Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Line 11 – change to a ….large amount of insight “has been” gathered into…

Line 30-33 – sentence needs references

Language can be very emotive – eg. “hijacked” (line 39), “arsenal” (line 17), “weaponizable tool” (line 17) – these are possibly remnants of the translation from French to English, but they are off-putting in a scientific journal (one or two is ok but they are many!)

Line 46 – “..better understanding of genetic tumor composition…” – it would be better to say ‘better understanding of the underlying genetics of the tumor..’

Line 47 – “they can occur across all tumor types..” – perhaps many, but I suspect not all.

Line 60 – suggest to remove “our”

Line 64 – remove “published in this journal” – the readers can read the article themselves

Line 69 – “up to 40% of responses can be seen” – sloppy, needs to be re-worded

Line 73-74 – “Other drugs are likely to follow suit..” – other drugs have followed in the last 7 years – best to list them out (or at least a few)

Line 79-80 – “in the late 20th century is when most of the chemotherapy drugs used in clinic today were discovered – very basic language – needs to be re-worded

Line 98 – suggest the authors present a few of the studies as references

Line 129 – present the 6 references for the 6 FDA approved CARs

Line 139-140 – references needed

Line 143 – why is reference 17 before Ref 15 and 16?

Line 143 – 146 – References needed

Line 157 states “numerous” studies but only is listed in line 160

Is reference 17 in line 143 really the same as line 164? Maybe but worth checking

Line 166-168 – what about dietary considerations with regard to drug optimisation? What does the literature say?

Line 172 – “removing the brakes off” – sloppy language

Lines 172 – 177 – references needed

Line 178 – “In a couple of landmark Science publications” ….but Ref 19 is not published in Science.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Translation from French to English needs work. It is very sloppy at times.

Author Response

Thank you for your kind review. Please see the document attached with the responses

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a very well written mini-review on current trends in anti-cancer therapy. It is up-to-date and covers the majority of mainstream research in the field of personalized cancer therapies including microbiome transplantation to enhance the effectiveness of chemo/immunotherapy

Major concerns:

1.  In the paragraph entitled: "enetically engineered cell therapies"

The Authors could briefly present a very promising NK and/or CAR-NK cell therapy as a possible off-the-shelf strategy for various tumor treatment.

It would be also informative if the Authors could introduce any current tumor microenvironment-modifying strategies [for example:  Nat Commun 12, 440 (2021)]

Author Response

Thank you for your kind review. 

Please see responses attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Paper reads significantly better now that revisions have been made - great job by the authors!

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The Authors correctly addressed the majority of my concerns