Giant Tumors of the Breast in Adolescence: Clinical Algorithm for Reconstruction of Young Patients in Thelarche

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

Comments: The Conclusion section in the Abstract has been removed and added as a paragraph at the end of the Conclusion in the manuscript to preserve the content and the word limitations in the abstract.

Goal

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

A: Very 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: 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 describes the importance and drawback of the surgical intervention of the breast tumor, citing 3 breast surgical cases in adolescent females. Further, it highlights the feasibility of the conservation of the breast and scar sparing in the breast surgery of adolescent females’ providing relevant literature. The Conclusion puts forth the heterogenous reconstruction of the breast tissue with no available breast tissue. Lastly, it suggests that surgical interventions in gross benign breast disease require careful surgery planning and avoidance of mastectomy or unnecessary scars in the developing breast architecture. 

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

·       Under Introduction of Abstract, 2^nd sentence “In adolescents, tumor growth … lack in breast awareness or a sense of shame of these young girls” must be written as “In adolescents, tumor growth… lack of breast awareness or a sense of shame in these young girls”.

·       Spellings like “occurring”, “ultimately”, “questionnaire”, “original” has been misspelled as  “occuring”, “ultimatively”, “questionaire”, originial.

·       In Discussion, 18^th paragraph, 2^nd sentence, “Due to the young age of patients … avoided at any prize should be written as “Due to the young age of patients … avoided at any price”.

Further comments on the paper

Comments: The case reports 3 young girls of adolescence with giant cystosarcoma phylloides, a giant fibroadenoma and a giant PASH-tumor. The study provides scar-sparing procedures to the form of the breast and the BMI of the patients. Further, the manuscript illustrates the different surgical procedures for removing the tumors and reconstructing the breast tissue of the patients in their thelarche.

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