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: 16 Nov 2018 
 
Reviewer:  Kuan -Chih  Chen  
 
Reviewer’s report:  
 
1. This retrospective study is conducted for comapring median progression -free survival  and 
median overall survival of untreated characterised KRAS exon 2 wild -type metastatic colorectal 
cancer in Chinese post -menopause women using therapy with capecitabine plus bevacizumab 
and capecitabine. The study is well designed, and the manuscript is written comprehensively, 
however, I think this study is lacking of novelty because 4 previous studies have shown positive 
results (Alfonso PG, 2013; Alfonso PG, 2012; Amin M, 2015;  Bazarbashi S, 2011). The only 
difference is that this study emphasized on Chinese post -menopause women, however, in your 
article, the reason is not clearly explained. Would you please give more expl anation?  
 
2. Do you consider to put the statement of lacking of generalisability in the limitation part of 
your manuscript?  
 
3. How do you decide the sample sizes in this study? Do you think the patient number is 
adequate in each arm?  
 
4. DO you compare underlying disease of these two groups? Because underlying disease may 
play a role of confounding factor in these two groups.  
 
5. In table 3, the first letter of "progression -free survival rate" should be capitalized.   
 
6. Do you use STR OBE checklist for your study design?  
 
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 am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
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: 16 Nov 2018 
 
Reviewer:  Kuan -Chih  Chen  
 
Reviewer’s report:  
 
1. This retrospective study is conducted for comapring median progression -free survival  and 
median overall survival of untreated characterised KRAS exon 2 wild -type metastatic colorectal 
cancer in Chinese post -menopause women using therapy with capecitabine plus bevacizumab 
and capecitabine. The study is well designed, and the manuscript is written comprehensively, 
however, I think this study is lacking of novelty because 4 previous studies have shown positive 
results (Alfonso PG, 2013; Alfonso PG, 2012; Amin M, 2015;  Bazarbashi S, 2011). The only 
difference is that this study emphasized on Chinese post -menopause women, however, in your 
article, the reason is not clearly explained. Would you please give more expl anation?  
 
2. Do you consider to put the statement of lacking of generalisability in the limitation part of 
your manuscript?  
 
3. How do you decide the sample sizes in this study? Do you think the patient number is 
adequate in each arm?  
 
4. DO you compare underlying disease of these two groups? Because underlying disease may 
play a role of confounding factor in these two groups.  
 
5. In table 3, the first letter of "progression -free survival rate" should be capitalized.   
 
6. Do you use STR OBE checklist for your study design?  
 
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 am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
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: 16 Nov 2018 
 
Reviewer:  Kuan -Chih  Chen  
 
Reviewer’s report:  
 
1. This retrospective study is conducted for comapring median progression -free survival  and 
median overall survival of untreated characterised KRAS exon 2 wild -type metastatic colorectal 
cancer in Chinese post -menopause women using therapy with capecitabine plus bevacizumab 
and capecitabine. The study is well designed, and the manuscript is written comprehensively, 
however, I think this study is lacking of novelty because 4 previous studies have shown positive 
results (Alfonso PG, 2013; Alfonso PG, 2012; Amin M, 2015;  Bazarbashi S, 2011). The only 
difference is that this study emphasized on Chinese post -menopause women, however, in your 
article, the reason is not clearly explained. Would you please give more expl anation?  
 
2. Do you consider to put the statement of lacking of generalisability in the limitation part of 
your manuscript?  
 
3. How do you decide the sample sizes in this study? Do you think the patient number is 
adequate in each arm?  
 
4. DO you compare underlying disease of these two groups? Because underlying disease may 
play a role of confounding factor in these two groups.  
 
5. In table 3, the first letter of "progression -free survival rate" should be capitalized.   
 
6. Do you use STR OBE checklist for your study design?  
 
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 am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
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