Title: The effect of neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy in resectable pancreatic cancer was
independent of intratumoral vascularization
Version: 2 Date: 07 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review this paper. The manuscript entitled " The
effect of neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy in resectable pancreatic cancer was independent
of intratumoral vascularization" mainly revealed that the histopathological efficacy of NACRT
for resectable PC did not differ significantly on the basis of enhancement pattern observed on
CH-EUS.
This is an interesting study and has certain clinical significance. My comments and questions
are as follows.
1, In the definition of resectable PC, it says “3) Tumors that have achieved downstaging from T4
to the above criteria after neoadjuvant chemotherapy” I don't think T4 is classified as resectable
PC. If you are including T4 cases, you should change the title and method.
2, A small number should be given as a limitation.
3, At the end of the discussion, the authors state that “our study affirms the efficacy of NACRT
in enhancing therapeutic outcomes,,,” but the main point of this study is that NACRT seems
to reduce the variations in chemotherapeutic efficacy caused by fibrosis-induced blood flow
disparities. Since this is not a study that proves the efficacy of NACRT, I think it would be better
to change the wording.
Title: The effect of neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy in resectable pancreatic cancer was
independent of intratumoral vascularization
Version: 2 Date: 07 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review this paper. The manuscript entitled " The
effect of neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy in resectable pancreatic cancer was independent
of intratumoral vascularization" mainly revealed that the histopathological efficacy of NACRT
for resectable PC did not differ significantly on the basis of enhancement pattern observed on
CH-EUS.
This is an interesting study and has certain clinical significance. My comments and questions
are as follows.
1, In the definition of resectable PC, it says “3) Tumors that have achieved downstaging from T4
to the above criteria after neoadjuvant chemotherapy” I don't think T4 is classified as resectable
PC. If you are including T4 cases, you should change the title and method.
2, A small number should be given as a limitation.
3, At the end of the discussion, the authors state that “our study affirms the efficacy of NACRT
in enhancing therapeutic outcomes,,,” but the main point of this study is that NACRT seems
to reduce the variations in chemotherapeutic efficacy caused by fibrosis-induced blood flow
disparities. Since this is not a study that proves the efficacy of NACRT, I think it would be better
to change the wording.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: The effect of neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy in resectable pancreatic cancer was
independent of intratumoral vascularization
Version: 2 Date: 07 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review this paper. The manuscript entitled " The
effect of neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy in resectable pancreatic cancer was independent
of intratumoral vascularization" mainly revealed that the histopathological efficacy of NACRT
for resectable PC did not differ significantly on the basis of enhancement pattern observed on
CH-EUS.
This is an interesting study and has certain clinical significance. My comments and questions
are as follows.
1, In the definition of resectable PC, it says “3) Tumors that have achieved downstaging from T4
to the above criteria after neoadjuvant chemotherapy” I don't think T4 is classified as resectable
PC. If you are including T4 cases, you should change the title and method.
2, A small number should be given as a limitation.
3, At the end of the discussion, the authors state that “our study affirms the efficacy of NACRT
in enhancing therapeutic outcomes,,,” but the main point of this study is that NACRT seems
to reduce the variations in chemotherapeutic efficacy caused by fibrosis-induced blood flow
disparities. Since this is not a study that proves the efficacy of NACRT, I think it would be better
to change the wording.
assistant