Senchukova MA, Kalinin EA, Volchenko NN. Predictors of disease recurrence after radical resection and adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with stage IIb-IIIa squamous cell lung cancer: A retrospective analysis. World J Exp Med 2024; 14(1): 89319 [PMID: 38590307 DOI: 10.5493/wjem.v14.i1.89319]
Reader's ID:
06576544
Submitted on:
March 26, 2024, 02:34
Reader Expertise:
Reader’s expertise on the topic of the manuscript
Conflicts-of-Interest Statement:
Does the reader have a conflict of interest?
Reader Comment Standards for Published Articles:
1 Title
Does the title reflect the main subject/hypothesis of the manuscript?
2 Abstract
Does the abstract summarize and reflect the work described in the manuscript?
3 Key Words
Do the key words reflect the focus of the manuscript?
4 Background
Does the manuscript adequately describe the background, present status and significance of the study?
5 Methods
Does the manuscript describe methods (e.g., experiments, data analysis, surveys, and clinical trials, etc.) in adequate detail?
6 Results
Are the research objectives achieved by the experiments used in this study?
Has the study made meaningful contributions towards research progress in this field?
7 Discussion
Does the manuscript interpret the findings adequately and appropriately, highlighting the key points concisely, clearly and logically?
Are the findings and their applicability/relevance to the literature stated in a clear and definite manner?
Is the Discussion accurate and does it discuss the paper’s scientific significance and/or relevance to clinical practice sufficiently?
8 Illustrations and Tables
Are the figures, diagrams and tables sufficient, good quality and appropriately illustrative of the paper contents?
Do figures require labeling with arrows, asterisks, etc., or better legends?
9 Biostatistics
Does the manuscript meet the requirements of biostatistics?
10 Units
Does the manuscript meet the requirements of use of SI units?
11 References
Does the manuscript appropriately cite the latest, important and authoritative references in the Introduction and Discussion sections?
Does the author self-cite, omit, incorrectly cite and/or over-cite references?
12 Quality of manuscript organization and presentation
Is the manuscript concisely and coherently organized and presented?
Are the style, language and grammar accurate and appropriate?
13 Ethics statements
For all manuscripts involving human studies and/or animal experiments, author(s) must submit the related formal ethics documents that were reviewed and approved by their local ethical review committee. Did the manuscript meet the requirements of ethics?
Scientific Quality:
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:
Language quality (style, grammar, and spelling) should be evaluated and classified according to the following five categories.
Reader Comments:
The study conducted by Senchukova, Kalinin, and Volchenko offers a valuable contribution to the field of oncology, particularly in understanding the recurrence of lung squamous cell carcinoma (LSCC) following radical resection and adjuvant chemotherapy. By focusing on stage IIb-IIIa LSCC patients, the research provides insights that are not only relevant but critical for improving patient outcomes in a subset of lung cancer characterized by its challenging prognosis.
The identification of predictors such as a low degree of tumor differentiation, regional lymph node metastases, the presence of loose, fine-fiber connective tissue in the tumor stroma, and fragmentation of the tumor solid component, furnishes clinicians with a more nuanced understanding of recurrence risks. These findings underscore the importance of considering tumor biology and the microenvironment in the post-surgical management of LSCC patients.
Moreover, the use of univariate and multivariate analyses to identify these predictors, along with the application of receiver operating characteristic curves, highlights the study's methodological rigor. The survival analysis further adds to its significance, offering a stark depiction of how these predictors influence disease-free and overall survival rates.
However, it's worth noting that while the study's methodology and its focus on a homogenous patient cohort enhance its validity, the single-center nature and relatively small sample size may limit the generalizability of the findings. Future multicenter studies with larger cohorts are essential to validate these predictors and potentially uncover additional factors influencing LSCC recurrence. Additionally, integrating these predictors into a broader prognostic model, possibly incorporating genetic and molecular markers, could offer a more comprehensive tool for tailoring patient management strategies post-resection.
In conclusion, this study not only advances our understanding of LSCC recurrence but also prompts further research into personalized treatment adjustments based on specific risk factors. Its implications for improving patient surveillance and identifying candidates for more aggressive adjuvant therapies are particularly noteworthy, marking a step forward in the quest to enhance survival outcomes for LSCC patients.
Reply from the Editorial Office:
First, thank you very much for your professional comments on the article published in World Journal of Experimental Medicine.
Second, we read your comments with great interest. You are welcome to format your valuable comments into a Letter to the Editor and submit it online to World Journal of Experimental Medicine at https://www.f6publishing.com. There are no restrictions on the number of words, figures (color, B/W) or authors for a Letter to the Editor. In addition, the article processing charge will be exempted for this Letter to the Editor. As with all articles published by the Baishideng Publishing Group, the Letter to the Editor will be published online after completing peer review. The guidelines for a Letter to the Editor can be found at: https://www.wjgnet.com/bpg/GerInfo/219.
Finally, we look forward to receiving your high-quality Letter to the Editor, which will promote academic communication and lead the development of this discipline.
Author's Reply:
Replied on July 17, 2025, 11:16
The authors thank the reader for the positive feedback on our work. For all researchers, a positive assessment of their work is of great importance. It gives strength to work further and make our world a little better, despite all the difficulties of our time. The authors also thank for important comments and recommendations that provide directions for our future research.