Title: Prognostic factors of pancreatic tumors in children and adolescents: A population study
based on the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Database
Version: 3 Date: 19 Dec 2023
Reviewer's report:
Pancreatic tumors in children and adolescents are exceptionally uncommon, yet they
demonstrate a more favorable overall prognosis compared to their adult counterparts. In this
study, the authors aim to elucidate the epidemiological features and prognostic factors associated
with pancreatic tumors, utilizing data from the SEER database. This endeavor represents
a valuable exploration that enhances our understanding of these tumors. However, several
questions arise from this study.
1. The morphological codes (pseudopapillary neoplasm: 8452; pancreatoblastoma: 8971;
endocrine tumors: 8240, 8246, 8150) utilized in the methods section facilitated the extraction of
case data from the SEER database. It is evident that case data pertaining only to three type of
tumors were extracted, thus excluding other types of pancreatic tumors. However, it is essential
for the authors to provide clarification regarding other types of pancreatic tumors that were
not included in this analysis. This clarification is of paramount importance and needs further
elaboration.
2. It is unnecessary to reiterate the description of the results and table contents within the
article, particularly the "Survival analysis" section. Avoiding such redundancy would enhance
the clarity and conciseness of the manuscript.
3. Regarding Table 4, which includes variables with multiple subgroups such as "SEER
stage," the presence of multiple p-values in the prognostic analysis requires an explanation.
Additionally, it is unclear why certain variables such as "Age" and "Tumor size" were excluded
from the prognostic analysis in Table 4. To provide a comprehensive demonstration, it is
recommended to present Table 1 and Table 4 together.
4. The purpose of displaying the 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival (OS) for each variable in
Table 3 need clarification. Specifically, the significance of the numbers in parentheses should
be explained. As the author has obtained factors that impact prognosis from subsequent survival
analysis, it is advisable to solely present the 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS for these prognostic variables.
5. The rationale behind separately displaying Figure 1 and Figure 2 is unclear. In my opinion,
it appears unnecessary to do so, and they could be combined.
6. The prognostic analysis of treatment methods in Figure 3 appears inappropriate since
different pathological subtypes inherently warrant different primary treatment approaches. For
instance, surgery is not the preferred treatment for early neuroendocrine tumors. Therefore, it is
recommended to conduct independent analyses for distinct pathological subgroups.
7. Lastly, it is suggested to include a discussion of the results from Table 2 in the discussion
section to provide a comprehensive interpretation of the findings.
Title: Prognostic factors of pancreatic tumors in children and adolescents: A population study
based on the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Database
Version: 3 Date: 19 Dec 2023
Reviewer's report:
Pancreatic tumors in children and adolescents are exceptionally uncommon, yet they
demonstrate a more favorable overall prognosis compared to their adult counterparts. In this
study, the authors aim to elucidate the epidemiological features and prognostic factors associated
with pancreatic tumors, utilizing data from the SEER database. This endeavor represents
a valuable exploration that enhances our understanding of these tumors. However, several
questions arise from this study.
1. The morphological codes (pseudopapillary neoplasm: 8452; pancreatoblastoma: 8971;
endocrine tumors: 8240, 8246, 8150) utilized in the methods section facilitated the extraction of
case data from the SEER database. It is evident that case data pertaining only to three type of
tumors were extracted, thus excluding other types of pancreatic tumors. However, it is essential
for the authors to provide clarification regarding other types of pancreatic tumors that were
not included in this analysis. This clarification is of paramount importance and needs further
elaboration.
2. It is unnecessary to reiterate the description of the results and table contents within the
article, particularly the "Survival analysis" section. Avoiding such redundancy would enhance
the clarity and conciseness of the manuscript.
3. Regarding Table 4, which includes variables with multiple subgroups such as "SEER
stage," the presence of multiple p-values in the prognostic analysis requires an explanation.
Additionally, it is unclear why certain variables such as "Age" and "Tumor size" were excluded
from the prognostic analysis in Table 4. To provide a comprehensive demonstration, it is
recommended to present Table 1 and Table 4 together.
4. The purpose of displaying the 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival (OS) for each variable in
Table 3 need clarification. Specifically, the significance of the numbers in parentheses should
be explained. As the author has obtained factors that impact prognosis from subsequent survival
analysis, it is advisable to solely present the 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS for these prognostic variables.
5. The rationale behind separately displaying Figure 1 and Figure 2 is unclear. In my opinion,
it appears unnecessary to do so, and they could be combined.
6. The prognostic analysis of treatment methods in Figure 3 appears inappropriate since
different pathological subtypes inherently warrant different primary treatment approaches. For
instance, surgery is not the preferred treatment for early neuroendocrine tumors. Therefore, it is
recommended to conduct independent analyses for distinct pathological subgroups.
7. Lastly, it is suggested to include a discussion of the results from Table 2 in the discussion
section to provide a comprehensive interpretation of the findings.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Prognostic factors of pancreatic tumors in children and adolescents: A population study
based on the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Database
Version: 3 Date: 19 Dec 2023
Reviewer's report:
Pancreatic tumors in children and adolescents are exceptionally uncommon, yet they
demonstrate a more favorable overall prognosis compared to their adult counterparts. In this
study, the authors aim to elucidate the epidemiological features and prognostic factors associated
with pancreatic tumors, utilizing data from the SEER database. This endeavor represents
a valuable exploration that enhances our understanding of these tumors. However, several
questions arise from this study.
1. The morphological codes (pseudopapillary neoplasm: 8452; pancreatoblastoma: 8971;
endocrine tumors: 8240, 8246, 8150) utilized in the methods section facilitated the extraction of
case data from the SEER database. It is evident that case data pertaining only to three type of
tumors were extracted, thus excluding other types of pancreatic tumors. However, it is essential
for the authors to provide clarification regarding other types of pancreatic tumors that were
not included in this analysis. This clarification is of paramount importance and needs further
elaboration.
2. It is unnecessary to reiterate the description of the results and table contents within the
article, particularly the "Survival analysis" section. Avoiding such redundancy would enhance
the clarity and conciseness of the manuscript.
3. Regarding Table 4, which includes variables with multiple subgroups such as "SEER
stage," the presence of multiple p-values in the prognostic analysis requires an explanation.
Additionally, it is unclear why certain variables such as "Age" and "Tumor size" were excluded
from the prognostic analysis in Table 4. To provide a comprehensive demonstration, it is
recommended to present Table 1 and Table 4 together.
4. The purpose of displaying the 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival (OS) for each variable in
Table 3 need clarification. Specifically, the significance of the numbers in parentheses should
be explained. As the author has obtained factors that impact prognosis from subsequent survival
analysis, it is advisable to solely present the 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS for these prognostic variables.
5. The rationale behind separately displaying Figure 1 and Figure 2 is unclear. In my opinion,
it appears unnecessary to do so, and they could be combined.
6. The prognostic analysis of treatment methods in Figure 3 appears inappropriate since
different pathological subtypes inherently warrant different primary treatment approaches. For
instance, surgery is not the preferred treatment for early neuroendocrine tumors. Therefore, it is
recommended to conduct independent analyses for distinct pathological subgroups.
7. Lastly, it is suggested to include a discussion of the results from Table 2 in the discussion
section to provide a comprehensive interpretation of the findings.
assistant