Reviewer's report
Title:Advanced Biliary Tract Carcinomas: A Retrospective Multicenter Analysis of
First and Second-line Chemotherapy
Version:1Date:6 June 2014
Reviewer: Minsig Choi
Reviewer's report:
Fiteni et. al reviewed 64 patients with advanced biliary tract carcinomas as a
retrospective multicenter analysis in first and second-line setting. The aim of the
study was to assess the efficacy and safety of different platinum-based
chemotherapies administered as first line in patients with aBTC. Although this is
not a randomized clinical trial, the clinical results in a rare disease like aBTC has
a merit to be published. However in a retrospective like this, it can not make any
conclusion about the hypothesis rather the clinical results are generally
hypothesis generating.
1. statistics section should be simplified to show primary and secondary
end-points. I would remove the univariate and multivariate analysis of the other
factors in this setting (N=64) with two different chemotherapy and 5 different
variables. Such analysis does not have any merit in this setting.
2. results section
Showing survival data in the two groups and safety data are presented nicely but
i would remove the univariate and multivariate analysis section.
3. safety
since this is a retrospective study; would elucidate how the safety information is
collected; medical chart review or electronic data capture.
4. discussion
as authors eluded in the introduction, the standard of care for fit patients in this
setting is gem+cis; so discussion should focus on why gem+ox was used in the
institution and what are comparable difference in the two regimen.
Evidence based approach should recommend Gem+cis and the arguments of the
authors insisting GEMOX based on a retropsective study is not very compelling.
Authors mention 16 patients with poor PS; the clinical outcome on these patients
would be helpful to argue in favor or GEMOX or safety profile of GEMOX can be
compared to the ABC study.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I have no competing interests'
Reviewer's report
Title:Advanced Biliary Tract Carcinomas: A Retrospective Multicenter Analysis of
First and Second-line Chemotherapy
Version:1Date:6 June 2014
Reviewer: Minsig Choi
Reviewer's report:
Fiteni et. al reviewed 64 patients with advanced biliary tract carcinomas as a
retrospective multicenter analysis in first and second-line setting. The aim of the
study was to assess the efficacy and safety of different platinum-based
chemotherapies administered as first line in patients with aBTC. Although this is
not a randomized clinical trial, the clinical results in a rare disease like aBTC has
a merit to be published. However in a retrospective like this, it can not make any
conclusion about the hypothesis rather the clinical results are generally
hypothesis generating.
1. statistics section should be simplified to show primary and secondary
end-points. I would remove the univariate and multivariate analysis of the other
factors in this setting (N=64) with two different chemotherapy and 5 different
variables. Such analysis does not have any merit in this setting.
2. results section
Showing survival data in the two groups and safety data are presented nicely but
i would remove the univariate and multivariate analysis section.
3. safety
since this is a retrospective study; would elucidate how the safety information is
collected; medical chart review or electronic data capture.
4. discussion
as authors eluded in the introduction, the standard of care for fit patients in this
setting is gem+cis; so discussion should focus on why gem+ox was used in the
institution and what are comparable difference in the two regimen.
Evidence based approach should recommend Gem+cis and the arguments of the
authors insisting GEMOX based on a retropsective study is not very compelling.
Authors mention 16 patients with poor PS; the clinical outcome on these patients
would be helpful to argue in favor or GEMOX or safety profile of GEMOX can be
compared to the ABC study.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I have no competing interests'
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Advanced Biliary Tract Carcinomas: A Retrospective Multicenter Analysis of
First and Second-line Chemotherapy
Version:1Date:6 June 2014
Reviewer: Minsig Choi
Reviewer's report:
Fiteni et. al reviewed 64 patients with advanced biliary tract carcinomas as a
retrospective multicenter analysis in first and second-line setting. The aim of the
study was to assess the efficacy and safety of different platinum-based
chemotherapies administered as first line in patients with aBTC. Although this is
not a randomized clinical trial, the clinical results in a rare disease like aBTC has
a merit to be published. However in a retrospective like this, it can not make any
conclusion about the hypothesis rather the clinical results are generally
hypothesis generating.
1. statistics section should be simplified to show primary and secondary
end-points. I would remove the univariate and multivariate analysis of the other
factors in this setting (N=64) with two different chemotherapy and 5 different
variables. Such analysis does not have any merit in this setting.
2. results section
Showing survival data in the two groups and safety data are presented nicely but
i would remove the univariate and multivariate analysis section.
3. safety
since this is a retrospective study; would elucidate how the safety information is
collected; medical chart review or electronic data capture.
4. discussion
as authors eluded in the introduction, the standard of care for fit patients in this
setting is gem+cis; so discussion should focus on why gem+ox was used in the
institution and what are comparable difference in the two regimen.
Evidence based approach should recommend Gem+cis and the arguments of the
authors insisting GEMOX based on a retropsective study is not very compelling.
Authors mention 16 patients with poor PS; the clinical outcome on these patients
would be helpful to argue in favor or GEMOX or safety profile of GEMOX can be
compared to the ABC study.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I have no competing interests'
assistant