07868007

May 29, 2026, 07:10

Reader’s expertise on the topic of the manuscript

Does the reader have a conflict of interest?

The overall quality of the manuscript, based on the above-listed criteria, should be evaluated and classified according to the following five categories

Language quality (style, grammar, and spelling) should be evaluated and classified according to the following five categories.

This is a well-designed study on biomarkers for early detection of pancreatic cancer with clear clinical value. It addresses key clinical challenges and is highly readable and practical. Its major highlight lies in being the first large-scale research to verify that serum S100A6 serves as an effective complement to CA19-9. It performs well in differentiating early pancreatic cancer from chronic pancreatitis and compensating for false-negative results of CA19-9. The combined three-biomarker panel markedly improves diagnostic efficiency, offering valuable guidance for early diagnosis, timely treatment and higher surgical resection rates. The study also objectively acknowledges its limitations including single-center design, absence of external validation and missing Lewis antigen typing, presenting rigorous and prudent conclusions. Overall, this is a clinically oriented and solid translational study. It proposes a new panel strategy for serological screening of pancreatic cancer, and merits further multi-center validation and clinical application.

08402411

May 26, 2026, 10:55

Reader’s expertise on the topic of the manuscript

Does the reader have a conflict of interest?

The overall quality of the manuscript, based on the above-listed criteria, should be evaluated and classified according to the following five categories

Language quality (style, grammar, and spelling) should be evaluated and classified according to the following five categories.

Bae and colleagues provide the first large‑scale prospective evaluation of serum S100A6 as a diagnostic biomarker for pancreatic cancer (PC), with an emphasis on its complementary role to CA19‑9 and CEA. The study has several clear strengths: a well‑defined cohort of 414 subjects (301 PC, 52 chronic pancreatitis [CP], 61 healthy controls), prospective sample collection before treatment, and a clinically relevant focus on distinguishing early‑stage (resectable) PC from benign CP. The authors show that serum S100A6 levels are significantly higher in both early and late PC than in CP or healthy controls. While CA19‑9 alone is the most accurate single marker (AUC 0.839), adding S100A6 and CEA improves overall diagnostic performance (AUC 0.868, P = 0.007 compared to CA19‑9 alone). More importantly, for differentiating early PC from CP, the triple panel achieved an AUC of 0.821 and was the only combination that significantly outperformed CA19‑9 alone (P = 0.017). Bootstrap internal validation (2000 resamples) supports the robustness of the findings. Nevertheless, some limitations deserve attention. External validation in an independent cohort is still lacking, and all samples come from a single tertiary centre. The “early‑stage” group is dominated by stage II tumours (140/149), with only nine stage I cases, so the conclusions mainly apply to resectable rather than truly early, asymptomatic disease. Lewis antigen status was not assessed, which is a known confounder for CA19‑9 false‑negatives; therefore, the extent to which S100A6 compensates specifically for Lewis‑negative individuals remains unclear. S100A6 is not pancreas‑specific and is elevated in other cancers, which limits its use to patients already under suspicion for PC or CP rather than for population screening. Finally, cost‑effectiveness and longitudinal follow‑up data are not provided. In summary, this well‑designed study convincingly shows that serum S100A6 adds diagnostic value to CA19‑9, especially for identifying resectable PC in patients with CP. However, external validation, Lewis antigen stratification, and assessment of clinical net benefit are needed before routine clinical use. At present, S100A6 should be viewed as a promising complementary biomarker, not a standalone screening test.

06409829

May 26, 2026, 06:51

Reader’s expertise on the topic of the manuscript

Does the reader have a conflict of interest?

The overall quality of the manuscript, based on the above-listed criteria, should be evaluated and classified according to the following five categories

Language quality (style, grammar, and spelling) should be evaluated and classified according to the following five categories.

This study is the first large-scale case-control evaluation of the value of serum S100A6 in the early diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. The results show that combining S100A6 with CA19-9 significantly improves diagnostic performance, and that adding CEA further helps distinguish early-stage pancreatic cancer from chronic pancreatitis, suggesting promising clinical translational potential. A key strength of the study is its focus on early diagnosis, a major challenge in pancreatic cancer management, and its proposal of a biomarker combination that complements existing markers. However, the specificity of S100A6, its stability across different populations, and its performance in real-world screening settings still require independent, multicenter, and prospective validation. Overall, this study provides valuable new evidence for the development of biomarkers for early pancreatic cancer detection.