Comparison between trabectedin and doxorubicin in soft-tissue sarcomas-reply letter.

We thank for the comments from Wu et al. (1) on our research (2), comparison between trabectedin and doxorubicin in soft-tissue sarcomas. Reviewer Wu et al. said that in , we reported that 80 patients were included, which was inconsistent with the original study (3). In addition, Figure 6 showed the wrong data that the disease control rate of 54 of 75 patients in the experimental group and 41 of 39 patients in the control group lead to the inability to estimate the odds ratio (OR). We appreciate the suggestions. In , we listed the Hartmann’s study (3) and we corrected the samples in from (2). We now correct the Figure 6 of our research (2) since the mistake in typing the number ().

Table 1

Characteristics of included trials (2)

Study	Year	Type of study	Country	Intervention	n	Mean age (years)
Cesne	2021	RCT	France	Trabectedin	52	66.5
				Best supportive care	51	63.7
Chawla	2015	RCT	USA	Trabectedin	83	54
				Doxorubicin	40	54
Demetri	2016	RCT	USA	Trabectedin	345	57
				Dacarbazine	173	56
Hartmann	2020	RCT	Germany	Trofosfamide	75	70
				Doxorubicin	39	70.5
Hensley	2015	RCT	UK	Gemcitabine-docetaxel + trabectedin	53	54.8
				Gemcitabine-docetaxel + placebo	54	56.2
Jones	2019	RCT	UK	Trabectedin + G/D	139	55
				Placebo + G/D	70	54
Martin-Broto	2016	RCT	Spain	Trabectedin + doxorubicin	54	53
				Doxorubicin	59	52
Schöffski	2021	RCT	Belgium	Trabectedin	40	59.5
				Dacarbazine	40	56
Seddon	2017	RCT	UK	Trabectedin	129	56
				Dacarbazine	128	55
Tian	2020	RCT	China	Trabectedin	24	38.58±14.01
				Doxorubicin standard-dose	146	43.30±12.10

Figure 1

Forest plot of relative risks (RRs) with corresponding 95% confidential intervals (CIs) in disease control rate (DCR) (2).

They also said that the authors conducted the sensitivity analysis only by omitting Schöffski et al.’s study (4) and did not further exclude the other included studies. Since the sensitivity was conducted by removing each study in term and selecting the most obvious change one, we only reported the result omitting Schöffski et al.’s study, which is the most obvious change article. Other included researches had smaller influence on the I2 value than Schöffski et al.’s study.

The article’s supplementary files as