The Future of Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment: Unlocking the Power of Biomarkers and Personalized Molecular-Targeted Therapies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the Manuscript “The Future of Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment: Unlocking the Power of Biomarkers and Personalized Molecular-Targeted Therapies” submitted to Biomolecules the Authors undertook the task of reviewing the current knowledge on the advanced application of biomarkers in cancer detection and treatment. In the face of the toll the tumors are still collecting such undertaking is worth pursuing. Unfortunately, the review seems to be very narrative – more so than substantial. There are numerous repetitions of the information – especially parts 1-3 should be significantly shortened but should contain more systematic information about biomarkers and not just some examples. Those that are included should be described in more detail. The same goes for part 4 – Personalized Molecular Therapies. There should be more scientific information about the methods involved in personalized molecular therapies – at least brief descriptions of each of them.

Concluding, the topic is very interesting and important one but the Manuscript should be considerably shorten in terms of narration and include more information about biomarkers themselves and about methods applied in personalized therapies.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable and constructive feedback. Your comments have greatly helped us to enhance both the content and clarity of the manuscript. We have carefully revised the text in line with your suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This review addresses a highly relevant and timely topic in modern oncology, i.e. the integration of molecular biomarkers and molecular-targeted therapies for cancer diagnosis and treatment. The manuscript is well-structured and discusses multiple innovative technologies, such as liquid biopsy, plasma proteomics, AI-assisted diagnostics, and personalized therapeutic approaches.

However, some sections remain general and would benefit from deeper mechanistic or clinical insights (e.g., synthetic lethality, AI-based diagnostics).

The manuscript is overall well-written and clear also for readers who are not specialists in molecular oncology. However,  the authors should avoid too informal statement, such as “crystal ball” or “sniper fire”.

Figures: Figures' captions should be improved and the Biorender statement should be removed by the figures and stay just in the captions. Figure 1 is too basic and may be improved.

Tables: References within the table footnotes may be useful.

 

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable and constructive feedback. Your comments have greatly helped us to enhance both the content and clarity of the manuscript. We have carefully revised the text in line with your suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors present an article that is generally well-developed in relation to the proposed title. Although it has a clear structure and relevant examples, there are some points that could be improved:

1. The article is repetitive in some sections. The idea that biomarkers allow early detection, treatment personalization, and better prognosis is repeated in almost every section. Although this is a central point, the information could be consolidated or unnecessary reiterations avoided. It is suggested to narrow down the presented content and focus on the most relevant aspects.

2. The above leads to excessive length. Some ideas that are clearly stated in earlier sections are revisited with the same depth in later sections.

3. Although some current challenges are highlighted (cost, accessibility, etc.), there is no discussion on how these could be overcome beyond simply mentioning them.

4. The language used, while occasionally moving away from technical jargon (which is positive) sometimes adopts a more emotional tone rather than an analytical one. This may work well in outreach articles, but is less appropriate in scientific reviews. For example, the phrase “These breakthroughs are not just laboratory victories; they represent real-world miracles” could be revised to “These advances have demonstrated significant clinical impact, improving outcomes in real-world settings.”

5. It is recommended to improve the visual quality of the figures. Instead of using screenshots, it would be preferable to directly import the images. Moreover, the figures are not self-explanatory; they would benefit from additional elements such as connecting lines, logical sequences, or visual cues that facilitate interpretation and help establish continuity among the represented elements. A brief description in the figure caption is also recommended.

6. In the conclusion section, it would be valuable for the authors to include their own reflections, identify knowledge gaps, and highlight emerging research directions they consider priorities. This section is not structured as a true final conclusion. Rather than offering a critical analysis or original contributions from the review, it reiterates concepts already addressed in the body of the text. A clear position from the authors on the current and future challenges in the field is necessary, as well as an integrative synthesis that outlines their hypotheses, recommendations, or proposals to advance research or clinical practice.

7. It is recommended to standardize the references to the journal’s formatting style.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable and constructive feedback. Your comments have greatly helped us to enhance both the content and clarity of the manuscript. We have carefully revised the text in line with your suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After the alternations the Authors made to the Manuscript “The Future of Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment: Unlocking the Power of Biomarkers and Personalized Molecular-Targeted Therapies” submitted to Biomolecules the work is much more clear and gives a new spotlight to the essential facts in the paper. The paper is very interesting and well written. The only very minor remark that should be taken into consideration by the Authors before publishing is introduction of explanation of abbreviations used throughout the text because some of them are missing from the list of abbreviations at the end of the paper and in some cases the explanations are missing in the text and in still other instances there is no explanation neither in the text nor in the list of abbreviations. Please go carefully throughout the text and supplement the abbreviations.

Author Response

Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript once again. We sincerely appreciate your positive feedback and have addressed your comments with care. Below, you will find our detailed responses along with the corresponding revisions made in the re-submitted files.

Response ：We appreciate your positive comments on the clarity and interest of our manuscript (comment accepted). We have taken your suggestion regarding abbreviations very seriously. We have thoroughly reviewed the text and the list of abbreviations to ensure that all abbreviations are defined appropriately, either upon first use in the text or in the comprehensive list. Additionally, we have highlighted all changes made across the manuscript and in the list of abbreviations section for your convenience. Thank you for pointing this out.