Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer, Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors, and Beyond
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this manuscript, the Authors reviewed the available literature regarding monotherapy and combined therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors as well as novel immunotherapy combination therapeutic strategies and treatment targets in the field of metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer.
The manuscript is well-written and well-structured.
Here I report my comments and suggestions:
-I suggest adding a “Discussion” paragraph where the Authors can speculate about their results and provide their future perspective in this field. In this direction, I suggest including these two manuscripts (PMID: 32528101 - PMID: 35955671),
-I suggest adding a figure,
-I suggest changing the table named “Table legend” in a list of abbreviations under Table 3.
Author Response
To Reviewers of Current Oncology,
We thank you very much for your time and dedication to reviewing our submitted manuscript. We have addressed reviewers’ comments as outlined below, and we thank the reviewers for the opportunity to improve our original manuscript. Please find below a point-by-point response to reviewer’s edits and suggestions.
Reviewer 1:
- I suggest adding a “Discussion” paragraph where the Authors can speculate about their results and provide their future perspective in this field. In this direction, I suggest including these two manuscripts (PMID: 32528101 - PMID: 35955671).
Authors: We have included discussion paragraph and included both references (in introduction and discussion paragraphs) to the Discussion section.
- I suggest adding a figure.
Authors: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. Given the broad scope of this review with many different therapies with distinct mechanisms of action, the authors find it difficult to illustrate the findings in one figure; in addition, the tables of this manuscript are likely the most readily available and useful information to readers.
- I suggest changing the table named “Table legend” in a list of abbreviations under Table 3.
Authors: We have included a list of abbreviations/”table legends” under each table instead of one list of abbreviations.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript describes the results of all ICI trials in metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer. The title is slightly misleading towards the idea that they evaluated the usage of ICI in all prostate cancer stages.
The authors present in page 1 line 34 why the ICI have limited benefits but don’t present why we should still investigate the ICI in the management of prostate cancer. A small paragraph regarding the rationale of using ICI in mCRPC is needed before describing the results of all trials.
A small paragraph regarding selection of trials should be presented (timeframe, databases queried) should be included. Although this is a targeted literature review and a predefined protocol is not mandatory, I think it will increase the power of the manuscript
Author Response
To Reviewers of Current Oncology,
We thank you very much for your time and dedication to reviewing our submitted manuscript. We have addressed reviewers’ comments as outlined below, and we thank the reviewers for the opportunity to improve our original manuscript. Please find below a point-by-point response to reviewer’s edits and suggestions.
Reviewer 2:
- The title is slightly misleading towards the idea that they evaluated the usage of ICI in all prostate cancer stages.
Authors: Thank you. The title of review was changed to “metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, immune checkpoint inhibitors, and beyond” to avoid misconception about including all stages of prostate cancer in this review.
- The authors present in page 1 line 34 why the ICI has limited benefits but don’t present why we should still investigate the ICI in the management of prostate cancer. A small paragraph regarding the rationale of using ICI in mCRPC is needed before describing the results of all trials.
Authors: Thank you for pointing out this very good suggestion. To address this point, we included a few sentences in the second paragraph of the introduction that addresses why ICIs and combination therapies may change the treatment landscape of mCRPC and should be investigated further.
- A small paragraph regarding selection of trials should be presented (timeframe, databases queried) should be included. Although this is a targeted literature review and a predefined protocol is not mandatory, I think it will increase the power of the manuscript.
Authors: This is a great suggestion. We have included a “Selection of Trials” paragraph outlining timeframe, database used, and methods for selecting articles to help increase the power of the review.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The Authors have addressed adequately my comments
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have made the requested modifications in the manuscript. No further questions from me.
