Reviewer's report
Title:Penile metastasis from primary cholangiocarcinoma: the first case report
Version: 1Date:5 August 2013
Reviewer: Alcides Chaux
Reviewer's report:
In this study authors report the clinicopathologic and immunohistochemical
features of a cholangiocarcinoma metastatic to the penis. According to the
authors’ review this is the first case of such instance. Recommendations for
improving the manuscript are provided below.
MAJOR COMPULSORY REVISIONS
- Keep in mind that case reports submitted to the journal should make a
contribution to medical knowledge and must have educational value or highlight
the need for a change in clinical practice or diagnostic/prognostic approaches. In
this regard, please expand the Discussion to include how the case was handled
until the final diagnosis was reached, including all the steps taken for ruling out
other more common malignancies that might have similar clinical and pathologic
features. For example, considering gender and age, prostatic and bladder
carcinomas, which may have glandular features as well and are more common
as penile secondary tumors, should also be taken into account. Instead of plainly
stating that this is the first case report of a cholangiocarcinoma metastatic to the
penis (which indeed is interesting but has limited value per se), please discuss
the finding in the context of other penile secondary tumors. Considering the rarity
of such clinical scenario other diagnosis must be discussed to offer the readers a
broader perspective of the clinical situation. Keep the focus on the case and build
the Discussion around it.
MINOR ESSENTIAL REVISIONS
- Figures are of great quality. Nevertheless, I don’t think showing the primary
tumor (Figure 3A and B) is necessary, considering that the diagnosis of the
primary lesion is not under discussion. I also feel that Figure 3C is at loo low
power to be of any help. Please consider keeping only Figure 3D and create a
panel of immunohistochemical stains showing the same microscopic field. Also,
for the same reason, please consider dropping Figures 4A to F and showing only
the immunohistochemical findings of the secondary lesion. As mentioned before,
it would be more impressive if H&E and immunohistochemistry show the same
microscopic field.
DISCRETIONARY REVISIONS
- Please follow the author guidelines regarding reference style.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:Penile metastasis from primary cholangiocarcinoma: the first case report
Version: 1Date:5 August 2013
Reviewer: Alcides Chaux
Reviewer's report:
In this study authors report the clinicopathologic and immunohistochemical
features of a cholangiocarcinoma metastatic to the penis. According to the
authors’ review this is the first case of such instance. Recommendations for
improving the manuscript are provided below.
MAJOR COMPULSORY REVISIONS
- Keep in mind that case reports submitted to the journal should make a
contribution to medical knowledge and must have educational value or highlight
the need for a change in clinical practice or diagnostic/prognostic approaches. In
this regard, please expand the Discussion to include how the case was handled
until the final diagnosis was reached, including all the steps taken for ruling out
other more common malignancies that might have similar clinical and pathologic
features. For example, considering gender and age, prostatic and bladder
carcinomas, which may have glandular features as well and are more common
as penile secondary tumors, should also be taken into account. Instead of plainly
stating that this is the first case report of a cholangiocarcinoma metastatic to the
penis (which indeed is interesting but has limited value per se), please discuss
the finding in the context of other penile secondary tumors. Considering the rarity
of such clinical scenario other diagnosis must be discussed to offer the readers a
broader perspective of the clinical situation. Keep the focus on the case and build
the Discussion around it.
MINOR ESSENTIAL REVISIONS
- Figures are of great quality. Nevertheless, I don’t think showing the primary
tumor (Figure 3A and B) is necessary, considering that the diagnosis of the
primary lesion is not under discussion. I also feel that Figure 3C is at loo low
power to be of any help. Please consider keeping only Figure 3D and create a
panel of immunohistochemical stains showing the same microscopic field. Also,
for the same reason, please consider dropping Figures 4A to F and showing only
the immunohistochemical findings of the secondary lesion. As mentioned before,
it would be more impressive if H&E and immunohistochemistry show the same
microscopic field.
DISCRETIONARY REVISIONS
- Please follow the author guidelines regarding reference style.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Penile metastasis from primary cholangiocarcinoma: the first case report
Version: 1Date:5 August 2013
Reviewer: Alcides Chaux
Reviewer's report:
In this study authors report the clinicopathologic and immunohistochemical
features of a cholangiocarcinoma metastatic to the penis. According to the
authors’ review this is the first case of such instance. Recommendations for
improving the manuscript are provided below.
MAJOR COMPULSORY REVISIONS
- Keep in mind that case reports submitted to the journal should make a
contribution to medical knowledge and must have educational value or highlight
the need for a change in clinical practice or diagnostic/prognostic approaches. In
this regard, please expand the Discussion to include how the case was handled
until the final diagnosis was reached, including all the steps taken for ruling out
other more common malignancies that might have similar clinical and pathologic
features. For example, considering gender and age, prostatic and bladder
carcinomas, which may have glandular features as well and are more common
as penile secondary tumors, should also be taken into account. Instead of plainly
stating that this is the first case report of a cholangiocarcinoma metastatic to the
penis (which indeed is interesting but has limited value per se), please discuss
the finding in the context of other penile secondary tumors. Considering the rarity
of such clinical scenario other diagnosis must be discussed to offer the readers a
broader perspective of the clinical situation. Keep the focus on the case and build
the Discussion around it.
MINOR ESSENTIAL REVISIONS
- Figures are of great quality. Nevertheless, I don’t think showing the primary
tumor (Figure 3A and B) is necessary, considering that the diagnosis of the
primary lesion is not under discussion. I also feel that Figure 3C is at loo low
power to be of any help. Please consider keeping only Figure 3D and create a
panel of immunohistochemical stains showing the same microscopic field. Also,
for the same reason, please consider dropping Figures 4A to F and showing only
the immunohistochemical findings of the secondary lesion. As mentioned before,
it would be more impressive if H&E and immunohistochemistry show the same
microscopic field.
DISCRETIONARY REVISIONS
- Please follow the author guidelines regarding reference style.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
assistant