Reviewer's report
Title:Likelihood of complete response for advanced liver cancer during sorafenib
therapy: Case Report
Version: 2Date:17 September 2010
Reviewer: Ferry ALM Eskens
Reviewer's report:
Case report indeed describes an unusual case of seemingly CR of HCC following
exposure to sorafenib.
The case is somewhat incomplete, as we are not informed about the duration of
this CR; no follow-up after the "diagosis" of CR was made is given; how long is
the response lasting, is patient still on drug or did the authors decide to
stop/interrupt treatment ( a kind of stop-and-go approach); was follow-up
scanning performed?
The title is strange; this IS a CR, so why mention likelihood; it is an observation
that was made.
There are no pagenumbers.
Introduction/case presentation; linguistically this needs corrections (addiction
should be read as addition (at least I hope so) and should be restricted to HCC
and sorafenib treatment (results) and a relevant description of the case.
While describing the work up of this patient; upper digestive tract endoscopy
suffices, no need to mention what was scopied; in addition it is hard to believe
that the jejunum was reached.
Why specifically mentioning cardiac evaluation (without mentioning what was
done)
Was a screening bone scan performed?
What is the relevance of CA19.9 in the diagnosis HCC (and the FU during
treatment)
Concomitant HCV infection should be read as underlying HCV infection.
The paragraph of the metalloproteinase inhibitors is incomplete; which MPI was
measured; more references would be helpfull in asseseing their role; there only
seems to be a small decrease in the levels during treatment; what are noral
levels, and again what lead to the decision to measure this level (of which MPI);
how relevant is this and does it add to any evidence of activity of sorafenib (and if
so by which mechanism)
Reference 7 has long been published in the Lancet
The figure legend is incorrect
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:Likelihood of complete response for advanced liver cancer during sorafenib
therapy: Case Report
Version: 2Date:17 September 2010
Reviewer: Ferry ALM Eskens
Reviewer's report:
Case report indeed describes an unusual case of seemingly CR of HCC following
exposure to sorafenib.
The case is somewhat incomplete, as we are not informed about the duration of
this CR; no follow-up after the "diagosis" of CR was made is given; how long is
the response lasting, is patient still on drug or did the authors decide to
stop/interrupt treatment ( a kind of stop-and-go approach); was follow-up
scanning performed?
The title is strange; this IS a CR, so why mention likelihood; it is an observation
that was made.
There are no pagenumbers.
Introduction/case presentation; linguistically this needs corrections (addiction
should be read as addition (at least I hope so) and should be restricted to HCC
and sorafenib treatment (results) and a relevant description of the case.
While describing the work up of this patient; upper digestive tract endoscopy
suffices, no need to mention what was scopied; in addition it is hard to believe
that the jejunum was reached.
Why specifically mentioning cardiac evaluation (without mentioning what was
done)
Was a screening bone scan performed?
What is the relevance of CA19.9 in the diagnosis HCC (and the FU during
treatment)
Concomitant HCV infection should be read as underlying HCV infection.
The paragraph of the metalloproteinase inhibitors is incomplete; which MPI was
measured; more references would be helpfull in asseseing their role; there only
seems to be a small decrease in the levels during treatment; what are noral
levels, and again what lead to the decision to measure this level (of which MPI);
how relevant is this and does it add to any evidence of activity of sorafenib (and if
so by which mechanism)
Reference 7 has long been published in the Lancet
The figure legend is incorrect
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:Likelihood of complete response for advanced liver cancer during sorafenib
therapy: Case Report
Version: 2Date:17 September 2010
Reviewer: Ferry ALM Eskens
Reviewer's report:
Case report indeed describes an unusual case of seemingly CR of HCC following
exposure to sorafenib.
The case is somewhat incomplete, as we are not informed about the duration of
this CR; no follow-up after the "diagosis" of CR was made is given; how long is
the response lasting, is patient still on drug or did the authors decide to
stop/interrupt treatment ( a kind of stop-and-go approach); was follow-up
scanning performed?
The title is strange; this IS a CR, so why mention likelihood; it is an observation
that was made.
There are no pagenumbers.
Introduction/case presentation; linguistically this needs corrections (addiction
should be read as addition (at least I hope so) and should be restricted to HCC
and sorafenib treatment (results) and a relevant description of the case.
While describing the work up of this patient; upper digestive tract endoscopy
suffices, no need to mention what was scopied; in addition it is hard to believe
that the jejunum was reached.
Why specifically mentioning cardiac evaluation (without mentioning what was
done)
Was a screening bone scan performed?
What is the relevance of CA19.9 in the diagnosis HCC (and the FU during
treatment)
Concomitant HCV infection should be read as underlying HCV infection.
The paragraph of the metalloproteinase inhibitors is incomplete; which MPI was
measured; more references would be helpfull in asseseing their role; there only
seems to be a small decrease in the levels during treatment; what are noral
levels, and again what lead to the decision to measure this level (of which MPI);
how relevant is this and does it add to any evidence of activity of sorafenib (and if
so by which mechanism)
Reference 7 has long been published in the Lancet
The figure legend is incorrect
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