Staging Systems and Nomograms for Soft Tissue Sarcoma

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

First of all I would like to thank the editors for the opportunity to review this manuscript.

Staging Systems and nomograms present a high degree of importance for clinicians, even more if they allow to tailor medical and surgical care for patients. Soft tissue sarcomas are extremely difficult to deal with, and as such, these systems and nomograms are needed and encourage to improve our care.

This manuscript collects very well the current available systems and nomograms for soft tissue sarcomas, discriminating their construction process, virtues, but even more important, their flaws and opportunities to still improve!

Despite the teme of this manuscript, I found it very easy to read, which in my view is a great complement to the authors. At the same time, all the information is well discriminated and presented, allowing an easy understanding by the reader. As such, and despite minor suggestions (see below), I believe this is a very fine work, which not being a breakthrough paper, it resumes very well important informations for all those who dedicate to treat patients with sarcoma. 

I recommend this manuscript for publication at Current Oncology after the authors address the minor comments / suggestions which follows:

Lines 152-154: this sentence seems confusing to me. If possible, I advise for a simple grammatical revision to make it easier to read and provide the proper meaning that the authors wanted to provide.

Line 153: the meaning of MSKSN should be presented at this point

Line 178: the meaning of FNLCCC should also be presented during the text

Line 186: the authors state that there are more than 70 histologic subtypes of soft tissue sarcoma, however, in the introduction (line 29) they state more than 50. Despite not being wrong I would like to see more uniform information to facilitate the reading

Congratulations to the authors for this work

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Editor, 

The authors give an overview of the available nomograms for SoftTissueSarcoma, helping clinicians to select the best tool for each patient.

Although the authors well described the different nomograms existing  more criticism in the description  is required to give the opportunity reader to learn how to evaluate the nomogram 

In my opinion, some indications for example how many patients were analyzed to contribute to nomogram development if the data come from large trials to reduce bias, from a randomized trial, there are nomograms validated by a cohort group. Additional paragraphs including the advance in technology that is moving together with the growth of artificial intelligence models and patients' genomic/proteomic profiling should be discussed.  An additional point in the future, we will probably be to estimate the exact risk of every single patient based on the available data, and AI models can integrate new data without the need of updating models?  I believe that opening new perspectives should be important for the authors

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx