How To Write a Response to Reviewers.

Peer review and comments from reviewers are part of the submission process for scientific papers. We provide tips on how best to respond to reviewers, and point out the most common mistakes that authors make. The ultimate goal is to work with reviewers and editors to improve the quality of a paper so that it is accepted for publication.

Quantification of Gleason Pattern 4 Metrics Identifies Pathologic Progression in Patients With Grade Group 2 Prostate Cancer on Active Surveillance.

Background: During active surveillance (AS) for Grade Group (GG) 2 prostate cancer, pathologic progression to GG3 on surveillance biopsy is a trigger for intervention. However, this ratio of GP3:GP4, may be obscured by increases of relatively indolent disease. We aimed to explore changes in GP4 quantity during AS and propose alternative definitions for progression based on GP4 changes.

Optimizing accrual to a large-scale, clinically integrated randomized trial in anesthesiology: A 2-year analysis of recruitment.

Background: Performing large randomized trials in anesthesiology is often challenging and costly. The clinically integrated randomized trial is characterized by simplified logistics embedded into routine clinical practice, enabling ease and efficiency of recruitment, offering an opportunity for clinicians to conduct large, high-quality randomized trials under low cost. Our aims were to (1) demonstrate the feasibility of the clinically integrated trial design in a high-volume anesthesiology practice and (2) assess whether trial quality improvement interventions led to more balanced accrual among study arms and improved trial compliance over time.