Skip to Content
MDPIMDPI

Advanced

by
  • Amy Chadburn 1,
  • Annunziata Gloghini 2 and
  • Antonino Carbone 3,*

Reviewer 1: Miguel Ángel Canales Albendea Reviewer 2: Anonymous Reviewer 3: Supriya Gupta

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

-This is a review article, which is well written and structured and references are appropriate, so from my point of view it does not need any additional comments, as it can be accepted in the current version.

Author Response

Thank you

Reviewer 2 Report

Very timely and needed overview of the changes in pathologic classification of B-cell lymphomas and immunodeficiency related lymphoproliferative disorders.

Only minor edits that I noted to double check if the word used is correct:

Line 194- is "process" the word you wanted?

Line 324 is "recur" the word you wanted?

Author Response

Thank you

Line 194- is "process" the word you wanted?

Progress 

Line 324 is "recur" the word you wanted?

Occur

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript titled ‘Classification of B-cell lymphomas and immunodeficiency-related lymphoproliferations: What’s new’ by Chadburn et al. The article provides an in-depth review of the classification of B-cell lymphomas and immunodeficiency associated lymphoproliferative disorders. This review is relevant and informative for readers as it gives the reader an insight into the new classification of lymphoid malignancies and upcoming changes. I commend the authors on their efforts. However, I would like to convey a few recommendations to improve on the article further:

 

1.     Lines 122-123: “The new lymphoma entities proposed in the Classification of Haematolymphoid Tumours, 5th edition are in red. Modified and adapted from ref.s6,7.” – In the manuscript that was available for review, there were no colors in the tables, so I am unsure if the final publication would include colors. Authors may need to remove this line.

2.     Line 152: please expand ‘VH’ as this is the first time this abbreviation has been used in the article.

3.     In section 2.3, IRF4 large B-cell lymphoma and testicular lymphoma are described under ‘follicular lymphoma’. While I see the authors’ point about these entities having a follicular and diffuse pattern leading to inclusion under the ‘follicular lymphoma’ section, this may be confusing to readers as these diagnoses are large B-cell lymphomas clinically. The discussion about these entities may need to be moved under the ‘large B-cell lymphoma’ section.

4.     Expand section 3 on cutaneous follicle center lymphoma, and describe the frequency of the proto-oncogene REL as not previously mentioned. Please elaborate on how this entity is considered an indolent disease: is it due to low Ki67? presenting as low stage? etc. Also describe briefly how it is different from other cutaneous B-cell lymphomas.

5.     In the conclusion, please expand the discussion on the implications of the proposed changes. Could the authors provide their perspective on how it would affect diagnosis and treatment in the future?

6.     A few minor grammatical and punctuation errors were noted which would require revision – these include missing commas, additional commas and periods, incorrect tenses used in a sentence etc. I have not included each individual error, however here are a few where the error was interfering with correct interpretation of the sentence: 

 

·      Line 198: reword to ‘will be subclassified into clinically relevant categories in the future’

·      Line 249: change ‘but genetically are different’ to ‘are genetically different’

·      Line 283-284: consider revising this sentence for better clarity, or changing to "As such, cases with MYC rearrangements with either an immunoglobulin or a non-immunoglobulin gene partner are included in the DLBCL/HGBL MYC/CL2, HBGBL-DH-BCL2 and HGBCL-DH-BCL6 categories."

·      Line 324: ‘recur’ to ‘occur’

·      Line 405-406: Reword for clarity ‘often difficult clearly label’ to ‘often difficult to clearly label’

·      Line 425: Change ‘obviously’ to ‘In the future’

·      Line 428: non to "no"

Author Response

Thank you.

In red the answers.

  1. Lines 122-123: “The new lymphoma entities proposed in the Classification of Haematolymphoid Tumours, 5th edition are in red. Modified and adapted from ref.s6,7.” – In the manuscript that was available for review, there were no colors in the tables, so I am unsure if the final publication would include colors. Authors may need to remove this line.

We removed the sentence “The new lymphoma entities proposed in the Classification of Haematolymphoid Tumours, 5th edition are in red”.

  1. Line 152: please expand ‘VH’ as this is the first time this abbreviation has been used in the article.

Immunoglobulin VH genes

  1. In section 2.3, IRF4 large B-cell lymphoma and testicular lymphoma are described under ‘follicular lymphoma’. While I see the authors’ point about these entities having a follicular and diffuse pattern leading to inclusion under the ‘follicular lymphoma’ section, this may be confusing to readers as these diagnoses are large B-cell lymphomas clinically. The discussion about these entities may need to be moved under the ‘large B-cell lymphoma’ section.

IRF4 large B-cell lymphoma has been moved to large B-cell lymphoma section.

  1. Expand section 3 on cutaneous follicle center lymphoma, and describe the frequency of the proto-oncogene REL as not previously mentioned. Please elaborate on how this entity is considered an indolent disease: is it due to low Ki67? presenting as low stage? etc. Also describe briefly how it is different from other cutaneous B-cell lymphomas.

Section 3 has been expanded

  1. In the conclusion, please expand the discussion on the implications of the proposed changes. Could the authors provide their perspective on how it would affect diagnosis and treatment in the future?

The conclusion has been expanded

  1. A few minor grammatical and punctuation errors were noted which would require revision – these include missing commas, additional commas and periods, incorrect tenses used in a sentence etc. I have not included each individual error, however here are a few where the error was interfering with correct interpretation of the sentence: 

 

  • Line 198: reword to ‘will be subclassified into clinically relevant categories in the future’

The sentence has has been reworded

  • Line 249: change ‘but genetically are different’ to ‘are genetically different’

The sentence has has been reworded

 

  • Line 283-284: consider revising this sentence for better clarity, or changing to "As such, cases with MYC rearrangements with either an immunoglobulin or a non-immunoglobulin gene partner are included in the DLBCL/HGBL MYC/CL2, HBGBL-DH-BCL2 and HGBCL-DH-BCL6 categories."

The sentence has has been reworded

      Line 324: ‘recur’ to ‘occur’

Done

  • Line 405-406: Reword for clarity ‘often difficult clearly label’ to ‘often difficult to clearly label’

The sentence has has been reworded

  • Line 425: Change ‘obviously’ to ‘In the future’

Done

  • Line 428: non to "no"

Done