Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this study the authors have reviewed the clinico-pathological data, including the overall survival, of 375 patients affected by thymic epithelial tumors (TET) that were surgically resected. The aim of this study was to  compare the prognosis of the TET patients according to two different staging systems: the Masaoka-Koga and the tumor node metastases.

 

Even though the results using these two systems appear quite similar, as far as the overall  survival is concerned, the inclusion of un these staging systems  of the multiple organ involvement seems to improve the staging better predicting the overall survival in case of the advanced TET.

 

 

This study is interesting, and the suggestion of taking in consideration the multiple organ involvement fordefining a better prognosis is interesting.

 

Criticism

 

This Reviewer would advice a revised Eduting of the manuscript by an English mother tongue scientist.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thanks for your nice words. You observed the following Criticism:

"This Reviewer would advice a revised Eduting of the manuscript by an English mother tongue scientist".

 

Tha manuscript has been reviewed by Franziska Michaela Lohmeyer, who cooperates in our Institution for English editing.

 

Thanks for the time you have spend in reviewing our manuscript.

 

Best regards,

Filippo Lococo

Reviewer 2 Report

The Authors conducted a very interesting study to analyze the prognostic effectiveness of Masaoka-Koga and TNM staging systems in thymic epithelial tumors.

I feel that the paper is scientifically sound and the conclusions are well grounded, although more likely of interest for a specialized audience. The strenghts and limitations of the study are clearly stated.

I have only one suggestion. Can the Authors expand on the potential improvement of the two staging systems and the relevance for clinical practice? this would make the paper more interesting for a general audience like the one of this journal.

Minor: some spell check is required (see in the simple summary, line 20, "effectives" should be "effectiveness"). Can the Authors further proof-read the paper?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer a point by point Reply to your comments is reported in the attached file. Thanks for the time you have spend in revising our manuscript.

Best regards,

Filippo Lococo

Author Response File: Author Response.docx