A Case Report of Successful Management with Long Term Survival of Basal Cell Carcinoma of the Internal Canthus of the Right Eye

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 highlights the frequency of basal cell carcinoma (BCC) among the population mentioning the possible risk factors for the occurrence of the disease. The Discussion further illustrates types of BCC providing relevant literature. The report also briefly summarizes the therapeutic modalities for BCC such as surgery, radiotherapy, vismodegib, imiquimod (IMQ) and Chemotherapy. The Conclusion states that oncological, functional and cosmetic aspects should be considered for the treatment of locally, advanced or recurrent periocular BCC. Lastly, the Conclusion suggests early diagnosis for the treatment of malignant tumor to preserve visual prognosis.

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: Good

Writing style

Q: Is it clear and understandable?

A: Good

Comments: There are few issues found in the manuscript, which are as follows:

·       In Abstract, the 1^st sentence must be reframed as “Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is the most frequently occurring malignant periocular tumor”, and 3^rd sentence can better be written as “We report a case of 65-year-old women who was diagnosed with BCC of internal canthus of the right eye in October 2011”.

·       Under Introduction, 4^th paragraph, 1^st sentence is reframed as “Although the occurrence of metastasis is rare, BCC of the eyelids has a high risk of recurrence”.

·       In Case Report, 3^rd paragraph, the word “sclerosing dermiform” must be correctly written as “sclerodermiform”.

·       Under Discussion, 3^rd paragraph, 1^st sentence is reframed as “As clinical signs are variable, the final diagnosis of tumors must always be histological, for which, pathological examination is required”.

·       Words such as ‘ophtalmologist’, ‘inperable’, ‘contre indicated’, ‘exceptionnaly’, ‘irresecable, ‘obteined’ and ‘succebility’ are misspelled all through the manuscript and is corrected as per the requirement.

Further comments on the paper

Comments: This Case Report presents a 65-year-old woman with basal cell carcinoma (BCC) of the internal canthus in the right eye. The manuscript describes a 2 step treatment procedure following reconstruction of the frontal flap. The case further highlights the importance of early diagnosis of BCC and promises better treatment outcomes.

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