When Vessels and Sarcomas Combine: A Review of the Inferior Vena Cava Leiomyosarcoma

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Well written manuscript summarizing literature on venous leiomyosarcoma.

Comments:
1) consider adding a discussion section

2) change final remarks to conclusion

3) introduction- shorten, remove duplicate sentences, "least common type of MLS"

Author Response

We thank te author for the comments/review:

Comments:
1) consider adding a discussion section

We did not add a discussion section, because in each section we were already discussing the subjects. The idea of the manuscript was to "provoke" the reader in each topic

2) change final remarks to conclusion

Done

3) introduction- shorten, remove duplicate sentences, "least common type of MLS"

Done

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The review is well written although it does not bring any new leading evidence or knowledge in the field.

I think that the overall shape o the manuscript can be reviewed to increase its readability.

Moreover some recent paper, among those two Italian reviews (from the centres with the most relevant experience in the field of leiomyosarcoma) are laking in the bibliography:

- PMID: 27566012 DOI: 10.1016/j.suronc.2016.05.002

- PMID: 30792153 DOI: 10.1016/j.jvsv.2018.10.023

- PMID: 36239927 DOI: 10.23736/S0021-9509.22.12408-0

- PMID: 36239928 DOI: 10.23736/S0021-9509.22.12418-3

Comments on the Quality of English Language

none

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for the comments.

We have added the corresponding literature to the manuscript, as well as others

We also inserted a short topic regarding the importance of radiology, since it is pivotal in this disease, albeit the focus is on pathology

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract is limited authors mentioned the LMS and type of it as well as mentioning that it is rare case, and the type of the study. Please mention in the abstract the diagnosis tools and the best modalities of diagnosis, as well as one results of literature that you have studied throughout this review manuscript.

Asking author to study some systemic review to improve selection of literature (Can go to PRISMA) to select some studies and then exclude some them according to specific criteria. https://www.covidence.org/blog/what-is-prisma-whats-new-in-the-2020-guideline-2/?campaignid=13271466382&adgroupid=123024098619&adid=524233276711&gclid=CjwKCAjw6eWnBhAKEiwADpnw9p8BpFsJzhBZGNN_AbJK7n-T6EFRbvcFU2y3fMp2yPLbR_ZogpxQjhoCViwQAvD_BwE

The current systemic review article is of important to the field but the main deficiency of it is limited literature and neglect of imaging tool as diagnosis as well as mentioning the accuracy and Sensitivity of diagnostic tool.

Also authors can extend the manuscript to prevalence of LMS as general and then come to the prevalence of vascular LMS.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English writing is scientific sound but some shortages are there in the manuscript that I have mentioned to the authors 

The manuscript aim is clear and of important to the field and oncology field specifically.

The authors should arrange his/her writing well to give more dimensions to his paper and become constructive.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for the comments

Abstract is limited authors mentioned the LMS and type of it as well as mentioning that it is rare case, and the type of the study. Please mention in the abstract the diagnosis tools and the best modalities of diagnosis, as well as one results of literature that you have studied throughout this review manuscript.

We added a topic regarding imaging modalities

Asking author to study some systemic review to improve selection of literature (Can go to PRISMA) to select some studies and then exclude some them according to specific criteria. https://www.covidence.org/blog/what-is-prisma-whats-new-in-the-2020-guideline-2/?campaignid=13271466382&adgroupid=123024098619&adid=524233276711&gclid=CjwKCAjw6eWnBhAKEiwADpnw9p8BpFsJzhBZGNN_AbJK7n-T6EFRbvcFU2y3fMp2yPLbR_ZogpxQjhoCViwQAvD_BwE

We did not go by PRISMA at 100% because we cite some ancient articles due to their historical relevance to the subject. However we have added some systemic reviews on this subject - there aren't may about inferior vena cava LMS; the majority are case reports and associated review of the literature.

The current systemic review article is of important to the field but the main deficiency of it is limited literature and neglect of imaging tool as diagnosis as well as mentioning the accuracy and Sensitivity of diagnostic tool.

A topic regarding radiology and its importance in the topic was added

Also authors can extend the manuscript to prevalence of LMS as general and then come to the prevalence of vascular LMS.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Author/s addressed the comments well and improve the Language and the organization of manuscript.

The last comment author not reply to it but he addressed it throughout the manuscript.

Author Response

Many thanks for your effort! Your suggestion improved the manuscript quality