Title: Esophageal cancer: a twenty-four-year experience at a tertiary care center with an
evaluation of the prognostic significance of the Neutrophil-Lymphocyte ratio
Version: 3 Date: 20 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
The authors state the two aims of this study; describing the clinic-pathologcal features of
esophageal cancer in Lebanon, and to report if NLR is prognotic factor.
I have three major concerns
1: The authors describe the clinic-pathologcal features of more than 110 patients from a single
center, about 2/3rd of them were from the home country, and the others from enighbouring
country. Hoiwever, authors also discuss the incidience and age-standardized incidence and
compare them with data published regionally and internationally. When almost, 1/3rd of the
patients are not from Lebanon, how do authors justify the comaprison.
2: Prognotic value of NLR was a major aim of theis study. The authors do not describe how
neutriophil and lymphcyte numbers were obtained or calculated. If they used an automated
counter, how were the results validated. What instrument was used to report the differential
coutns, and if there were quality checks. In the bastract, authors mention that NLR was not
predictive either of the disease type or other parameters, but do mention of AUC. AUC is not
described elsewhere. how was it calculated. The auhtors may want to discuss the limitation of
the study, the way neutrophil and lymphocyte numbers were obtained
3:Although the primary aim was to report NLR and clinic-patholiigal features, the authors
discuss incidence of disease. There is no mention of how the incidence figures were obtained
There are some other points. LMS and NHL, are not esophageal cancers, and should not be
included in analysis.
The authors may wish to have the manuscript proof-read by either by a native speaker or
professional medical editing services
Title: Esophageal cancer: a twenty-four-year experience at a tertiary care center with an
evaluation of the prognostic significance of the Neutrophil-Lymphocyte ratio
Version: 3 Date: 20 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
The authors state the two aims of this study; describing the clinic-pathologcal features of
esophageal cancer in Lebanon, and to report if NLR is prognotic factor.
I have three major concerns
1: The authors describe the clinic-pathologcal features of more than 110 patients from a single
center, about 2/3rd of them were from the home country, and the others from enighbouring
country. Hoiwever, authors also discuss the incidience and age-standardized incidence and
compare them with data published regionally and internationally. When almost, 1/3rd of the
patients are not from Lebanon, how do authors justify the comaprison.
2: Prognotic value of NLR was a major aim of theis study. The authors do not describe how
neutriophil and lymphcyte numbers were obtained or calculated. If they used an automated
counter, how were the results validated. What instrument was used to report the differential
coutns, and if there were quality checks. In the bastract, authors mention that NLR was not
predictive either of the disease type or other parameters, but do mention of AUC. AUC is not
described elsewhere. how was it calculated. The auhtors may want to discuss the limitation of
the study, the way neutrophil and lymphocyte numbers were obtained
3:Although the primary aim was to report NLR and clinic-patholiigal features, the authors
discuss incidence of disease. There is no mention of how the incidence figures were obtained
There are some other points. LMS and NHL, are not esophageal cancers, and should not be
included in analysis.
The authors may wish to have the manuscript proof-read by either by a native speaker or
professional medical editing services
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Esophageal cancer: a twenty-four-year experience at a tertiary care center with an
evaluation of the prognostic significance of the Neutrophil-Lymphocyte ratio
Version: 3 Date: 20 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
The authors state the two aims of this study; describing the clinic-pathologcal features of
esophageal cancer in Lebanon, and to report if NLR is prognotic factor.
I have three major concerns
1: The authors describe the clinic-pathologcal features of more than 110 patients from a single
center, about 2/3rd of them were from the home country, and the others from enighbouring
country. Hoiwever, authors also discuss the incidience and age-standardized incidence and
compare them with data published regionally and internationally. When almost, 1/3rd of the
patients are not from Lebanon, how do authors justify the comaprison.
2: Prognotic value of NLR was a major aim of theis study. The authors do not describe how
neutriophil and lymphcyte numbers were obtained or calculated. If they used an automated
counter, how were the results validated. What instrument was used to report the differential
coutns, and if there were quality checks. In the bastract, authors mention that NLR was not
predictive either of the disease type or other parameters, but do mention of AUC. AUC is not
described elsewhere. how was it calculated. The auhtors may want to discuss the limitation of
the study, the way neutrophil and lymphocyte numbers were obtained
3:Although the primary aim was to report NLR and clinic-patholiigal features, the authors
discuss incidence of disease. There is no mention of how the incidence figures were obtained
There are some other points. LMS and NHL, are not esophageal cancers, and should not be
included in analysis.
The authors may wish to have the manuscript proof-read by either by a native speaker or
professional medical editing services
assistant