Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Clinicopathological characteristics, treatment patterns and outcomes in patients with laryngeal cancer

 

 

Comments

I am gratified to have the opportunity to review this research retrospective observation study describes the characteristics and outcomes of 84 patients with Laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma (LC). Recurrence rates and survival outcomes were analyzed and regression analysis was performed to identify the factors that had an independent effect on overall survival, disease specific survival, disease free survival and local recurrence control.

The article is overall well-constructed and scientifically sound but minor observations/ errors are noted before the publication.

 

Major Comments:

Title:

            The title should better depict the comparison of expression of CD44 antibody in young and old age groups of OSCC.

Abstract:

1.      Adequate

Introduction

1.      P1L36-37 Ref 4 should precede ref 5.

Materials and Methods

1.      Adequate

Results

1.      P6L127 Caplan Meier?

Discussion

 

1.      Adequate

 Conclusion

1.      Adequate

References

1.    Adequate

 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer. Thank you for the suggestions

 

Title: The reviewer probably confused it with another article.

Introduction: Reference order is corrected, correction was made also in reference section of the article.

Results: Caplan Meier is corrected in Kaplan Meier, bellow figure 2.

Reviewer 2 Report

This study evaluated the clinicopathological characteristics and their prognostic value for patients with squamous cell LC. The methods used to determine overall survival (OS), disease-specific survival (DSS), disease-free survival (DFS), and locoregional control (LRC) are correctly chosen. The conclusions are supported by the data presented.

My observations are highlighted in the manuscript:

1. The introduction is short and needs to be improved to emphasize the importance and usefulness of the conducted study.

2. Table 4 must be rearranged to be easier to interpret.

3. Improve the Discussion paragraph in correlation with the results obtained and presented in this study. Again, it is necessary to emphasize what this study brings new to the medical approach to laryngeal cancer.

4. Some typographical and grammatical errors in the manuscript must be corrected.

Overall, the article could be a valuable contribution to the journal. Therefore, I recommend the manuscript for publishing after major changes and updates have been considered by the authors.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you for the suggestions and for the help with grammar.

1. The introduction has been improved in terms of additional clarification of the significance of this research.

2. Table 4 rearranged.

3. The discussion have been improved by comparison with results from different studies. We pointed some key points important for medical approach to patients with laryngeal cancer.

4. Typographical and grammatical errors corrected.

Reviewer 3 Report

hello

thank you very much for the paper, its interesting

- im missing the inclusion, exclusion criteria for the study and a graphic chart flow of the studied patients

- discussion is very short and needs to be improved with comparing to other studies

- author do not identify the key points of HNSCC patient's treatment that needs to be improved or what else can be done to improve overall OS pateints?

- since the study is from bosnia and herzegovina, I highly recomment to compare the authors results with some other results of cancer centers from their region, europe and asia/US to see how world authors discuss on this important topic of HNSCC

- did the authors include any adjuvant treatemnt prior to surgery or this doesnt affect the LC?

- is it possible to monitor patients healing and early recognize distant metastasis, and how?

- are the result somehow correlated with overal patients quality of life? QOL?

- what are limitations of the study?

paper is very good, so please improve it a little, thank you, R

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you for suggestions. Really useful

Added inclusion and exclusion criteria.

The discussion have been improved with results from different studies and study from BiH and regional countries.

We did not conduct a survey on the quality of life during and after the treatment. Surely there are correlations of QOL with the type of therapeutic modality (for example QOL after tracheostomy, potential adverse events, infections, speech rehabilitation...). That's an interesting topic, and we will certainly conduct such research in the future. We monitored side effects of concomitant chemo-radiotherapy but did not process this in the final data analysis.

Off course- we monitored patients on regular check-ups. In our center, patients come for regular check-ups with surgeons and oncologists. I added a few sentences in material and methods.

In our article patientshad surgery, RT, or chemotherapy, or a combination of these modality (chemoradiotherapy, or adjuvant radiotherapy or induction chemotherapy). We had two patients that received induction chemotherapy ( mainly for initially inoperabile laringeal cancer, for example stage IVb) with intentions for down-staging and down-sizing. It is evidence category 2b, but can be used for selective patients. Also, we had adjuvant treatment mostly with RT or CRT.

Limitations of the study updated in discussion.

Flowchart inserted.

Updated key points for improvement in OS for  HNSCC patient's in discussion.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have improved the version of the article following the suggestions made previously. Therefore, I recommend the manuscript for publishing.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf