Next Article in Journal
Coffee Roasting and Extraction as a Factor in Cold Brew Coffee Quality
Previous Article in Journal
Competing Miners: A Synergetic Solution for Combining Blockchain and Edge Computing in Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Networks
Previous Article in Special Issue
Necrotizing Follicular Lymphoma of the Inguinal Region with Sternbergoid Cells: Clinical–Pathological Features of a Challenging Entity
 
 
Case Report
Peer-Review Record

Successful Second Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation for Late Disease Progression after the First Procedure in POEMS Syndrome

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12(5), 2577; https://doi.org/10.3390/app12052577
by Francesco Autore 1,*, Idanna Innocenti 1, Federica Sora 1,2, Patrizia Chiusolo 1,2, Nicola Piccirillo 1,2, Andrea Bacigalupo 1, Simona Sica 1,2 and Luca Laurenti 1,2
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Reviewer 4:
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12(5), 2577; https://doi.org/10.3390/app12052577
Submission received: 22 December 2021 / Revised: 17 February 2022 / Accepted: 23 February 2022 / Published: 2 March 2022

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It is a well written report of two patients with POEMS syndrome that received successful second autologous stem-cell transplantation.

No comments

Author Response

We hope that the revised version of the manuscript will be suitable for publication in Applied Sciences.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors, 

This paper describes interesting case studies. However, there are some things that need to be improved: 

  1. Abstract. You have not included an abstract.
  2. Introduction. It is so vague... I know this is a case report, but you have to describe the diseases, the current treatments, and novelty treatments, as the one you used for the patients. 
  3. Material and Methods. This section is missing. Is this study covered by the IRB? Did the patients sign an inform consent? Why did you decide to test this new treatment? Include patient data here. 
  4. Discussion. Do you have any previous/current experiences with other patients? 

Thank you very much. 

Author Response

We revised our paper according to the questions raised by the reviewer.

  1. Abstract. You have not included an abstract.

 

1.1 We included an abstract.

 

2. Introduction. It is so vague... I know this is a case report, but you have to describe the diseases, the current treatments, and novelty treatments, as the one you used for the patients. 

 

2.1 We changed the introducion adding information and references on POEMS syndrome, clinical findings and treatment. We presented the choice to use a second transplant in late relapsed POEMS.

 

3 Material and Methods. This section is missing. Is this study covered by the IRB? Did the patients sign an inform consent? Why did you decide to test this new treatment? Include patient data here. 

 

3.1 The paper is a case report so we did not add a specific sections but we added the informations requested (IRB and informed consent) in the results paragraph.

 

4. Discussion. Do you have any previous/current experiences with other patients? 

 

4.1 We added a paragraph in the discussion in which we explained our new clinical practise starting from stem cell harvest procedure: to harvest a greater number of stem cells up front to be used in the case of a relapse in patients affected by an aggressive POEMS syndrome.

We hope that the revised version of the manuscript will now be suitable for publication in Applied Sciences.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors present 2 very rare cases of POEMS in which the 2nd transplant determined complete remission. Given the rarity of the cases, the information presented is very useful for clinicians. Data on the transplant procedure are clearly presented.

Author Response

We hope that the revised version of the manuscript will be suitable for publication in Applied Sciences.

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript entitled "Successful second autologous stem-cell transplantation for late disease progression after the first procedure in POEMS syndrome" by Autore et al. is a short case report of two patients and is written in good English.

The casereport is well conducted and includes necessary informations. In the discussion part essential citations are given and the conclusions are supportet by the clinical course and mentioned references.

The abstract at the beginning is missing. Please add, if needed by the journal/editor.

Author Response

We included an abstract.

We hope that the revised version of the manuscript will be suitable for publication in Applied Sciences.

Back to TopTop