Title: The characteristics and clinical relevance of tumor fusion burden in non-EBV (+) gastric
cancer with MSS
Version: 0 Date: 05 Jul 2022
Reviewer's report:
In this study, Zhu et al. made use of the TCGA gastric cancer dataset to investigate the clinical
significance of tumor fusion burdens. There are some major concerns regarding the methods
and data presented.
The word ‘excellent’ in the title sounds weird. Results from this study did not support the
conclusion. The better ‘immunogenicity’ of low-TFB patients as compared with those with high-
TFB was just a prediction based on gene expression profiles of immune markers. Regarding
prognosis, the data actually showed no significant difference.
The methods section just mentioned ‘methods as in previous reports’ or ‘data collected from
published studies’ with references. This is not acceptable. Methods should be described in detail
and data should be provided in a supplemental dataset.
It seems this study focused on gastric cancer patients who were non-EBV(+) and MSS, fulfilling
both. However, in the analyses, data were on either non-EBV(+) or MSS patients, which was
quite confusing. Why did Fig 1D focus on non-EBV(+) only?
Fig 6B&D, the comparisons of 2-year or 3-year survival rates were not rigorous.
What does it mean by ‘The patients were categorized as TFB-high or TFB-low group according
to the upper quartile of TFB values in the entire cohort.’? 25% are TFB-high and the remaining
are TFB-low#then why were there 61 vs 172 patients (totaling 233)?
Any specific gene fusion events are of clinical significance in this cohort?
There are more than 319 gastric cancer cases in TCGA. More cases should be included in the
analysis.
Title: The characteristics and clinical relevance of tumor fusion burden in non-EBV (+) gastric
cancer with MSS
Version: 0 Date: 05 Jul 2022
Reviewer's report:
In this study, Zhu et al. made use of the TCGA gastric cancer dataset to investigate the clinical
significance of tumor fusion burdens. There are some major concerns regarding the methods
and data presented.
The word ‘excellent’ in the title sounds weird. Results from this study did not support the
conclusion. The better ‘immunogenicity’ of low-TFB patients as compared with those with high-
TFB was just a prediction based on gene expression profiles of immune markers. Regarding
prognosis, the data actually showed no significant difference.
The methods section just mentioned ‘methods as in previous reports’ or ‘data collected from
published studies’ with references. This is not acceptable. Methods should be described in detail
and data should be provided in a supplemental dataset.
It seems this study focused on gastric cancer patients who were non-EBV(+) and MSS, fulfilling
both. However, in the analyses, data were on either non-EBV(+) or MSS patients, which was
quite confusing. Why did Fig 1D focus on non-EBV(+) only?
Fig 6B&D, the comparisons of 2-year or 3-year survival rates were not rigorous.
What does it mean by ‘The patients were categorized as TFB-high or TFB-low group according
to the upper quartile of TFB values in the entire cohort.’? 25% are TFB-high and the remaining
are TFB-low#then why were there 61 vs 172 patients (totaling 233)?
Any specific gene fusion events are of clinical significance in this cohort?
There are more than 319 gastric cancer cases in TCGA. More cases should be included in the
analysis.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: The characteristics and clinical relevance of tumor fusion burden in non-EBV (+) gastric
cancer with MSS
Version: 0 Date: 05 Jul 2022
Reviewer's report:
In this study, Zhu et al. made use of the TCGA gastric cancer dataset to investigate the clinical
significance of tumor fusion burdens. There are some major concerns regarding the methods
and data presented.
The word ‘excellent’ in the title sounds weird. Results from this study did not support the
conclusion. The better ‘immunogenicity’ of low-TFB patients as compared with those with high-
TFB was just a prediction based on gene expression profiles of immune markers. Regarding
prognosis, the data actually showed no significant difference.
The methods section just mentioned ‘methods as in previous reports’ or ‘data collected from
published studies’ with references. This is not acceptable. Methods should be described in detail
and data should be provided in a supplemental dataset.
It seems this study focused on gastric cancer patients who were non-EBV(+) and MSS, fulfilling
both. However, in the analyses, data were on either non-EBV(+) or MSS patients, which was
quite confusing. Why did Fig 1D focus on non-EBV(+) only?
Fig 6B&D, the comparisons of 2-year or 3-year survival rates were not rigorous.
What does it mean by ‘The patients were categorized as TFB-high or TFB-low group according
to the upper quartile of TFB values in the entire cohort.’? 25% are TFB-high and the remaining
are TFB-low#then why were there 61 vs 172 patients (totaling 233)?
Any specific gene fusion events are of clinical significance in this cohort?
There are more than 319 gastric cancer cases in TCGA. More cases should be included in the
analysis.
assistant