Reviewer's report
Title:Leiomyosarcoma of sigmoid colon with multiple liver metastases and
gastric cancer: case report
Version: 1Date:5 May 2012
Reviewer: Odike Maxy
Reviewer's report:
MAJOR COMPULSORY REVISIONS
1. The outline of discussion should be: Abstract, Key words, Introduction (not
Background), Case presentation, Discussion (not Conclusion), and References.
Except this is the style accepted by BMC Gastroenterology.
2. Abstract ( case presentation) sentence 3 paragraph 1: 'The pathological
diagnosis of gastric cancer was a complete response...'. This phrase is not clear.
3. Key words. There are too many words here. I recommend a cut down, to a
maximum of 5 words.
4. Background. (a) A 2-sentence introduction is rather too short. (b) A clear
statement on why this report is being published should be added. Readers
should not be made to work this out themselves.
5. Case presentation. (a) patient's clinical features and relevant investigation
results should be stated. (b) sentence 2 paragraph 3 is not clear (see comment 2
above). (c) what prompted the discovery of the sigmoid colon mass? Was it
accidental, or patient presented with new clinical features? (d) sentence 1
paragraph 5: '...2 years and 5 months after starting therapy.' Which therapy is
referred to here, the first, second or third?
DISCRETIONARY REVISIONS
1. Background. Sentence 2 may be better rendered as, 'LMS frequently
metastasize to the liver, with poor prognosis'
2. Case presentation. (a) readers would benefit from explanations on why the
liver secondary deposits responded to the same therapy as did the gastric
adenocarcinoma, despite being leiomyosarcoma (b) was immunohistochemistry
done on tissues from the gastric lesion? What was the result?
3. Conclusion. Are there any possible explanations on why an individual would
have 2 separate primary malignancies simultaneously? This is a very unusual
presentation.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I have no competing interests of any kind in relation to this paper.
Reviewer's report
Title:Leiomyosarcoma of sigmoid colon with multiple liver metastases and
gastric cancer: case report
Version: 1Date:5 May 2012
Reviewer: Odike Maxy
Reviewer's report:
MAJOR COMPULSORY REVISIONS
1. The outline of discussion should be: Abstract, Key words, Introduction (not
Background), Case presentation, Discussion (not Conclusion), and References.
Except this is the style accepted by BMC Gastroenterology.
2. Abstract ( case presentation) sentence 3 paragraph 1: 'The pathological
diagnosis of gastric cancer was a complete response...'. This phrase is not clear.
3. Key words. There are too many words here. I recommend a cut down, to a
maximum of 5 words.
4. Background. (a) A 2-sentence introduction is rather too short. (b) A clear
statement on why this report is being published should be added. Readers
should not be made to work this out themselves.
5. Case presentation. (a) patient's clinical features and relevant investigation
results should be stated. (b) sentence 2 paragraph 3 is not clear (see comment 2
above). (c) what prompted the discovery of the sigmoid colon mass? Was it
accidental, or patient presented with new clinical features? (d) sentence 1
paragraph 5: '...2 years and 5 months after starting therapy.' Which therapy is
referred to here, the first, second or third?
DISCRETIONARY REVISIONS
1. Background. Sentence 2 may be better rendered as, 'LMS frequently
metastasize to the liver, with poor prognosis'
2. Case presentation. (a) readers would benefit from explanations on why the
liver secondary deposits responded to the same therapy as did the gastric
adenocarcinoma, despite being leiomyosarcoma (b) was immunohistochemistry
done on tissues from the gastric lesion? What was the result?
3. Conclusion. Are there any possible explanations on why an individual would
have 2 separate primary malignancies simultaneously? This is a very unusual
presentation.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I have no competing interests of any kind in relation to this paper.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Leiomyosarcoma of sigmoid colon with multiple liver metastases and
gastric cancer: case report
Version: 1Date:5 May 2012
Reviewer: Odike Maxy
Reviewer's report:
MAJOR COMPULSORY REVISIONS
1. The outline of discussion should be: Abstract, Key words, Introduction (not
Background), Case presentation, Discussion (not Conclusion), and References.
Except this is the style accepted by BMC Gastroenterology.
2. Abstract ( case presentation) sentence 3 paragraph 1: 'The pathological
diagnosis of gastric cancer was a complete response...'. This phrase is not clear.
3. Key words. There are too many words here. I recommend a cut down, to a
maximum of 5 words.
4. Background. (a) A 2-sentence introduction is rather too short. (b) A clear
statement on why this report is being published should be added. Readers
should not be made to work this out themselves.
5. Case presentation. (a) patient's clinical features and relevant investigation
results should be stated. (b) sentence 2 paragraph 3 is not clear (see comment 2
above). (c) what prompted the discovery of the sigmoid colon mass? Was it
accidental, or patient presented with new clinical features? (d) sentence 1
paragraph 5: '...2 years and 5 months after starting therapy.' Which therapy is
referred to here, the first, second or third?
DISCRETIONARY REVISIONS
1. Background. Sentence 2 may be better rendered as, 'LMS frequently
metastasize to the liver, with poor prognosis'
2. Case presentation. (a) readers would benefit from explanations on why the
liver secondary deposits responded to the same therapy as did the gastric
adenocarcinoma, despite being leiomyosarcoma (b) was immunohistochemistry
done on tissues from the gastric lesion? What was the result?
3. Conclusion. Are there any possible explanations on why an individual would
have 2 separate primary malignancies simultaneously? This is a very unusual
presentation.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I have no competing interests of any kind in relation to this paper.
assistant