Cutting Through History: The Evolution of Glioblastoma Surgery

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

From a surgical standpoint, the current study offers a comprehensive review of the development, history, and optimization of surgical resection in glioblastoma patients. I recommend that the authors explicitly introduce the term "glioblastoma multiforme" by Percival Bailey and Harvey Cushing in 1926 and add the use of Laser Interstitial Thermal Therapy (LITT) as a minimally invasive treatment option. Additionally, integrating discussion on focused ultrasound-related sonodynamic therapy or the opening of the blood-brain barrier (BBB) for clinical trials, and/or the role of liquid biopsy, would provide further valuable insights.

Author Response

From a surgical standpoint, the current study offers a comprehensive review of the development, history, and optimization of surgical resection in glioblastoma patients. I recommend that the authors explicitly introduce the term "glioblastoma multiforme" by Percival Bailey and Harvey Cushing in 1926 and add the use of Laser Interstitial Thermal Therapy (LITT) as a minimally invasive treatment option. Additionally, integrating discussion on focused ultrasound-related sonodynamic therapy or the opening of the blood-brain barrier (BBB) for clinical trials, and/or the role of liquid biopsy, would provide further valuable insights.

Thank you for your comment and insight

We have made the changes you have suggested.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors present a very nice historical review of surgical resection for glioblastoma. the review is well written and touches on relevant references. My only comment would be to mention, at the end of the paper, how increased tissue availability driven by surgery has led to the development of novel promising molecular therapies.

Minor comment:

Line 67: should read "highlighted"

Author Response

The authors present a very nice historical review of surgical resection for glioblastoma. the review is well written and touches on relevant references. My only comment would be to mention, at the end of the paper, how increased tissue availability driven by surgery has led to the development of novel promising molecular therapies.

Minor comment:

Line 67: should read "highlighted"

 

Thank you for your comment.

We have made the changes you have recommended, especially near the end with the inclusion of the value of tissue banks

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author, I give you the following comment. Please address this in your manuscript to enhance the readability and understanding of your manuscript.

 

Major Comments:

 

1.       Scope and depth: Is the historical history of glioblastoma surgery sufficiently covered in the manuscript, or have specific significant turning points or advancements been left out or underemphasized?

2.       Present and Prospective Views: How successfully does the manuscript balance discussing past surgical techniques and current developments in treating glioblastoma? Are there any facets of upcoming surgical advances that warrant further development?

3.       Scientific Exactness: Is the influence of surgical treatments on patient outcomes over time critically analyzed in this review? Is the story of surgical evolution supported by reliable and current sources and data?

4.       Please add a schematic diagram and figure compared with other research works.

Minor Comments:

1.       Abstract Clarity: Does the abstract appropriately convey the substance of the review clearly and succinctly? Is there anything in the abstract that could be clarified or made more readable?

2.       Terminology and Consistency: When describing surgical methods or historical periods, are all technical words and historical allusions utilized consistently throughout the manuscript? Is there a concept that needs to be defined or explained to a wider audience?

3.       Formatting and Grammar: Should the manuscript be edited for clarity and a polished presentation, are there any small typographical or grammatical issues (e.g., line 9, where "provide of an overview" should be changed to "provide an overview")?

 

These questions will help provide a structured review addressing major content-related issues and minor presentation concerns.

 

Best Regards

Author Response

Dear Author, I give you the following comment. Please address this in your manuscript to enhance the readability and understanding of your manuscript.

 

Major Comments:

 

1. Scope and depth: Is the historical history of glioblastoma surgery sufficiently covered in the manuscript, or have specific significant turning points or advancements been left out or underemphasized?

-- Yes the history of glioma surgery was sufficiently covered and we did not leave out major advancements to the best of our knowledge.

1. Present and Prospective Views: How successfully does the manuscript balance discussing past surgical techniques and current developments in treating glioblastoma? Are there any facets of upcoming surgical advances that warrant further development?

-- Excellent comment. We dedicated separate sections to past and future developments

1. Scientific Exactness: Is the influence of surgical treatments on patient outcomes over time critically analyzed in this review? Is the story of surgical evolution supported by reliable and current sources and data?

-- We did not do a critical appraisal of specific tehniques with respect to outcomes for patients because that was beyond the scope of the paper.

1. Please add a schematic diagram and figure compared with other research works.

-- It is challenging to add a schematic diagram and figure to compare a previous work that discusses the historical nature of this paper

Minor Comments:

1. Abstract Clarity: Does the abstract appropriately convey the substance of the review clearly and succinctly? Is there anything in the abstract that could be clarified or made more readable?

-- we have updated the abstract, thank you for your comment

1. Terminology and Consistency: When describing surgical methods or historical periods, are all technical words and historical allusions utilized consistently throughout the manuscript? Is there a concept that needs to be defined or explained to a wider audience?

-- we kept the technicalities to a minimum and kept everything consistent

1. Formatting and Grammar: Should the manuscript be edited for clarity and a polished presentation, are there any small typographical or grammatical issues (e.g., line 9, where "provide of an overview" should be changed to "provide an overview")?

-- Thank you. We have fixed this.