Title: Construction and validation of a nomogram for cancer specific survival of postoperative
pancreatic cancer based on the SEER and China database
Version: 1 Date: 17 Dec 2023
Reviewer's report:
The poor prognosis associated with pancreatic cancer presents an ongoing therapeutic challenge.
The authors' endeavor to construct a nomogram for predicting pancreatic cancer-specific
survival (CSS) following surgery is a valuable exploration, and the model demonstrates
satisfactory performance. Nevertheless, several questions remain.
Primary concerns:
1. While there are established nomogram studies on pancreatic cancer prognosis, it is crucial
for the authors to highlight the strengths of their study. Comparisons with traditional nomogram
models should be made to elucidate the advantages of this particular investigation.
2. As mentioned by the authors, the model's area under the curve (AUC) value, commonly
referred to as the C-index, is closely linked to the time series. It is recommended that the
authors present the C-index performance for additional cutoffs, such as 3- and 5-year intervals,
in addition to the 1- and 2-year cutoffs provided.
3. The authors' risk stratification employs cutoff values for risk scores. To enhance clarity, a
diagram should be included to illustrate precisely how these two cutoff values were determined.
4. Typically, the C-index increases progressively with longer follow-up durations due to
a decrease in the number of survivors, resulting in higher accuracy in predicting survival.
Moreover, the limited inclusion of clinical indicators within the SEER database constitutes an
inherent flaw. It would be valuable for the authors to explain how the external validation cohort
achieved C-index values of 0.901 and 0.803 for the 1- and 2-year models, respectively, despite
these challenges.
5. The introduction section of the article should be supplemented with a comprehensive review
of previous nomogram studies.
6. The structure of the discussion section requires revision. The first paragraph should not
duplicate information already presented in the introduction section. The significance of the
second paragraph is uncertain, and the third paragraph should primarily focus on the model and
its predictors. The fourth paragraph should address the limitations of the model.
Secondary concerns:
1. The article exhibits some issues with language usage, and it is advisable to have a native
speaker review and revise the wording and language expressions.
2. The rationale behind singling out Figure 1 should be clarified by the authors.
3. It is suggested to rename the "Validation" in the article as the "Internal validation cohort" and
the "Chinese cases" as the "External validation cohort" to enhance clarity and avoid confusion.
Title: Construction and validation of a nomogram for cancer specific survival of postoperative
pancreatic cancer based on the SEER and China database
Version: 1 Date: 17 Dec 2023
Reviewer's report:
The poor prognosis associated with pancreatic cancer presents an ongoing therapeutic challenge.
The authors' endeavor to construct a nomogram for predicting pancreatic cancer-specific
survival (CSS) following surgery is a valuable exploration, and the model demonstrates
satisfactory performance. Nevertheless, several questions remain.
Primary concerns:
1. While there are established nomogram studies on pancreatic cancer prognosis, it is crucial
for the authors to highlight the strengths of their study. Comparisons with traditional nomogram
models should be made to elucidate the advantages of this particular investigation.
2. As mentioned by the authors, the model's area under the curve (AUC) value, commonly
referred to as the C-index, is closely linked to the time series. It is recommended that the
authors present the C-index performance for additional cutoffs, such as 3- and 5-year intervals,
in addition to the 1- and 2-year cutoffs provided.
3. The authors' risk stratification employs cutoff values for risk scores. To enhance clarity, a
diagram should be included to illustrate precisely how these two cutoff values were determined.
4. Typically, the C-index increases progressively with longer follow-up durations due to
a decrease in the number of survivors, resulting in higher accuracy in predicting survival.
Moreover, the limited inclusion of clinical indicators within the SEER database constitutes an
inherent flaw. It would be valuable for the authors to explain how the external validation cohort
achieved C-index values of 0.901 and 0.803 for the 1- and 2-year models, respectively, despite
these challenges.
5. The introduction section of the article should be supplemented with a comprehensive review
of previous nomogram studies.
6. The structure of the discussion section requires revision. The first paragraph should not
duplicate information already presented in the introduction section. The significance of the
second paragraph is uncertain, and the third paragraph should primarily focus on the model and
its predictors. The fourth paragraph should address the limitations of the model.
Secondary concerns:
1. The article exhibits some issues with language usage, and it is advisable to have a native
speaker review and revise the wording and language expressions.
2. The rationale behind singling out Figure 1 should be clarified by the authors.
3. It is suggested to rename the "Validation" in the article as the "Internal validation cohort" and
the "Chinese cases" as the "External validation cohort" to enhance clarity and avoid confusion.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Construction and validation of a nomogram for cancer specific survival of postoperative
pancreatic cancer based on the SEER and China database
Version: 1 Date: 17 Dec 2023
Reviewer's report:
The poor prognosis associated with pancreatic cancer presents an ongoing therapeutic challenge.
The authors' endeavor to construct a nomogram for predicting pancreatic cancer-specific
survival (CSS) following surgery is a valuable exploration, and the model demonstrates
satisfactory performance. Nevertheless, several questions remain.
Primary concerns:
1. While there are established nomogram studies on pancreatic cancer prognosis, it is crucial
for the authors to highlight the strengths of their study. Comparisons with traditional nomogram
models should be made to elucidate the advantages of this particular investigation.
2. As mentioned by the authors, the model's area under the curve (AUC) value, commonly
referred to as the C-index, is closely linked to the time series. It is recommended that the
authors present the C-index performance for additional cutoffs, such as 3- and 5-year intervals,
in addition to the 1- and 2-year cutoffs provided.
3. The authors' risk stratification employs cutoff values for risk scores. To enhance clarity, a
diagram should be included to illustrate precisely how these two cutoff values were determined.
4. Typically, the C-index increases progressively with longer follow-up durations due to
a decrease in the number of survivors, resulting in higher accuracy in predicting survival.
Moreover, the limited inclusion of clinical indicators within the SEER database constitutes an
inherent flaw. It would be valuable for the authors to explain how the external validation cohort
achieved C-index values of 0.901 and 0.803 for the 1- and 2-year models, respectively, despite
these challenges.
5. The introduction section of the article should be supplemented with a comprehensive review
of previous nomogram studies.
6. The structure of the discussion section requires revision. The first paragraph should not
duplicate information already presented in the introduction section. The significance of the
second paragraph is uncertain, and the third paragraph should primarily focus on the model and
its predictors. The fourth paragraph should address the limitations of the model.
Secondary concerns:
1. The article exhibits some issues with language usage, and it is advisable to have a native
speaker review and revise the wording and language expressions.
2. The rationale behind singling out Figure 1 should be clarified by the authors.
3. It is suggested to rename the "Validation" in the article as the "Internal validation cohort" and
the "Chinese cases" as the "External validation cohort" to enhance clarity and avoid confusion.
assistant