Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The issue of multifocality, especially in papillary carcinoma, is a highly significant clinical problem. Therefore, the research undertaken by the authors is justified. Before publication, please provide clarification and answers to the following questions:

1. What was the reason for reoperation, particularly in the group with three confirmed carcinoma foci?

2. Did the assessment of lesion margin irregularity also include the presence of ill-define border?

3. Did the authors consider the complete absence of vascular flow in papillary microcarcinomas as a characteristic pattern of malignant lesions?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Provide subgroup analysis stratified by TNM stage for reoperation rate analysis

2. Clarify temporal variations and consider sensitivity analysis excluding the earliest study period

3. Better characterize follow-up methods and duration

4. Provide power calculations for the negative findings regarding reoperation rates

5. More thoroughly discuss the discrepancies with existing literature

6. Consider excluding non-WDTC histologies from the primary analysis rather than analyzing separately.

7. Provide sex-stratified analyses

8. Improve figure legends for clarity

9. Consider reframing conclusions to emphasize clinical implications

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor language editing is required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I confirm my acceptance of this version of the manuscript.