In general This paper is well written in terms of scientific value and language, suggesting to be accepted for publication after being revised considering to comments below. General comment The paper submitted as "A review of the management of advanced renal cell carcinoma". However, why the authors used a questionnaire among specialist oncologists to validate data presented in the literature. Using a survey or a questionnaire to evaluate data in some parameters presented in the literature needs to be justified in a logical way and mentioned in the article such as standards or guidelines. Therefore, aims of this paper are unclear.

Introduction Page 3 (lines 26-28): The authors stated that "no single document has included data on the efficacy, tolerability and pharmacokinetics of pazopanib, combined, moreover, with the opinion of an expert group". Then next sentence mentioned this paper will present the available evidence published to 1 date on the three fundamental aspects of pazopanib in the first-line treatment of mRCC: efficacy, tolerability and pharmacokinetics which displayed later including VEG105192, SPAZO and COMPARZ studies. Authors need to clarify the benefit of combining experts' opinion with data from literature.

No comments on Methodology

Results and discussion Page 15: What is the point if experts' opinion was consistent (or not) with the populations of patients included in clinical trials and observational studies? Does this mean if their opinion was consistent with literature data would provide more validation and precision of previous studies? These two questions need to be answered by authors and mentioned clearly in the article.

Discussion and Conclusion Page 15: What is the point if experts' opinion was consistent (or not) with the populations of patients included in clinical trials and observational studies? Does this mean if their opinion was consistent with literature data would provide more validation and precision of previous studies? These two questions need to be answered by authors and mentioned clearly in the article.