Reviewer's report
Title:Improvement of long-term outcomes in pancreatic cancer within the
gemcitabine era: A collaborative retrospective multicenter clinical review of 1,082
patients
Version: 2Date:19 July 2013
Reviewer: David Chang
Reviewer's report:
Kuroda et al revision 1
The reviewer would like to thank the authors for performing a re-analysis for the
study.
Major comments:
Despite the re-analysis, the reviewer fails to understand how the conclusion of
“GEM-based chemotherapy has improved long-term outcomes in pancreatic
cancer even within the GEM era…..”. there is no doubt in the unresected group, if
patient received GEM, the prognosis is better. However, the authors have not
shown that receiving GEM in different study time group has led to statistically
different prognosis which is the conclusion that the authors have made. Despite a
better MST in Gp B than A (P=0.0063) and more patients underwent chemo and
less had BSC, it is still statistically weak to arrive at the conclusion unless a
multivariate analysis is performed including (1) study period, (2) chemo and (3)
an interaction variable “study period X chemo”. It is only if the interaction variable
is statistically significant when a conclusion of receiving GEM in different study
time group has led to different survival seen here. The reviewer would suggest
the authors to re-think the hypothesis/aim, is the study designed to show that
chemo is better BSC or is the chemo effect different in the 2 study time period?
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Improvement of long-term outcomes in pancreatic cancer within the
gemcitabine era: A collaborative retrospective multicenter clinical review of 1,082
patients
Version: 2Date:19 July 2013
Reviewer: David Chang
Reviewer's report:
Kuroda et al revision 1
The reviewer would like to thank the authors for performing a re-analysis for the
study.
Major comments:
Despite the re-analysis, the reviewer fails to understand how the conclusion of
“GEM-based chemotherapy has improved long-term outcomes in pancreatic
cancer even within the GEM era…..”. there is no doubt in the unresected group, if
patient received GEM, the prognosis is better. However, the authors have not
shown that receiving GEM in different study time group has led to statistically
different prognosis which is the conclusion that the authors have made. Despite a
better MST in Gp B than A (P=0.0063) and more patients underwent chemo and
less had BSC, it is still statistically weak to arrive at the conclusion unless a
multivariate analysis is performed including (1) study period, (2) chemo and (3)
an interaction variable “study period X chemo”. It is only if the interaction variable
is statistically significant when a conclusion of receiving GEM in different study
time group has led to different survival seen here. The reviewer would suggest
the authors to re-think the hypothesis/aim, is the study designed to show that
chemo is better BSC or is the chemo effect different in the 2 study time period?
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Improvement of long-term outcomes in pancreatic cancer within the
gemcitabine era: A collaborative retrospective multicenter clinical review of 1,082
patients
Version: 2Date:19 July 2013
Reviewer: David Chang
Reviewer's report:
Kuroda et al revision 1
The reviewer would like to thank the authors for performing a re-analysis for the
study.
Major comments:
Despite the re-analysis, the reviewer fails to understand how the conclusion of
“GEM-based chemotherapy has improved long-term outcomes in pancreatic
cancer even within the GEM era…..”. there is no doubt in the unresected group, if
patient received GEM, the prognosis is better. However, the authors have not
shown that receiving GEM in different study time group has led to statistically
different prognosis which is the conclusion that the authors have made. Despite a
better MST in Gp B than A (P=0.0063) and more patients underwent chemo and
less had BSC, it is still statistically weak to arrive at the conclusion unless a
multivariate analysis is performed including (1) study period, (2) chemo and (3)
an interaction variable “study period X chemo”. It is only if the interaction variable
is statistically significant when a conclusion of receiving GEM in different study
time group has led to different survival seen here. The reviewer would suggest
the authors to re-think the hypothesis/aim, is the study designed to show that
chemo is better BSC or is the chemo effect different in the 2 study time period?
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
assistant