Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title:  Demographic, clinical, and pathological features of early onset pancreatic cancer patients  
 
Version: 0 Date: 19 Jun 2018 
 
Reviewer:  Sandeep  Venkat Akshintala  
 
Reviewer’s report:  
 
Dear Editorial team,  
 
In this manuscript titled, 'Dem ographic, clinical, and pathological features of early onset 
pancreatic cancer patients' the authors Ntala et al. presented the results of a retrospective analysis 
where they compared demographic, clinic -pathological features and survival figures among 
patients with early onset pancreatic cancer (EOPC) i.e. those diagnosed with pancreatic ductal 
adenocarcinoma (PDAC) at age less than 50 and those diagnosed with PDAC at age over 50. The 
authors noted that the EOPC patients were more frequently male, less com monly of British 
origin, and fewer patients presented with resectable disease. The survival curves based on 
Kaplan - Meier method were not significantly different among the two groups.  
 
The authors must be commended for their efforts in summarizing the data  and for the relevant 
literature review. However, the small sample size has significantly limited the applicability, 
relevance and interpretation of this data. The disproportionate sample size of the two groups i.e. 
EOPC (n=35) and older PDAC (n=334) is an  inherent limitation this entity but the limited 
sample size of one of these groups adds both Type 1 and Type 2 statistical errors in the analyses. 
Further, the authors themselves have used 'p<0.05 as statistically significant' but continue to 
mention non -significant results as being important and draw extensive interpretations of these 
results. This is misleading and negatively impacts the efforts of the authors.  
 
The research question explored by the authors is still important and can consider expanding t heir 
data set by using a multi -center collaborative effort.  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the au thors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an 
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this 
manuscript, either now or in t he future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose 
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the 
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests.  
 
I agree  to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website alon g with the authors' 
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons 
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments 
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published.  
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title:  Demographic, clinical, and pathological features of early onset pancreatic cancer patients  
 
Version: 0 Date: 19 Jun 2018 
 
Reviewer:  Sandeep  Venkat Akshintala  
 
Reviewer’s report:  
 
Dear Editorial team,  
 
In this manuscript titled, 'Dem ographic, clinical, and pathological features of early onset 
pancreatic cancer patients' the authors Ntala et al. presented the results of a retrospective analysis 
where they compared demographic, clinic -pathological features and survival figures among 
patients with early onset pancreatic cancer (EOPC) i.e. those diagnosed with pancreatic ductal 
adenocarcinoma (PDAC) at age less than 50 and those diagnosed with PDAC at age over 50. The 
authors noted that the EOPC patients were more frequently male, less com monly of British 
origin, and fewer patients presented with resectable disease. The survival curves based on 
Kaplan - Meier method were not significantly different among the two groups.  
 
The authors must be commended for their efforts in summarizing the data  and for the relevant 
literature review. However, the small sample size has significantly limited the applicability, 
relevance and interpretation of this data. The disproportionate sample size of the two groups i.e. 
EOPC (n=35) and older PDAC (n=334) is an  inherent limitation this entity but the limited 
sample size of one of these groups adds both Type 1 and Type 2 statistical errors in the analyses. 
Further, the authors themselves have used 'p<0.05 as statistically significant' but continue to 
mention non -significant results as being important and draw extensive interpretations of these 
results. This is misleading and negatively impacts the efforts of the authors.  
 
The research question explored by the authors is still important and can consider expanding t heir 
data set by using a multi -center collaborative effort.  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the au thors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an 
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this 
manuscript, either now or in t he future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose 
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the 
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests.  
 
I agree  to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website alon g with the authors' 
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons 
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments 
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published.  
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title:  Demographic, clinical, and pathological features of early onset pancreatic cancer patients  
 
Version: 0 Date: 19 Jun 2018 
 
Reviewer:  Sandeep  Venkat Akshintala  
 
Reviewer’s report:  
 
Dear Editorial team,  
 
In this manuscript titled, 'Dem ographic, clinical, and pathological features of early onset 
pancreatic cancer patients' the authors Ntala et al. presented the results of a retrospective analysis 
where they compared demographic, clinic -pathological features and survival figures among 
patients with early onset pancreatic cancer (EOPC) i.e. those diagnosed with pancreatic ductal 
adenocarcinoma (PDAC) at age less than 50 and those diagnosed with PDAC at age over 50. The 
authors noted that the EOPC patients were more frequently male, less com monly of British 
origin, and fewer patients presented with resectable disease. The survival curves based on 
Kaplan - Meier method were not significantly different among the two groups.  
 
The authors must be commended for their efforts in summarizing the data  and for the relevant 
literature review. However, the small sample size has significantly limited the applicability, 
relevance and interpretation of this data. The disproportionate sample size of the two groups i.e. 
EOPC (n=35) and older PDAC (n=334) is an  inherent limitation this entity but the limited 
sample size of one of these groups adds both Type 1 and Type 2 statistical errors in the analyses. 
Further, the authors themselves have used 'p<0.05 as statistically significant' but continue to 
mention non -significant results as being important and draw extensive interpretations of these 
results. This is misleading and negatively impacts the efforts of the authors.  
 
The research question explored by the authors is still important and can consider expanding t heir 
data set by using a multi -center collaborative effort.  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the au thors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an 
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this 
manuscript, either now or in t he future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose 
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the 
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests.  
 
I agree  to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website alon g with the authors' 
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons 
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments 
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published.  
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
assistant