Next Article in Journal
Abdominal Lymphadenopathy: Hypothesize Cat-Scratch Disease and Avoid Abdominal Excisional Biopsy
Next Article in Special Issue
BTK Inhibitors and Other Targeted Therapies in Waldenström Macroglobulinemia
Previous Article in Journal
TP53 Mutant Acute Myeloid Leukemia: The Immune and Metabolic Perspective
Previous Article in Special Issue
IgM-Related Immunoglobulin Light Chain (AL) Amyloidosis
 
 
Review
Peer-Review Record

Bing–Neel Syndrome: Update on Diagnosis and Treatment

Hemato 2022, 3(4), 758-770; https://doi.org/10.3390/hemato3040051
by Evangeline Y. Wong 1, Shirley D’Sa 2, Monique C. Minnema 3, Jorge J. Castillo 4 and Dipti Talaulikar 1,5,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2:
Hemato 2022, 3(4), 758-770; https://doi.org/10.3390/hemato3040051
Submission received: 2 September 2022 / Revised: 11 November 2022 / Accepted: 22 November 2022 / Published: 29 November 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Waldenström Macroglobulinaemia and Related Conditions)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

(General comments)

 Wong et al wrote the comprehensive review of the Bing-Neel syndrome (BNS). The manuscript was well written, and informative. I have 3 minor concerns as bellow.

 

(Comments)

 

1.In 5.2. Laboratory features, it is essential to demonstrate WM cells themselves; the diagnosis cannot currently be made by measuring M protein in the CSF as a disrupted BBB may allow IgM seepage from the bloodstream (P4, line 135-137).                  

 I agree with the idea of M-protein in the CSF alone is not sufficient for making precise diagnosis of BNS, however, IgM index calculated by[CSF IgM (mg/L) / serum IgM (g/L)] /[CSF albumin (mg/L) / serum albumin (g/L)]” is helpful for the diagnosis of BNS. Thus, could you comment the IgM index in 5.2. Laboratory features section.

 

2.In Table 1, the word “headache” is written in 2 places, and it is confusing.

 

Cognitive impairment, headache (27%)

Headache (18%)

 

Please check the Table is correct.

 

3. Many typos of MYD88L264P (MYD88L265P) are found in 5.2.3. Molecular features, Fig1, and Table2.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript offers a complete review of the literature on BNS.

Some remarks:

- the paper would benefit from a general editing of English language and style

- line 30: occurred (not occurr)

- line 40 : apart from having (not apart from a having)

- line 41 there HAS been

- line 57: plasma cells disrupt (not plasma cells and disrupt)

- line 58 and 107 : parenchyma (not parenchymal)

- table 1: some features are reported twice (headache, paresis and motor symptoms/motor deficits); visual impairment OR disturbances (not VISUAL IMPAIRMENT OF DISTURBANCES)

- in the whole manuscript/figures/tables:  MYD88 L265P and not MYD88 L264P

- line 223 will guide (not will help guide) 

- line 224: WM not WN

- line 277: once BTK was recognised (not once BTKis were)

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop