Review for 10.1186/s12876-020-01286-z (2020)

Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Metastatic Rectal Cancer to Papillary Thyroid Carcino ma: A Case Report and Review of 
Literature  
 
Version: 0 Date: 04 Mar 2020  
 
Reviewer: Research Square Reviewer 1  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:  
 
RELEVANCE - Does this case report make a contribution to medical knowledge, have 
educational value, or highlight the need for a change in clinical practice or diagnostic/prognostic 
approaches?  
 
Yes, this r eport contributes to medical knowledge  
 
 
CASE DESCRIPTION - Are the details of the case sufficiently well described to understand the 
patient's symptoms and course of treatment?  
 
No - there are minor issues  
 
 
DIAGNOSIS/INTERPRETATION - Based on the facts pre sented, are the diagnosis, 
interpretation, and course of treatment medically sound?  
 
No, based on information contained in the report, the authors' interpretation of this case is 
unsound  
 
 
DISCUSSION OF THE CASE - Does the discussion appropriately analyse th e importance of the 
findings and their relevance to future understanding of disease processes, diagnosis or treatment? 
Has an adequate literature review pertinent to the case been included?  
 
No - there are minor issues  
 
 
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Could an appropriately REVISED version of this 
work represent a technically sound contribution?  
 
Probably - with minor revisions  
 
 
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:  
 
GENERAL COMMENTS: This is an interesting case report but the authors n eed to add missing 
references, clarify certain points in the text throughout the manuscript and end with a 
conclusion/recommendations for future investigations of this rare condition.  
 
 
REQUESTED REVISIONS:  
 
The authors refer to colorectal cancer as one dis ease while colon cancer and rectal cancers are 
two diseases. For example, HNPCC patients have right side colon cancer and this manuscript 
describes a cases of rectal cancer. Authors' clarification of this point will be important.  
Suggestions are changing the title to "Metastatic Rectal Cancer …." and also changing the text 
throughout the manuscript to "rectal" not "colorectal" or providing more evidence that HNPCC is 
a rectal not colon diseases.  In the Background on page 4, the authors need to clarify if the text 
and literature they cited refer to the disease in the U.S. or globally. A reference or references 
need to be added to the sentence starting with "up to date, only eight ---".  Page 8, is there a 
contradiction or typo between 10.4%  and 0.1% of CRC cases?  Clarification is needed. In the 
end of the manuscript, the authors need to add what needs to be done next.  Do they recommend 
that future research should investigate this condition in retrospective cancer center records or the 
Surveillance Epidemio logy and End Results (SEER)? , if it is worth investigating.  
 
 
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:  
 
I am not sure if the reference are in compliance with any journal format.  The authors list the first 
and last names of the authors, not last name followed by in itials.  
 
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.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional s tatistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
Not relevant to this manuscript  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Needs some langu age corrections before being published  
 
Declaration 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 a n organisation that may in any way gain or lose financial ly from the 
publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2.  Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat may in any way gain or 
lose financially from the publication of th is 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.  
 
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square. Reviewers with  
declar ed or apparent competing interests are not utilized for t hese reviews. This reviewer has  
agreed to publication of their comments online under a Creat ive Commons Attri bution License  
attributed to Research Square and was paid a small honorarium for completin g the review within 
a specified timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewer  
recommendation.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understan d that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted f or publication, my named report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' 
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons 
CC-BY l icense ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments  
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be in cluded as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review  policy of the journal