Multiple Synchronous Squamous Cell Cancers of the Skin and Esophagus: Differential Management of Primary Versus Secondary Tumor

Review Data

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

researchers?

A: Good

Comments: The word “differentiate” in the title has been changed to “differential”.

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 gives a brief account of literature stating esophageal cancer as the eighth most common type of cancer worldwide. This further highlights the late diagnosis of the disease as the cause of high mortality rate. It clearly illustrates the use of ¹⁸F-FDG-PET during the diagnosis of patients with squamous cell esophageal cancer (SCEC). The report concludes by stating that the recent diagnostic techniques and the increased survival of oncologic patients have made frequent presentations of the uncommon multiple primary tumors (MPT). Lastly, it suggests the multidisciplinary analysis of the disease, which can positively influence the quality of life and prognosis of MPT.

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: Not applicable.

Writing style

Q: Is it clear and understandable?

A: Good

Further comments on the paper

Comments: This report presents a 66-year-old female with mild dysphagia, which later revealed to a poorly differentiated squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). This case further describes the patient’s clinical case with double primary esophageal and cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas to establish the potential relationship between the carcinomas and define the appropriate diagnostic and therapeutic strategies for both primary tumors.

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