Effects of Chemotherapy on Fertility Preservation in Patients with Tumors of the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Tissues
, Shogo Nishii 1, Kei Odawara 1, Megumi Saito 1, Miwa Sakamoto 1, Tetsuro Kondo 2 and Akihiko Sekizawa 1,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Line 43 : possibility of leukemia cell contamination in ovarian tissue has not been ruled out. Please insert reference
Line 63 “Until the final trigger” please explain what the final triger is , it is assumed that it refres to ovulation induction but rather then name it as such ovulation induction or ovulation ?please rephrase
Line 68 : 10000 U should be 10000 IU ?
Line 69 see comment on trigger in line 63 “as a double trigger”
Line 86 reported[6] space missing reported [6]
Line 86 and 87 “Although patient backgrounds differed, 86 the mean age of patients with breast cancer who underwent fertility preservation therapy 87 before chemotherapy at our hospital was 34.8 years.” This sentence is not in proper context to the surrounding text . please rephrase so it makes more sense and illustrates what you trying to explain!!!
Line 88 : The mean AMH level was 3.82 mg/dl, which was age appropriate.\ give reference please ?
Line 172 prognosis[16]. Missing space
Line 211 adult feamles spilling mistake females
Line 239: This results in lower AMH levels and consequent effects on COS, and the number of retrieved oocytes.
This stement is put under conclusion but in the manuscript it is acknowledged that you did not do AMH levels beforehand and that the levels are lower than expected but this is all speculative. You cannot put a categoric statement under conclusions on something which is speculative. Rather just refer to the work that is actually done and the information that you have data on . please remove speculation from conclusions. The rest of your comclusions do make sense.
Author Response
We appreciate your review of our paper. We have highlighted the areas that we have corrected in response to your suggestions.
Line 43: possibility of leukemia cell contamination in ovarian tissue has not been ruled out. Please insert reference.
We inserted the references.
Line 63 “Until the final trigger” please explain what the final triger is, it is assumed that it refres to ovulation induction but rather then name it as such ovulation induction or ovulation? please rephrase.
Line 69 see comment on trigger in line 63 “as a double trigger”
The sentence has been changed to "until the oocyte retrieval is determined" because the wording was confusing.
Line 68: 10000 U should be 10000 IU?
We have revised to IU.
Line 86 reported[6] space missing reported [6]
We inserted the correct space.
Line 86 and 87 “Although patient backgrounds differed, 86 the mean age of patients with breast cancer who underwent fertility preservation therapy 87 before chemotherapy at our hospital was 34.8 years.” This sentence is not in proper context to the surrounding text. please rephrase so it makes more sense and illustrates what you trying to explain!!!
Line 88: The mean AMH level was 3.82 mg/dl, which was age appropriate. Give reference please?
As a comparison, I presented the outcomes of breast cancer patients who had undergone fertility preservation therapy prior to chemotherapy, but I changed the content of the presentation because I did not explain it well enough.
The sentence that the AMH results were age-appropriate was itself an unnecessary sentence, so I deleted it.
Line 172 prognosis[16]. Missing space
Line 211 adult feamles spilling mistake females
We have corrected it accordingly.
Line 239: This results in lower AMH levels and consequent effects on COS, and the number of retrieved oocytes.
This statement is put under conclusion but in the manuscript it is acknowledged that you did not do AMH levels beforehand and that the levels are lower than expected but this is all speculative. You cannot put a categoric statement under conclusions on something which is speculative. Rather just refer to the work that is actually done and the information that you have data on. please remove speculation from conclusions. The rest of your conclusions do make sense.
We have corrected a sentence that is an inference.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is interesting and in accord with the literature is quite complete.
Contribution of all authors is significant and could be interesting for scientist.
Author Response
We appreciate you reviewing our paper.
Reviewer 3 Report
The focus of this article is the current hot spot. However, in this manuscript, there are only 5 patients in more than 2 years, which is really a little less. Moreover, the average number of frozen oocytes is small, and the chance of having a live birth in the future is very low, and patients have experienced chemotherapy, which will lead to germ cell gene mutations, and these oocytes have not yet been fertilized. It is impossible to know the future fertilization rate, embryo implantation rate, pregnancy rate, live birth rate, and so on. Why did the author not consider ovarian tissue cryopreservation (OTC)? If the center is unable to do OTC, the patient can be referred to another OTC center? Especially in patients with lymphoma, once diagnosed in need of emergency chemotherapy, OTC maybe a good method to preserve the fertility of patients.
Line 226-227, reference 37 did not evaluate the “fertilization rates of oocytes”. please correct.
Author Response
We appreciate you reviewing our paper.
We do not currently offer ovarian tissue cryopreservation at our institutions. We are offering to perform ovarian tissue cryopreservation at other facilities. As a result, no patient requested ovarian tissue cryopreservation.
Line 226-227, reference 37 did not evaluate the “fertilization rates of oocytes”. please correct.
We have reconfirmed the contents of the cited references and corrected the text.
