Reviewer’ s report
Title: Association between levels of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in different subtypes of
primary breast tumors and prognostic outcomes: A meta-analysis
Version: 0Date: 15 Jan 2020
Reviewer: Kyriakos Chatzopoulos
Reviewer's report:
Please include all comments for the authors in this box rather than uploading your report as an
attachment. Please only upload as attachments annotated versions of manuscripts, graphs,supporting materials or other aspects of your report which cannot be included in a text format.
I think that the manuscript has substantial merit in regard that the authors put an enormous effort
into selecting the appropriate studies and their statistical methodology is appropriate. However,there are significant issues with the particular manuscript that have to be addressed:1) There should be a table including all of the studies, listed one by one, along with the mainclinicopathologic findings of interest of each one, instead of presenting a summary as it is nowdone in table 1.2) The authors should break down their results section into smaller sections each one of whichshould address the significant findings that they report. For example, there should be differentsections for tumors lacking molecular subtyping, those with complete response, those with TNphenotype, and so on. Each one of those sections should have its own subheading and its ownfigure, presenting only the relevant data. In its current form the results section is too denselywritten and difficult to follow.
3) Since the Egger's test showed likelihood of publication bias in the impact of the 10% increment
of TILs in TN tumor subtype on OS and the impact of LPBC on pCR, the authors should includefunnel plots depicting the relevant data. It would be actually useful to show funnel plots even inthe assessments that were not likely to have publication bias.4) The discussion section is incomplete. The authors should discuss more about the impact of theirfindings have on clinical practice.5) There are several inconsistencies: Egger's test is mentioned as Egg's test in line 213; Also in line272 they mention that "PD-1, PD-L1+ and FOXP3+ TILs" articles are included in their study,while it's clear in the methods that these had been excluded - same in discussion line 279.6) The manuscript is overall poorly prepared: The reference style is not in keeping with the authorguidelines; there are parts of text, or words that are awkwardly written (i.e. "Chi² test" in line 151 -should be "Chi-squared" or "χ²"; the word "Luminal" should not have the first letter capitalized -these 2 to name a few).
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Does the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
Unable to assessAre the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an
additional statistical review?If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require furtherassessment in your comments to the editors.
I am able to assess the statisticsQuality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
Needs some language corrections before being publishedDeclaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of thismanuscript, either now or in the future?
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the
manuscript?
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that holds
or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?6. Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this paper?
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' below.
If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
I declare that I have no competing interest.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named reportincluding any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors'responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative CommonsCC-BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). I understand that any commentswhich I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential commentsto the editors, which will not be published.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal