequacies and points that need to be confirmed.

・Please check the references. No.16 does not seem to conform to the text.

・The morphology of the signet ring cells(Pagetoid spread) is characteristic in HDG and author should describe about it.

・The description of endoscopic findings is also insufficient.

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewer,

please, find enclosed the revised review/ commentary on the updated criteria for hereditary diffuse gastric cancer for the special issue of "In Search of More Effective and Less Invasive Ways to Treat Esophagus and Stomach Cancer".

Our aim was to present an updated and comprise version, easy to read and by this means to spread the information.

Thank you for considering our manuscript for publication

best regards,

Severin Daum

Reviewer #2

This paper summarizes the Clinical Practice Guidelines for Hereditary Diffuse Gastric Cancer. It is concisely described, but there are some inadequacies and points that need to be confirmed.

・Please check the references. No.16 does not seem to conform to the text.

Thank you for the comment: we changed the reference and referred to international guidelines, as they are published in English (ESMO guideline from 2019).

・The morphology of the signet ring cells (Pagetoid spread) is characteristic in HDG and author should describe about it.

Thank you for the comment: we included this characteristic finding in the Introduction section.

・The description of endoscopic findings is also insufficient

Thank you for the comment: we included a more detailed description of endoscopic early findings in the Clinical Approach section.