Reviewer's report
Title:Immunohistochemical Expression and Outcome in Curatively Resected
Ampulla of Vater Cancer
Version:2Date:22 August 2015
Reviewer: Camilla Böckelman
Reviewer's report:
Yun et al. studied the prognostic impact of known prognostic factors such as
advanced T-stage in ampullary carcinoma. Several similar studies have been
published before with data in line with this study. The study comprises a limited
study population (37 patients). Although the disease in question is rare, previous
studies have included more patients. No major new results are presented.
Major Compulsory Revisions:
1. The title should be more specific and mention studying cytokeratins CK7 and
CK20. The authors may want to focus and comment more in detail on the result
of CK7+/CK20- being an independent prognostic factor for overall survival.
2. An association analysis for CK7 and CK20 with regard to other clinicopathogic
factors should be presented. The authors mention in the Methods they used the
chi-square test, however, the results from that are not presented other than in the
Discussion.
3. A representative image for the immunohistochemical stainings should be
added.
4. TNM-stage should also be included in all survival analyses.
5. For Tables 3-4, univariate hazard ratios should be provided in addition to
p-values.
Minor Essential Revisions:
6. The authors should in the Background comment more in detail on previous
results on cytokeratins and their biological impact on ampullary cancer.
7. The type of antibody and at what concentration used should be indicated
(mono/polyclonal, catalog number, dilution) for the immunohistochemistry. Were
the results gained from routine stainings?
8. In the Methods overall and disease-free survival (OS) must be defined. The
authors should adhere to eg. the guidelines by Punt et al. (JNCI 2007).
Discretionary Revisions:
9. A language review would improve the text, with special attention to grammar,
punctuation, and spelling.
10. I find it surprising that both 3- and 5-year disease-free survival rates were
75.7%. This may represent a small patient material, being very sensitive to small
fluctuations in survival.
11. The p-value "0.000" (Table 4) should be given as <0.001.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:Immunohistochemical Expression and Outcome in Curatively Resected
Ampulla of Vater Cancer
Version:2Date:22 August 2015
Reviewer: Camilla Böckelman
Reviewer's report:
Yun et al. studied the prognostic impact of known prognostic factors such as
advanced T-stage in ampullary carcinoma. Several similar studies have been
published before with data in line with this study. The study comprises a limited
study population (37 patients). Although the disease in question is rare, previous
studies have included more patients. No major new results are presented.
Major Compulsory Revisions:
1. The title should be more specific and mention studying cytokeratins CK7 and
CK20. The authors may want to focus and comment more in detail on the result
of CK7+/CK20- being an independent prognostic factor for overall survival.
2. An association analysis for CK7 and CK20 with regard to other clinicopathogic
factors should be presented. The authors mention in the Methods they used the
chi-square test, however, the results from that are not presented other than in the
Discussion.
3. A representative image for the immunohistochemical stainings should be
added.
4. TNM-stage should also be included in all survival analyses.
5. For Tables 3-4, univariate hazard ratios should be provided in addition to
p-values.
Minor Essential Revisions:
6. The authors should in the Background comment more in detail on previous
results on cytokeratins and their biological impact on ampullary cancer.
7. The type of antibody and at what concentration used should be indicated
(mono/polyclonal, catalog number, dilution) for the immunohistochemistry. Were
the results gained from routine stainings?
8. In the Methods overall and disease-free survival (OS) must be defined. The
authors should adhere to eg. the guidelines by Punt et al. (JNCI 2007).
Discretionary Revisions:
9. A language review would improve the text, with special attention to grammar,
punctuation, and spelling.
10. I find it surprising that both 3- and 5-year disease-free survival rates were
75.7%. This may represent a small patient material, being very sensitive to small
fluctuations in survival.
11. The p-value "0.000" (Table 4) should be given as <0.001.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Immunohistochemical Expression and Outcome in Curatively Resected
Ampulla of Vater Cancer
Version:2Date:22 August 2015
Reviewer: Camilla Böckelman
Reviewer's report:
Yun et al. studied the prognostic impact of known prognostic factors such as
advanced T-stage in ampullary carcinoma. Several similar studies have been
published before with data in line with this study. The study comprises a limited
study population (37 patients). Although the disease in question is rare, previous
studies have included more patients. No major new results are presented.
Major Compulsory Revisions:
1. The title should be more specific and mention studying cytokeratins CK7 and
CK20. The authors may want to focus and comment more in detail on the result
of CK7+/CK20- being an independent prognostic factor for overall survival.
2. An association analysis for CK7 and CK20 with regard to other clinicopathogic
factors should be presented. The authors mention in the Methods they used the
chi-square test, however, the results from that are not presented other than in the
Discussion.
3. A representative image for the immunohistochemical stainings should be
added.
4. TNM-stage should also be included in all survival analyses.
5. For Tables 3-4, univariate hazard ratios should be provided in addition to
p-values.
Minor Essential Revisions:
6. The authors should in the Background comment more in detail on previous
results on cytokeratins and their biological impact on ampullary cancer.
7. The type of antibody and at what concentration used should be indicated
(mono/polyclonal, catalog number, dilution) for the immunohistochemistry. Were
the results gained from routine stainings?
8. In the Methods overall and disease-free survival (OS) must be defined. The
authors should adhere to eg. the guidelines by Punt et al. (JNCI 2007).
Discretionary Revisions:
9. A language review would improve the text, with special attention to grammar,
punctuation, and spelling.
10. I find it surprising that both 3- and 5-year disease-free survival rates were
75.7%. This may represent a small patient material, being very sensitive to small
fluctuations in survival.
11. The p-value "0.000" (Table 4) should be given as <0.001.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
assistant