Reviewer's report
Title:Predictive Value of Metabolic 18FDG-PET Response on Outcomes in
Patients with Locally Advanced Pancreatic Carcinoma Treated with Definitive
Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy
Version: 2Date:26 October 2011
Reviewer: Devin Schellenberg
Reviewer's report:
I would like to thank the authors for a very detailed response to all comments
from the reviewers. I believe the updated manuscript to be significantly improved.
I still feel the first few paragraphs of the discussion are slightly tangential to the
focus of the paper, but that is not a reason to dismiss them.
Below are a few things i noticed re-reading the manuscript. None are concerning:
1) Abstract - Results section "8.4versus 3.8" (there is a space missing after 8.4)
2) Methods - 2nd sentence reads awkwardly as patients don't have histologic
proof of unresectability... i would suggest something like :32 patients with
unresectable, non-metastatic LAPC with histologic proof of malignancy were
enrolled..."
3)Methods - "biops(y)ies" can probably be written as "biopsies"
4) Results - 2nd paragraph "26 patients experienced some failure during the
disease course" should be re-written as "26 pts experienced some failure during
the follow-up period"
5) Results - last sentence - i'd add the median OS for those with who went on to
resection, but that is just because as a reader i wanted to know
6) Conclusions - there are 2 commas in a row after "And second,, significantly..."
7) I'm pretty sure Reference 44 has been published (within the last 2 months or
so)
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
No competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Predictive Value of Metabolic 18FDG-PET Response on Outcomes in
Patients with Locally Advanced Pancreatic Carcinoma Treated with Definitive
Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy
Version: 2Date:26 October 2011
Reviewer: Devin Schellenberg
Reviewer's report:
I would like to thank the authors for a very detailed response to all comments
from the reviewers. I believe the updated manuscript to be significantly improved.
I still feel the first few paragraphs of the discussion are slightly tangential to the
focus of the paper, but that is not a reason to dismiss them.
Below are a few things i noticed re-reading the manuscript. None are concerning:
1) Abstract - Results section "8.4versus 3.8" (there is a space missing after 8.4)
2) Methods - 2nd sentence reads awkwardly as patients don't have histologic
proof of unresectability... i would suggest something like :32 patients with
unresectable, non-metastatic LAPC with histologic proof of malignancy were
enrolled..."
3)Methods - "biops(y)ies" can probably be written as "biopsies"
4) Results - 2nd paragraph "26 patients experienced some failure during the
disease course" should be re-written as "26 pts experienced some failure during
the follow-up period"
5) Results - last sentence - i'd add the median OS for those with who went on to
resection, but that is just because as a reader i wanted to know
6) Conclusions - there are 2 commas in a row after "And second,, significantly..."
7) I'm pretty sure Reference 44 has been published (within the last 2 months or
so)
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
No competing interests
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Predictive Value of Metabolic 18FDG-PET Response on Outcomes in
Patients with Locally Advanced Pancreatic Carcinoma Treated with Definitive
Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy
Version: 2Date:26 October 2011
Reviewer: Devin Schellenberg
Reviewer's report:
I would like to thank the authors for a very detailed response to all comments
from the reviewers. I believe the updated manuscript to be significantly improved.
I still feel the first few paragraphs of the discussion are slightly tangential to the
focus of the paper, but that is not a reason to dismiss them.
Below are a few things i noticed re-reading the manuscript. None are concerning:
1) Abstract - Results section "8.4versus 3.8" (there is a space missing after 8.4)
2) Methods - 2nd sentence reads awkwardly as patients don't have histologic
proof of unresectability... i would suggest something like :32 patients with
unresectable, non-metastatic LAPC with histologic proof of malignancy were
enrolled..."
3)Methods - "biops(y)ies" can probably be written as "biopsies"
4) Results - 2nd paragraph "26 patients experienced some failure during the
disease course" should be re-written as "26 pts experienced some failure during
the follow-up period"
5) Results - last sentence - i'd add the median OS for those with who went on to
resection, but that is just because as a reader i wanted to know
6) Conclusions - there are 2 commas in a row after "And second,, significantly..."
7) I'm pretty sure Reference 44 has been published (within the last 2 months or
so)
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
No competing interests
assistant