Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Acceptance.

Reviewer 2 Report

Ok

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article focus on new potential target in kidney cancer field. The authors describe new potential mechanisms to overcome resistance to standard therapies. More details on ongoing trials are needed. I suggest to vive more informations on ongoing phase 3 trials.
So discussion needs to be improved

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Editor, thank you so much for inviting me to revise this manuscript about renal cell carcinoma.

 

This study addresses a current topic.

 

The manuscript is quite well written and organized. 

Figures and tables are comprehensive and clear.

The introduction explains in a clear and coherent manner the background of this study.

 

We suggest the following modifications:

·      Introduction section: although the authors correctly included important papers in this setting, we believe some recently published studies should be cited within the introduction (PMID: 33714725; PMID: 34894318), only for a matter of consistency. We think it might be useful to introduce the topic of this interesting study.

The authors should expand the section regarding lenvatinib - pembrolizumab, also briefly discussing how this promising immune-based combinations is changing treatment paradigms in other solid tumors (PMID: 35045221; PMID: 34167433)

·       the discussion regarding microbiome should be modified and expanded, also including a more personal perspective to reflect on. For example, they could answer the following questions – in order to facilitate the understanding of this complex topic to readers: What are the knowledge gaps and how do researchers tackle them? How do you see this area unfolding in the next 5 years? We think it would be extremely interesting for the readers.

 

However, we think the authors should be acknowledged for their work. In fact, they correctly addressed an important topic in renal cell carcinoma.

  

We believe this article is suitable for publication in the journal although major revisions are needed. The main strengths of this paper are that it addresses an interesting and very timely question and provides a clear answer, with some limitations. We suggest the addition of some references for a matter of consistency. Moreover, the authors should better clarify some key points in this setting.

Author Response

Please see the attachment 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx