Submit a manuscript Sign up for article alerts Contact us

RSS

Latest comments

Ectopic or Drastic Increase of CSCs after Chemotherapy (Go Yoshida, 06 November 2014)

As shown in Figure-4 of this case report, conventional chemotherapy is considered to be partially responsible for the increase of cancer stem cells (CSCs) in number in vivo. The recent Nature article entitled as “Oncogene ablation-resistant pancreatic cancer cells depend on mitochondrial function” investigated into the drastic proliferation of mutant KRAS-driven pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma CSCs utilizing the Tet-ON/OFF and ON system. Notably, they have also revealed the metabolic features of CSCs to depend more on mitochondria as compared with non-CSCs or before oncogene ablation. Ref: Nature 514, 628–632 (30 October 2014) read full comment

Comment on: Yoshida et al. BMC Cancer, 12:444

The funding information (zhebin liu, 21 October 2014)

This research is supported by grants from Shanghai Committee of Science and Technology Funds (Contract grant numbers: 12ZR1442400, 12ZR1406400). read full comment

Comment on: Xu et al. BMC Cancer, 14:273

Correction of typographical error (Taeko Mizoo, 21 October 2014)

We have found out some inadvertent errors in our article after publication. We will correct as following. On Page 3, selection of SNPs in Method, 1) line 4, “2q-rs4666451” should be corrected to “2p-rs4666451” 2) line 6, “IGF1/12q23.2 795399 [10,14]” should be corrected to “IGF1/12q23.2-rs795399 [14]” 3) line 11, "HCN1/5p12-rs98178” should be corrected to “HCN1/5p12-rs981782” read full comment

Comment on: Mizoo et al. BMC Cancer, 13:565

Error in the description of the catalytic mechanism of thymidylate synthase (TS). (Peter Wilson, 21 October 2014)

In the manuscript the authors incorrectly state that the function of the enzyme thymidylate synthase (TS) as the... read full comment

Comment on: Wang et al. BMC Cancer, 14:205

Acknowledgements (Paula Rahal, 20 October 2014)

We thank Dr. Daniel Seabra and Dr. Eliney Ferreira Faria for their collaboration in collecting the samples and Dr. Ligia Maria Kerr for pathological review. This work was supported by São Paulo State Research Foundation - FAPESP (2010/01661-2) and CNPq. read full comment

Comment on: Valsechi et al. BMC Cancer, 14:631

Comments on serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D level and breast cancer risk (William B. Grant, 27 May 2014)

The paper by Kim et al. [1] found that serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OHD)] levels were inversely correlated with breast cancer incidence rates for postmenopausal white women living in Los Angeles and Hawaii but not for women of other ethnic groups. The authors noted that circulating 25(OH)D has not generally been found correlated with breast cancer incidence.


Overlooked in their paper was any discussion of how the follow-up period affects the findings. The longer the follow-up period, the less likely it is to find an inverse correlation between serum 25(OH)D level and breast cancer incidence [2] and all-cause mortality rate [3] due to changes in serum 25(OH)D level with respect to time. The effect for breast cancer is particularly strong since breast tumors grow very fast.... read full comment

Comment on: Kim et al. BMC Cancer, 14:29

email address update (Eduardo Castaneda-Saucedo, 15 April 2014)

the email address of the correspondig author is now: ecastaneda.saucedo@yahoo.com.mx or ecastaneda@uagro.mx read full comment

Comment on: Mendoza-Catalán et al. BMC Cancer, 12:116

Miss printing of signature groups on Figure 1 (Seon-Kyu Kim, 28 February 2014)

The figure 1B and 1C have errors. "low S100A8" patient group should be "high S100A8", whereas "high S100A8" patient group should be "low S100A8." It might be my mistake while producing the paper. read full comment

Comment on: Kim et al. BMC Cancer, 10:21

The funding informations. (Marcin Lener, 17 February 2014)

"This study was supported by the National Science Centre (NCN) grant UMO-2011/03/N/NZ2/01539." read full comment

Comment on: Lener et al. BMC Cancer, 13:214

Corrected Reference (January 14, 2014) (Michael Hoerger, 10 February 2014)

The HCCQ, cited in-text as the Health Care Communication Questionnaire [69], should actually refer to the Health Care Climate Questionnaire:

Williams GC, Grow VM, Freedman ZR, Ryan RM, Deci EL: Motivational predictors of weight loss and weight-loss maintenance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1996, 70:115-126.  read full comment

Comment on: Hoerger et al. BMC Cancer, 13:188

miRNA microarray data have been submitted to GEO (Rotraud Wieser, 05 February 2014)

The miRNA microarray data referred to in this article have been submitted to GEO, accession number GSE49665. read full comment

Comment on: Rommer et al. BMC Cancer, 13:364

There are important differences between disparities in survival and disparities in mortality (James Scanlan, 16 October 2013)

The article by Yu [1] reflects a problem with discussion of demographic differences in cancer outcomes that is as common today as when the article was written. The article purports to be analyzing socioeconomic disparities in mortality but, as with most articles that make reference to survival disparities in their titles, it in fact analyzes differences in... read full comment

Comment on: Yu BMC Cancer, 9:364

No such thing as homeopathy? (Lee Turnpenny, 03 May 2013)

This paper was recently cited in a short article entitled `Homeopathy is more than placebo¿, in the February 2013 edition of the magazine What Doctors Don¿t Tell You, on sale in various UK outlets. (It also formed the basis for an article... read full comment

Comment on: Rostock et al. BMC Cancer, 11:19

Without homeopathic remedies, is care 'homeopathic'? (Lee Turnpenny, 18 March 2013)

Without homeopathic remedies, is care 'homeopathic'?

I came across this reference in an article entitled 'Homeopathy is more than placebo' in the February 2013 issue of the magazine 'What Doctor's Don't Tell You', on sale in various supermarkets in the UK.

Do the authors consider that the title of this magazine piece is used appropriately; ie do they concur with it as a statement, and with the citing of this paper in a magazine endorsing homeopathy? read full comment

Comment on: Rostock et al. BMC Cancer, 11:19

No convincing evidence for efficacy of homeopathic care, let alone homeopathic treatment. (Kausik Datta, 10 March 2013)

I started reading this paper with interest, particularly since I was intrigued by the assertion by the authors that they wanted to focus on homeopathic care, and not the efficacy of homeopathic remedies per se (an interesting assertion pointed out by someone else). I found this study largely disappointing, scientifically speaking. Several points have been discussed in the blog this hyperlink points to. I made a few additional observations which indicate, to me, that this paper did not present convincing evidence for efficacy of homeopathic care as... read full comment

Comment on: Rostock et al. BMC Cancer, 11:19

Alternative explanation (Janusz Kaczorowski, 08 March 2013)

I have reviewed the stats from Google Trends with respect to 'breast cancer' searches and it appears that the internet search activity peeks in September - that is before the start of the awareness campaigns. There is also some data suggesting that incidence of breast cancer is seasonal (higher in fall and spring - both hemispheres) -- perhaps there is more to increased search activity than just breast cancer awareness campaigns. read full comment

Comment on: Glynn et al. BMC Cancer, 11:442

The data in Fig 1 is inconsistent with Table 2 (Jiayi Wang, 22 June 2012)

In Fig 1, the result of Asian subgroup is 0.84(0.73-0.97), while in Table 2 the same result changed into 0.85(0.77-0.94)(GG/TG vs.TT, Asian subgroup). read full comment

Comment on: Zhou et al. BMC Cancer, 11:521

New challenges in cancer communication (Ali Montazeri, 30 April 2012)

To understand what we are saying in this paper I refer the readers to a chapter (Chapter 33) in a new edition of the 'New Challenges in Communication with Cancer Patients' edited by Surbone et al. from Springer, 2012. read full comment

Comment on: Montazeri et al. BMC Cancer, 4:21

errors in the articles (Elena Yakubovich, 20 February 2012)

The study by Wu et al shows the decreased expression of DUSP9 in ccRCC. The authors claim that DUSP9 may represent a novel and useful prognostic marker for ccRCC and that for their knowledge this is the first study to report the clinical significance of DUSP9 in ccRCC. In this connection we would like to refer to our similar results that have been published previously. The study reported in 2002 has revealed for the first time the down-regulation of DUSP9 in ccRCC [1]. In the study published in 2006 we determined DUSP9 mRNA level in clinical samples from patients at different stage of renal cancer [2]. It has been shown that DUSP9 inactivation was observed even in the early stage of the disease.... read full comment

Comment on: Wu et al. BMC Cancer, 11:413

Correction to recruitment data. (Janet de Moor, 26 January 2012)

The manuscript contains a typographical error on page 2, under Eligibility Criteria and Sample Recruitment. There were 773 survivors who were alive and eligible for PFH-2, not 733 as reported in the paper. read full comment

Comment on: de Moor et al. BMC Cancer, 11:165

incorrect model label - this is not a xenograft, it is an allograft (melinda hollingshead, 17 August 2011)

When tissues are transplanted from one species (e.g., human) into another species (e.g., mouse) you have prepared a xenograft (xeno- from the Greek for foreign and graft from Middle English for joining or transferring). When one transplants tissues within a species (e.g., mouse to mouse) it is referred to as an allograft. Thus, the title of this paper incorrectly refers to the test model as a xenograft. The authors did not prepare nor test a xenograft, they tested an allograft. The term syngeneic (used by the authors to describe the model) and the term xenograft are mutually exclusive. You cannot be syngeneic with another species. The correct title should not contain the word xenograft, it could contain the word allograft or syngeneic model. read full comment

Comment on: Shibata et al. BMC Cancer, 10:566

Corresponding author contact information (Jung-Young Shin, 31 May 2011)

Corresponding author: Jin-Hyoung Kang
Correspondence
: jinkang@catholic.ac.kr
Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital,
The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea.

If you have any questions please contact him. read full comment

Comment on: Shin et al. BMC Cancer, 10:425

the organizational affiliation is Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC (Lu Shi, 31 May 2011)

For Lu Shi, William J. McCarthy and Robert Boer, the organizational affiliation is "Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands" read full comment

Comment on: Shi et al. BMC Cancer, 11:92

Errors in Methods (Jun-Pyo Myong, 31 May 2011)

Dear Dr. Park.

The authors wrote the methods as followed;
'The third (2005) KNHANES is composed of four parts: the Health Interview survey, the Health Examination survey, the Nutrition survey and the Health Promotion Knowledge, Attitude and Practice (HP-KAP) survey. As the item about breast cancer screening was included in HP-KAP survey, we started with cross-sectional data from the HP-KAP survey. HP-KAP survey was conducted in each household as face-to-face interviews by trained interviewers. In the third (2005) KNHANES, 8,417 individuals aged ≥ 19 year were sampled as subjects of the HP-KAP survey. Among them, 7,802 individuals participated in the examination: the response rate was 92.7%. Figure 2 shows the model used to select our study population. Subjects of male... read full comment

Comment on: Lee et al. BMC Cancer, 10:144