Reviewer's report 
 Hereditary risk factors in development of gastric cancer in young age group in a high-incidence Title: 
area for Helicobacter Pylori
 2  8 March 2004 Version: Date: 
 Teresa A Brentnall Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The authors describe a case control study to look at the association of ABO blood type and the 
development of gastric cancer in young patients. There is interesting data, however much of it is not 
discussed in the Discussion section, nor is it expanded on in the Results section. The authors 
describe a cohort of young gastric cancer patients and discover that the cases are more likely to 
have first or second degree relative with gastric cancer, are more likely to have other malignancies in 
the family (particularly breast, lung, gyn, and hematologic malignancies), and are more likely to have 
Type O blood. 
Perhaps the least interesting finding is the blood group assessment in this study, however the entire 
disccusion is focused only on that finding. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
1. The entire paper, but particularly the abstract and the discussion need to be reviewed by someone 
who speaks English fluently. There are problems with punctuation, capitalization, syntax, and 
ommission of words. 
2. The authors should expand the data regarding the family history of the patients, particulary with 
regard to the number of family members with gastric or other cancers. 
3. Who are the control patients? The report mentions that 34% of them are dead. Why were control 
patients choosen to be over the age of 50, while the cases where under the age of 50? 
4. Helicobacter pylori is mentioned in the title, however there is no helicobacter information on any of 
the cases or controls. 
5. There is no description of the histology of the gastric cancers. This is a key piece of information 
because it appears that different syndromes may produce different cancer types (intestinal versus diffuse). 
6. The Introduction is too long and perhaps some of the information presented here would be better 
placed in the discussion. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
1. In the Introduction, reference 17 is the wrong reference for the statement cited. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: 
major compulsory revisions 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
None 
Reviewer's report 
 Hereditary risk factors in development of gastric cancer in young age group in a high-incidence Title: 
area for Helicobacter Pylori
 2  8 March 2004 Version: Date: 
 Teresa A Brentnall Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The authors describe a case control study to look at the association of ABO blood type and the 
development of gastric cancer in young patients. There is interesting data, however much of it is not 
discussed in the Discussion section, nor is it expanded on in the Results section. The authors 
describe a cohort of young gastric cancer patients and discover that the cases are more likely to 
have first or second degree relative with gastric cancer, are more likely to have other malignancies in 
the family (particularly breast, lung, gyn, and hematologic malignancies), and are more likely to have 
Type O blood. 
Perhaps the least interesting finding is the blood group assessment in this study, however the entire 
disccusion is focused only on that finding. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
1. The entire paper, but particularly the abstract and the discussion need to be reviewed by someone 
who speaks English fluently. There are problems with punctuation, capitalization, syntax, and 
ommission of words. 
2. The authors should expand the data regarding the family history of the patients, particulary with 
regard to the number of family members with gastric or other cancers. 
3. Who are the control patients? The report mentions that 34% of them are dead. Why were control 
patients choosen to be over the age of 50, while the cases where under the age of 50? 
4. Helicobacter pylori is mentioned in the title, however there is no helicobacter information on any of 
the cases or controls. 
5. There is no description of the histology of the gastric cancers. This is a key piece of information 
because it appears that different syndromes may produce different cancer types (intestinal versus diffuse). 
6. The Introduction is too long and perhaps some of the information presented here would be better 
placed in the discussion. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
1. In the Introduction, reference 17 is the wrong reference for the statement cited. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: 
major compulsory revisions 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
None 
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report 
 Hereditary risk factors in development of gastric cancer in young age group in a high-incidence Title: 
area for Helicobacter Pylori
 2  8 March 2004 Version: Date: 
 Teresa A Brentnall Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The authors describe a case control study to look at the association of ABO blood type and the 
development of gastric cancer in young patients. There is interesting data, however much of it is not 
discussed in the Discussion section, nor is it expanded on in the Results section. The authors 
describe a cohort of young gastric cancer patients and discover that the cases are more likely to 
have first or second degree relative with gastric cancer, are more likely to have other malignancies in 
the family (particularly breast, lung, gyn, and hematologic malignancies), and are more likely to have 
Type O blood. 
Perhaps the least interesting finding is the blood group assessment in this study, however the entire 
disccusion is focused only on that finding. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
1. The entire paper, but particularly the abstract and the discussion need to be reviewed by someone 
who speaks English fluently. There are problems with punctuation, capitalization, syntax, and 
ommission of words. 
2. The authors should expand the data regarding the family history of the patients, particulary with 
regard to the number of family members with gastric or other cancers. 
3. Who are the control patients? The report mentions that 34% of them are dead. Why were control 
patients choosen to be over the age of 50, while the cases where under the age of 50? 
4. Helicobacter pylori is mentioned in the title, however there is no helicobacter information on any of 
the cases or controls. 
5. There is no description of the histology of the gastric cancers. This is a key piece of information 
because it appears that different syndromes may produce different cancer types (intestinal versus diffuse). 
6. The Introduction is too long and perhaps some of the information presented here would be better 
placed in the discussion. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
1. In the Introduction, reference 17 is the wrong reference for the statement cited. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: 
major compulsory revisions 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
None 
assistant