Next Article in Journal
Current and Future Biomarkers for Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma
Previous Article in Journal
Minimally Invasive Interventional Procedures for Metastatic Bone Disease: A Comprehensive Review
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Current Oncology
Volume 29
Issue 6
10.3390/curroncol29060333
Review Report
curroncol-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Case Report
Peer-Review Record

A Case Study of Clinical Response to Rucaparib in a Patient with Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer and a RAD51B Alteration

Curr. Oncol. 2022, 29(6), 4178-4184; https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol29060333
by Brieuc Sautois 1,*, Andrea Loehr 2, Simon P. Watkins 3, Hélène Schroeder 1 and Wassim Abida 4
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2:
Junnliang Chang
Curr. Oncol. 2022, 29(6), 4178-4184; https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol29060333
Submission received: 5 May 2022 / Revised: 28 May 2022 / Accepted: 6 June 2022 / Published: 8 June 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Genitourinary Oncology)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a case report of clinical response to rucaparib in a patient with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer harboring RAD51B-ACTN1 fusion. It still need some minor revisions listed below. Otherwise the paper is well written and useful and the images are of good quality.

1. There are some errors in the terminology: a. Based on the data shown in Table 1, the alteration in RAD51B should be described as RAD51B rearrangement or RAD51b-ACTN1 fusion, which is not a mutation. Therefore, RAD51B-mutated in the title and main text need to be corrected. b. ctDNA is short for circulating tumor DNA, instead of cell-free tumor DNA in the Abstract.

2. I would suggest to simplify Table 1, which all alteration with unknown significance can be removed to supplement results, if possible. Same alterations can be listed at different time point. It would be more reader friendly. 

3. All fusions are not detected at week 60 and week 80. More detailed explanation might be needed here. Is there any cutoff percentage of ctDNA to detect gene fusion using the tests in the report? 

4. The cancer still progressed and the patient died of it 02/2021 after he was enrolled in 09/2018. Is it possible to compare with the progression rate and survival rate of the cohort? In another word, did this RAD51B rearrangement tumor show worse prognosis? 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Reviewer's Comments to Authors:

1.     Serum PSA level (concentration) can be used to monitor prostate cancer patients after clinical treatment. In this study, when inhibitors are used, how to evaluate PSA concentration or percentage reduction to be considered effective treatment?

2.   Do the results of this study suggest that it is worthwhile to consider the use of PARP inhibitors in the treatment of other prostate cancer patients with RAD51B mutations?

3.   Are there particularly novel and important findings based on this study and in-depth literature review? Do the results of this study suggest or highlight the importance of clinical application value and learning objectives?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop