Clinical Features and Treatment Progress of Invasive Mucormycosis in Patients with Hematological Malignancies
Véronique Erard
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I thought this review was well written and thorough. My main suggestion is to add a section on diagnostics, lack of biomarkers, and therefore likely under recognition of mucormycosis.
There are some minor comments to make:
Line 47, as 3rd commonest invasive fungal infection, need to reword.
Lines 60-62, needs rewording as the data for diabetes and trauma is predominantly from India, so might be geographical/environmental differences as well as wealth of relevant countries.
Table 1 are descriptive data but are there any cohort analyses looking at odds ratios for relevant risk factors that could be used here. This would give a better of idea of level of risk with relevant conditions.
Line 139 what % were due to Rhizopus spp.?
Could some of the information in lines 187-215 be put into a table for easy reading.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript offers an extensive review of the subject. It outlines the different and main studies covering the subject matter. The presentation is objective and adequately structured.
The quality and originality of the manuscript lies in the fact that the it is based on a very detailed and extensive review of the published literature. Furthermore the relevant studies in this field of research are references. It is an accurate review of current knowledge, useful for both the specialists and the neophyte in the field. It reflects a very important piece of research work that deserves recognition to the authors. Regarding table number 4 it would be useful to describe the cases of BT-MCR occurring under prophylaxis and to state a hypothesis. The conclusions is consistent with
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
In this manuscript, Yang et al, analyze all aspects of invasive mucormycosis in the context of haematological malignancies. Risk factors, species encountered, clinical presentation, radiological signs, prognosis, antifungal therapy, prophylaxis, novel therapeutic approaches, risk of breakthrough infection are described. The manuscript is well organized, informative and interesting.
some minor remarks:
Line 63: “suffered from” instead of “who were complicated with”
Tables and text: "et al" : use italics
Table 2: in Please use period (.) at the end of all sentences on fifth row
Line 174: instead of “ Of course, there are exceptions.” you could use: “On the other hand”
Line 296: "survived" instead of "survival"
Line 542: please include the number of the references stated.
Line 543: "Kontoyiannis"-last name instead of "Dimitrios"-first name
Line 561: "restore" instead of "recover"
Line 566: period (.) after the reference
Line 577: "drugs" instead of "drug"
Line 614-15: "in vitro" in italics
Line 613: "Although the development of these novel drugs is inspiring, data are limited to in vitro or animal model studies, and large-scale clinical investigations are needed." instead of "Although the discovery and development of these novel drugs are inspiring since they have the potential to treat this life threatening disease, the evidences are limited to in vitro or animal model researches, and large-scale clinical investigations are needed further."
Paragraph Prophylaxis: Although previously analyzed, I would recommend you should mention the risk of breakthrough mucormycosis, despite prophylaxis, in this section, maybe in the last paragraph.
The quality of English language is fine.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
