Title: Impact of Tumor Type and Size on Macroscopic Tissue Core Retrieval in Endoscopic
Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Biopsy for Pancreatic Malignancies
Version: 0 Date: 25 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the article titled “Macroscopic Tissue Core Retrieval in Endoscopic
Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Biopsy for Pancreatic Malignancies” by Lai et al. The study is
well written and analysed in a coherent manner. I have the following comments to be made:
1. The aim of the study is to assess whether histology and size of the pancreatic solid masses
can influence MOSE results. Hence, the title of the study should reflect that. Kindly correct it.
2. Kindly rephrase and correct the statement in the abstract: “Interestingly, whether a sufficient
tissue core was obtained only influenced the adenocarcinoma diagnosis rate (93.3% vs. 60%,
p<0.001) and not the diagnosis rate of neuroendocrine tumours”
3. In the methods section, please provide a study flowchart (add in supplementary).
4. Please provide references of MOSE definition (sufficient as well as insufficient) in the section
of “defining success”.
5. Please number of cases who underwent either slow pull or wet suction, and whether suction
technique influences MOSE outcomes would be interesting to note. The RCT quoted by the
authors (Crino et al) concluded that wet suction was superior to slow pull technique in terms
of tissue integrity. I would suggest authors to perform this analysis and add a separate table in
main text or supplementary.
6. Kindly shift Table 2 to supplementary section as its irrelevant to this study outcome.
7. Interesting, the author’s center has used TopGain needle as well. I would suggest the authors
to perform a sub-group analysis comparing Acquire versus TopGain needle in terms of MOSE
adequacy and outcomes for size and tumor histology. It would be an interesting observation as
there is sparse literature on the outcomes of TopGain needle.
8. Discussion of “through the needle biopsy” is irrelevant to the study. Please modify the
discussion section accordingly.
Title: Impact of Tumor Type and Size on Macroscopic Tissue Core Retrieval in Endoscopic
Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Biopsy for Pancreatic Malignancies
Version: 0 Date: 25 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the article titled “Macroscopic Tissue Core Retrieval in Endoscopic
Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Biopsy for Pancreatic Malignancies” by Lai et al. The study is
well written and analysed in a coherent manner. I have the following comments to be made:
1. The aim of the study is to assess whether histology and size of the pancreatic solid masses
can influence MOSE results. Hence, the title of the study should reflect that. Kindly correct it.
2. Kindly rephrase and correct the statement in the abstract: “Interestingly, whether a sufficient
tissue core was obtained only influenced the adenocarcinoma diagnosis rate (93.3% vs. 60%,
p<0.001) and not the diagnosis rate of neuroendocrine tumours”
3. In the methods section, please provide a study flowchart (add in supplementary).
4. Please provide references of MOSE definition (sufficient as well as insufficient) in the section
of “defining success”.
5. Please number of cases who underwent either slow pull or wet suction, and whether suction
technique influences MOSE outcomes would be interesting to note. The RCT quoted by the
authors (Crino et al) concluded that wet suction was superior to slow pull technique in terms
of tissue integrity. I would suggest authors to perform this analysis and add a separate table in
main text or supplementary.
6. Kindly shift Table 2 to supplementary section as its irrelevant to this study outcome.
7. Interesting, the author’s center has used TopGain needle as well. I would suggest the authors
to perform a sub-group analysis comparing Acquire versus TopGain needle in terms of MOSE
adequacy and outcomes for size and tumor histology. It would be an interesting observation as
there is sparse literature on the outcomes of TopGain needle.
8. Discussion of “through the needle biopsy” is irrelevant to the study. Please modify the
discussion section accordingly.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Impact of Tumor Type and Size on Macroscopic Tissue Core Retrieval in Endoscopic
Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Biopsy for Pancreatic Malignancies
Version: 0 Date: 25 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the article titled “Macroscopic Tissue Core Retrieval in Endoscopic
Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Biopsy for Pancreatic Malignancies” by Lai et al. The study is
well written and analysed in a coherent manner. I have the following comments to be made:
1. The aim of the study is to assess whether histology and size of the pancreatic solid masses
can influence MOSE results. Hence, the title of the study should reflect that. Kindly correct it.
2. Kindly rephrase and correct the statement in the abstract: “Interestingly, whether a sufficient
tissue core was obtained only influenced the adenocarcinoma diagnosis rate (93.3% vs. 60%,
p<0.001) and not the diagnosis rate of neuroendocrine tumours”
3. In the methods section, please provide a study flowchart (add in supplementary).
4. Please provide references of MOSE definition (sufficient as well as insufficient) in the section
of “defining success”.
5. Please number of cases who underwent either slow pull or wet suction, and whether suction
technique influences MOSE outcomes would be interesting to note. The RCT quoted by the
authors (Crino et al) concluded that wet suction was superior to slow pull technique in terms
of tissue integrity. I would suggest authors to perform this analysis and add a separate table in
main text or supplementary.
6. Kindly shift Table 2 to supplementary section as its irrelevant to this study outcome.
7. Interesting, the author’s center has used TopGain needle as well. I would suggest the authors
to perform a sub-group analysis comparing Acquire versus TopGain needle in terms of MOSE
adequacy and outcomes for size and tumor histology. It would be an interesting observation as
there is sparse literature on the outcomes of TopGain needle.
8. Discussion of “through the needle biopsy” is irrelevant to the study. Please modify the
discussion section accordingly.
assistant