Next Article in Journal
Machine Learning Applied to Pre-Operative Computed-Tomography-Based Radiomic Features Can Accurately Differentiate Uterine Leiomyoma from Leiomyosarcoma: A Pilot Study
Previous Article in Journal
Coagulation Protease-Driven Cancer Immune Evasion: Potential Targets for Cancer Immunotherapy
Previous Article in Special Issue
CD44 in Bladder Cancer
 
 
Review
Peer-Review Record

CD44: A New Prognostic Marker in Colorectal Cancer?

Cancers 2024, 16(8), 1569; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16081569
by Pina Ziranu 1,*, Andrea Pretta 1, Valentina Aimola 2, Flaviana Cau 2, Stefano Mariani 1, Alessandra Pia D’Agata 1, Claudia Codipietro 1, Daiana Rizzo 1, Veronica Dell’Utri 1, Giorgia Sanna 1, Giusy Moledda 1, Andrea Cadoni 1, Eleonora Lai 1, Marco Puzzoni 1, Valeria Pusceddu 1, Massimo Castagnola 3, Mario Scartozzi 1,† and Gavino Faa 4,5,†
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Cancers 2024, 16(8), 1569; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16081569
Submission received: 18 January 2024 / Revised: 19 March 2024 / Accepted: 13 April 2024 / Published: 19 April 2024

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The review article "CD44: a new prognostic marker in colorectal cancer?"  is primarily focused on compiling the prognostic, predictive and therapeutic role of CD44 in CRC. Overall, the article is well-compiled and well-written with an easier flow of reading. However, I feel that the authors primarily focused on CD44 as a whole or its variants only, and ignored the importance of its structural domains, more specifically the cytoplasmic domain, which is crucial to activate most of the CD44-mediated signaling pathways, and is the key to CD44-specific roles in most of the cancers. Given a limitation of a review article, it reads good, but it can be improved by including a subheading for compiling the role of individual domains of CD44.  

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. We appreciate your observations. As you suggested, we created a subheading to describe the role of CD44's three domains. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

it is an interesting subject however there is not any novelty. There are a number or reviews on this topic. 

Author Response

R: Thank you for your comment. We tried to give our interpretation of the data already present in the literature.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for making changes to improve the flow of the reading and the overall importance of this article.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The review did not add in the scientfic knowdledge. Lack of innovation

Back to TopTop