Acute Myeloid Leukemia in Older Patients: From New Biological Insights to Targeted Therapies
, Marco Giovannini 1, Carla Mazzone 1, Nelida Ines Noguera 2,3,†and Paolo de Fabritiis 1,2,†
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn the review manuscript, Niscola et al. provided a comprehensive information about the current situation of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in aged patients, ranging from diagnosis, prognosis, and clinical interventions. In prior to obtaining the acceptance for publication, the authors need to address all my concerns and comments below.
1. Chapter 3.6 is too long, easily causing tiredness to the reader. This chapter must be reduced or separated into multiple subheadings. Similar issue also happens in chapter 3.9 and the authors must correct that.
2. The information from chapter 3.7 to 3.9 should be merged into another big chapter, as they are associated with clinical treatment in AML, not matching the title of chapter 3.
3. Also, in the aspect of clinical treatment strategy, as AML is a highly clonal heterogeneous disease, the authors should discuss about recent updates in using single cell sequencing techniques to target AML at the level of single clone.
4. Why does Table 4 appear before Table 3?
5. Chapter 2 is not necessary for a review article.
6. For chapter 3.1, as a long paragraph and much information provided, I strongly recommend the authors having a descriptive figure showing list of genetic aberrations, contributing to AML transformation. It would not be really good if there is no figure at all in a scientific article.
7. In Table 3 (as currently written in the manuscript) and Table 5, references or IDs of ongoing clinical trials must be added. Moreover, Table 5 must be placed inside the chapter 3.9.
8. The “Key Points” in Summary must be written in a paragraph, to keep the formal manner of a scientific article.
9. The indication of Table (Table 1 and 2 in manuscript) should not be mentioned in Introduction.
Minor concerns:
1. Gene names must be written in Italic format.
2. Line 38, “environmental” or “microenvironmental”
3. Line 79 “de novo” and line 210 “ex vivo” must be in Italic format.
4. Check again “HCS”, it must be consistent as “HSC(s)” throughout the manuscript.
5. Line 73, LSC must be written in full annotation for the 1st appearance in the manuscript.
6. Citations must be placed to the end of a sentence.
7. Line 161, “t-NPM1” might be “t-AML”.
8. Sentence in line 267-268 must have a grammatical check.
9. Line 292, “Table 2” must be removed as it appears again in line 293.
10. There are many long and complicated sentences. There are typical examples: line 40-44, line 46-50, line 80-85, line 101-104, line 104-109, line 118-122, line 205-209, line 263-267, line 268-273.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe manuscript must have an extensive English language checking for the resubmission.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your suggestion.
The response was given as an attachment.
Best regards.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors report acute myeloid leukemia in older patients.
1. The authors should describe comorbidities and adverse drug events in older patients.
2. Please correct the numbers in the table.
3. The authors should provide a diagram at the end of the text, including recommended treatments for older patients.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
thank you for your suggestions.
The response is given as an attachment.
Best regards.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript entitled: “Acute myeloid leukemia in older patients: from new biological insights to targeted therapies.” (ID: curroncol-3232417) by Niscola et al. summarizes the most recent advances in biology and therapeutic approaches in AML, focusing on older patients.
Albeit the review is well written and of special interest, comments should be addressed to further improve the manuscript.
Comments:
1. Title: Since the authors highlight in their title and in their aims to focus on older AML patients, the review should be more balanced accordingly and some parts should be enlarged e.g. guidance of treatment decisions in older AML patients (see page 14 line 471-478) or monitoring of older AML patients under therapy and supportive care management.
2. Summary: the authors mentioned the need for better integration of palliative care during treatment. Please highlight this section more intensively also within the review.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
thank you for your suggestions.
The response is given as an attachment.
Best regards.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear the authors,
After the major revision, the manuscript has been much improved.
Most of my concerns/comments have been addressed. Although I do not see your responses for my comment #6 - #9 in the cover letter, I found the changes or additions for those comments in the revised manuscript.
The only things that the authors must add into the manuscript is Figure 1. They mentioned "Figure 1" in Chapter 3.1 (Line 75) but I do not see the Figure 1 near there. Moreover, the legend of Figure 1 was placed at the end of the manuscript (just before Reference). Once this issue can be addressed, the manuscript can be accepted for publication.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsnone
