Combining Novel Hormonal Therapies with a Poly (ADP-Ribose) Polymerase Inhibitor for Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: Emerging Evidence
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript by Yang et al., entitled “Combining Novel Hormonal Therapies with a Poly(ADP)-Ribose Polymerase Inhibitor for Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: Emerging Evidence” is a systematic review of the past and ongoing trials that are addressing the efficacy of combining PARP inhibitors and hormonal drugs on patients with mCRPC. Given the complexity involved, the author has produced many positive and welcome outcomes. The literature review offers a useful overview of current research and policy, and the resulting bibliography provides a very useful resource for current practitioners. Overall, this research is well written, and the content of this manuscript is of major interest. The authors have done very meticulous and detailed research even though some additions and modifications will significantly improve the quality of the article:
- First, a clarification. I would not consider this as an "Article," but rather as a Review of existing literature.
- Please recheck Figure 1 since it contains some errors and mistakes.
- I am conscious that the goal of this manuscript is the trials that are being or have been carried out at the clinical or preclinical level to seek a cure/options for mCRPCa-mediated combination of PARP inhibitors and inhibition of standard-of-care androgen therapy and other classic chemotherapeutics, however, I advise the authors, in order to improve their manuscript, to add in the introduction and discussion a chapter (or simply mention/citations) promising preliminary in vitro/in vivo studies involving drug combinations against primary tumors and mCRPCa. For example, interesting studies have been done on in vitro and in vivo prostate tumor models from different laboratories worldwide. These studies could spill over into preclinical and clinical studies in the future. For instance see and discuss, for example, the interesting studies carried out by these laboratories in which the combine standard-of-care therapy (AR inhibitors, radiotherapy, and other drugs with drugs targeting other PCa oncogenes : doi: 10.1038/s41419-020-03256-5; doi: 10.1038/s41585-022-00669-z; DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2119115
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
In the manuscript entitled “Combining Novel Hormonal Therapies with a Poly (ADP)-Ribose Polymerase Inhibitor for Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: Emerging Evidence”, Yang and colleagues investigated the efficacy of combining poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) and novel hormonal therapies (NHT) for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). This work systematically analyzed a potential new regimen of combination therapy and will hold significance in the field. However, I have listed below a series of comments which would further improve the quality of the manuscript. If addressed, I have no hesitation to suggest publication of this paper.
Maybe add the backgrounds of some terminologies into the introduction part. What is the definition of NHT? What’s the difference between NHT and AAP/ENZA?
The authors need to be more careful about the format. For example, in Figure 1, the box of “reports excluded” is not complete. In Figure 2A, should the bottom words be “NHT” instead of “NHA”?
Please also double check all the languages, the issues include but not limiting to:
Line 18, should the “a significantly improve” be “a significant improvement”?
Line 59, “preliminary” should be “preliminarily”.
Line 60-62, “If previous NHT…?” should be “could previous NHT…?”.
Line 94, “included” should be “include”.
Line 61, what’s nmCRPC? Please annotated.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper provedid a simple summary of the available trials on ARSI+PARP combinations in mCRPC pts. I strongly suggest to improve the manuscript by provinding critical comments concerning the real role of these combinations in the daily clinical practice. The authors did not provide any useful comments on why these combinations should be used (combination use vs sequential use) or when they should be proposed (all comers vs BRCA+ vs HRR+)
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
I am completely satisfied with the effort you have made to improve the quality of your paper. I believe that this version of the manuscript deserves to be published in Current Oncolgy
Best Regards
