Next Article in Journal
Clinical Experience with Abemaciclib in Patients Previously Treated with Another CDK 4/6 Inhibitor in a Tertiary Hospital: A Case Series Study
Previous Article in Journal
Morphea, Eosinophilic Fasciitis and Cancer: A Scoping Review
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Clinicopathological Factors Associated with Oncotype DX Risk Group in Patients with ER+/HER2- Breast Cancer

Cancers 2023, 15(18), 4451; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15184451
by Ran Song 1, Dong-Eun Lee 2, Eun-Gyeong Lee 1,*,†, Seeyoun Lee 1, Han-Sung Kang 1, Jai Hong Han 1, Keun Seok Lee 3, Sung Hoon Sim 3, Heejung Chae 3, Youngmee Kwon 4, Jaeyeon Woo 1 and So-Youn Jung 1,*,†
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Cancers 2023, 15(18), 4451; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15184451
Submission received: 8 August 2023 / Revised: 1 September 2023 / Accepted: 6 September 2023 / Published: 7 September 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Cancer Informatics and Big Data)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors discuss clinicopathological findings that can be used to predict risk in breast cancer patients that can be substituted for ODX; the content provides an overview of the relationship between both ODX and clinicopathological information and is clinically applicable.

Minor point:

The authors have done a cutoff for breast cancer patients by age, but would it be useful to do a cutoff by pre- and postmenopause instead? Please discuss.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Song et al. present an interesting and well-structured manuscript. The authors present interesting results that support the conclusions. Authors need to address a few questions:

-The title must improve and have a clear translational character.

-The introduction to the state of the art must have a justification of the novelty of the study.

-Authors must calculate the statistical potential and the sample size.

-The figures are little self-explanatory and of low quality.

-The figures legends should be described better.

-Authors must include a figure where representative histological images are included.

-The authors should make a more translational discussion, where the manuscripts doi: 10.3390/ijms24098396 are included. and doi: 10.3390/medicina58060722.

-The use of English grammar must be specifically reviewed.

 Extensive editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have responded satisfactorily to the questions and indications. They have made major improvements. However, the quality of the figures is still poor. Please, the authors should improve this point before the final acceptance.

Minor points.

Back to TopTop