Misreporting of study design and validation status in a study of early tumour shrinkage in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma
- 1Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences
Abstract
This letter to the Editor addresses a fundamental inconsistency in the reporting of study design and validation status in the article by Zhou et al. published in Cancer Imaging. The authors state in the Methods section that the study retrospectively analyzed 125 patients, yet the Introduction and Discussion claim that the study prospectively validated the prognostic value of early tumour shrinkage (ETS) and depth of response (DoR). Prospective validation requires a priori model specification and evaluation on subsequently collected data, whereas retrospective analyses are inherently susceptible to selection bias and cannot establish prospective validity. The authors also conclude that they developed and validated a comprehensive predictive model, but no external validation, temporal validation, or clearly described internal validation procedure is reported. The ETS and DoR thresholds were derived from ROC analysis within the same cohort and then applied to the same patients for survival analysis, risking overfitting and optimistic bias. Additionally, the Results report “responders (n = 109) and non-responders (n = 12),” while the corresponding results in the original article by Zhou et al. [1] list the ratio as 12/109, reversing the group labels. We respectfully suggest that the authors clarify the actual study design, remove any claim of prospective validation if the study is retrospective, provide evidence of validation or remove the claim of a validated model, and correct the numerical inconsistency. Such corrections would uphold the scientific integrity of the literature.
Related
- A Pathological Image-Based Pathomics Signature Combined with Clinicopathological Features for Predicting Lymph Node Metastasis in Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Development and External Validation Study
- Extent of lymphadenectomy dictates adjuvant chemotherapy benefit in primarily resected esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a multi-cohort validation
- Treatment patterns and prognostic factors of radiation-associated esophageal fistula in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a retrospective cohort study
- Vitamin D receptor is associated with farnesyl diphosphate synthase protein stability and malignant phenotypes in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma cells
- Distinct Molecular Landscape and Clinical Subtype of HPV-Positive Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma
BibTeX
@article{khodamoradi2026misreporting,
title = {{Misreporting of study design and validation status in a study of early tumour shrinkage in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma}},
author = {Ehsan Khodamoradi},
journal = {Cancer Imaging},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.1186/s40644-026-01146-1},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1186/s40644-026-01146-1},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Misreporting of study design and validation status in a study of early tumour shrinkage in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma
AU - Ehsan Khodamoradi
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/25
JO - Cancer Imaging
DO - 10.1186/s40644-026-01146-1
UR - https://doi.org/10.1186/s40644-026-01146-1
AB - This letter to the Editor addresses a fundamental inconsistency in the reporting of study design and validation status in the article by Zhou et al. published in Cancer Imaging. The authors state in the Methods section that the study retrospectively analyzed 125 patients, yet the Introduction and Discussion claim that the study prospectively validated the prognostic value of early tumour shrinkage (ETS) and depth of response (DoR). Prospective validation requires a priori model specification and evaluation on subsequently collected data, whereas retrospective analyses are inherently susceptible to selection bias and cannot establish prospective validity. The authors also conclude that they developed and validated a comprehensive predictive model, but no external validation, temporal validation, or clearly described internal validation procedure is reported. The ETS and DoR thresholds were derived from ROC analysis within the same cohort and then applied to the same patients for survival analysis, risking overfitting and optimistic bias. Additionally, the Results report “responders (n = 109) and non-responders (n = 12),” while the corresponding results in the original article by Zhou et al. [1] list the ratio as 12/109, reversing the group labels. We respectfully suggest that the authors clarify the actual study design, remove any claim of prospective validation if the study is retrospective, provide evidence of validation or remove the claim of a validated model, and correct the numerical inconsistency. Such corrections would uphold the scientific integrity of the literature.
SN - 1470-7330
SN - 1740-5025
ER -