A Pilot Study for the Validation of Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy with Indocyanine Green Fluorescence Method in Early Endometrial Cancer at Fundacion Jimenez Diaz University Hospital

Review Data

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

researchers?

A: Very good

Abstract & Keywords

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

A: Very 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

Comments:

Minor errors (already corrected in the Galley Proof) are as follows:

• The term “Compurate Tomography” must be corrected to “Computed Tomography” throughout the text.
• The word “Inmunoflorescence” in Keywords should be corrected to “Immunofluorescence”.
• In the last sentence of the last paragraph under “Theoretical Framework of the Sentinel Ganglion in Endometrial Cancer”, “seem to be affected to be affected by obesity” should be corrected to “seem to be affected by obesity”.
• Words like early-stage, post-operative must be hyphenated throughout the text.

·       The word “Endometroide” should be corrected to “Endometrioid” in Table 1.

·       The full form of “MELF” is not provided in the Legend of Table 1, therefore the full form “microcystic, elongated and fragmented” has been introduced.

Tools and Methods

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

A: Very good

Discussion & Conclusion

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

A: Very good

Comments:

The Discussion section summarizes from the results of the study that selective Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy by means of immunofluorescence with cervical injection of indocyanine green in initial Endometrial Cancer is a valid lymphatic assessment technique, reflecting the true tumor status of the rest of the lymph nodes in that region without the need of systematic aorto-pelvic lymphadenectomy. The Discussion offers a thorough and detailed analysis of the findings of the present study taking all the relevant literature into account. The study finally Concludes that the quality of life of patients included in this study is clearly better in those who underwent Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy (SLNB) alone, with a statistically significant result.

Literature

Q: Does the author utilize relevant literature?

A: Very 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: Very good

Writing style

Q: Is it clear and understandable?

A: Good

Further comments on the paper

Comments: This study aims to determine the detection rate and negative predictive value of the Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy (SLNB) by Immunofluorescence in patients with early endometrial cancer. The study holds significance as excluding breast cancer, endometrial cancer is currently the most common gynaecological cancer in developed countries; and ranks second in mortality, after ovarian cancer. The goal of lymphadenectomy is to group the patients and select those who will benefit from adjuvant treatment more accurately. The small sample size comes out as one of the major limitations of this study.

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