Title: hENT1’s role in adjuvant intra-arterial gemcitabine-based chemotherapy for resectable
pancreatic cancer patients
Version: 0 Date: 15 Jan 2023
Reviewer:  Satoshi Kobayashi
Reviewer's report:
The authors retrospectively evaluated the role of hENT1 expression on the efficacy of intra-
arterial infusion chemotherapy using Gem-based regimens. In their study, high expression of
hENT1 protein was associated with good prognosis. It may propose some clinical significance
to readers, and it was well-written in overall. However, there is still some issues to be clarified.
Major.
1. As the authors pointed out in the Introduction section, the role of hENT1 expression on
Gem-based systemic chemotherapy is still under debate because there have been contradict
reports. Therefore, I agree with the authors about the need for verification. However, I could not
understand why it was especially important in regional intra-arterial infusion of chemotherapy
(last 5-7 lines of the Introduction section), which was the core background of this study. Please
explain it carefully.
2. The treatment protocol was described in the Methods section: however, I think how long
they took to administer Gemcitabine was essential to evaluate the hENT1 role.  Based on
the pharmacokinetics, the efficacy and safety of Gemcitabine will change by the time of
administration, and slow administration of Gemcitabine may diminish the effect of hENT1.
Minor.
1. The authors excluded patients who had incomplete clinical data (line 8 of the Methods
section). It might make selection bias, especially when they excluded the patients who were lost
to follow up in earlier period (= they would have a poor prognosis). Therefore, it was better to
clarify the exclusion criteria more precisely.
2. The second paragraph of the Discussion section was just the repetition of the data in the
Introduction section, not discussion of their study results. It was preferable to "discuss" what
was same and different from previous reports as in the next paragraph. Otherwise, the second
paragraph will be shorten.
Title: hENT1’s role in adjuvant intra-arterial gemcitabine-based chemotherapy for resectable
pancreatic cancer patients
Version: 0 Date: 15 Jan 2023
Reviewer:  Satoshi Kobayashi
Reviewer's report:
The authors retrospectively evaluated the role of hENT1 expression on the efficacy of intra-
arterial infusion chemotherapy using Gem-based regimens. In their study, high expression of
hENT1 protein was associated with good prognosis. It may propose some clinical significance
to readers, and it was well-written in overall. However, there is still some issues to be clarified.
Major.
1. As the authors pointed out in the Introduction section, the role of hENT1 expression on
Gem-based systemic chemotherapy is still under debate because there have been contradict
reports. Therefore, I agree with the authors about the need for verification. However, I could not
understand why it was especially important in regional intra-arterial infusion of chemotherapy
(last 5-7 lines of the Introduction section), which was the core background of this study. Please
explain it carefully.
2. The treatment protocol was described in the Methods section: however, I think how long
they took to administer Gemcitabine was essential to evaluate the hENT1 role.  Based on
the pharmacokinetics, the efficacy and safety of Gemcitabine will change by the time of
administration, and slow administration of Gemcitabine may diminish the effect of hENT1.
Minor.
1. The authors excluded patients who had incomplete clinical data (line 8 of the Methods
section). It might make selection bias, especially when they excluded the patients who were lost
to follow up in earlier period (= they would have a poor prognosis). Therefore, it was better to
clarify the exclusion criteria more precisely.
2. The second paragraph of the Discussion section was just the repetition of the data in the
Introduction section, not discussion of their study results. It was preferable to "discuss" what
was same and different from previous reports as in the next paragraph. Otherwise, the second
paragraph will be shorten.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: hENT1’s role in adjuvant intra-arterial gemcitabine-based chemotherapy for resectable
pancreatic cancer patients
Version: 0 Date: 15 Jan 2023
Reviewer:  Satoshi Kobayashi
Reviewer's report:
The authors retrospectively evaluated the role of hENT1 expression on the efficacy of intra-
arterial infusion chemotherapy using Gem-based regimens. In their study, high expression of
hENT1 protein was associated with good prognosis. It may propose some clinical significance
to readers, and it was well-written in overall. However, there is still some issues to be clarified.
Major.
1. As the authors pointed out in the Introduction section, the role of hENT1 expression on
Gem-based systemic chemotherapy is still under debate because there have been contradict
reports. Therefore, I agree with the authors about the need for verification. However, I could not
understand why it was especially important in regional intra-arterial infusion of chemotherapy
(last 5-7 lines of the Introduction section), which was the core background of this study. Please
explain it carefully.
2. The treatment protocol was described in the Methods section: however, I think how long
they took to administer Gemcitabine was essential to evaluate the hENT1 role.  Based on
the pharmacokinetics, the efficacy and safety of Gemcitabine will change by the time of
administration, and slow administration of Gemcitabine may diminish the effect of hENT1.
Minor.
1. The authors excluded patients who had incomplete clinical data (line 8 of the Methods
section). It might make selection bias, especially when they excluded the patients who were lost
to follow up in earlier period (= they would have a poor prognosis). Therefore, it was better to
clarify the exclusion criteria more precisely.
2. The second paragraph of the Discussion section was just the repetition of the data in the
Introduction section, not discussion of their study results. It was preferable to "discuss" what
was same and different from previous reports as in the next paragraph. Otherwise, the second
paragraph will be shorten.
assistant