Reviewer's report
Title:Dome-type Carcinoma of the Colon; A Rare Variant of Adenocarcinoma
Resembling a Submucosal Tumor: a case report
Version: 3Date:8 November 2011
Reviewer: Colin Stewart
Reviewer's report:
The authors present a case of dome carcinoma of the colon including endoscopic
images. As the authors note, their case is unusual in that it showed advanced
local spread (to the subserosa) while apparently maintaining its dome phenotype.
The paper is well written and the histological illustrations are convincing.
There are no major revisions required.
Minor essential revisions
1. In the pathological description (p5) the authors state that the tumor was
associated with ‘a dense lymphocytic infiltration’. I think they should include a
comment that reactive germinal centres were also present (illustrated in their
Figures 5 & 6) since the association with germinal centres was a key feature that
led Jass and colleagues to postulate that these tumors were arising from (or
differentiating towards) dome-type epithelium.
2. The authors appear to use microsatellite instability and mismatch repair
protein immunohistochemistry interchangeably. These are related but different
techniques and they do not always provide identical results. Thus, it is not strictly
accurate to state that the normal MMR protein staining in their case indicated a
microsatellite stable phenotype (p5) although, of course, this is likely to be true.
Equally, some of the previously recorded cases (p6) were examined using either
molecular or immunohistochemical techniques.
3. In the Conclusion (p6) the authors suggest that the terminology used by Jass
and colleagues in their initial description of this tumor was ‘Adenocarcinoma of
colon associated with gut-associated lymphoid tissue’ (their parenthesis). In fact,
and as is clear in References 1 and 2 in this article, the term used by Jass et al
was ‘ Adenocarcinoma of colon differentiating as dome epithelium of
gut-associated lymphoid tissue’. It seems odd that the current authors have
omitted ‘dome epithelium’ since they themselves use the term ‘dome-type
carcinoma’ as have others previously.
4. The standard Journal abbreviation for Reference 7 should be ‘J Clin Pathol’.
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 have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:Dome-type Carcinoma of the Colon; A Rare Variant of Adenocarcinoma
Resembling a Submucosal Tumor: a case report
Version: 3Date:8 November 2011
Reviewer: Colin Stewart
Reviewer's report:
The authors present a case of dome carcinoma of the colon including endoscopic
images. As the authors note, their case is unusual in that it showed advanced
local spread (to the subserosa) while apparently maintaining its dome phenotype.
The paper is well written and the histological illustrations are convincing.
There are no major revisions required.
Minor essential revisions
1. In the pathological description (p5) the authors state that the tumor was
associated with ‘a dense lymphocytic infiltration’. I think they should include a
comment that reactive germinal centres were also present (illustrated in their
Figures 5 & 6) since the association with germinal centres was a key feature that
led Jass and colleagues to postulate that these tumors were arising from (or
differentiating towards) dome-type epithelium.
2. The authors appear to use microsatellite instability and mismatch repair
protein immunohistochemistry interchangeably. These are related but different
techniques and they do not always provide identical results. Thus, it is not strictly
accurate to state that the normal MMR protein staining in their case indicated a
microsatellite stable phenotype (p5) although, of course, this is likely to be true.
Equally, some of the previously recorded cases (p6) were examined using either
molecular or immunohistochemical techniques.
3. In the Conclusion (p6) the authors suggest that the terminology used by Jass
and colleagues in their initial description of this tumor was ‘Adenocarcinoma of
colon associated with gut-associated lymphoid tissue’ (their parenthesis). In fact,
and as is clear in References 1 and 2 in this article, the term used by Jass et al
was ‘ Adenocarcinoma of colon differentiating as dome epithelium of
gut-associated lymphoid tissue’. It seems odd that the current authors have
omitted ‘dome epithelium’ since they themselves use the term ‘dome-type
carcinoma’ as have others previously.
4. The standard Journal abbreviation for Reference 7 should be ‘J Clin Pathol’.
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 have no competing interests.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Dome-type Carcinoma of the Colon; A Rare Variant of Adenocarcinoma
Resembling a Submucosal Tumor: a case report
Version: 3Date:8 November 2011
Reviewer: Colin Stewart
Reviewer's report:
The authors present a case of dome carcinoma of the colon including endoscopic
images. As the authors note, their case is unusual in that it showed advanced
local spread (to the subserosa) while apparently maintaining its dome phenotype.
The paper is well written and the histological illustrations are convincing.
There are no major revisions required.
Minor essential revisions
1. In the pathological description (p5) the authors state that the tumor was
associated with ‘a dense lymphocytic infiltration’. I think they should include a
comment that reactive germinal centres were also present (illustrated in their
Figures 5 & 6) since the association with germinal centres was a key feature that
led Jass and colleagues to postulate that these tumors were arising from (or
differentiating towards) dome-type epithelium.
2. The authors appear to use microsatellite instability and mismatch repair
protein immunohistochemistry interchangeably. These are related but different
techniques and they do not always provide identical results. Thus, it is not strictly
accurate to state that the normal MMR protein staining in their case indicated a
microsatellite stable phenotype (p5) although, of course, this is likely to be true.
Equally, some of the previously recorded cases (p6) were examined using either
molecular or immunohistochemical techniques.
3. In the Conclusion (p6) the authors suggest that the terminology used by Jass
and colleagues in their initial description of this tumor was ‘Adenocarcinoma of
colon associated with gut-associated lymphoid tissue’ (their parenthesis). In fact,
and as is clear in References 1 and 2 in this article, the term used by Jass et al
was ‘ Adenocarcinoma of colon differentiating as dome epithelium of
gut-associated lymphoid tissue’. It seems odd that the current authors have
omitted ‘dome epithelium’ since they themselves use the term ‘dome-type
carcinoma’ as have others previously.
4. The standard Journal abbreviation for Reference 7 should be ‘J Clin Pathol’.
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 have no competing interests.
assistant