Long-Term Remissions in Patients with Peripheral T-Cell Lymphoma Following High-Dose Chemotherapy, Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation (ASCT) and Subsequent Radiotherapy

Review Data

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

Comments: Yes, the topic is relevant to the journal area of interest.
The study's findings are contemporary and interesting for researchers in the field of oncology, particularly those focused on lymphomas and innovative treatment approaches.

Abstract & Keywords

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

Comments: The abstract does include all the necessary components.
The keywords chosen for the study are appropriate in the context of the study.

Goal

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

Comments: The goal of the study is explicitly stated in the Introduction section. It is clear and unambiguous. The stated goal of the study is to contribute data to address an open question: whether additional radiotherapy can improve the outcome of patients with peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) who have undergone high-dose therapy with autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT).

The study's objective is to investigate the potential benefit of radiotherapy as a consolidation treatment following ASCT in PTCL patients who have refractory or residual disease. This goal is well-defined and provides a clear focus for the research presented in the study.

Structure

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

Comments: The paper's structure appears to be generally coherent and aligned with the goal of the study. It follows a typical scientific research paper structure.

Literature

Q: Does the author utilize relevant literature?

Comments: Yes, the author utilizes relevant literature to support the information.

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?

Comments: The length of the paper appears to be adequate for the topic.

Reducing the length could potentially remove important information and compromise the value of the manuscript.

Writing style

Q: Is it clear and understandable?

A: Yes, the text provided is clear and understandable.

Further comments on the paper

Comments:

The paper appears to be a valuable contribution to the field of oncology. Here are some further comments:

1.     Patient Cohort: The inclusion of a detailed description of the patient cohort, including the number of patients, their treatment lines, and characteristics, adds transparency to the study. This information helps readers understand the study's context.

2.     Discussion of Treatment Line: The study discusses the impact of treatment lines on outcomes, specifically comparing 1st-line, 2nd-line, and 3rd-line ASCT. This analysis provides valuable insights into the effectiveness of ASCT in different clinical scenarios.

3.     Discussion of Radiotherapy: The paper addresses the role of radiotherapy following ASCT, particularly in cases of residual or refractory disease. This discussion adds depth to the study and offers potential treatment considerations.

4.     Long-Term Follow-Up: The inclusion of long-term follow-up data, with some patients achieving remission for over two decades, is a significant strength of the paper. It highlights the potential for durable responses in PTCL patients following ASCT.

5.     Reference to Guidelines: The paper appropriately refers to guidelines and the need for observational studies in the absence of prospective randomized trials. This acknowledgment of the limitations of available data adds credibility to the study.

6.     Patient Consent: The paper mentions that all patients provided informed consent for the study, emphasizing ethical considerations and patient participation in research. 

7.     Data Presentation: The paper provides a substantial amount of data, including survival rates, remission durations, and treatment outcomes. This data is presented in a structured manner, allowing readers to follow the study's progression and outcomes effectively.

In summary, the paper demonstrates several strengths, including a well-defined research question, data presentation, discussion of treatment lines and radiotherapy, and long-term follow-up data. These aspects contribute to the overall quality and value of the research.

Q: Would you recommend this manuscript for further publication?

A: Yes - This manuscript is recommended for further publication.

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

Thanks,
Science Repository Team