Review for 10.1186/s12876-020-01438-1 (2020)

Reviewer’ s report
Title: Clinical characteristics of adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma infiltration in the gastrointestinal
tract
Version: 3Date: 19 May 2020
Reviewer's report:
Comments:
1.In the Results section of the abstract, please specify what the similar macroscopic finding werein endoscopy.2."human T-cell lymphotropic virus type 1 (HTLV-1)" is now formerly called "human T-cellleukemia virus type 1 (HTLV-1)".3.Page 2, Line 28/29. Introduction section. "… had related to ..." should be "… was related to …"
4.The "Background" section is too simplified. More information should be provided, at least thefindings of prior studies on the endoscopic findings of ATLL.5.3rd paragraph of Patients and study design. "All 40 patients who provided consent in this studyunderwent upper GI endoscopy, while 29 patients underwent lower GI endoscopy". Please specifyhow many patients had both upper and lower GI endoscopy.6.Same paragraph as the above. The authors wrote "However, five patients had stable diseaseactivity." What was the specific meaning/purpose of this sentence? Was this related to endoscopicfindings? How many patients had follow-up endoscopy? That is, how many patient underwentmultiple endoscopic examinations?7.Please clearly define the criteria of separating infiltration vs. non-infiltration groups. Did theauthors mean histological/biopsy proof of tumor infiltration in the GI mucosa?8.How many cases/what proportion of the cases were confirmed by pathological examination of
the gastrointestinal biopies?
9.As the case number was less than 100, integers instead of one decimal should be used forpercentage. For example, in Table 2, "52.5%" should be revised to 53%.10.Table 3. The authors wrote "For the purpose of protecting personal information, we did notspecifically state patients' age". This is non-sense. I don't see how the patients' confidentiality willbe revealed by providing their age.11.Results section. It's extremely weird to write "…6 of the 29 of the 40 total patients whounderwent lower GI endoscopy (Table 2)". This should be rephrased, maybe in two sentences.Again, it's important to clearly specify if the 29 patients with lower GI endoscopy had alsoreceived upper GI endoscopy (Comments no. 5).12.It's awkward to write "Upper and lower GI endoscopic findings included duplicative cases.Twenty-two patients of the 40 total patients revealed some kind of endoscopic findings." Revisionis needed.13."candida esophagitis" should be "Candidal esophagitis".14.Table 3. 'Macroscopic findings ‡" What's the difference between the entries of "-" vs. "No
fingings"? Does "-" indicating GI endoscopy not performed? If so, please replace it with "NA (notavailable)".15."This study did not support any funding." This should be "There was no funding for this
study".
16.What was the hypothesis of absence of skin lesion in relation to GI tract infiltration?
17.Professional English editing is mandatory.
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
No
Does the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
Unable to assessAre the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
YesAre you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an
additional statistical review?If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require furtherassessment in your comments to the editors.
I am able to assess the statistics
Quality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
Not suitable for publication unless extensively editedDeclaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of thismanuscript, either now or in the future?
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the
manuscript?
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that holds
or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?6. Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this paper?
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' below.
If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Reviewer Publication Consent. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access
Creative Commons CC-BY License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0) if this manu-script is accepted for publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the publishedreport have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not be published.Ifyou are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the editorial office before completingthe review.If you wish, you can include your name in your published report. Please note you mustdecide whether to include your name at the start of the process and confirm this decision wheneverprompted. If you change your decision later, we will not be able to publish your name.
I agree to the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 license; please do not publish my name with my report.
(default)