New Challenges in Bladder Cancer Diagnosis: How Biosensing Tools Can Lead to Population Screening Opportunities
, Antonella Guastaferro 1, Simona Barbato 1, Ferdinando Febbraio 2,* and Amelia Cimmino 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI recommend a minor revision to enhance its clarity and quality of this paper. Below are my specific comments:
1- Citations in the Biosensors Section:
The initial paragraphs discussing biosensors, "From lines 139 to 161", lack appropriate citations. It is essential to support the claims made with relevant literature to enhance the credibility of the arguments. I recommend including recent studies highlighting advancements in biosensing technologies, particularly in bladder cancer diagnostics or other cancers in general.
2- Details on Current Biosensor Applications:
While the manuscript mentions biosensors, it would benefit from a more comprehensive overview of their current applications in bladder cancer. Specific examples of existing biosensors, their mechanisms, and clinical outcomes should be elaborated upon. This additional detail will help readers understand how these tools are utilized in practice and their impact on patient management, as the medical doctors are still unaware.
3- Clarification on uc.8+ Expression:
The manuscript raises an essential question regarding the specificity of uc.8+ as a biomarker. It would be beneficial to clarify whether uc.8+ is exclusively associated with bladder cancer only or if it has been observed in other cancers and conditions. Providing this information will help contextualize its potential as a diagnostic tool and its relevance in broader oncological research.
4- Language and Style Adjustments:
A few grammatical errors and awkward phrasing could be corrected. I suggest reviewing the text for clarity and conciseness, ensuring the terminology is appropriate for the target audience.
Additionally, I would like to remind the authors to adhere to the journal's instructions for citations and image resolutions to ensure compliance with publication standards.
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewer for the positive comments that helped improve the manuscript.
Comment 1: Citations in the Biosensors Section: The initial paragraphs discussing biosensors, "From lines 139 to 161", lack appropriate citations. It is essential to support the claims made with relevant literature to enhance the credibility of the arguments. I recommend including recent studies highlighting advancements in biosensing technologies, particularly in bladder cancer diagnostics or other cancers in general.
Response 1: Agree. We have, accordingly, provided the references (from reference 32 to 46) to the initial paragraphs discussing biosensors from (now) lines 143 to 176. Also, we included the most recent studies in biosensing technologies related to bladder cancer diagnostics (lines 177 to 230).
Comment 2: Details on Current Biosensor Applications: While the manuscript mentions biosensors, it would benefit from a more comprehensive overview of their current applications in bladder cancer. Specific examples of existing biosensors, their mechanisms, and clinical outcomes should be elaborated upon. This additional detail will help readers understand how these tools are utilized in practice and their impact on patient management, as the medical doctors are still unaware.
Response 2: Agree. We have, accordingly, included the most recent studies in biosensing technologies related to bladder cancer diagnostics, describing their mechanisms and potential use in clinical (lines 177 to 230).
Comment 3: Clarification on uc.8+ Expression: The manuscript raises an essential question regarding the specificity of uc.8+ as a biomarker. It would be beneficial to clarify whether uc.8+ is exclusively associated with bladder cancer only or if it has been observed in other cancers and conditions. Providing this information will help contextualize its potential as a diagnostic tool and its relevance in broader oncological research.
Response 3: Agree. We have, accordingly, added the required information regarding the specificity of uc.8+ as a biomarker, in particular, we described its specificity and exclusive association with bladder cancer. (lines 320 to 328)
Comment 4: Language and Style Adjustments: A few grammatical errors and awkward phrasing could be corrected. I suggest reviewing the text for clarity and conciseness, ensuring the terminology is appropriate for the target audience.
Response 4: Agree. We have, accordingly, verified the text for clarity and conciseness, looking for grammatical errors and awkward phrasing.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors presented an interesting perspective regarding new challenges in bladder cancer diagnosis. The manuscript is well organized and thereby is acceptable after minor revision. The detailed comments are listed below.
1. The authors mentioned “FDA” in the manuscript, page 4 but did not describe what it stands for.
2. The authors summarized some potential diagnostic tests for bladder cancer presented in Table 1, page 5. In this case, the authors failed to provide the references.
3. In section 2.2 (page 6), I did not completely agree with the authors’ statement: “According to report….[19].” This may be correct for the sensor array, not for sensor specificity in general. Please address this issue.
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewer for the positive comments that helped improve the manuscript.
Comment 1: The authors mentioned “FDA” in the manuscript, page 4 but did not describe what it stands for.
Response 1: Agree. We have, accordingly, described the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Comment 2: The authors summarized some potential diagnostic tests for bladder cancer presented in Table 1, page 5. In this case, the authors failed to provide the references.
Response 2: Agree. We have, accordingly, provided the references to the test in table 1.
Comment 3: In section 2.2 (page 6), I did not completely agree with the authors’ statement: “According to report….[19].” This may be correct for the sensor array, not for sensor specificity in general. Please address this issue.
Response 3: Agree. We have, accordingly, modified the text (lines 166 to 169) as follows: "Literature suggests a growing tendency to use multiple analytes, such as biomarker panels or combinations of biomarkers with clinical variables, to confirm the presence of malignant cells [40,41]. Therefore, multi-sensing capacity for the biosensor must be improved to achieve higher specificity [42]."
