Title: The epidemiological trends of biliary tract cancers in the United States of America
Version: 1 Date: 30 Nov 2022
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editor, thank you so much for inviting me to revise this manuscript about biliary tract
cancer.
This study addresses a current topic.
The manuscript is quite well written and organized. English could be improved.
Figures and tables are comprehensive and clear.
The introduction explains in a clear and coherent manner the background of this study.
We suggest the following modifications:
• Introduction section: although the authors correctly included important papers in this setting,
we believe the changing systemic treatment scenario for biliary tract cancer should be further
expanded and some recently published papers added within the introduction (PMID: 32994319 ;
PMID: 33592561 ; PMID: 33054456; PMID: 32824407 ), only for a matter of consistency. We
think it might be useful to introduce the topic of this interesting study.
• Methods and Statistical Analysis: nothing to add.
• Discussion section: Very interesting and timely discussion. Of note, the authors should expand
the Discussion section, including a more personal perspective to reflect on. For example, they
could answer the following questions – in order to facilitate the understanding of this complex
topic to readers: what potential does this study hold? What are the knowledge gaps and how do
researchers tackle them? How do you see this area unfolding in the next 5 years? We think it
would be extremely interesting for the readers.
However, we think the authors should be acknowledged for their work. In fact, they correctly
addressed an important topic, the methods sound good and their discussion is well-balanced.
One additional little flaw: the authors could better explain the limitations of their work, in the
last part of the Discussion.
We believe this article is suitable for publication in the journal although major revisions are
needed. The main strengths of this paper are that it addresses an interesting and very timely
question and provides a clear answer, with some limitations.
We suggest a linguistic revision and the addition of some references for a matter of consistency.
Moreover, the authors should better clarify some points.
Title: The epidemiological trends of biliary tract cancers in the United States of America
Version: 1 Date: 30 Nov 2022
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editor, thank you so much for inviting me to revise this manuscript about biliary tract
cancer.
This study addresses a current topic.
The manuscript is quite well written and organized. English could be improved.
Figures and tables are comprehensive and clear.
The introduction explains in a clear and coherent manner the background of this study.
We suggest the following modifications:
• Introduction section: although the authors correctly included important papers in this setting,
we believe the changing systemic treatment scenario for biliary tract cancer should be further
expanded and some recently published papers added within the introduction (PMID: 32994319 ;
PMID: 33592561 ; PMID: 33054456; PMID: 32824407 ), only for a matter of consistency. We
think it might be useful to introduce the topic of this interesting study.
• Methods and Statistical Analysis: nothing to add.
• Discussion section: Very interesting and timely discussion. Of note, the authors should expand
the Discussion section, including a more personal perspective to reflect on. For example, they
could answer the following questions – in order to facilitate the understanding of this complex
topic to readers: what potential does this study hold? What are the knowledge gaps and how do
researchers tackle them? How do you see this area unfolding in the next 5 years? We think it
would be extremely interesting for the readers.
However, we think the authors should be acknowledged for their work. In fact, they correctly
addressed an important topic, the methods sound good and their discussion is well-balanced.
One additional little flaw: the authors could better explain the limitations of their work, in the
last part of the Discussion.
We believe this article is suitable for publication in the journal although major revisions are
needed. The main strengths of this paper are that it addresses an interesting and very timely
question and provides a clear answer, with some limitations.
We suggest a linguistic revision and the addition of some references for a matter of consistency.
Moreover, the authors should better clarify some points.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: The epidemiological trends of biliary tract cancers in the United States of America
Version: 1 Date: 30 Nov 2022
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editor, thank you so much for inviting me to revise this manuscript about biliary tract
cancer.
This study addresses a current topic.
The manuscript is quite well written and organized. English could be improved.
Figures and tables are comprehensive and clear.
The introduction explains in a clear and coherent manner the background of this study.
We suggest the following modifications:
• Introduction section: although the authors correctly included important papers in this setting,
we believe the changing systemic treatment scenario for biliary tract cancer should be further
expanded and some recently published papers added within the introduction (PMID: 32994319 ;
PMID: 33592561 ; PMID: 33054456; PMID: 32824407 ), only for a matter of consistency. We
think it might be useful to introduce the topic of this interesting study.
• Methods and Statistical Analysis: nothing to add.
• Discussion section: Very interesting and timely discussion. Of note, the authors should expand
the Discussion section, including a more personal perspective to reflect on. For example, they
could answer the following questions – in order to facilitate the understanding of this complex
topic to readers: what potential does this study hold? What are the knowledge gaps and how do
researchers tackle them? How do you see this area unfolding in the next 5 years? We think it
would be extremely interesting for the readers.
However, we think the authors should be acknowledged for their work. In fact, they correctly
addressed an important topic, the methods sound good and their discussion is well-balanced.
One additional little flaw: the authors could better explain the limitations of their work, in the
last part of the Discussion.
We believe this article is suitable for publication in the journal although major revisions are
needed. The main strengths of this paper are that it addresses an interesting and very timely
question and provides a clear answer, with some limitations.
We suggest a linguistic revision and the addition of some references for a matter of consistency.
Moreover, the authors should better clarify some points.
assistant