are there anyone with a value like this ?

Progression free survival seems to be missing ??

It would be useful to describe the causes and times of death for these patients as these are considered treatment related. 8.5% treatment related death is a significant proportion.

Dose intensity is not exactly the same as dose reduction. If the indicator asks for intensity then this should be clarified properly.

In the plot above please indicate that time is in years .

Not clear from the table below what proportion of patietns did not have chemotherapy planned. Would be useful to have this percentage written though I presume that the 5 patient with chemo start date being unknown are the ones where chemotherapy was not planned.

How was this variable entered ?

The difference of 1 patient for what reason ?

Presumably these 3 patients did not start RT due to some reason here ?

May be useful to report the maximum number of days. Also check the minimum number of days. Not clear as to what proportion have completed planned radiotherapy (may be 100%) - should be mentioned in the table.

Fornt line treatment duration is not calculated.

This is a very large gap and reasons for these need to be discussed including the protocol in place for starting chemotherapy.

For this data it would be quite useful to also include a histogram showing the distribution of days as some paitents have a very large number of days. Would be useful to discuss here what was the number of days post registration at TMC that RT was started. This would help clarify the issues related to delay in referrals.

laboratory

Check if any one had a negative date.

Does not make sense. I think it should < 3 year old ??

This means all thre lineages had grade 3 toxicity. Were the anemia, leucopenia, lymphopenia, neutropenia and thrombocytopenia etc separated.

Similarly needs harmonization

Thsese seem to be same. This section need harmonization.

Needs harmonization.

Write Eligible Instead

there