Presentation of A Cutaneous Granular Cell Tumor in A 52-Year-Old Man in Remote Australia

Review Data

Q: Is the topic relevant to the journal area of interest? Is it contemporary and interesting for researchers?

Comments: Yes, the topic is relevant to the journal area of interest, as it pertains to a rare type of skin tumor, which falls under the broader category of medical and health research. Granular cell tumors are not widely studied due to their rarity, and this case study provides valuable information on their presentation, diagnosis, and management.

The case study is contemporary and may be interesting for researchers in the fields of dermatology, oncology, and general medicine, as it highlights the challenges associated with diagnosing and treating such tumors, particularly in remote areas like Northwest Queensland, Australia.

Abstract & Keywords

Q: Are all required components included in the abstract? Are the keywords appropriately chosen?

Comments: The abstract in the provided text includes all required components, such as a brief background on granular cell tumors, the significance of malignant potential, and a description of the case in question involving the presentation of a benign cutaneous granular cell tumor in remote Australia.

However, the abstract does not provide specific keywords. In order to facilitate readers in identifying the key topics discussed in the case study, some appropriate keywords might include:

1.     Granular cell tumor

2.     Cutaneous tumor

3.     Benign tumor

4.     Malignant potential

5.     Remote healthcare

6.     Differential diagnosis

Goal

Q: Is the goal explicitly stated in the Introduction? Is its formulation clear and unambiguous?

Comments: Yes, the goal is explicitly stated in the Introduction. The goal is to present a case of a benign cutaneous granular cell tumour in a remote health service in Northwest Queensland, Australia. The formulation is clear and unambiguous.

Structure

Q: Is the paper's structure coherent? Is it in coherence with the goal of the paper?

Comments: Yes, the paper's structure is coherent and well-organized. It follows a logical progression from the abstract and introduction to the case description, discussion, and conclusion. The paper effectively presents the case of a benign cutaneous granular cell tumor in a 52-year-old man in remote Australia, offering relevant background information and discussing the challenges in diagnosing and classifying granular cell tumors. The coherence of the paper's structure contributes to the clear communication of its goals and findings.

Tools and Methods

Q: Are methods the author uses adequate and well used?

Comments: Yes, the author uses adequate and well-established methods to diagnose and manage the case of a cutaneous granular cell tumor. The case description includes the use of clinical examination, computerized tomography (CT), ultrasound (US), and core biopsy to confirm the diagnosis. Histological examination and immunohistochemical staining are crucial for accurate diagnosis, and the author provides a comprehensive description of the tumor's morphological and immunohistochemical features. The author also discusses the importance of identifying malignant potential and the criteria used to classify granular cell tumors. The management approach, which involves excision with wide margins and primary closure, is in line with the recommended treatment for benign granular cell tumors. The discussion also provides relevant information about the differential diagnosis and the importance of considering granular cell tumors in cases of atypical subcutaneous lesions. Overall, the methods used are appropriate and well-executed for the case presented.

Discussion & Conclusion

Q: Is it related to the results presented before? Do you consider them as coherent?

Comments: Yes, the information provided in the case report is coherent with the results presented in the literature review. The case report outlines the presentation of a benign cutaneous granular cell tumor in a 52-year-old man, and the discussion section delves into the background and characteristics of granular cell tumors, their diagnostic criteria, and their classification systems. The case report also highlights the challenges of diagnosing granular cell tumors due to their rarity and clinical similarity to other soft tissue tumors. Overall, the report is well-structured and provides a comprehensive understanding of granular cell tumors.

Literature

Q: Does the author utilize relevant literature?

Comments: Yes, the author utilizes relevant literature throughout the case report to support their points and provide context for the presentation of the granular cell tumour. The author cites numerous sources to discuss the rarity of granular cell tumours, their origin, clinical presentation, diagnosis, imaging characteristics, immunohistochemical stains, histological classification systems, treatment options, and potential misdiagnoses. This extensive use of literature helps to establish the credibility of the author's case description and discussion.

Author's knowledge

Q: What is the level of author’s knowledge? Does the author utilize all recent contributions relevant to the topic?

Comments: It is difficult to assess the author's level of knowledge without knowing their background or qualifications. However, the author does appear to have utilized many relevant studies and reports up to that point, providing a thorough overview of the topic.

Length

Q: Is the length of the paper adequate to the significance of the topic? Do you suggest shortening the paper without losing its value?

Comments: The length of the paper appears to be adequate for the topic, considering its rarity and the need for detailed case description and discussion. The paper provides a comprehensive overview of granular cell tumours, highlighting their clinical presentation, diagnostic challenges, and management. It also addresses the differences between the two classification systems for malignant potential, which is valuable for readers. In this instance, I would not recommend shortening the paper, as doing so might compromise the value and clarity of the information presented.

Figures & Tables

Q: Does the author use them suitably? Are legend and notations clear?

A: Yes, the legends are clear.

Writing style

Q: Is it clear and understandable?

A: Yes, it is understandable.

Further comments on the paper

Comments:

Overall, this paper presents a well-structured and comprehensive description of a case involving a cutaneous granular cell tumour in a 52-year-old man. The introduction provides a good overview of the rarity and various aspects of granular cell tumours, and the case description provides sufficient detail for the reader to understand the diagnostic process and management of the patient.

In the discussion section, the paper delves into the historical background, clinical features, imaging characteristics, and immunohistochemical findings associated with granular cell tumours. The paper also highlights the challenges in differentiating benign and malignant tumours and describes two histological classification systems.

A few suggestions for improvement:

1.     The paper could benefit from more specific information regarding the follow-up of the patient after the surgical excision. For instance, any plans for monitoring the patient for recurrence, the duration of the follow-up period, and the patient's status during follow-up could be added.

2.     Given the rarity of the granular cell tumours, it would be beneficial to include a brief review of similar case reports or series to provide the reader with additional context on how this case compares to others in the literature.

3.     The paper mentions that there is mixed evidence for radiation therapy in treating malignant granular cell tumours. Including a brief overview of the available literature on this topic, including any recent advancements or relevant clinical trials, would be helpful for readers interested in understanding the current state of management.

4.     The paper could also discuss potential challenges that might be faced in diagnosing and managing granular cell tumours in remote settings such as Northwest Queensland, Australia. This could involve a discussion of resource limitations, diagnostic equipment availability, and access to specialized care.

Q: Would you recommend this manuscript for further publication?

A: Yes - Suitable to be published

If you have any questions and clarifications you can write to the journal.

Thanks,
Science Repository Team