Neoadjuvant Target Therapy with Lenvatinib Followed by Reoperative Central Neck Surgery for Thyroid Cancer

Review Data

Q: Is the topic relevant to the journal area of interest?

Comments: Yes, the topic is relevant to the journal area of interest.

Abstract & Keywords

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

Comments: The abstract is succinct and covers key aspects of the case report, including the background of the thyroid cancer case, the treatment strategy with lenvatinib, and the surgical outcome. The keywords such as "thyroid cancer," "kinase inhibitors," "RAI-refractory," "lenvatinib," and "neoadjuvant therapy" are appropriate and relevant to the paper's topic.

Goal

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

Comments: The goal is clearly stated in the introduction, emphasizing the need for alternative therapies for RAI-refractory thyroid cancer. The discussion of lenvatinib as a promising neoadjuvant therapy clearly defines the study's objective.

Structure

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

Comments: The structure follows a logical flow—starting with the introduction, followed by the case description, discussion, and conclusion. Each section supports the paper's goal of evaluating lenvatinib's efficacy in neoadjuvant therapy.

Discussion & Conclusion

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

Comments: The discussion relates directly to the presented results, reinforcing the success of lenvatinib in reducing tumor size and facilitating surgery. The conclusion logically follows from the findings, suggesting the broader potential of lenvatinib in similar cases​.

Literature

Q: Does the author utilize relevant literature?

Comments: The author uses relevant literature to support the discussion of lenvatinib, referencing both recent and pivotal studies that validate its use in treating RAI-refractory thyroid cancer.

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 is appropriate for a case report. Shortening might reduce the context or depth of discussion. No significant parts should be removed without affecting the value of the paper​.

Figures & Tables

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

A: The figures are well-used to demonstrate key results, such as tumor reduction post-lenvatinib treatment. The legends and notations are clear and informative, supporting the paper's findings visually.

Writing style

Q: Is it clear and understandable?

A: The writing is clear, concise, and accessible. The medical terminology is appropriately explained, making it understandable to readers with a medical background​.

Further comments on the paper

Comments:

Overall, the paper is well-structured, addresses a relevant clinical challenge, and contributes to the understanding of lenvatinib's potential in thyroid cancer treatment. Further research could focus on optimizing the use of lenvatinib in various clinical settings.

Q: Would you recommend this manuscript for further publication?

A: Yes - This manuscript is recommended for further publication.  

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

Thanks,
Science Repository Team