Molecular Approaches Using Body Fluid for the Early Detection of Pancreatic Cancer

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The review is informative, but poorly structured and many typos.

Line 48 - maybe this is point 2.

In general, I would rather name the sub-points on the biological fluid under study. Can genetic mutations be detected in saliva?

Lines 357-421 - Template not deleted.

In conclusion, it is necessary to discuss the limitations of the use of these biological fluids in more detail.

Author Response

I very much appreciate for your comments and suggestions.

I have re-edited the manuscript according to your comments and suggestions and responses to your comments and suggestions are summarized as below.

 

# Line 48 - maybe this is point 2

I very much appreciate for your identification. I have corrected “1.2” to “2 “in line 48.

 

 

# In general, I would rather name the sub-points on the biological fluid under study. 

I very much appreciate for your suggestion.  I have corrected “4” to “3.4” in line 284.

 

 

# Can genetic mutations be detected in saliva?

Germline mutations have found in samples from saliva and have been examined for hereditary cancer risk assessment including pancreatic cancer.  Thus, I have added this description (lines 288 to 289) and reference (ref no. 54).

 

 

# Lines 357-421 - Template not deleted.

I very much appreciate for your identification.  I have deleted template.

 

 

# In conclusion, it is necessary to discuss the limitations of the use of these biological fluids in more detail.

I very much appreciate for your suggestion.  I have added the limitations and related description in the conclusion (Lines 344-345, and, lines 347 to 349).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper is a very well-organized review for the early detection of pancreatic cancer. Here are some minor comments.

1. Line 48, 1.2. Gene mutation analysis in pancreatic juice -> 2. Gene mutation analysis in pancreatic juice
2. Line 357 2. Material and Methods -> remove
3. Table 1. Please match the rows and columns. It is difficult to see.
4. Table 1. Candidate biomarkers: KRAS is duplicated.
5. Serum biomarker signature is a tenable approach to detecting early state PDAC (J Clin Oncol 36:2887-2894). Could you introduce the related studies?

Author Response

I very much appreciate for your comments and suggestions.

I have re-edited the manuscript according to your comments and suggestions, and responses to your comments and suggestions are summarized as below.

 

1. Line 48, 1.2. Gene mutation analysis in pancreatic juice -> 2. Gene mutation analysis in pancreatic juice

  I very much appreciate for your identification.  I have made correction in line 48.

 

2. Line 357 2. Material and Methods -> remove

I very much appreciate for your identification.  I have removed the section you pointed out.

 

3. Table 1. Please match the rows and columns. It is difficult to see.

I very much appreciate for your comments.  I have re-edited the Table 1 in the revised manuscript.

 

4. Table 1. Candidate biomarkers: KRAS is duplicated.

I very much appreciate for your identification.  I would like to mean that KRAS is candidate biomarker in both pancreatic juice and blood.  Thus, I have description the materials as bold to avoid confusion.

 

5. Serum biomarker signature is a tenable approach to detecting early state PDAC (J Clin Oncol 36:2887-2894). Could you introduce the related studies?

 

I have introduced this excellent study in line 151 to 153 and added the reference (ref no. 30).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors responded to all the comments of the reviewer and made corrections to the text of the manuscript. I believe that the article in its current form can be accepted for publication.