Impact of a Molecular Sequencing Systematic at Diagnosis in Digestive Oncology: Experience of a French Center

Review Data

Q: Is the topic relevant to the journal area of interest? Is it contemporary and interesting for

researchers?

A: Very good

Abstract & Keywords

Q: Are all required components included in the abstract? Are the keywords appropriately chosen?

A: Very good

Goal

Q: Is the goal explicitly stated in the Introduction? Is its formulation clear and unambiguous?

A: Good

Structure

Q: Is the paper's structure coherent? Is it in coherence with the goal of the paper?

A: Good

Tools and Methods

Q: Are methods the author uses adequate and well used?

A: Very good

Discussion & Conclusion

Q: Is it related to the results presented before? Do you consider them as coherent?

A: Good

Comments:

The results obtained in this study cannot be generalized to each tumor subgroup because of the heterogeneity of the cohort. The Discussion puts forth the rationale for taking up the study, effectively describes the relevant literature and enlists the implications of the findings from the present study in that context. It summarizes from the results of the review that no overall survival benefit was found for patients treated with a therapy adapted to a molecular target detected on a Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) systematically performed at the time of medical management. The study further Concludes that although it did not find an overall survival impact of using a targeted therapy on an actionable molecular abnormality, the mutational panel of digestive cancers is large, and these results pave the way for the future of prospective clinical trials guided by molecular profiling.

Literature

Q: Does the author utilize relevant literature?

A: Very good

Author's knowledge

Q: What is the level of the author’s knowledge? Does the author utilize all recent contributions relevant to the topic?

A: Very good

Length

Q: Is the length of the paper adequate to the significance of the topic? Do you suggest shortening the paper without losing its value?

A: Good

Figures & Tables

Q: Does the author use them suitably? Are legend and notations clear?

A: Very good

Writing style

Q: Is it clear and understandable?

A: Good

Further comments on the paper

Comments: This retrospective study analyzes the treatment received and the survival data of patients with digestive cancer who received molecular high-throughput sequencing (Next Generation Sequencing) analyses at diagnosis. Promising targeted therapy and personalized medicine are making molecular profiling of tumors a priority. This study’s primary objective is to compare the overall survival of patients who were treated with molecularly matched therapy with patients who received standard therapy. Despite being based on overall survival which is a strong and relevant assessment, this study is limited by its retrospective nature.

Q: Would you recommend this manuscript for further publication?

A: Yes - Suitable to be published

If you have any questions and clarifications you can write to the journal.

Thanks,
Science Repository Team