Title: Association of lymphocyte subsets with the efficacy and prognosis of PD#1 inhibitor
therapy in advanced gastric cancer: results from a monocentric retrospective study
Version: 1 Date: 11 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
No - there are minor issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
No - there are minor issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are minor issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: - The authors responded to my question just mentioning NCCN
guidelines. Not analyzing what could be a potential implication of a different response of
metastatic patients compared to locally advanced. Clinical practice guidelines, like NCCN, are
of course based on the current knowledge of the disease. But in this study it is discussed a
possible future management of advanced gastric cancer; so, in my opinion, we should think "out
of the box" and maybe discuss all the possible scenarios. At least this point should be mentioned
by the authors in the Discussion section.
- I can also see that they have not responded adequately to the several questions of the other
reviewer
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
mentioned above
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
as commented before
Title: Association of lymphocyte subsets with the efficacy and prognosis of PD#1 inhibitor
therapy in advanced gastric cancer: results from a monocentric retrospective study
Version: 1 Date: 11 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
No - there are minor issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
No - there are minor issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are minor issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: - The authors responded to my question just mentioning NCCN
guidelines. Not analyzing what could be a potential implication of a different response of
metastatic patients compared to locally advanced. Clinical practice guidelines, like NCCN, are
of course based on the current knowledge of the disease. But in this study it is discussed a
possible future management of advanced gastric cancer; so, in my opinion, we should think "out
of the box" and maybe discuss all the possible scenarios. At least this point should be mentioned
by the authors in the Discussion section.
- I can also see that they have not responded adequately to the several questions of the other
reviewer
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
mentioned above
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
as commented before
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Association of lymphocyte subsets with the efficacy and prognosis of PD#1 inhibitor
therapy in advanced gastric cancer: results from a monocentric retrospective study
Version: 1 Date: 11 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
No - there are minor issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
No - there are minor issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are minor issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: - The authors responded to my question just mentioning NCCN
guidelines. Not analyzing what could be a potential implication of a different response of
metastatic patients compared to locally advanced. Clinical practice guidelines, like NCCN, are
of course based on the current knowledge of the disease. But in this study it is discussed a
possible future management of advanced gastric cancer; so, in my opinion, we should think "out
of the box" and maybe discuss all the possible scenarios. At least this point should be mentioned
by the authors in the Discussion section.
- I can also see that they have not responded adequately to the several questions of the other
reviewer
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
mentioned above
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
as commented before
assistant