Next Article in Journal
What Can Trigger Spontaneous Regression of Breast Cancer?
Next Article in Special Issue
Development of an Algorithm to Differentiate Uterine Sarcoma from Fibroids Using MRI and LDH Levels
Previous Article in Journal
Height Estimation from Vertebral Parameters on Routine Computed Tomography in a Contemporary Elderly Australian Population: A Validation of Existing Regression Models
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Diagnostics
Volume 13
Issue 7
10.3390/diagnostics13071223
Review Report
diagnostics-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Systematic Review
Peer-Review Record

Sonographic and Magnetic Resonance Characteristics of Gynecological Sarcoma

Diagnostics 2023, 13(7), 1223; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13071223
by Carolina Camponovo 1,*,†, Stephanie Neumann 1,*,†, Livia Zosso 2, Michael D. Mueller 1 and Luigi Raio 1
Reviewer 1:
Hamid Osman
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Diagnostics 2023, 13(7), 1223; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13071223
Submission received: 26 October 2022 / Revised: 30 January 2023 / Accepted: 1 February 2023 / Published: 23 March 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Diagnosis and Management of Uterine Lesions)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Title:  The title is informative

Abstract

Remove discussion in the section of abstract and substitute it by conclusion

Introduction:

Add clear importance of this systemic review at the end of introduction section before the aim

Methodologies and discussion

classifications of results and methodology are acceptable

 

Try to cite some references from the diagnostics/MDPI

Figures qualities are good

Conclusions

In my opinion the manuscript as whole is -Informative, but still require editing, and revision as mentioned above in details. With my report and other reviewer/s report the manuscript will meet the publication criteria due to its importance in the field.

Edit some typos

Good luck

Author Response

Thank you very much for your kind review.

  • Abstract: we changed the discussion to conclusion
  • Introduction: we added a section about the importance of our review
  • We added an interesting article from MDPI Diagnostics about preoperative core-needle biopsy
  • We corrected a few typos

Reviewer 2 Report

The submitted manuscript addresses an issue of crucial clinical importance. This work has many strengths and a few weaknesses that can be easily improved. The preoperative differentiation between uterine myomas and sarcomas remains the Achilles heel of the modern gynecology.

This review paper, critically addressing two main imaging modalities, will be of interest to a wide readership. However, imaging is not the only diagnostic method, and ultrasound/MRI are not used in isolation from clinical signs and symptoms, laboratory methods (LDH and its fractions), preoperative histological sampling, etc. Therefore, the introduction and discussion should definitely be enriched with information that embed imaging (and its limitations) in the overall diagnostic process. Please see and discuss  e.g.  Kostov et al. 2021 doi: 10.3390/clinpract11040103 ; Pritts et al. 2015, doi:10.1007/s10397-015-0894-4; Goto et al. 2002 doi:10.1046/j.1525-1438.2002.01086.x, Bansal et al. 2008, doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.02.026

Author Response

Thank you for your kind review.

We added and completed our review with the references you sent us. So that laboratory testing and endometrial biopsy are also mentioned.

Back to TopTop