Complex Vascular Reconstruction following Resection of a Large Retroperitoneal Teratoma
and Jun Li 1,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This case report is interesting and informative. The author stressed the importance of resection of teratoma with somatic malignancy. However, the descriptions of pathological findings are poor. Please check the following points.
- The statements “All tumor markers were negative (page 2, line 68)” are unclear. Please show the detail of tumor markers.
- The description of the resected tumor is unclear. Please show the macro and microscopic images and findings of the resected tumor.
- In this case report, the patient had neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgery. Please show the reasons and the evidence in the discussion section.
Author Response
Dear editor:
We thank the reviewers for the critical assessment of our work and the important comments made. The manuscript was revised according to the comments and suggestions of the reviewers. Please find attached the point-to-point answers to the reviewer’s comments.
Your sincerely,
Jun Li, MD
Reviewer 1: This case report is interesting and informative. The author stressed the importance of resection of teratoma with somatic malignancy. However, the descriptions of pathological findings are poor. Please check the following points.
The statements “All tumor markers were negative (page 2, line 68)” are unclear. Please show the detail of tumor markers.
The description of the resected tumor is unclear. Please show the macro and microscopic images and findings of the resected tumor.
In this case report, the patient had neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgery. Please show the reasons and the evidence in the discussion section.
Response: We thank the reviewer for the constructive comments and have addressed the issues named above. Tumor markers are now included in the manuscript, and more detail has been given to the histopathologic findings. The reasons for neoadjuvant therapy have been integrated into the discussion.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors presented a case of 25-year-old patient with a large retroperitoneal GCT with somatic malignant transformation, where resection of large abdominal blood vessels with complex reconstruction being necessary to completely remove the tumor. It has be shown that interdisciplinary surgical planning including vascular and general surgeons as well as radiologists is vital to ensure successful tumor resection.
Very well presented case with excellent Figures, especially shematic figures. Although case reports rarely meets criteria for publication, this one is definitely worth of publication. Case presentation is fluent and concise. Discussion should be improoved. References are up to date. Quality of English is excellent. Congratulations t the authors!
I do not have any serious remarks, just some minor objestions/suggestions:
- Please provide exact age of the patient in the abstract
- First sentence in introduction should be removed, this has nothing with an introduction.
- Statement regarding acceptance of the patient for publication should be mooved to case presentation.
- Discussion should be a little bit enlarged, more focusing on present case and should be a separate paragraph (not under case presentation).
Author Response
Dear editor:
We thank the reviewers for the critical assessment of our work and the important comments made. The manuscript was revised according to the comments and suggestions of the reviewers. Please find attached the point-to-point answers to the reviewer’s comments.
Your sincerely,
Jun Li, MD
Reviewer 2: The authors presented a case of 25-year-old patient with a large retroperitoneal GCT with somatic malignant transformation, where resection of large abdominal blood vessels with complex reconstruction being necessary to completely remove the tumor. It has be shown that interdisciplinary surgical planning including vascular and general surgeons as well as radiologists is vital to ensure successful tumor resection.
Very well presented case with excellent Figures, especially shematic figures. Although case reports rarely meets criteria for publication, this one is definitely worth of publication. Case presentation is fluent and concise. Discussion should be improoved. References are up to date. Quality of English is excellent. Congratulations t the authors!
I do not have any serious remarks, just some minor objestions/suggestions:
Please provide exact age of the patient in the abstract First sentence in introduction should be removed, this has nothing with an introduction.
Statement regarding acceptance of the patient for publication should be mooved to case presentation.
Discussion should be a little bit enlarged, more focusing on present case and should be a separate paragraph (not under case presentation).
Response: We thank the reviewer for the encouraging comments. The exact age of the patient has been included in the abstract as suggested and the discussion has been elaborated on. The first sentence has been removed from the introduction, as we agree that this has no place in the introduction.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
As I mentioned in the first review, please show the macro and microscopic images of the resected tumor.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We regret to inform you that no macroscopic or microscopic images of the tumor exist. We apologise for the misunderstanding in our last correspondence, where we thought a written description was required, which was then added to the manuscript. We hope that this doesn't minimise the quality of the manuscript significantly in your eyes.
Kind regards,
J. Li
