Title: Combination of tumor markers predicts progression and pathological response in patients
with locally advanced gastric cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy treatment
Version: 3 Date: 02 Jan 2021
Reviewer's report:
This paper described that tumor marker between neoadjuvant chemotherapy and operation could
predict progression free survival and pathological response in patients with locally advanced
gastric cancer. This study is very attractive to clinician and well written. But it does not reach
the accept level to this journal.
[Major points]
1. The meaning to investigate the prediction survival in preoperatively after chemotherapy is
unclear in Introduction. It is not enough that there are few reports about that. For example,
FLOT or MAGIC protocol have problem as these regimens include postoperative chemotherapy
regardless pathological findings. Patients undergo planned chemotherapy after surgery, even if
there was no response pathologically.
2. Model 2 of Table 4 and change of TM (Table 6 and Fig. 6) seem to be not necessary in this
paper. There are redundant and let readers difficult to focus on main point of this article.
3. First paragraph of discussion is not appropriate. If authors want to mention its contents, these
should be located in Introduction. It is better to describe summarized main findings of the study
in first paragraph of Discussion.
[Minor points]
1. Abbreviation is not appropriate in running head.
2. This study is retrospective analysis and patient accumulation have taken long time. It seems
that there was time bias. Actually, there was many regimens of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. It is
better to mention about this issue in limitation paragraph. If possible, time should be included
in multivariate analysis; ex: 2006-2011 vs. 2012-2017.
3. There was no criteria of adaptation of NACT in Methods.
4. Eligible patient number was doubled in Methods and Results.
5. Interpretation and explanation should not be in Results. Last sentence of 2nd paragraph in
Results should not be there.
6. Author mentioned about overall survival in 3rd paragraph. There is a paper about DFS
surrogation for OS (J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013 Nov 6;105(21):1600-7).
Title: Combination of tumor markers predicts progression and pathological response in patients
with locally advanced gastric cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy treatment
Version: 3 Date: 02 Jan 2021
Reviewer's report:
This paper described that tumor marker between neoadjuvant chemotherapy and operation could
predict progression free survival and pathological response in patients with locally advanced
gastric cancer. This study is very attractive to clinician and well written. But it does not reach
the accept level to this journal.
[Major points]
1. The meaning to investigate the prediction survival in preoperatively after chemotherapy is
unclear in Introduction. It is not enough that there are few reports about that. For example,
FLOT or MAGIC protocol have problem as these regimens include postoperative chemotherapy
regardless pathological findings. Patients undergo planned chemotherapy after surgery, even if
there was no response pathologically.
2. Model 2 of Table 4 and change of TM (Table 6 and Fig. 6) seem to be not necessary in this
paper. There are redundant and let readers difficult to focus on main point of this article.
3. First paragraph of discussion is not appropriate. If authors want to mention its contents, these
should be located in Introduction. It is better to describe summarized main findings of the study
in first paragraph of Discussion.
[Minor points]
1. Abbreviation is not appropriate in running head.
2. This study is retrospective analysis and patient accumulation have taken long time. It seems
that there was time bias. Actually, there was many regimens of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. It is
better to mention about this issue in limitation paragraph. If possible, time should be included
in multivariate analysis; ex: 2006-2011 vs. 2012-2017.
3. There was no criteria of adaptation of NACT in Methods.
4. Eligible patient number was doubled in Methods and Results.
5. Interpretation and explanation should not be in Results. Last sentence of 2nd paragraph in
Results should not be there.
6. Author mentioned about overall survival in 3rd paragraph. There is a paper about DFS
surrogation for OS (J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013 Nov 6;105(21):1600-7).
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Combination of tumor markers predicts progression and pathological response in patients
with locally advanced gastric cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy treatment
Version: 3 Date: 02 Jan 2021
Reviewer's report:
This paper described that tumor marker between neoadjuvant chemotherapy and operation could
predict progression free survival and pathological response in patients with locally advanced
gastric cancer. This study is very attractive to clinician and well written. But it does not reach
the accept level to this journal.
[Major points]
1. The meaning to investigate the prediction survival in preoperatively after chemotherapy is
unclear in Introduction. It is not enough that there are few reports about that. For example,
FLOT or MAGIC protocol have problem as these regimens include postoperative chemotherapy
regardless pathological findings. Patients undergo planned chemotherapy after surgery, even if
there was no response pathologically.
2. Model 2 of Table 4 and change of TM (Table 6 and Fig. 6) seem to be not necessary in this
paper. There are redundant and let readers difficult to focus on main point of this article.
3. First paragraph of discussion is not appropriate. If authors want to mention its contents, these
should be located in Introduction. It is better to describe summarized main findings of the study
in first paragraph of Discussion.
[Minor points]
1. Abbreviation is not appropriate in running head.
2. This study is retrospective analysis and patient accumulation have taken long time. It seems
that there was time bias. Actually, there was many regimens of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. It is
better to mention about this issue in limitation paragraph. If possible, time should be included
in multivariate analysis; ex: 2006-2011 vs. 2012-2017.
3. There was no criteria of adaptation of NACT in Methods.
4. Eligible patient number was doubled in Methods and Results.
5. Interpretation and explanation should not be in Results. Last sentence of 2nd paragraph in
Results should not be there.
6. Author mentioned about overall survival in 3rd paragraph. There is a paper about DFS
surrogation for OS (J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013 Nov 6;105(21):1600-7).
assistant