Reviewer's report
Title:Improvement of long-term outcomes in pancreatic cancer within the
gemcitabine era: A collaborative retrospective multicenter clinical review of 1,082
patients
Version: 1Date:7 May 2013
Reviewer: David Chang
Reviewer's report:
Kuroda et al reported a retrospective review of the outcomes of a cohort of 1,082
patients with PC treated in the gemcitabine era. The clinical characteristics were
identified and concluded GEM based chemotherapy has improved long-term
outcomes.
The reviewer would like to congratulate the authors for bring together a large well
curated cohort with PC and their outcome. The reviewer hopes the authors could
address a few comments below:
Major:
The authors concluded that Group B had better outcome than Group A due to
GEM based chemo. This was made based on the findings that higher proportion
of Group B had chemotherapy and less best supportive care, and also that
adjuvant chemotherapy is not a prognostic factor in either overall or individual
period groups. However, the overall prognostic effect of chemotherapy as a
therapy modality was not demonstrated either in a univariate or multivariate
analysis to demonstrate that the GEM based chemo was the true driver of better
prognosis in the group B as compared to group A. while Group B had better
overall prognosis than Group A (Fig 3A), it is likely that this effect is additive with
various treatment modality (Fig 3b and 3C). It is likely that the authors will arrive
at the same conclusion when such analysis is performed, however in review’s
view, this is an important analysis to show to arrive at such conclusions.
Minor:
1. It is likely that not all readers of BMC Gastroenterology is familiar with JPS
TNM Classification, would the authors consider inserting a sentence or two to
explain the major difference between JPS and AJCC/UICC classification to
prevent confusion?
2. Do the authors have an explanation of the difference in the number of patients
between group A and B? was it truly an increase in incidence in pancreatic
cancer in Japan, or was it a change in the referral pattern? If it is the later, how
has it influenced the differences that are observed and in terms of how the
conclusion was drawn?
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.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Improvement of long-term outcomes in pancreatic cancer within the
gemcitabine era: A collaborative retrospective multicenter clinical review of 1,082
patients
Version: 1Date:7 May 2013
Reviewer: David Chang
Reviewer's report:
Kuroda et al reported a retrospective review of the outcomes of a cohort of 1,082
patients with PC treated in the gemcitabine era. The clinical characteristics were
identified and concluded GEM based chemotherapy has improved long-term
outcomes.
The reviewer would like to congratulate the authors for bring together a large well
curated cohort with PC and their outcome. The reviewer hopes the authors could
address a few comments below:
Major:
The authors concluded that Group B had better outcome than Group A due to
GEM based chemo. This was made based on the findings that higher proportion
of Group B had chemotherapy and less best supportive care, and also that
adjuvant chemotherapy is not a prognostic factor in either overall or individual
period groups. However, the overall prognostic effect of chemotherapy as a
therapy modality was not demonstrated either in a univariate or multivariate
analysis to demonstrate that the GEM based chemo was the true driver of better
prognosis in the group B as compared to group A. while Group B had better
overall prognosis than Group A (Fig 3A), it is likely that this effect is additive with
various treatment modality (Fig 3b and 3C). It is likely that the authors will arrive
at the same conclusion when such analysis is performed, however in review’s
view, this is an important analysis to show to arrive at such conclusions.
Minor:
1. It is likely that not all readers of BMC Gastroenterology is familiar with JPS
TNM Classification, would the authors consider inserting a sentence or two to
explain the major difference between JPS and AJCC/UICC classification to
prevent confusion?
2. Do the authors have an explanation of the difference in the number of patients
between group A and B? was it truly an increase in incidence in pancreatic
cancer in Japan, or was it a change in the referral pattern? If it is the later, how
has it influenced the differences that are observed and in terms of how the
conclusion was drawn?
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.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Improvement of long-term outcomes in pancreatic cancer within the
gemcitabine era: A collaborative retrospective multicenter clinical review of 1,082
patients
Version: 1Date:7 May 2013
Reviewer: David Chang
Reviewer's report:
Kuroda et al reported a retrospective review of the outcomes of a cohort of 1,082
patients with PC treated in the gemcitabine era. The clinical characteristics were
identified and concluded GEM based chemotherapy has improved long-term
outcomes.
The reviewer would like to congratulate the authors for bring together a large well
curated cohort with PC and their outcome. The reviewer hopes the authors could
address a few comments below:
Major:
The authors concluded that Group B had better outcome than Group A due to
GEM based chemo. This was made based on the findings that higher proportion
of Group B had chemotherapy and less best supportive care, and also that
adjuvant chemotherapy is not a prognostic factor in either overall or individual
period groups. However, the overall prognostic effect of chemotherapy as a
therapy modality was not demonstrated either in a univariate or multivariate
analysis to demonstrate that the GEM based chemo was the true driver of better
prognosis in the group B as compared to group A. while Group B had better
overall prognosis than Group A (Fig 3A), it is likely that this effect is additive with
various treatment modality (Fig 3b and 3C). It is likely that the authors will arrive
at the same conclusion when such analysis is performed, however in review’s
view, this is an important analysis to show to arrive at such conclusions.
Minor:
1. It is likely that not all readers of BMC Gastroenterology is familiar with JPS
TNM Classification, would the authors consider inserting a sentence or two to
explain the major difference between JPS and AJCC/UICC classification to
prevent confusion?
2. Do the authors have an explanation of the difference in the number of patients
between group A and B? was it truly an increase in incidence in pancreatic
cancer in Japan, or was it a change in the referral pattern? If it is the later, how
has it influenced the differences that are observed and in terms of how the
conclusion was drawn?
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.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
assistant