Reviewer's report
Title:Trends in esophageal cancer and body mass index by race and gender in
the state of Michigan
Version: 1Date:16 February 2009
Reviewer: Thomas Vaughan
Reviewer's report:
This is a well-written report examining the incidence of esophageal cancer in
Michigan State over time and in relation to BMI trends in the state.
Minor essential revisions:
1. (Background, 2nd para, 3rd sentence). The authors imply that the action of
BMI is through reflux. However this ignores recent data (e.g., Whiteman DC,
GUT, 2008;57) that strongly suggests that obesity and GERD may act
synergistically. This section should be revised to reflect conflicting information on
this topic. This also pertains to the 3rd paragraph of discussion, which does not
take into account recent case-control studies of esophageal adenocarcinoma and
Barrett’s.
2. (Background, 2nd para, 4th sentence). Three references (10-12) are given and
described as case-control studies, whereas all are cohort studies. Additional
recent case-controls studies would be good to add as well (e.g., Whiteman,
above).
3. (Background, 2nd para, last sentence). The fact that previous case-control
studies may have matched on race does not preclude the examination of
race-specific estimation of BMI associations. This should be corrected.
4. Regarding the analysis of incidence trends, it would be helpful to provide
estimates of annual % change in incidence to facilitate comparisons with other
studies. Also, a bit more detail on the analysis of change in slope would be of
interest. For example, how was 1999 chosen as a cutpoint?
5. The discussion should also include results from Jeon et al (Cancer Causes
Control; 2006;17) who conduct SEER-wide analyses of incidence along with a
brief look at obesity trends and their potential role.
Discretionary revisions:
6. (Discussion, 1st para, 3rd sentence). It is a bit odd to refer to Barrett’s as a risk
factor for esophageal adenocarcinoma, implying etiology. A precursor is perhaps
a better term.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Acceptable
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:Trends in esophageal cancer and body mass index by race and gender in
the state of Michigan
Version: 1Date:16 February 2009
Reviewer: Thomas Vaughan
Reviewer's report:
This is a well-written report examining the incidence of esophageal cancer in
Michigan State over time and in relation to BMI trends in the state.
Minor essential revisions:
1. (Background, 2nd para, 3rd sentence). The authors imply that the action of
BMI is through reflux. However this ignores recent data (e.g., Whiteman DC,
GUT, 2008;57) that strongly suggests that obesity and GERD may act
synergistically. This section should be revised to reflect conflicting information on
this topic. This also pertains to the 3rd paragraph of discussion, which does not
take into account recent case-control studies of esophageal adenocarcinoma and
Barrett’s.
2. (Background, 2nd para, 4th sentence). Three references (10-12) are given and
described as case-control studies, whereas all are cohort studies. Additional
recent case-controls studies would be good to add as well (e.g., Whiteman,
above).
3. (Background, 2nd para, last sentence). The fact that previous case-control
studies may have matched on race does not preclude the examination of
race-specific estimation of BMI associations. This should be corrected.
4. Regarding the analysis of incidence trends, it would be helpful to provide
estimates of annual % change in incidence to facilitate comparisons with other
studies. Also, a bit more detail on the analysis of change in slope would be of
interest. For example, how was 1999 chosen as a cutpoint?
5. The discussion should also include results from Jeon et al (Cancer Causes
Control; 2006;17) who conduct SEER-wide analyses of incidence along with a
brief look at obesity trends and their potential role.
Discretionary revisions:
6. (Discussion, 1st para, 3rd sentence). It is a bit odd to refer to Barrett’s as a risk
factor for esophageal adenocarcinoma, implying etiology. A precursor is perhaps
a better term.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Acceptable
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:Trends in esophageal cancer and body mass index by race and gender in
the state of Michigan
Version: 1Date:16 February 2009
Reviewer: Thomas Vaughan
Reviewer's report:
This is a well-written report examining the incidence of esophageal cancer in
Michigan State over time and in relation to BMI trends in the state.
Minor essential revisions:
1. (Background, 2nd para, 3rd sentence). The authors imply that the action of
BMI is through reflux. However this ignores recent data (e.g., Whiteman DC,
GUT, 2008;57) that strongly suggests that obesity and GERD may act
synergistically. This section should be revised to reflect conflicting information on
this topic. This also pertains to the 3rd paragraph of discussion, which does not
take into account recent case-control studies of esophageal adenocarcinoma and
Barrett’s.
2. (Background, 2nd para, 4th sentence). Three references (10-12) are given and
described as case-control studies, whereas all are cohort studies. Additional
recent case-controls studies would be good to add as well (e.g., Whiteman,
above).
3. (Background, 2nd para, last sentence). The fact that previous case-control
studies may have matched on race does not preclude the examination of
race-specific estimation of BMI associations. This should be corrected.
4. Regarding the analysis of incidence trends, it would be helpful to provide
estimates of annual % change in incidence to facilitate comparisons with other
studies. Also, a bit more detail on the analysis of change in slope would be of
interest. For example, how was 1999 chosen as a cutpoint?
5. The discussion should also include results from Jeon et al (Cancer Causes
Control; 2006;17) who conduct SEER-wide analyses of incidence along with a
brief look at obesity trends and their potential role.
Discretionary revisions:
6. (Discussion, 1st para, 3rd sentence). It is a bit odd to refer to Barrett’s as a risk
factor for esophageal adenocarcinoma, implying etiology. A precursor is perhaps
a better term.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Acceptable
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