All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Thank you for addressing the reviewer comments. Congratulations!
Clear and unambiguous, professional English used throughout
Research question well defined, relevant & meaningful
NA
Very good and informative review on a very important subject
The revised version meets my expectations and aligns well with the requirements for publication in this journal.
no comments.
no comments.
The manuscript suffers from a lack of specificity in the discussion and conclusions (abstracts). In the conclusions (abstract), the results (related factors) were not directly mentioned, which means the names of the parameters were not listed. Similarly, the discussion section does not have any analyses or connection with the results of this manuscript. This is a major issue. The introduction is another area that needs significant effort to update. The concepts and paragraphs are not well developed in that section.
Based on the reviewers' comments and my observations, I am convinced that this manuscript needs major changes to make it ready for reconsideration. Please ensure that you address all the comments from the reviewer. Thank you
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language should be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
This is a very informative review, which addresses an important question related to the importance of CAFs for diagnosis/prognosis of breast cancer patients.
The review is well written, the problem was well introduced
Comments:
1. english: needs revision of several words and also to shorten some long and non-clear sentences, such as in the introduction lane 55-60 as well as the last sentence in the conclusion.
2. The discussion need improvement, the present discussion is a simple repetition of the introduction and the results without deep insight on the importance of all these genes in the breast cancer prognosis and how they may be used for targeted therapy specifically in CAFs, because several of these genes such as a-SMA is also expressed in myoepithelial cells.
No comment
No comment
No additional comment
This systematic review and meta-analysis by Cui Meimei et al. aimed to elucidate the relationship between CAF biomarkers and the prognosis of breast cancer patients, focusing on individualized CAF-targeting treatment. The study utilized various databases to gather relevant studies, included 27 studies with 6,830 patients, examining the expression of various biomarkers in CAFs and their correlation with various survival outcomes. The study found that high expression of certain biomarkers such as PDGFR-β, TIMP-2, MMP 9, MMP 11, and MMP 13 in CAFs were correlated with reduced survival outcomes. They highlighted the potential use of these biomarkers in tailoring CAF-targeted therapies and prognostic evaluations in breast cancer patients.
1. The study does not thoroughly explore the heterogeneity in biomarker expression among different CAF subtypes and its implications for breast cancer prognosis.
2. The study does not sufficiently address the contradictory findings reported in the literature regarding the prognostic value of certain CAF biomarkers, which could be due to the functional and phenotypic heterogeneity of the tumor microenvironment.
3. The study employs both univariate and multivariate analyses, there is a lack of depth in statistical exploration, particularly in addressing the complex interactions between different biomarkers and clinical outcomes.
no comment
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.