Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Roca et al. reviewed literature on diagnosis of PM including epidemiology and pathogenesis of PM, disease presentation (symptoms and Imaging modalities), diagnosis (diagnosis evaluation, molecular and genetic markers, potential new tests for diagnosis), staging and histologic classification (staging and histologic classification). The review is comprehensive on the subject and easy to follow. 

1.       Please correct spelling errors. Just list some here:

-          Line 68: “…..nitrogen species ((ROS/RNS) (15).”. Double parentheses was used.

-          Line 206: “……important role in tumor developement and progression, in metastatisation, and ….”. Does author mean “metastasis” here?

-          Line 232: “…developement, metastatisation and drug resistance”. Does author mean “metastasis” here?

-          Line 213: “……….Merlin protein wich plays a…”. Please correct the spelling of “wich”.

-          Line 219: “kinases have as more frequent targets the transcriptional coactivators YAP and TAZ”. Please clarify this sentence by rewording it.

-          Line 227: “….….downregulated in non-epitelioid PM”.  Please correct the spelling of “non-epitelioid”.

-          Line 237: “……., an other ideal antigen……..” please use “another” instead of “an other”. Please also see line 344.

-          Line 239: “PM can be caracterized also from….” Please correct the spelling of “caracterized”.

-          Line 275 and 277: Is “MpM” = “MPM”?

-          Line 318: “In in these cases cytologic procedures can allow distincion ………”. Please correct the spelling and grammar.

-           

2.       Line 32: what is the abbreviation of “MDT”?

3.       AI has been researched in diagnosis of various disease conditions although it is still in research mode. Can authors comment on the potential of AI in PM diagnosis and how AI can facilitate the diagnosis of PM if authors think that AI can play a role in this field?

4.       Some liquid biopsy biomarkers have been approved for other cancer types for early detection and diagnosis. Can authors comment on liquid biopsy marker research in PM? Any potential?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are spelling errors found throughout the paper. Please correct them. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment 'Replies to the reviewers'

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This review is not innovative, but very comprehensive and very well organized. Is is very interesting, clear and readable.

Only little spelling problems were found.

 

Line 16: remains (not remain)

Lines 32-33:  MDT meetings. This abbreviation lacks explanation.

Line 352: of (not fo)

 

Line 355: sarcomatoid (not sarcomatorid)

Author Response

Please see the attachment 'Replies to the reviewers'

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The present paper reviewed the diagnosis of pleural mesothelioma. The Review title is interesting and well-structured, focusing on an underreported, unexplored rising issue, which is the main strengths on this review at the first glance.

At this stage, I have major/minor reservations which are brought to the attention of the authors in a most constructive manner for their considerations as noted below.

My first main concern is about the uniqueness of this review and how this review would add or summarise our current knowledge in a best way possible, given there are similar available, published reviews. Please note, I still appreciate your approach in this paper, the question is how we can make it better and more interesting for the reader. So, it would be great if the authors point out the addition/and or the goal of this review to our current knowledge on PM diagnosis, the gaps clearly in the end of the introduction?

Please, if possible, provide the details of the selection criteria for your considered papers (including the publication date, databases), to give the readers better understanding.

Please provide your own conclusion message (clinical interpretation of the results) in a non-repetitive, confident way but by considering that it might have limitations and recommending future studies in a very specific direction. Conducting of reviews and meta-analysis has their own specific aim in scientific publication, as these articles are coming to narrow down and simplified the findings of different publications on a detailed goal into a practical message. Please consider that the main goal of present paper is very interesting to me.

Possibly, add a separate “limitation” section from your view.

Author Response

Please see the attachment 'Replies for the reviewers'

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf