Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 12, 2021
Decision Letter - Afsheen Raza, Editor

PONE-D-21-26179Programme Death Ligand 1 Expressions as a Surrogate for Determining Immunotherapy in Cervical carcinoma PatientsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Omenai,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please note that both reviewers have raised some concerns regarding the data analysis. Kindly revise the manuscript addressing these issues.

Please submit your revised manuscript by 15 Januaru 2022.  If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Afsheen Raza, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your ethics statement in the manuscript and in the online submission form, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data/samples were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data/samples from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

"Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This is an interesting paper and a lot of work has been done. However, there are many points to be clarified and improved upon:

1. The use of the English language and grammar should be improved.

2. Mention in the abstract the number of cases stained and scored. Mention the way the scoring was performed. mention links with clinical parameters. Ad which PDL1 clone was used.

3. Give a clear representation of the literature on PDL1 expression in cervical cancer. There are papers missing. Moreover, there is conflicting data on relation with prognosis and relation with amplification of the PDL1 locus. Please, elaborate and give cite all literature on cervical cancer.

4. PD-L1 is only one of the immune evasion mechanisms. The way the abstract is written at the moment it seems like it is the only one. Please, get more nuance into the discussion of the results.

5. Do comment on the various clones targeting PDL1 used for IHC. Is the clone the authors used also used by others or how does it relate to the standard clones used. Please, give more information. It is a big problem and should be addressed in the discussion. Please, show representative cases of positive, weak and negative expression in the SCC and AC histologies.

6. Was there other clinical data available on this patient cohort? HPV type, metastatic status? It would be interesting to compare expression percentages and expression patterns to other clinical data and survival.

7. Can the authors say something about tumor infiltrating myeloid cells being positive for PDL1? Or were there cases with high PDL1 expression on cells in the stromal compartment?

8. It is known that patients with expression PDL1 can also be unresponsive to PD1/PDL1 checkpoint inhibition. Please, tone down the discussion and also add literature on PD1/PDL1 being not effective and PD1/PDL1 being a biomarker with limited value.

Reviewer #2: Thank you for submitting this very interesting manuscript. The manuscript is well written and highlights the importance of PD-L1 testing in advanced cervical cancers, in particular the different rates of positivity based on histopathological characteristics. I have one major comment - and this is with regards to measuring the PD-L1 score. TPS is currently only used for non-small cell lung cancers, whereas other sites utilise the CPS scoring system. Your research has calculated the TPS score for PD-L1, which is a major flaw, in my opinion; and I wonder if the results would differ if the CPS scoring system was applied instead. The paper will need to be rewritten after recalculating the PD-L1 scores based on the CPS scoring system. In addition, please indicate if PD-L1 22C3 testing was used or SP142 assay.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Revision 1

Reviewer #1.

We have made some spelling and grammar corrections in the manuscript just like suggested. The number of cases stained and scored as well as the PD-L1 clone used are now mentioned in the abstract. We have added more literature on the use of PD-L1 in cervical carcinomas especially in regards to prognostic implications of PD-L1 expression. Truly, PD-L1 is just one of the immune evasion mechanisms of cancers currently being studied. Our write up initially inadvertently presented PD-L1 as the only mechanism, which we have corrected in the manuscript. We agree that using non diagnostic PD-L1 clone is a major drawback, we had difficulty sourcing for the more popular clones for our laboratory. We have expressed the limitations this pose to our findings in the manuscript. We reviewed the slides and used the combine positive scoring system which takes note of positive infiltrating myeloid cells in determining PD-L1 status.

Reviewer #2.

We have recalculated the PD-L1 status using the CPS. We didn’t use 22C3 or SP142 clone assay in our study. Hopefully we can get dealers to supply to our laboratory as soon as we establish the need for PD-L1 immunohistochemistry in our society. We have stated the non-diagnostic genetex PD-l1 assay we used and the subsequent limitations it poses.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to reviewers..docx
Decision Letter - Afsheen Raza, Editor

Programme Death Ligand 1 Expressions as a Surrogate for Determining Immunotherapy in Cervical carcinoma Patients

PONE-D-21-26179R1

Dear Dr. Omenai,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Afsheen Raza, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Afsheen Raza, Editor

PONE-D-21-26179R1

Programme Death Ligand 1 Expressions as a Surrogate for Determining Immunotherapy in Cervical carcinoma Patients

Dear Dr. Omenai:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Afsheen Raza

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .