Reviewer's report
Title:The clinicopathological observation, c-kit gene mutation and clonal status
of gastrointestinal stromal tumor in sacrum
Version: 4Date:31 March 2009
Reviewer: Giuliano Ramadori
Reviewer's report:
Comments to the Authors
The initial manuscript has been carefully revised, and it is now interesting to read
the details. We therefore consider the manuscript worth for publication.
We would however like to suggest the following corrections.
General comments:
The changes are marked in red.
The figures still have the wrong numbers on the images:
Figure 1 = Figure 1A
Figure 2 = Figure 1B
Figure 3 = Figure 1C
Figure 4 = Figure 2A
Figure 5 = Figure 2B
Figure 6 = Figure 3A
Figure 7 = Figure 3B
Figure 8 = Figure 4
Figure 9 = Figure 5
Figure 10 = Figure 6
The figures are correctly numbered within the text and in the figure legends.
“c-KIT” should be written in capital letters (instead of “c-kit”), whenever it is the
name of the gene itself, such as
Page 1, line 9;
Page 1, line 21;
Page 3, line 11;
Page 3, line 14;
Table 1.
In the other places it has been done correctly.
Abstract
Page 1, line 1f: “…occurs in the sacrum.”, instead of “…in sacrum.”
Page 1, line 20: “…found in the sacrum.”, instead of “…in sacrum.”
Background
Page 3, line 4: “…non-lymphatic,…”, instead of “non-lympha”
Page 3, line 12: “We suggest that GIST should be…”, instead of “First of all,…”
Methods
Page 4, line 14: “…, and to exclude melanoma HMB45”, please specify as this is
an antibody not known to every reader.
Page 5, line 12: “…was carried out…”, instead of “carried”.
Page 7, line 4: “…was the same as for the first round,…”, instead of “as the first
round”.
Page 7, line 11: “4#l”, instead of “ul”.
Results, instead of “Result”.
Page 9, line 1: “The resected irregular tissue was…”, instead of “tissues was”
Page 9, line 10: “SM-actin”, instead of “SC-actin”.
Page 9, line 19: “…was found at position 100”, instead of “at the location of 100”.
Page 10, line 8: “The results indicate that GIST is a clonal neoplastic lesion.”,
instead of “…indicated that GIST was a neoplastic hyperplasia”.
Discussion
Page 11, line 10f: “The diagnosis of GISTs mostly relies on histopathological
features and the immunohistochemical phenotype,…”, instead of “rely” and
“immunohistochemical…”.
Page 11, line 12: ”…feature is”, instead of “was”.
Page 11, line 13f: Please change to“…90-95% of GISTs express CD117, 60-70%
express CD34, 30-40% SM-actin and only 5% are positive for S-100 protein.”
Page 11, line 14: “Please delete: “Expression of vimentin was always positive.”
Page 11, line 19: “…and showed”, instead of “besides”.
Page 13, line 18: “…were similar”, please delete “coincided”.
Figure legends
Figure 2 and Figure 3: Please give the original magnification, such as “Original
magnification 200x”.
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 declare that I do have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:The clinicopathological observation, c-kit gene mutation and clonal status
of gastrointestinal stromal tumor in sacrum
Version: 4Date:31 March 2009
Reviewer: Giuliano Ramadori
Reviewer's report:
Comments to the Authors
The initial manuscript has been carefully revised, and it is now interesting to read
the details. We therefore consider the manuscript worth for publication.
We would however like to suggest the following corrections.
General comments:
The changes are marked in red.
The figures still have the wrong numbers on the images:
Figure 1 = Figure 1A
Figure 2 = Figure 1B
Figure 3 = Figure 1C
Figure 4 = Figure 2A
Figure 5 = Figure 2B
Figure 6 = Figure 3A
Figure 7 = Figure 3B
Figure 8 = Figure 4
Figure 9 = Figure 5
Figure 10 = Figure 6
The figures are correctly numbered within the text and in the figure legends.
“c-KIT” should be written in capital letters (instead of “c-kit”), whenever it is the
name of the gene itself, such as
Page 1, line 9;
Page 1, line 21;
Page 3, line 11;
Page 3, line 14;
Table 1.
In the other places it has been done correctly.
Abstract
Page 1, line 1f: “…occurs in the sacrum.”, instead of “…in sacrum.”
Page 1, line 20: “…found in the sacrum.”, instead of “…in sacrum.”
Background
Page 3, line 4: “…non-lymphatic,…”, instead of “non-lympha”
Page 3, line 12: “We suggest that GIST should be…”, instead of “First of all,…”
Methods
Page 4, line 14: “…, and to exclude melanoma HMB45”, please specify as this is
an antibody not known to every reader.
Page 5, line 12: “…was carried out…”, instead of “carried”.
Page 7, line 4: “…was the same as for the first round,…”, instead of “as the first
round”.
Page 7, line 11: “4#l”, instead of “ul”.
Results, instead of “Result”.
Page 9, line 1: “The resected irregular tissue was…”, instead of “tissues was”
Page 9, line 10: “SM-actin”, instead of “SC-actin”.
Page 9, line 19: “…was found at position 100”, instead of “at the location of 100”.
Page 10, line 8: “The results indicate that GIST is a clonal neoplastic lesion.”,
instead of “…indicated that GIST was a neoplastic hyperplasia”.
Discussion
Page 11, line 10f: “The diagnosis of GISTs mostly relies on histopathological
features and the immunohistochemical phenotype,…”, instead of “rely” and
“immunohistochemical…”.
Page 11, line 12: ”…feature is”, instead of “was”.
Page 11, line 13f: Please change to“…90-95% of GISTs express CD117, 60-70%
express CD34, 30-40% SM-actin and only 5% are positive for S-100 protein.”
Page 11, line 14: “Please delete: “Expression of vimentin was always positive.”
Page 11, line 19: “…and showed”, instead of “besides”.
Page 13, line 18: “…were similar”, please delete “coincided”.
Figure legends
Figure 2 and Figure 3: Please give the original magnification, such as “Original
magnification 200x”.
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 declare that I do have no competing interests.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:The clinicopathological observation, c-kit gene mutation and clonal status
of gastrointestinal stromal tumor in sacrum
Version: 4Date:31 March 2009
Reviewer: Giuliano Ramadori
Reviewer's report:
Comments to the Authors
The initial manuscript has been carefully revised, and it is now interesting to read
the details. We therefore consider the manuscript worth for publication.
We would however like to suggest the following corrections.
General comments:
The changes are marked in red.
The figures still have the wrong numbers on the images:
Figure 1 = Figure 1A
Figure 2 = Figure 1B
Figure 3 = Figure 1C
Figure 4 = Figure 2A
Figure 5 = Figure 2B
Figure 6 = Figure 3A
Figure 7 = Figure 3B
Figure 8 = Figure 4
Figure 9 = Figure 5
Figure 10 = Figure 6
The figures are correctly numbered within the text and in the figure legends.
“c-KIT” should be written in capital letters (instead of “c-kit”), whenever it is the
name of the gene itself, such as
Page 1, line 9;
Page 1, line 21;
Page 3, line 11;
Page 3, line 14;
Table 1.
In the other places it has been done correctly.
Abstract
Page 1, line 1f: “…occurs in the sacrum.”, instead of “…in sacrum.”
Page 1, line 20: “…found in the sacrum.”, instead of “…in sacrum.”
Background
Page 3, line 4: “…non-lymphatic,…”, instead of “non-lympha”
Page 3, line 12: “We suggest that GIST should be…”, instead of “First of all,…”
Methods
Page 4, line 14: “…, and to exclude melanoma HMB45”, please specify as this is
an antibody not known to every reader.
Page 5, line 12: “…was carried out…”, instead of “carried”.
Page 7, line 4: “…was the same as for the first round,…”, instead of “as the first
round”.
Page 7, line 11: “4#l”, instead of “ul”.
Results, instead of “Result”.
Page 9, line 1: “The resected irregular tissue was…”, instead of “tissues was”
Page 9, line 10: “SM-actin”, instead of “SC-actin”.
Page 9, line 19: “…was found at position 100”, instead of “at the location of 100”.
Page 10, line 8: “The results indicate that GIST is a clonal neoplastic lesion.”,
instead of “…indicated that GIST was a neoplastic hyperplasia”.
Discussion
Page 11, line 10f: “The diagnosis of GISTs mostly relies on histopathological
features and the immunohistochemical phenotype,…”, instead of “rely” and
“immunohistochemical…”.
Page 11, line 12: ”…feature is”, instead of “was”.
Page 11, line 13f: Please change to“…90-95% of GISTs express CD117, 60-70%
express CD34, 30-40% SM-actin and only 5% are positive for S-100 protein.”
Page 11, line 14: “Please delete: “Expression of vimentin was always positive.”
Page 11, line 19: “…and showed”, instead of “besides”.
Page 13, line 18: “…were similar”, please delete “coincided”.
Figure legends
Figure 2 and Figure 3: Please give the original magnification, such as “Original
magnification 200x”.
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 declare that I do have no competing interests.
assistant