Title: Association of lymphocyte subsets with the efficacy and prognosis of PD#1 inhibitor
therapy in advanced gastric cancer: results from a monocentric retrospective study
Version: 0 Date: 20 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
No - there are minor issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are minor issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: This is an interesting paper about new possibilities for the treatment
of advanced gastric cancer. The authors did a detailed analysis about multiple markers in the
blood sample which could enter clinical practice in the future.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
It seems that they have included all advanced patients in the analysis. Is it possible to differentiate
between metastatic from locally advanced and assess any difference? They have seen that
advanced metastatic disease could have an impact on the results. Maybe dividing them from the
locally advanced could give more information.
- Line 79-80: review the sentence
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
As stated above
Title: Association of lymphocyte subsets with the efficacy and prognosis of PD#1 inhibitor
therapy in advanced gastric cancer: results from a monocentric retrospective study
Version: 0 Date: 20 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
No - there are minor issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are minor issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: This is an interesting paper about new possibilities for the treatment
of advanced gastric cancer. The authors did a detailed analysis about multiple markers in the
blood sample which could enter clinical practice in the future.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
It seems that they have included all advanced patients in the analysis. Is it possible to differentiate
between metastatic from locally advanced and assess any difference? They have seen that
advanced metastatic disease could have an impact on the results. Maybe dividing them from the
locally advanced could give more information.
- Line 79-80: review the sentence
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
As stated above
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Association of lymphocyte subsets with the efficacy and prognosis of PD#1 inhibitor
therapy in advanced gastric cancer: results from a monocentric retrospective study
Version: 0 Date: 20 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
No - there are minor issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are minor issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: This is an interesting paper about new possibilities for the treatment
of advanced gastric cancer. The authors did a detailed analysis about multiple markers in the
blood sample which could enter clinical practice in the future.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
It seems that they have included all advanced patients in the analysis. Is it possible to differentiate
between metastatic from locally advanced and assess any difference? They have seen that
advanced metastatic disease could have an impact on the results. Maybe dividing them from the
locally advanced could give more information.
- Line 79-80: review the sentence
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
As stated above
assistant