Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title:  Capecitabine plus bevacizumab versus capecitabine in maintenance treatment for 
untreated characterised KRAS exon 2 wild -type metastatic colorectal cancer: a retrospective 
analy sis in Chinese postmenopausal women  
 
Version: 0 Date: 29 Oct 2018 
 
Reviewer:  Ridhi  Gupta  
 
Reviewer’s report:  
 
 Relevant manuscript as we need data in terms of chemotherapy and tolerance of chemotherapy 
along with response to be noted in different patient populations. This mauscript would help add 
to that however please read and r eview my detailed comments below:  
 
 
Abstract  
 
What does untreated characterised KRAS exon 2  exactly mean. It is a little unclear so please 
simplify  
 
 
Conclusion ;  
 
CAP -B maintenance treatment after 6 -cycle CAPOX -B in Chinese post -menopause women with 
untre ated KRAS exon 2 wild -type MCC is poorer tolerated but has a more modest, if any, benefit 
compared with that of CAP maintenance treatment - can be restructured. Is slightly confusing to 
the reader. The relevance of post menopausal women with intervention of  maintainence 
treatment is unclear  
 
 
Background  
 
- Line 28 - 29 : needs reconstruction of the sentence. 2017 data is old data and almost 70% will 
develop metastatic disease. Please relay data for 2018 or change the tense from 'will develop' to 
;did develop'  
 
- Please mention how the status of menopause co rrelates to response with anti -EGFR agents or 
KRAS wt type MCC  
 
 
Methods  
 
- First few sentences need reconstruction. Long and difficult to follow. Too many words  
 
- Unclear if the patient population were all Kras wt or Kras mutated  
 
 
Definitions  
 
- OS : 'from'  instead of for any cause ( eg page 7 like 2 -3) 
 
- How is the tumor content important. Please clarify  
 
-  
 
 
Discussion  
 
- Again not clear of the meaning of untreated Kras exon 2 wt ? Does this mean that patients were 
not treated. If so, these are patients tha t have received 6 cycles of CapeOxB or FOLFOX B . 
Please clarify  
 
- Page 10 - line 48 - post menopau'sal' not post -menopause  
 
- Page 12 : line 33 -38 : this appears to be the conclusion but not sure of what this means , not 
clear to the reader. Please restruc ture 
 
- Page 12 : line 55 : incorrect use of adjuvant or were patients previously treated surgically.  
 
 
Conclusion  
 
Please replace poorer for 'poorly' .  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, plea se specify what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I recommend additional statistical review  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an 
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this 
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose 
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in t he future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the 
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the  above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
'I declare that I have no competing interests  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' 
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons 
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments 
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be include d as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title:  Capecitabine plus bevacizumab versus capecitabine in maintenance treatment for 
untreated characterised KRAS exon 2 wild -type metastatic colorectal cancer: a retrospective 
analy sis in Chinese postmenopausal women  
 
Version: 0 Date: 29 Oct 2018 
 
Reviewer:  Ridhi  Gupta  
 
Reviewer’s report:  
 
 Relevant manuscript as we need data in terms of chemotherapy and tolerance of chemotherapy 
along with response to be noted in different patient populations. This mauscript would help add 
to that however please read and r eview my detailed comments below:  
 
 
Abstract  
 
What does untreated characterised KRAS exon 2  exactly mean. It is a little unclear so please 
simplify  
 
 
Conclusion ;  
 
CAP -B maintenance treatment after 6 -cycle CAPOX -B in Chinese post -menopause women with 
untre ated KRAS exon 2 wild -type MCC is poorer tolerated but has a more modest, if any, benefit 
compared with that of CAP maintenance treatment - can be restructured. Is slightly confusing to 
the reader. The relevance of post menopausal women with intervention of  maintainence 
treatment is unclear  
 
 
Background  
 
- Line 28 - 29 : needs reconstruction of the sentence. 2017 data is old data and almost 70% will 
develop metastatic disease. Please relay data for 2018 or change the tense from 'will develop' to 
;did develop'  
 
- Please mention how the status of menopause co rrelates to response with anti -EGFR agents or 
KRAS wt type MCC  
 
 
Methods  
 
- First few sentences need reconstruction. Long and difficult to follow. Too many words  
 
- Unclear if the patient population were all Kras wt or Kras mutated  
 
 
Definitions  
 
- OS : 'from'  instead of for any cause ( eg page 7 like 2 -3) 
 
- How is the tumor content important. Please clarify  
 
-  
 
 
Discussion  
 
- Again not clear of the meaning of untreated Kras exon 2 wt ? Does this mean that patients were 
not treated. If so, these are patients tha t have received 6 cycles of CapeOxB or FOLFOX B . 
Please clarify  
 
- Page 10 - line 48 - post menopau'sal' not post -menopause  
 
- Page 12 : line 33 -38 : this appears to be the conclusion but not sure of what this means , not 
clear to the reader. Please restruc ture 
 
- Page 12 : line 55 : incorrect use of adjuvant or were patients previously treated surgically.  
 
 
Conclusion  
 
Please replace poorer for 'poorly' .  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, plea se specify what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I recommend additional statistical review  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an 
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this 
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose 
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in t he future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the 
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the  above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
'I declare that I have no competing interests  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' 
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons 
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments 
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be include d as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title:  Capecitabine plus bevacizumab versus capecitabine in maintenance treatment for 
untreated characterised KRAS exon 2 wild -type metastatic colorectal cancer: a retrospective 
analy sis in Chinese postmenopausal women  
 
Version: 0 Date: 29 Oct 2018 
 
Reviewer:  Ridhi  Gupta  
 
Reviewer’s report:  
 
 Relevant manuscript as we need data in terms of chemotherapy and tolerance of chemotherapy 
along with response to be noted in different patient populations. This mauscript would help add 
to that however please read and r eview my detailed comments below:  
 
 
Abstract  
 
What does untreated characterised KRAS exon 2  exactly mean. It is a little unclear so please 
simplify  
 
 
Conclusion ;  
 
CAP -B maintenance treatment after 6 -cycle CAPOX -B in Chinese post -menopause women with 
untre ated KRAS exon 2 wild -type MCC is poorer tolerated but has a more modest, if any, benefit 
compared with that of CAP maintenance treatment - can be restructured. Is slightly confusing to 
the reader. The relevance of post menopausal women with intervention of  maintainence 
treatment is unclear  
 
 
Background  
 
- Line 28 - 29 : needs reconstruction of the sentence. 2017 data is old data and almost 70% will 
develop metastatic disease. Please relay data for 2018 or change the tense from 'will develop' to 
;did develop'  
 
- Please mention how the status of menopause co rrelates to response with anti -EGFR agents or 
KRAS wt type MCC  
 
 
Methods  
 
- First few sentences need reconstruction. Long and difficult to follow. Too many words  
 
- Unclear if the patient population were all Kras wt or Kras mutated  
 
 
Definitions  
 
- OS : 'from'  instead of for any cause ( eg page 7 like 2 -3) 
 
- How is the tumor content important. Please clarify  
 
-  
 
 
Discussion  
 
- Again not clear of the meaning of untreated Kras exon 2 wt ? Does this mean that patients were 
not treated. If so, these are patients tha t have received 6 cycles of CapeOxB or FOLFOX B . 
Please clarify  
 
- Page 10 - line 48 - post menopau'sal' not post -menopause  
 
- Page 12 : line 33 -38 : this appears to be the conclusion but not sure of what this means , not 
clear to the reader. Please restruc ture 
 
- Page 12 : line 55 : incorrect use of adjuvant or were patients previously treated surgically.  
 
 
Conclusion  
 
Please replace poorer for 'poorly' .  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, plea se specify what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I recommend additional statistical review  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an 
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this 
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose 
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in t he future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the 
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the  above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
'I declare that I have no competing interests  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' 
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons 
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments 
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be include d as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
assistant