Reviewer's report
Title:Advanced Biliary Tract Carcinomas: A Retrospective Multicenter Analysis of
First and Second-line Chemotherapy
Version:1Date:11 June 2014
Reviewer: Chigusa Morizane
Reviewer's report:
Major comment
1. Because current standard regimen is Gem/CDDP, You should describe the
reason why you use Gem/Carb in clinical practice settings in introduction. Is
there no patients treated with GEM/CDDP regimen in your institutions and
hospitals?
This study is retrospective study. Therefore you have treated patients as a
clinical practice settings without informed consent of clinical trial using new
treatment regimen. It is unethically to treat patients with non-standard regimens
in clinical practice settings.
2. Patients number was too small to perform multivariate analysis. I think it is
under-powered analysis and it makes results unreliable .
Minor comments
1. Page5, Line 2 ###former standard, Gem/Carb regimen.
"Gem/CDDP " is standard regimen.
2. Page 7, last line
Ethics committee approved the analysis protocol.
Ethics committees of "All "participated institutions and hospitals?
3. Page8, last line
Their PFS was ###
PFS? recurrent free survival? these two patients received resection.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Advanced Biliary Tract Carcinomas: A Retrospective Multicenter Analysis of
First and Second-line Chemotherapy
Version:1Date:11 June 2014
Reviewer: Chigusa Morizane
Reviewer's report:
Major comment
1. Because current standard regimen is Gem/CDDP, You should describe the
reason why you use Gem/Carb in clinical practice settings in introduction. Is
there no patients treated with GEM/CDDP regimen in your institutions and
hospitals?
This study is retrospective study. Therefore you have treated patients as a
clinical practice settings without informed consent of clinical trial using new
treatment regimen. It is unethically to treat patients with non-standard regimens
in clinical practice settings.
2. Patients number was too small to perform multivariate analysis. I think it is
under-powered analysis and it makes results unreliable .
Minor comments
1. Page5, Line 2 ###former standard, Gem/Carb regimen.
"Gem/CDDP " is standard regimen.
2. Page 7, last line
Ethics committee approved the analysis protocol.
Ethics committees of "All "participated institutions and hospitals?
3. Page8, last line
Their PFS was ###
PFS? recurrent free survival? these two patients received resection.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Advanced Biliary Tract Carcinomas: A Retrospective Multicenter Analysis of
First and Second-line Chemotherapy
Version:1Date:11 June 2014
Reviewer: Chigusa Morizane
Reviewer's report:
Major comment
1. Because current standard regimen is Gem/CDDP, You should describe the
reason why you use Gem/Carb in clinical practice settings in introduction. Is
there no patients treated with GEM/CDDP regimen in your institutions and
hospitals?
This study is retrospective study. Therefore you have treated patients as a
clinical practice settings without informed consent of clinical trial using new
treatment regimen. It is unethically to treat patients with non-standard regimens
in clinical practice settings.
2. Patients number was too small to perform multivariate analysis. I think it is
under-powered analysis and it makes results unreliable .
Minor comments
1. Page5, Line 2 ###former standard, Gem/Carb regimen.
"Gem/CDDP " is standard regimen.
2. Page 7, last line
Ethics committee approved the analysis protocol.
Ethics committees of "All "participated institutions and hospitals?
3. Page8, last line
Their PFS was ###
PFS? recurrent free survival? these two patients received resection.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
assistant