Borges AL, Reis-de-Carvalho C, Chorão M, Pereira H, Djokovic D. Low-grade mucinous appendiceal neoplasm mimicking an ovarian lesion: A case report and review of literature. World J Clin Cases 2021; 9(10): 2334-2343 [PMID: 33869611 DOI: 10.12998/wjcc.v9.i10.2334]
Reader's ID:
00070191
Submitted on:
April 05, 2021, 11:24
Reader Expertise:
Reader’s expertise on the topic of the manuscript
Conflicts-of-Interest Statement:
Does the reader have a conflict of interest?
Reader Comment Standards for Published Articles:
1 Title
Does the title reflect the main subject/hypothesis of the manuscript?
2 Abstract
Does the abstract summarize and reflect the work described in the manuscript?
3 Key Words
Do the key words reflect the focus of the manuscript?
4 Background
Does the manuscript adequately describe the background, present status and significance of the study?
5 Methods
Does the manuscript describe methods (e.g., experiments, data analysis, surveys, and clinical trials, etc.) in adequate detail?
6 Results
Are the research objectives achieved by the experiments used in this study?
Has the study made meaningful contributions towards research progress in this field?
7 Discussion
Does the manuscript interpret the findings adequately and appropriately, highlighting the key points concisely, clearly and logically?
Are the findings and their applicability/relevance to the literature stated in a clear and definite manner?
Is the Discussion accurate and does it discuss the paper’s scientific significance and/or relevance to clinical practice sufficiently?
8 Illustrations and Tables
Are the figures, diagrams and tables sufficient, good quality and appropriately illustrative of the paper contents?
Do figures require labeling with arrows, asterisks, etc., or better legends?
9 Biostatistics
Does the manuscript meet the requirements of biostatistics?
10 Units
Does the manuscript meet the requirements of use of SI units?
11 References
Does the manuscript appropriately cite the latest, important and authoritative references in the Introduction and Discussion sections?
Does the author self-cite, omit, incorrectly cite and/or over-cite references?
12 Quality of manuscript organization and presentation
Is the manuscript concisely and coherently organized and presented?
Are the style, language and grammar accurate and appropriate?
13 Ethics statements
For all manuscripts involving human studies and/or animal experiments, author(s) must submit the related formal ethics documents that were reviewed and approved by their local ethical review committee. Did the manuscript meet the requirements of ethics?
Scientific Quality:
The overall quality of the manuscript, based on the above-listed criteria, should be evaluated and classified according to the following five categories
Language Quality:
Language quality (style, grammar, and spelling) should be evaluated and classified according to the following five categories.
Reader Comments:
LAMN is among the tumor groups that can cause problems both in the clinical and pathological differential diagnosis. Indeed, clinical findings may sometimes be needed during pathological evaluation for accurate diagnosis. The case presented here clearly highlights the importance of imaging features of such lesions and should be taken into account in the evaluation.
Reply from the Editorial Office:
Thank you very much for your comments.
Reader's ID:
05429607
Submitted on:
April 02, 2021, 04:40
Reader Expertise:
Reader’s expertise on the topic of the manuscript
Conflicts-of-Interest Statement:
Does the reader have a conflict of interest?
Reader Comment Standards for Published Articles:
1 Title
Does the title reflect the main subject/hypothesis of the manuscript?
2 Abstract
Does the abstract summarize and reflect the work described in the manuscript?
3 Key Words
Do the key words reflect the focus of the manuscript?
4 Background
Does the manuscript adequately describe the background, present status and significance of the study?
5 Methods
Does the manuscript describe methods (e.g., experiments, data analysis, surveys, and clinical trials, etc.) in adequate detail?
6 Results
Are the research objectives achieved by the experiments used in this study?
Has the study made meaningful contributions towards research progress in this field?
7 Discussion
Does the manuscript interpret the findings adequately and appropriately, highlighting the key points concisely, clearly and logically?
Are the findings and their applicability/relevance to the literature stated in a clear and definite manner?
Is the Discussion accurate and does it discuss the paper’s scientific significance and/or relevance to clinical practice sufficiently?
8 Illustrations and Tables
Are the figures, diagrams and tables sufficient, good quality and appropriately illustrative of the paper contents?
Do figures require labeling with arrows, asterisks, etc., or better legends?
9 Biostatistics
Does the manuscript meet the requirements of biostatistics?
10 Units
Does the manuscript meet the requirements of use of SI units?
11 References
Does the manuscript appropriately cite the latest, important and authoritative references in the Introduction and Discussion sections?
Does the author self-cite, omit, incorrectly cite and/or over-cite references?
12 Quality of manuscript organization and presentation
Is the manuscript concisely and coherently organized and presented?
Are the style, language and grammar accurate and appropriate?
13 Ethics statements
For all manuscripts involving human studies and/or animal experiments, author(s) must submit the related formal ethics documents that were reviewed and approved by their local ethical review committee. Did the manuscript meet the requirements of ethics?
Scientific Quality:
The overall quality of the manuscript, based on the above-listed criteria, should be evaluated and classified according to the following five categories
Language Quality:
Language quality (style, grammar, and spelling) should be evaluated and classified according to the following five categories.
Reader Comments:
This was a very interesting, engaging and concrete case report, highlighting the diagnostic radiological imaging challenges of appendiceal neoplasms and adnexal lesions. The article was very well visualized. The main differences between LAMN and ovarian cancer imaging modalities were discussed. This article also pointed out the importance of multidisciplinary communication.
The authors performed the literature search of accompanying cases which added more scientific quality to this case.
The authors concluded that registering such cases and reviewing the preoperative imaging findings may increase preoperative diagnostic sensitivity and specificity, which I think is worth considering but hard to apply in daily clinical practice.
What could have been improved? The needed follow-up of the patient could have been added. Is the follow-up required after appendectomy in such cases? What are the optimal imaging modalities and intervals for a follow-up? Is there any risk of disease renewal?
Reply from the Editorial Office:
Firstly, thank you very much for your professional comments on the article published in World Journal of Clinical Cases.
Secondly, we read your comments with great interest. You are welcome to format your valuable comments into a Letter to the Editor, and submit it online to World Journal of Clinical Cases at https://www.f6publishing.com. There are no restrictions on the number of words, figures (color, B/W) or authors for Letter to the Editor. The article processing charge will be exempted for Letter to the Editor. The Letter to the Editor will be published online after peer review. The guidelines for Letter to the Editor can be found at: https://www.wjgnet.com/bpg/GerInfo/219.
Finally, we look forward to receiving your high-quality Letter to the Editor to promote academic communication and lead the development of this discipline.