Ulcerative Budding Skin Tumor Revealing Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma

Review Data

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

researchers?

A: Good

Abstract & Keywords

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

A: Good

Goal

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

A: Good

Structure

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

A: Good

Tools and Methods

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

A: Good

Discussion & Conclusion

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

A: Good

Comments: The Discussion establishes that the latency time between the first exposure and the development of mesothelioma is rarely less than 20 years and occupational exposure to asbestos is the main risk factor for mesothelioma. However, rare cases of mesothelioma have been reported in individuals with no known exposure to asbestos. Therefore, the risk factor for the disease in the reported patient is difficult to establish due to the patient’s age and lack of occupational exposure to asbestos. The Discussion highlights that metastases distant from the tumor site are exceptional. The study concludes that the reported case highlights a very rare atypical metastatic localization that can be clinically confused with a primary skin tumor.

Literature

Q: Does the author utilize relevant literature?

A: Good

Author's knowledge

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

A: Good

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?

A: Good

Figures & Tables

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

A: Good

Writing style

Q: Is it clear and understandable?

A: Good

Comments: Except the following errors have been detected:

1.     The 6^th sentence in the 1^st paragraph under Clinical Observation was not making sense and should be changed to “Mucosal examination…. abdominal wall that began as a small, hard and painful nodule.”

2.     The full form of the abbreviation MMP has not been mentioned in the text part of the manuscript.

3.     In Figure 1B and Figure 2 the patient’s age has been mentioned as 32-year-old while in the text part of the manuscript the patient’s age has been mentioned as 24-year-old. There is a discrepancy in the patient’s age in the text and figure.

Further comments on the paper

Comments: The case report presents the clinical observation of a 24-year-old man who presented with a right serohematic pleurisy and ulcerative budding skin lesion of the right abdominal wall. This is a very rare case of atypical metastatic localization of MMP, which can be clinically confused with a primary skin tumor. The diagnosis of the case was made by biopsy under pleuroscopy and biopsy of the skin lesion. Histological samples confirmed the presence of malignant squamous-type mesothelioma. The risk factor for the disease in the reported patient is difficult to establish due to the patient’s age and lack of occupational exposure to asbestos. The study illustrates the possible reason for the distant metastatic involvement in this case. The study concludes that the novelty of the case lies in the way in which this tumor is revealed, which can be clinically confused with a primary skin tumor.

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