Reviewer's report
Title:Micro-histology of pancreatic masses submitted to endoscopic
ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in the suspicion of metastatic disease.
Version: 2Date:1 December 2012
Reviewer: Paula Ghaneh
Reviewer's report:
Comments:
This paper looks at EUS guided micro histology in the diagnosis of metastatic
lesions in the pancreas.
1. I am not clear on the inclusion criteria for the study. The authors need to state
clearly what the inclusion criteria are - how did they select their patient
population?
2. Clearer description of patients who presented with a pancreas mass and no
previous history and those who did have a previous history of cancer.
3. Statistical plan is lacking. Variables should be quoted as median and range+/-
95% confidence intervals not mean.
4. Need a description of how sensitivity, specificity have been calculated and in
this instance ROC should be part of the statistical plan. There is no mention of
what statistical package the authors have used – this should be included.
5. The results are not clearly presented.
6. The demographic table is confusing what does control of disease mean, initial
staging and before identification of the primary cancer?
7. Figures needed – ROC curve, survival curves would be helpful.
8. Do the authors have any evidence from these patients concerning the clinical
utility of cytology?
9. The authors need to take note of the following references: DeWitt et al
Pancreas. 2012 Nov 9 49 patients. Pancreatology. 2012 Brais et al.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Reviewer's report
Title:Micro-histology of pancreatic masses submitted to endoscopic
ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in the suspicion of metastatic disease.
Version: 2Date:1 December 2012
Reviewer: Paula Ghaneh
Reviewer's report:
Comments:
This paper looks at EUS guided micro histology in the diagnosis of metastatic
lesions in the pancreas.
1. I am not clear on the inclusion criteria for the study. The authors need to state
clearly what the inclusion criteria are - how did they select their patient
population?
2. Clearer description of patients who presented with a pancreas mass and no
previous history and those who did have a previous history of cancer.
3. Statistical plan is lacking. Variables should be quoted as median and range+/-
95% confidence intervals not mean.
4. Need a description of how sensitivity, specificity have been calculated and in
this instance ROC should be part of the statistical plan. There is no mention of
what statistical package the authors have used – this should be included.
5. The results are not clearly presented.
6. The demographic table is confusing what does control of disease mean, initial
staging and before identification of the primary cancer?
7. Figures needed – ROC curve, survival curves would be helpful.
8. Do the authors have any evidence from these patients concerning the clinical
utility of cytology?
9. The authors need to take note of the following references: DeWitt et al
Pancreas. 2012 Nov 9 49 patients. Pancreatology. 2012 Brais et al.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Micro-histology of pancreatic masses submitted to endoscopic
ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in the suspicion of metastatic disease.
Version: 2Date:1 December 2012
Reviewer: Paula Ghaneh
Reviewer's report:
Comments:
This paper looks at EUS guided micro histology in the diagnosis of metastatic
lesions in the pancreas.
1. I am not clear on the inclusion criteria for the study. The authors need to state
clearly what the inclusion criteria are - how did they select their patient
population?
2. Clearer description of patients who presented with a pancreas mass and no
previous history and those who did have a previous history of cancer.
3. Statistical plan is lacking. Variables should be quoted as median and range+/-
95% confidence intervals not mean.
4. Need a description of how sensitivity, specificity have been calculated and in
this instance ROC should be part of the statistical plan. There is no mention of
what statistical package the authors have used – this should be included.
5. The results are not clearly presented.
6. The demographic table is confusing what does control of disease mean, initial
staging and before identification of the primary cancer?
7. Figures needed – ROC curve, survival curves would be helpful.
8. Do the authors have any evidence from these patients concerning the clinical
utility of cytology?
9. The authors need to take note of the following references: DeWitt et al
Pancreas. 2012 Nov 9 49 patients. Pancreatology. 2012 Brais et al.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
assistant