Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Characterization of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma after curative resection: outcome, 
prognostic factor, and recurrence  
 
Version: 0 Date: 24 Sep 2018  
 
Reviewer: Reviewer 2  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS: To view the full report from the academic peer reviewer, 
please see the attached file.  
 
REVIEWER COMMENTS FROM REPORT: The authors provide a detailed analysis of a 
retrospective case series from the pa st 4 decades.  
The study is well written, clear to follow, and well referenced.  
The analysis is well conducted with objective findings that are discussed in the context of the 
current clinical literature.  
While many results are in line with what might be ex pected, the study provides a useful 
quantification and reference point.  
The findings on repeat resection help contribute to the literature in this area.  
 
REQUESTED REVISIONS:  
My main concerns are around the longitudinal period studied and the likely chan ges in 
diagnostics and patient selection that are not accounted for and not adequately addressed in the 
limitations. Although the authors do note that the concept of treatment strategies has not 
markedly changed, I do not feel this is sufficient to deal wi th what is likely to be a significant 
confounder in the results and outcomes.  
 
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:  
This is an interesting and concise study that has the potential to make a useful contribution if the 
limitations can be addressed. As a general  point, earlier diagnosis is likely to provide a step -
change in surgical outcomes, and some note of this and efforts in this area could be discussed.  
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Does the work inc lude the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
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, please specify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
Not relevant to this manuscript  
 
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 the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the  
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you recei ved 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.  
 
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square. Reviewers with 
declared or app arent competing interests are not utilized for these reviews. This reviewer has 
agreed to publication of their comments online under a Creative Commons Attribution License 
attributed to Research Square and was paid a small honorarium for completing the rev iew within 
a specified timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewer 
recommendation.  
 
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 included 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: Characterization of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma after curative resection: outcome, 
prognostic factor, and recurrence  
 
Version: 0 Date: 24 Sep 2018  
 
Reviewer: Reviewer 2  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS: To view the full report from the academic peer reviewer, 
please see the attached file.  
 
REVIEWER COMMENTS FROM REPORT: The authors provide a detailed analysis of a 
retrospective case series from the pa st 4 decades.  
The study is well written, clear to follow, and well referenced.  
The analysis is well conducted with objective findings that are discussed in the context of the 
current clinical literature.  
While many results are in line with what might be ex pected, the study provides a useful 
quantification and reference point.  
The findings on repeat resection help contribute to the literature in this area.  
 
REQUESTED REVISIONS:  
My main concerns are around the longitudinal period studied and the likely chan ges in 
diagnostics and patient selection that are not accounted for and not adequately addressed in the 
limitations. Although the authors do note that the concept of treatment strategies has not 
markedly changed, I do not feel this is sufficient to deal wi th what is likely to be a significant 
confounder in the results and outcomes.  
 
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:  
This is an interesting and concise study that has the potential to make a useful contribution if the 
limitations can be addressed. As a general  point, earlier diagnosis is likely to provide a step -
change in surgical outcomes, and some note of this and efforts in this area could be discussed.  
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Does the work inc lude the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
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, please specify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
Not relevant to this manuscript  
 
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 the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the  
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you recei ved 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.  
 
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square. Reviewers with 
declared or app arent competing interests are not utilized for these reviews. This reviewer has 
agreed to publication of their comments online under a Creative Commons Attribution License 
attributed to Research Square and was paid a small honorarium for completing the rev iew within 
a specified timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewer 
recommendation.  
 
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 included 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: Characterization of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma after curative resection: outcome, 
prognostic factor, and recurrence  
 
Version: 0 Date: 24 Sep 2018  
 
Reviewer: Reviewer 2  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS: To view the full report from the academic peer reviewer, 
please see the attached file.  
 
REVIEWER COMMENTS FROM REPORT: The authors provide a detailed analysis of a 
retrospective case series from the pa st 4 decades.  
The study is well written, clear to follow, and well referenced.  
The analysis is well conducted with objective findings that are discussed in the context of the 
current clinical literature.  
While many results are in line with what might be ex pected, the study provides a useful 
quantification and reference point.  
The findings on repeat resection help contribute to the literature in this area.  
 
REQUESTED REVISIONS:  
My main concerns are around the longitudinal period studied and the likely chan ges in 
diagnostics and patient selection that are not accounted for and not adequately addressed in the 
limitations. Although the authors do note that the concept of treatment strategies has not 
markedly changed, I do not feel this is sufficient to deal wi th what is likely to be a significant 
confounder in the results and outcomes.  
 
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:  
This is an interesting and concise study that has the potential to make a useful contribution if the 
limitations can be addressed. As a general  point, earlier diagnosis is likely to provide a step -
change in surgical outcomes, and some note of this and efforts in this area could be discussed.  
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Does the work inc lude the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
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, please specify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
Not relevant to this manuscript  
 
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 the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the  
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you recei ved 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.  
 
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square. Reviewers with 
declared or app arent competing interests are not utilized for these reviews. This reviewer has 
agreed to publication of their comments online under a Creative Commons Attribution License 
attributed to Research Square and was paid a small honorarium for completing the rev iew within 
a specified timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewer 
recommendation.  
 
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 included as confidential comments  
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
assistant