Reviewer's report
Title:A pilot study of individualized comprehensive treatment for gastric cancer
with para-aortic lymph node metastases
Version:2Date:10 August 2015
Reviewer: Cuong P Duong
Reviewer's report:
An interesting study evaluating the use of aggressive systemic therapy in
patients with advanced gastric cancer (locoregional and para-aortic nodal
involvement without definite organ metastasis) with responders proceed to
radical resection of tumour and nodal stations. Reasonable chemotherapy
toxicity profile with apparently no major peri-operative morbidity and yet very
good long term survival.
Need to be careful with English - misspellings, grammar eg poor. So (37),
Background (69), researchers (72, 78), through (289)
PET was mentioned as Ix for recurrent tumour but not as a staging tool
Minor essential revisions:
Line 56,57 and line 244, 245 - need to separate 1 and 2 ySR for whole group
from 1,2 and 3ySR for surgical group as it's confusing.
2) Abstract - should not use abbreviation eg PR, CR, PD or NC until they are
defined
3) Abstract - need to define no16 LN as para-aortic LN
4) Need to comment on whether laparoscopy and peritoneal cytology was
performed to exclude occult peritoneal or small liver subcapsular met which can
impact on outcome
5) Surgery was performed in 32 of 46 patients though path response could only
be examined in 21 cases? (line 225)
6) Standard D2 gastrectomy do not resect station 16 LN so did all patients had
D3 instead of D2?
7) Need to discuss the role of surgery - does it contribute to improved patient
outcome or the better survival in surgical group reflect selection bias in those with
favourable tumours that already responded well to systemic therapy
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
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:A pilot study of individualized comprehensive treatment for gastric cancer
with para-aortic lymph node metastases
Version:2Date:10 August 2015
Reviewer: Cuong P Duong
Reviewer's report:
An interesting study evaluating the use of aggressive systemic therapy in
patients with advanced gastric cancer (locoregional and para-aortic nodal
involvement without definite organ metastasis) with responders proceed to
radical resection of tumour and nodal stations. Reasonable chemotherapy
toxicity profile with apparently no major peri-operative morbidity and yet very
good long term survival.
Need to be careful with English - misspellings, grammar eg poor. So (37),
Background (69), researchers (72, 78), through (289)
PET was mentioned as Ix for recurrent tumour but not as a staging tool
Minor essential revisions:
Line 56,57 and line 244, 245 - need to separate 1 and 2 ySR for whole group
from 1,2 and 3ySR for surgical group as it's confusing.
2) Abstract - should not use abbreviation eg PR, CR, PD or NC until they are
defined
3) Abstract - need to define no16 LN as para-aortic LN
4) Need to comment on whether laparoscopy and peritoneal cytology was
performed to exclude occult peritoneal or small liver subcapsular met which can
impact on outcome
5) Surgery was performed in 32 of 46 patients though path response could only
be examined in 21 cases? (line 225)
6) Standard D2 gastrectomy do not resect station 16 LN so did all patients had
D3 instead of D2?
7) Need to discuss the role of surgery - does it contribute to improved patient
outcome or the better survival in surgical group reflect selection bias in those with
favourable tumours that already responded well to systemic therapy
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
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:A pilot study of individualized comprehensive treatment for gastric cancer
with para-aortic lymph node metastases
Version:2Date:10 August 2015
Reviewer: Cuong P Duong
Reviewer's report:
An interesting study evaluating the use of aggressive systemic therapy in
patients with advanced gastric cancer (locoregional and para-aortic nodal
involvement without definite organ metastasis) with responders proceed to
radical resection of tumour and nodal stations. Reasonable chemotherapy
toxicity profile with apparently no major peri-operative morbidity and yet very
good long term survival.
Need to be careful with English - misspellings, grammar eg poor. So (37),
Background (69), researchers (72, 78), through (289)
PET was mentioned as Ix for recurrent tumour but not as a staging tool
Minor essential revisions:
Line 56,57 and line 244, 245 - need to separate 1 and 2 ySR for whole group
from 1,2 and 3ySR for surgical group as it's confusing.
2) Abstract - should not use abbreviation eg PR, CR, PD or NC until they are
defined
3) Abstract - need to define no16 LN as para-aortic LN
4) Need to comment on whether laparoscopy and peritoneal cytology was
performed to exclude occult peritoneal or small liver subcapsular met which can
impact on outcome
5) Surgery was performed in 32 of 46 patients though path response could only
be examined in 21 cases? (line 225)
6) Standard D2 gastrectomy do not resect station 16 LN so did all patients had
D3 instead of D2?
7) Need to discuss the role of surgery - does it contribute to improved patient
outcome or the better survival in surgical group reflect selection bias in those with
favourable tumours that already responded well to systemic therapy
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
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