Next Article in Journal
Magnesium, Calcium, Potassium, Sodium, Phosphorus, Selenium, Zinc, and Chromium Levels in Alcohol Use Disorder: A Review
Next Article in Special Issue
Diagnostic Accuracy and Clinical Impact of Sentinel Lymph Node Sampling in Endometrial Cancer at High Risk of Recurrence: A Meta-Analysis
Previous Article in Journal
Regular Training Increases sTWEAK and Its Decoy Receptor sCD163–Does Training Trigger the sTWEAK/sCD163-Axis to Induce an Anti-Inflammatory Effect?
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 9
Issue 6
10.3390/jcm9061900
Review Report
jcm-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

Prognostic Biomarkers in Endometrial Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

J. Clin. Med. 2020, 9(6), 1900; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9061900
by Eva Coll-de la Rubia 1, Elena Martinez-Garcia 2, Gunnar Dittmar 2, Antonio Gil-Moreno 1,3,*, Silvia Cabrera 1,3,* and Eva Colas 1,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
J. Clin. Med. 2020, 9(6), 1900; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9061900
Submission received: 24 May 2020 / Revised: 12 June 2020 / Accepted: 15 June 2020 / Published: 17 June 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Clinical Advances on Endometrial Cancer)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript entitled “Prognostic biomarkers in endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis” by Rubia et al. is an interesting article that covers various clinical studies to identify prognostic markers for endometrial cancer. Authors have done a thorough analysis of multiple studies to identify these markers in different clinical samples.  In addition, protein markers have been identified instead of expression markers, which may represent relatively closer picture of in vivo scenario. Finally, authors have raised valid points for consideration in future studies.

Author Response

We want to thank reviewer 1 for the evaluation of our manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

In this well-conducted systematic review and meta-analysis, Rubia et al included a total number of 398 articles, 255 studied proteins, which have been associated with prognostic factors for endometrial cancer or are directly related to recurrence and survival. Eleven proteins were highlighted as the most extensively validated (in more than 5 independent studies) proteins in the field whereas after meta-analysis of the top-5, they found only 3 with potential usefulness for predicting overall survival in endometrial cancer. Also, limitations of the included studies as well as ways to address these in future studies are described in detail

Comments:

Why have the authors limited their meta-analysis on the top 5 most studied biomarkers? The authors also agree that integration of additional molecular biomarkers is necessary for an improved version of the current stratification system. Why not include all the 11 proteins that were found extensively validated?

 

Authors should discuss the cost-effectiveness of such an approach with multiple molecular biomarkers which can prove laborious and costly. How do these compare with current approaches?

 

Minor comments to address

Introduction: Provide worldwide statistics not only US-based

Line 69-70: provide refs

In Fig. 1A, include the percentage of women with low-high grade for the different subtypes rather than “mainly” low and high. Similarly for the Stage. Give abbreviation of MSI in the legend

Line 129: These surrogate biomarkers

Fig 8: correct (c) with (b)

Line 355: These results..are..

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop