TP53 Mutant Acute Myeloid Leukemia: The Immune and Metabolic Perspective

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

To authors,

This is a review paper summarized TP53 mutant AML. Overall, this is a comprehensive paper and has a lot of information. However, the structure of the paper is a bit confusing. Also, I feel that if there were a table and figure for easy understanding that would be better.

 

Major points

・The sections are not reasonably separated and are confusing. For example, if Nivolumab and Pembrolizumab was 2.2.3(.1) or 2.2.3(.2), Atezolizumab and Avelumab shouldn’t be 2.2.3(.3) and 2.2.3(.4)?  Also, it might be better to have prognostic aspects and therapeutic approach separately.

・”The metabolic perspective” is the main topic of this review. Could the authors provide a figure for readers to understand this more easily?  

・I think the authors should mention COTI-2 as a novel therapeutic approach.  (Duffy MJ, Synnott NC, O’Grady S, Crown J. Targeting p53 for the treatment of cancer. Semin Cancer Biol 2022;79:58–67.)

・I appreciate if there is a table to summarize therapies or clinical trials that the authors described in the text.

 

Minor points

・TP53 as a gene name should be written in italic.

・Line 262-3: Programmed cell ceath-1 (PD-L1) should be Programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1).

・Line 354: PD-1L should be PD-L1

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a very useful review article of TP53-mutated AML, the specific biology of this AML sub-type and an update on current and future therapy strategies, together with outcomes. I have a few specific comments:

 

Page 5, line 236. The authors should clarify whether or not the data discussed from reference 45 included TP53-mutated patients or not.

 

The review would benefit from a figure highlighting the metabolic pathways and potential targets/novel therapies for TP53-mutated AML.

 

Lines 309-313, pages 6-7, don’t make sense. Something is missing.

 

Reference 1 doesn’t include the year of publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The revised version has clearer message and the authors have addressed my concerns decidedly. I have no more requests to ask.