Reviewer's report
Title:The added value of using mutational profiling in addition to cytology in
diagnosing pancreaticobiliary malignancy: review of clinical cases at a single
center
Version:1Date:6 May 2014
Reviewer: Prabodh Gupta
Reviewer's report:
In this study, Drs Malhotra and her colleagues present data supporting the
increased diagnostic value of mutational profiling in the study of pancreatobiliary
malignancies by cytology.They analysed about two dozes cytologic specimens
and used laser dissection and supernant samples for mutational studies.
The question posed is well defined and merit investiagtions. However, in my
opinion, the sample size, locations and size of the lesions, whether solid or
cystic, number of cases studied by dissection and supernant analysis, final
pathologic diagnoses and reporting terminology leave much to be desired; these
are either poorly or not documented in the present manuscript.
What were the cases that had positive mutational profile and were negative by
cytology; their location, size, nature of morphologic changes and final diagnoses
should be spelled out.
Similary, with is inderminate diagnosis, it appears similar to unsatisfactory, and
should be clarifed.These concerns lead me to question the validity of results
Minor critique:
Ten months is not one year (L57,58).
How was aggressive disease determined? (L58,59).
What is independent cytology? ((L64).
Benign or stable, please define the criteria used (L66).
Why was surgery performed on the benign cases? (L66).
Which case had false positive cytology? (L226).
.
How would you handle the Mutational data (242-244) in the patient
management?
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:The added value of using mutational profiling in addition to cytology in
diagnosing pancreaticobiliary malignancy: review of clinical cases at a single
center
Version:1Date:6 May 2014
Reviewer: Prabodh Gupta
Reviewer's report:
In this study, Drs Malhotra and her colleagues present data supporting the
increased diagnostic value of mutational profiling in the study of pancreatobiliary
malignancies by cytology.They analysed about two dozes cytologic specimens
and used laser dissection and supernant samples for mutational studies.
The question posed is well defined and merit investiagtions. However, in my
opinion, the sample size, locations and size of the lesions, whether solid or
cystic, number of cases studied by dissection and supernant analysis, final
pathologic diagnoses and reporting terminology leave much to be desired; these
are either poorly or not documented in the present manuscript.
What were the cases that had positive mutational profile and were negative by
cytology; their location, size, nature of morphologic changes and final diagnoses
should be spelled out.
Similary, with is inderminate diagnosis, it appears similar to unsatisfactory, and
should be clarifed.These concerns lead me to question the validity of results
Minor critique:
Ten months is not one year (L57,58).
How was aggressive disease determined? (L58,59).
What is independent cytology? ((L64).
Benign or stable, please define the criteria used (L66).
Why was surgery performed on the benign cases? (L66).
Which case had false positive cytology? (L226).
.
How would you handle the Mutational data (242-244) in the patient
management?
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:The added value of using mutational profiling in addition to cytology in
diagnosing pancreaticobiliary malignancy: review of clinical cases at a single
center
Version:1Date:6 May 2014
Reviewer: Prabodh Gupta
Reviewer's report:
In this study, Drs Malhotra and her colleagues present data supporting the
increased diagnostic value of mutational profiling in the study of pancreatobiliary
malignancies by cytology.They analysed about two dozes cytologic specimens
and used laser dissection and supernant samples for mutational studies.
The question posed is well defined and merit investiagtions. However, in my
opinion, the sample size, locations and size of the lesions, whether solid or
cystic, number of cases studied by dissection and supernant analysis, final
pathologic diagnoses and reporting terminology leave much to be desired; these
are either poorly or not documented in the present manuscript.
What were the cases that had positive mutational profile and were negative by
cytology; their location, size, nature of morphologic changes and final diagnoses
should be spelled out.
Similary, with is inderminate diagnosis, it appears similar to unsatisfactory, and
should be clarifed.These concerns lead me to question the validity of results
Minor critique:
Ten months is not one year (L57,58).
How was aggressive disease determined? (L58,59).
What is independent cytology? ((L64).
Benign or stable, please define the criteria used (L66).
Why was surgery performed on the benign cases? (L66).
Which case had false positive cytology? (L226).
.
How would you handle the Mutational data (242-244) in the patient
management?
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
assistant