Next Article in Journal
Loss of MMP-27 Predicts Mandibular Bone Invasion in Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma
Next Article in Special Issue
Long-Term Results of Proton Therapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Using Four-Dimensional Computed Tomography Planning without Fiducial Markers
Previous Article in Journal
Optimal Light Dose for hEGFR-Targeted Near-Infrared Photoimmunotherapy
Previous Article in Special Issue
Can We Compare the Health-Related Quality of Life of Childhood Cancer Survivors Following Photon and Proton Radiation Therapy? A Systematic Review
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Cancers
Volume 14
Issue 16
10.3390/cancers14164045
Review Report
cancers-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Review
Peer-Review Record

Proton Beam Therapy for Esophageal Cancer

Cancers 2022, 14(16), 4045; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14164045
by Jea Giezl N. Solidum 1, Raniv D. Rojo 1, Jennifer Y. Wo 2,3 and Edward Christopher Dee 4,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2:
Yang-Gun Suh
Cancers 2022, 14(16), 4045; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14164045
Submission received: 15 July 2022 / Revised: 9 August 2022 / Accepted: 12 August 2022 / Published: 22 August 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Application of Proton Beam Therapy in Cancer Treatment)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The PBT for esophageal cancer is important issue. However, there are some points to revise before publishing.

1.    There are some reviews about PBT for esophageal cancer. What the unique point of your review is?

2.    Authors wrote “chemoradiotherapy and 61 salvage surgery is a logical first-line treatment”. I think so too, but there are several treatment schemes. So, this sentence is exaggeration.

3.    As authors said in line 90, IMRT needs longer time than 3DCRT, but PBT also needs longer time than 3DCRT. So, treatment time is not important problem for choosing PBT. What do you think about it?

4.    I do not understand what the role of paragraph of lines 138-166. It is advantage of PBT for another caner.

5.    You said that “it is still necessary to irradiate a wider field even if no lymph node metastases are radio-175 logically detected prior to treatment”. However, whether elective nodal irradiation is needed or not is very controversy. What do you think about it?

6.    I agree with the importance of lymphocytopenia for prognosis. So, could you make new table about it for reader?

You wrote cGY in line 355. Do you mean Gy?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This article comprehensively reviewed proton beam therapy for localized esophageal cancer with aspect of dosimetric comparison with photon radiotherapy, toxicities, treatment-related lymphopenia, as well as on-going clinical trials. The focus is sufficiently novel and interesting. 

 

Major

In 6.1 PBT planning section, the combination of PA and posterior-oblique beam looks better to spare heart than AP/PA parallel opposite beams.

But, when proton beam field encompass the level of diaphragm, a posterior-oblique beam can be influenced by respiratory motion of diaphragm. Therefore, we prefer AP/PA beam, if proton beam field include the level of diaphragm.

What do you think?

 

Minor

 

1.     Please check the sentence on lines 88-89.

2.     On line 355, check 50.4 cGY.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop