Tobacco Use and Response to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The review is written in a professional and sound manner and highlights the importance of a gap in the literature related to tobacco use and the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors in lung cancer treatment.
The critique is given as:
1. Although the text gives a thorough representation of the literature concerning the subject manner, it is however suggested to include the pictorial representation of the tobacco-associated immune-modulation along with the immune-checkpoint regulation pathways associated with the immune therapy in lunger cancer.
2. A recent meta-analysis on the same subject matter discussed in detail the use of ICT and associated the data on tobacco users with lung cancer. (10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.100990). Please include the findings and suggestions from the article and find other literature if possible, that deals with the subject matter directly.
Author Response
- Although the text gives a thorough representation of the literature concerning the subject manner, it is however suggested to include the pictorial representation of the tobacco-associated immune-modulation along with the immune-checkpoint regulation pathways associated with the immune therapy in lunger cancer.
Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We have now included a figure that we hope will assist the readers to better understand the relationship between tobacco smoking and the immune system (Figure 1).
- A recent meta-analysis on the same subject matter discussed in detail the use of ICT and associated the data on tobacco users with lung cancer. (10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.100990). Please include the findings and suggestions from the article and find other literature if possible, that deals with the subject matter directly.
Response: We have now included the Dai meta-analysis and other supportive literature in our conclusion on page 11.
Reviewer 2 Report
It's a comprehensive review about smoking and ICI. I think the review can be accepted in present form.
Author Response
It's a comprehensive review about smoking and ICI. I think the review can be accepted in present form.
Response: Thank you very much for taking the time to review our paper. We are grateful that you found it to be acceptable in it’s present form. We have added a figure and updated our methodology, as recommended by the other reviewers.
Reviewer 3 Report
This is a well-prepared manuscript.
Please consider the following changes:
1. More precise data in the abstract (e.g. rates) will increase the scientific value of the abstract and the interest of the paper.
2. Please provide one paragraph on methodology - even if the Authors prepared a narrative review, a short methodological note will be useful.
3. A short note on statistical methods used in this review (E.g. to prepare Figure 1) will be useful
4. Please consider one paragraph on the practical implications of this study
Author Response
- More precise data in the abstract (e.g. rates) will increase the scientific value of the abstract and the interest of the paper.
Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We have now incorporated the calculated hazard ratios and confidence values into the abstract.
- Please provide one paragraph on methodology - even if the Authors prepared a narrative review, a short methodological note will be useful.
- A short note on statistical methods used in this review will be useful
Response to Points 2 and 3: We agree that more detail was required on the review process and statistical methods, and have now added additional details regarding the creation of the forest plots from the data for this review in methodology section on page 5, as well as additional details on how trials involving ICIs were selected.
- Please consider one paragraph on the practical implications of this study
Response: Thank you for this point. We had tried to weave the practical implications throughout the conclusion but have made changes to make this clearer for the reader. Many thanks again for your time in reviewing this paper. We hope that you will find the edits and additional material satisfactory for publication.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript was improved in line with the comments suggested by the reviewer. The current version is well-organized and informative.
