Reviewer's report
Title:Serological Assessment of gastric mucosal Atrophy in gastric Cancer.
Version: 1Date:31 October 2011
Reviewer: Lars Engstrand
Reviewer's report:
The ms is well written and addresses questions and answers to scientists and
physicians in this field. There is a need for screening programs that include
evaluation of markers such as H. pylori and serological characterization of the
gastric mucosa i.e. preneoplastic conditions. Such approaches have been
discussed and presented before and this study adds information to the field by
evaluating the use of potential biomarkers and a possible association to specific
gastric cancer characteristics. Some minor comments and questions should be
addressed:
1. Data assessment page 6: The reason for excluding mixed type tumors is not
clear. Clarify "for statistical reasons".
2. Assessment of serum parameters page 8. Add a reference to justify that
patients with positive CagA-status are classified as H. pylori positive. An
exclusive Cag A antibody response has been suggested as a serological scar i.e.
an indication of past H. pylori infection and consequently the definition should be
modified in the text.
3. All figures should be presented in a supplement. The results are clear in the
text and the figures does not add any substantial information in the ms as it is
presented now.
4. It would be of interest for gastroenterologists to get some advise or clinical
impact based on the current findings in this study. How should we approach
patients with diffuse type cancers for example? Is a combination of endoscopy
and serological screening the best option and if so, should we apply such
strategies in both high and low risk populations?
3.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Reviewer's report
Title:Serological Assessment of gastric mucosal Atrophy in gastric Cancer.
Version: 1Date:31 October 2011
Reviewer: Lars Engstrand
Reviewer's report:
The ms is well written and addresses questions and answers to scientists and
physicians in this field. There is a need for screening programs that include
evaluation of markers such as H. pylori and serological characterization of the
gastric mucosa i.e. preneoplastic conditions. Such approaches have been
discussed and presented before and this study adds information to the field by
evaluating the use of potential biomarkers and a possible association to specific
gastric cancer characteristics. Some minor comments and questions should be
addressed:
1. Data assessment page 6: The reason for excluding mixed type tumors is not
clear. Clarify "for statistical reasons".
2. Assessment of serum parameters page 8. Add a reference to justify that
patients with positive CagA-status are classified as H. pylori positive. An
exclusive Cag A antibody response has been suggested as a serological scar i.e.
an indication of past H. pylori infection and consequently the definition should be
modified in the text.
3. All figures should be presented in a supplement. The results are clear in the
text and the figures does not add any substantial information in the ms as it is
presented now.
4. It would be of interest for gastroenterologists to get some advise or clinical
impact based on the current findings in this study. How should we approach
patients with diffuse type cancers for example? Is a combination of endoscopy
and serological screening the best option and if so, should we apply such
strategies in both high and low risk populations?
3.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Serological Assessment of gastric mucosal Atrophy in gastric Cancer.
Version: 1Date:31 October 2011
Reviewer: Lars Engstrand
Reviewer's report:
The ms is well written and addresses questions and answers to scientists and
physicians in this field. There is a need for screening programs that include
evaluation of markers such as H. pylori and serological characterization of the
gastric mucosa i.e. preneoplastic conditions. Such approaches have been
discussed and presented before and this study adds information to the field by
evaluating the use of potential biomarkers and a possible association to specific
gastric cancer characteristics. Some minor comments and questions should be
addressed:
1. Data assessment page 6: The reason for excluding mixed type tumors is not
clear. Clarify "for statistical reasons".
2. Assessment of serum parameters page 8. Add a reference to justify that
patients with positive CagA-status are classified as H. pylori positive. An
exclusive Cag A antibody response has been suggested as a serological scar i.e.
an indication of past H. pylori infection and consequently the definition should be
modified in the text.
3. All figures should be presented in a supplement. The results are clear in the
text and the figures does not add any substantial information in the ms as it is
presented now.
4. It would be of interest for gastroenterologists to get some advise or clinical
impact based on the current findings in this study. How should we approach
patients with diffuse type cancers for example? Is a combination of endoscopy
and serological screening the best option and if so, should we apply such
strategies in both high and low risk populations?
3.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
assistant