Next Article in Journal
Reply to Kawasaki et al. Comment on “Manole et al. Primary Pericardial Synovial Sarcoma: A Case Report and Literature Review. Diagnostics 2022, 12, 158”
Previous Article in Journal
In Vivo Regulation of Active Matrix Metalloproteinase-8 (aMMP-8) in Periodontitis: From Transcriptomics to Real-Time Online Diagnostics and Treatment Monitoring
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Diagnostics
Volume 14
Issue 10
10.3390/diagnostics14101012
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
Comment
Peer-Review Record

Comment on Manole et al. Primary Pericardial Synovial Sarcoma: A Case Report and Literature Review. Diagnostics 2022, 12, 158

Diagnostics 2024, 14(10), 1012; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14101012
by Tomonori Kawasaki 1, Jiro Ichikawa 2,*, Hiroki Imada 3, Satoshi Kanno 1 and Kojiro Onohara 4
Diagnostics 2024, 14(10), 1012; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14101012
Submission received: 6 December 2023 / Revised: 21 March 2024 / Accepted: 6 May 2024 / Published: 15 May 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Pathology and Molecular Diagnostics)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Regarding the comment 'Comment on Manole et al. Primary Pericardial Synovial Sarcoma: A Case Report and Literature Review. Diagnostics 3 2022;12:158' provided by Tomonori Kawasaki et al, I consider that their comment  provides a comprehensive overview of synovial sarcoma (SS) focusing on a rare case of primary pericardial synovial sarcoma. It discusses various diagnostic methods, including immunohistochemistry (IHC) and molecular confirmation techniques, and highlights the challenges associated with diagnosing SS accurately, particularly in cases where traditional methods like fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) yield negative results.

Their comment is relevant, knowledgeable, and presents a multitude of significant data that should be considered. I have no other remarks regarding this matter.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor revisions to the English language are necessary.

Author Response

Reviewer: 1

 

Comments to the Author

 

Regarding the comment 'Comment on Manole et al. Primary Pericardial Synovial Sarcoma: A Case Report and Literature Review. Diagnostics 3 2022;12:158' provided by Tomonori Kawasaki et al, I consider that their comment  provides a comprehensive overview of synovial sarcoma (SS) focusing on a rare case of primary pericardial synovial sarcoma. It discusses various diagnostic methods, including immunohistochemistry (IHC) and molecular confirmation techniques, and highlights the challenges associated with diagnosing SS accurately, particularly in cases where traditional methods like fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) yield negative results.

 

Their comment is relevant, knowledgeable, and presents a multitude of significant data that should be considered. I have no other remarks regarding this matter.

 

Minor revisions to the English language are necessary.

 

Response: We would like to thank you for the review of our manuscript and for the valuable suggestions. proof reading was carefully performed.

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop