Long-Term Follow-Up of Tamoxifen Treatment and the Use of Imaging in Psammocarcinoma: A Case Report, Review of the Literature and Discussion of Diagnostic and Therapeutic Challenges
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The manuscript seemed to be improved in detail presentation. I think it would be worth acceptance.
Just one point I concerned is why the author added the name of hospital in the manuscript(Line71).
Author Response
Reply: In the previous revision we were asked to supply information on what type of hospital the patient was admitted to, but we agree with the reviewer that the name of the exact hospital is redundant and have consequently removed this information (page 2, line 73).
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Comments and Suggestions for Authors Based on the authors' replies, not all comments raised were addressed (for example, comments 3, 17, 18, 19).
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Moderate editing of English language required
Author Response
Previous comment 3: When reporting a case, authors should follow the CARE guidelines. In this case reports, authors did not follow some of those guidelines. Reply: We are thankful for the reviewer's comment, and we have to the best of our ability revised the manuscript. However, we would have appreciated a clarification on what guidelines were insufficiently revised.
Previous comment 17: According to the CARE guidelines, patient info, clinical findings, diagnostic assessment, therapeutic intervention, and follow-up and outcome should be complete. Reply: please see pages 2-5, Detailed Case Description, where this information is provided.
Previous comment 18: The references are not appropriately cited. Reply: As we stated before, we do not know what the reviewer is referring to. The reviewer still does not specify what is inappropriate. We use the well-established software endnote to handle our references and the style used is MDPI, as recommended.
Previous comment 19: the discussion section could be improved. It depends on the journal’s guidelines, but usually subheadings are not used in the Discussion. Reply: As stated before, since this is not specified in the guidelines, we use subheadings to make the text easier to follow. We revised the discussion section.
As part of our first revision, the manuscript was proofread by a professional. We regret that the reviewer did not find this editing sufficient, and the manuscript has subsequently undergone further English editing by a professional, native English-speaking, academic language editor.
This concludes the point-by-point reply to reviewer #2.
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This case report provides valuable insights into the rare condition of psammocarcinoma, its radiological features, and a unique treatment approach involving tamoxifen. The authors have provided a detailed description of the patient's clinical presentation, laboratory findings, imaging results, and histopathological analysis. I would like to offer the following points for consideration by the authors towards the improvement of the manuscript:
1- It is not appropriate for the first paragraph of the introduction to begin with the case description, please change it.
2- Please provide histopathologic images of case.
3- The discussion of hormonal therapy (tamoxifen) is limited. More information on the rationale for using tamoxifen and the potential mechanisms of action would improve the discussion section.
4- Please add the recent study to the table (doi: 10.7759/cureus.41964)
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Moderate editing of English language required
Author Response
Reviewer’s comment #1: It is not appropriate for the first paragraph of the introduction to begin with the case description, please change it.
Reply: As a part of the first revision, we were asked by reviewer #2 to follow the Care guidelines: “Reviewer’s comment #6: According to the CARE guidelines, the introduction should include a summary of why this case is unique or educational with reference to the relevant literature and current standard of care”. We consequently added this section. We now moved this section to the end of the introduction (page 2, lines 61-65).
Reviewer’s comment #2: Please provide histopathologic images of case.
Reply: We are thankful for this comment and agree that this improves the manuscript. A histopathological image showing typical features of psammocarcinoma has been added, as well as the immunohistochemical staining for estrogen receptor expression (page 3, Figure 1).
Reviewer’s comment #3: The discussion of hormonal therapy (tamoxifen) is limited. More information on the rationale for using tamoxifen and the potential mechanisms of action would improve the discussion section.
Reply: We agree that this is valuable information and a section on why tamoxifen was chosen, and its effects have been added to the Discussion (page 9, 283-290).
Reviewer’s comment #4: Please add the recent study to the table (doi: 10.7759/cureus.41964)
Reply: the study has been added (page 7, Table I, page 9, lines 279-281).
As part of our first revision, the manuscript was proofread by a professional. We regret that the reviewer did not find this editing sufficient, and the manuscript has subsequently undergone further English editing by a professional, native English-speaking, academic language editor.
This concludes the point-by-point reply to reviewer #3.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The manuscript entitled, “Long-term follow-up of tamoxifen treatment and the use of imaging in psammocarcinoma: a case report, review of the literature and discussion on diagnostic and therapeutic challenges” is not worth acceptance for publication in Current Oncology.
The case presentation would be enough for case report; however, I cannot find the novelty of this case and I cannot know why tamoxifen was used and how it worked for preventing the rapid growth of the cancer.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
I think the quality of English is fine.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
1. The manuscript could benefit from editing for grammar, missing words and subject-verb agreement, etc. It is recommended that authors delete irrelevant "general" phrases and sentences, repeated and unneeded words. They should use short sentences. Also, some Introductory sentences are irrelevant or are not needed. It is also recommended that authors send their manuscript to an expert in English editing and academic writing. For instance, in the abstract, “We conclude that PC has characteristic radiological features and different imaging modalities can be suitable in different clinical situations” should be written as “We conclude that PC has characteristic radiological features and different imaging modalities that can be suitable in different clinical situations.” Also, in the introduction, “They are often found in serous tumors of the ovary, papillary carcinoma” should be “They are often found in serous tumors of the ovary, papillary carcinomas.”
2. The authors should not use abbreviations if the word is mentioned for the first time. For example, BMI in the Case Description.
3. When reporting a case, authors should follow the CARE guidelines. In this case reports, authors did not follow some of those guidelines.
4. According to the CARE guidelines, 3 to 6 key words that identify areas covered in the case report (including "case report" as one of the keywords) should be used. “Case report” should be one of the key words.
5. According to the CARE guidelines, the abstract should answer the following: what is unique or educational about the case? What does it add to the literature? Why is this important? What are the patient's main concerns and important clinical findings? What are the main diagnosis, therapeutics interventions, and outcomes? And what are the “take-away” lessons from this case? All those questions need to be addressed in this case.
6. According to the CARE guidelines, the introduction should include a summary of why this case is unique or educational with reference to the relevant literature and current standard of care (with references, 1-2 paragraphs). Besides, nature of the institution in which the patient was managed should be indicated: academic, community or private practice setting?
7. Introduction: “invasive serous adenocarcinoma” the word invasive is redundant since the definition of carcinoma is a malignant epithelial neoplasm that invades and has the tendency to metastasize. Removing the word “invasive” is recommended.
8. The manuscript lacks a timeline. According to the CARE guidelines, a timeline should be designed including data which allows readers to establish the sequence and order of events in the patient's history and presentation (using a table or figure if this helps).
9. Figure 1: I recommend adding white arrows to refer to the findings that the authors are talking about.
10. “Resection of all gross tumor was not possible, no HIPEC was performed, and only peritoneal biopsies were taken.” Authors should justify this.
11. “Peroral treatment” the term peroral is not commonly used in medicine.
12. “Based on the histopathologic evaluation, the diagnosis was established as PC originating from the peritoneum, and a minimal SBT in both the left and right ovary.” How did the authors know that the origin of the tumor is the peritoneum?
13. A more extensive description of the pathology (microscopic images, IHC stains, etc.) should be included.
14. The parenthesis in table 1 can be replaced by the following: “Abbreviations: …”
15. The results section lacks any text. It only includes table 1. I recommend summarizing Table 1 findings as regards the number of peritoneal versus ovarian PC, average size of tumor at diagnosis, number of cases with advanced disease at diagnosis, average follow-up, etc.
16. Table 1 lacks important information such as tumor size in cm.
17. According to the CARE guidelines, patient info, clinical findings, diagnostic assessment, therapeutic intervention, and follow-up and outcome should be complete. In this case, many pieces of information are missing, as mentioned earlier.
18. The references are not appropriately cited.
19. The discussion section could be improved. It depends on the journal’s guidelines, but usually subheadings are not used in the Discussion.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The manuscript could benefit from editing for grammar, missing words and subject-verb agreement, etc. It is recommended that authors delete irrelevant "general" phrases and sentences, repeated and unneeded words. They should use short sentences. Also, some Introductory sentences are irrelevant or are not needed. It is also recommended that authors send their manuscript to an expert in English editing and academic writing. For instance, in the abstract, “We conclude that PC has characteristic radiological features and different imaging modalities can be suitable in different clinical situations” should be written as “We conclude that PC has characteristic radiological features and different imaging modalities that can be suitable in different clinical situations.” Also, in the introduction, “They are often found in serous tumors of the ovary, papillary carcinoma” should be “They are often found in serous tumors of the ovary, papillary carcinomas.”
