The Current Trend of Radiation Therapy for Patients with Localized Prostate Cancer
, Mizuki Kobayashi 1, Yumina Muto 1, Hiromi Sato 1, Yuya Sekine 1, Ryuta Sobu 1, Yu Aoyama 1, Yoshiko Takahashi 1, Syuhei Okada 1, Hajime Sasagawa 1, Shintaro Narita 1, Satoshi Kumagai 2, Yuki Wada 2, Naoko Mori 2 and Tomonori Habuchi 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The issue of the review is interesting
some considerations:
1. low risk: at the end, it could be useful to underline that hypofractionatio and stereotactic RT are safe and effective also in elderly population.
2. intermediate risk: add the possibility of stereotactic RT also in this setting
3. Toxicity report: add the recent Jama analysis (JAMA Oncol. Published online June 8, 2023. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2023.1638)
The results of this large, population-based cohort study suggest that IMRT for prostate cancer is not associated with an increased risk of second primary cancers, either solid or hematologic, and any inverse associations may be associated with calendar year of treatment.
Minor revision
Author Response
We wish to express our appreciation to reviewer #1 for their insightful comments and their tremendous effort in our paper. The comments have helped us significantly improve the paper.
- low risk: at the end, it could be useful to underline that hypofractionatio and stereotactic RT are safe and effective also in an elderly population.
Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. In accordance with the reviewer’s comment, we inserted “including elderly patients” in Line 46.
- intermediate risk: add the possibility of stereotactic RT also in this setting
Response: Thank you for your valuable comment to improve our paper. According to the reviewer`s suggestion, we added the sentence in line 57 as follows:
SBRT could be an option for elderly patients [18].
- Toxicity report: add the recent Jama analysis (JAMA Oncol. Published online June 8, 2023. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2023.1638)
The results of this large, population-based cohort study suggest that IMRT for prostate cancer is not associated with an increased risk of second primary cancers, either solid or hematologic, and any inverse associations may be associated with the calendar year of treatment.
Response: Thank you for your valuable comment to improve our paper. According to the reviewer`s suggestion, we added the sentence in line 380 as follows:
Moreover, a recent population-based cohort study suggested that IMRT for prostate cancer was not associated with an increased risk of second primary cancers [111].
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors attempted to provide a comprehensive review of localized prostate cancer radiotherapy. Unfortunately, the manuscript suffers from inconsistent, incomplete, and incorrect evidence interpretation. In several cases representative studies are picked up randomly and presented in oversimplified manner. Trivial information is mixed with scientific analysis in inappropriate way.
Authors should not be discouraged by their manuscript critical evaluation. In future they should consider a more focused review, pick up one or two aspects and dig into details to provide a beneficial and critical information for a reader.
Only minor correction, though several misprints are present.
Author Response
We wish to express our appreciation to reviewer #2 for their insightful comments on our paper. The comments have helped us significantly improve the paper.
The authors attempted to provide a comprehensive review of localized prostate cancer radiotherapy. Unfortunately, the manuscript suffers from inconsistent, incomplete, and incorrect evidence interpretation. In several cases, representative studies are picked up randomly and presented in an oversimplified manner. Trivial information is mixed with scientific analysis in an inappropriate way.
Authors should not be discouraged by their manuscript's critical evaluation. In the future, they should consider a more focused review, pick up one or two aspects and dig into details to provide beneficial and critical information for a reader.
Response: Thank you for your sincere comment on our paper. As you pointed out, our manuscript contains many aspects of radiation therapy for patients with localized prostate cancer. I would be happy if this paper would be the first paper to review this extensive field.
So, we would like you to allow us to publish this paper for readers as a priming paper. Again, we would be most grateful if you reconsider worth publishing our paper.
Reviewer 3 Report
This work presents the current status of all available forms of radiotherapy. In doing so, the authors go into great detail about when which therapy is used and present the most important work of the last decades on which the respective technique is based. Furthermore, the side effects and their typical management are presented.
Only one small formal error needs to be corrected: The chapter title and the first introductory paragraph of section 3 are missing.
Author Response
We wish to express our appreciation to reviewer #3 for their insightful comments on our paper. The comments have helped us significantly improve the paper.
This work presents the current status of all available forms of radiotherapy. In doing so, the authors go into great detail about when which therapy is used and present the most important work of the last decades on which the respective technique is based. Furthermore, the side effects and their typical management are presented.
Response: We thank the reviewer’s comment. All papers suggested by the reviewer were useful and could promote the reliability of our results.
Only one small formal error needs to be corrected: The chapter title and the first introductory paragraph of section 3 are missing.
Response: Thank you for your pointing out to improve our paper. We inserted the title to the Line 76 as follows:
- Technical Advancement of Radiotherapy
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The re-submitted manuscript is essentially unchanged, with negligible added information.
Unfortunatelly, the quality of evidence interpretation is not satisfactory for publication.
Moderate English editing would be required.
