Next Article in Journal
TERT Promoter and BRAF V600E Mutations in Papillary Thyroid Cancer: A Single-Institution Experience in Korea
Previous Article in Journal
Risk of Presenting with Poor-Prognosis Metastatic Cancer in Adolescents and Young Adults: A Population-Based Study
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Clinical and Molecular Features of KRAS-Mutated Lung Cancer Patients Treated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors

Cancers 2022, 14(19), 4933; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14194933
by Dan Zhao 1,2, Haiqing Li 3,4, Isa Mambetsariev 1, Tamara Mirzapoiazova 1, Chen Chen 4, Jeremy Fricke 1, Prakash Kulkarni 1, Victoria Villaflor 1, Leonidas Arvanitis 5, Stanley Hamilton 5, Michelle Afkhami 5, Raju Pillai 5, Brian Armstrong 6, Loretta Erhunmwunsee 7, Erminia Massarelli 1, Martin Sattler 8,9, Arya Amini 10 and Ravi Salgia 1,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2:
Cancers 2022, 14(19), 4933; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14194933
Submission received: 17 August 2022 / Revised: 30 September 2022 / Accepted: 3 October 2022 / Published: 8 October 2022

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

The authors present an interesting study assessing the correlation between the specific KRAS mutations and therapeutic outcomes post immunotherapies. Their findings suggest an increased OS post-ICI treatment in patients harboring KRAS G12D mutation.

I have some minor comments:

1. Please include which immune-check point inhibitors were administered to the patients. Did all of them receive PD-1?

2. Please include limitations of this study

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The Manuscript is reporting a retrospective study to understand the effect of mutations in KRAS and co mutations on success of ICIs as treatment for lung cancers as measured by Overall survival. The study is performed well, I have  following suggestions to improve the article. 

1. The introduction should emphasize a bit more on the use of OS and HR. Hazard ratio is particularly not explained well.

2. The title of the article is a bit misleading as there are no experimental characterizations performed. It is a retrospective study and the title should reflect that.

3. There are some grammar edits needed:

for example:

The sentence for question in abstract should be rewritten to make it clear.

The titles in the figure 1 and figure 2 has typo: it writes "subtypes" as "subtytes" at multiple places in both figures.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop