Title: Evaluation of pembrolizumab plus cisplatin and fluorouracil in radical treatment for
patients with T4b esophageal squamous cell carcinoma
Version: 2 Date: 11 Mar 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for correcting some of the previous points, I think the article has improved, though
I still find some limitations to be published in BMC Gastroenterology in its current design:
1) I strongly believe the title should not include "INDUCTION" as it was not the aim of the
KEYNOTE-590 trial to convert patients onto resectable disease or candidates for CHTRTP.
2) In the RESULTS, I continu to find difficult to follow the presentation of the findings,
even if this is a small cohort of patients. Please, consider some of the previous modifications
recommended, separating responders versus non-responders characteristics and adding more
detailed information about the cases. Obviously they had different evolutions and treatments, but
in its current form we lack insights on the value of CHT+ICI to achieve shrinkage of the tumor.
Otherwise, reconsider submitting a new version when more cases and more accurate information
if gathered in the near future
3)  In the DISCUSSION, even if authors submit an article a few months before the review is
performed, I think authors should consider incorporating the suggestions regarding the most
recent update information of the pivotal trial. This is part of the article review process, in which
dilated timelines sometimes imply that authors may rewrite some parts according to newes
data...hence, I think the discussion still lacks strong input comparing the 5-year outcomes of
the KEYNOTE-590 presented in ASCO GI 2024 meeting to put in context de relevance of this
intended submission.
Title: Evaluation of pembrolizumab plus cisplatin and fluorouracil in radical treatment for
patients with T4b esophageal squamous cell carcinoma
Version: 2 Date: 11 Mar 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for correcting some of the previous points, I think the article has improved, though
I still find some limitations to be published in BMC Gastroenterology in its current design:
1) I strongly believe the title should not include "INDUCTION" as it was not the aim of the
KEYNOTE-590 trial to convert patients onto resectable disease or candidates for CHTRTP.
2) In the RESULTS, I continu to find difficult to follow the presentation of the findings,
even if this is a small cohort of patients. Please, consider some of the previous modifications
recommended, separating responders versus non-responders characteristics and adding more
detailed information about the cases. Obviously they had different evolutions and treatments, but
in its current form we lack insights on the value of CHT+ICI to achieve shrinkage of the tumor.
Otherwise, reconsider submitting a new version when more cases and more accurate information
if gathered in the near future
3)  In the DISCUSSION, even if authors submit an article a few months before the review is
performed, I think authors should consider incorporating the suggestions regarding the most
recent update information of the pivotal trial. This is part of the article review process, in which
dilated timelines sometimes imply that authors may rewrite some parts according to newes
data...hence, I think the discussion still lacks strong input comparing the 5-year outcomes of
the KEYNOTE-590 presented in ASCO GI 2024 meeting to put in context de relevance of this
intended submission.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Evaluation of pembrolizumab plus cisplatin and fluorouracil in radical treatment for
patients with T4b esophageal squamous cell carcinoma
Version: 2 Date: 11 Mar 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for correcting some of the previous points, I think the article has improved, though
I still find some limitations to be published in BMC Gastroenterology in its current design:
1) I strongly believe the title should not include "INDUCTION" as it was not the aim of the
KEYNOTE-590 trial to convert patients onto resectable disease or candidates for CHTRTP.
2) In the RESULTS, I continu to find difficult to follow the presentation of the findings,
even if this is a small cohort of patients. Please, consider some of the previous modifications
recommended, separating responders versus non-responders characteristics and adding more
detailed information about the cases. Obviously they had different evolutions and treatments, but
in its current form we lack insights on the value of CHT+ICI to achieve shrinkage of the tumor.
Otherwise, reconsider submitting a new version when more cases and more accurate information
if gathered in the near future
3)  In the DISCUSSION, even if authors submit an article a few months before the review is
performed, I think authors should consider incorporating the suggestions regarding the most
recent update information of the pivotal trial. This is part of the article review process, in which
dilated timelines sometimes imply that authors may rewrite some parts according to newes
data...hence, I think the discussion still lacks strong input comparing the 5-year outcomes of
the KEYNOTE-590 presented in ASCO GI 2024 meeting to put in context de relevance of this
intended submission.
assistant