Submited on: 28 Jun 2012 11:47:41 PM GMT
Published on: 30 Jun 2012 04:00:54 PM GMT
 

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    The present paper reports a case of an 8-year-old girl presented with inoperable cerebellar GG and treated exclusively by chemotherapy followed by radiotherapy.


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    No

    Cerebellar ganglioglioma.

    Fedoul B, Souirti Z.

    Pan Afr Med J. 2012;12:12. Epub 2012 May 22.

    Ganglioglioma in the cerebellopontine angle in a child. Case report and review of the literature.

    Milligan BD, Giannini C, Link MJ.

    J Neurosurg. 2007 Oct;107(4 Suppl):292-6. Review.

    Anaplastic ganglioglioma of the cerebellopontine angle. Case report.

    Matsuzaki K, Uno M, Kageji T, Hirose T, Nagahiro S.

    Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo). 2005 Nov;45(11):591-5.

    Combined pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma-ganglioglioma of the cerebellum.

    Evans AJ, Fayaz I, Cusimano MD, Laperriere N, Bilbao JM.

    Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2000 Nov;124(11):1707-9.

    An adult patient with cerebellar ganglioglioma.

    Handa H, Yamagami T, Furuta M.

    J Neurooncol. 1994;18(3):183-9. Review.

     

  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    Yes


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    Yes


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    Not applicable


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    Yes

    Details should be added about:

    Thedose, infusion rate, and intervals of chemotherapy

    Follow up and further assessments


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    No


  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    Cases are usually presented for juniors to gain experience on diagnosis and treatment options and this is a usual thing to present on regular bases


  • Other Comments:

    References should be consistent in the term of the number of authors to include before adding et al.

  • Competing interests:
    No
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    oncology/reviewer/editor

  • How to cite:  El-Abd E I.Radiation Therapy of Cerebellar Gangliogliomas: Case Report Ant Review of the Literature [Review of the article 'Radiation Therapy of Cerebellar Gangliogliomas: Case Report and Review of the Literature ' by Benjaafar N].WebmedCentral 2012;3(8):WMCRW002167
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    The present paper reports a case of an 8-year-old girl presented with inoperable cerebellar GG and treated exclusively by chemotherapy followed by radiotherapy.


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    No

    Cerebellar ganglioglioma.

    Fedoul B, Souirti Z.

    Pan Afr Med J. 2012;12:12. Epub 2012 May 22.

    Ganglioglioma in the cerebellopontine angle in a child. Case report and review of the literature.

    Milligan BD, Giannini C, Link MJ.

    J Neurosurg. 2007 Oct;107(4 Suppl):292-6. Review.

    Anaplastic ganglioglioma of the cerebellopontine angle. Case report.

    Matsuzaki K, Uno M, Kageji T, Hirose T, Nagahiro S.

    Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo). 2005 Nov;45(11):591-5.

    Combined pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma-ganglioglioma of the cerebellum.

    Evans AJ, Fayaz I, Cusimano MD, Laperriere N, Bilbao JM.

    Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2000 Nov;124(11):1707-9.

    An adult patient with cerebellar ganglioglioma.

    Handa H, Yamagami T, Furuta M.

    J Neurooncol. 1994;18(3):183-9. Review.

     

  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    Yes


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    Yes


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    Not applicable


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    Yes

    Details should be added about:

    Thedose, infusion rate, and intervals of chemotherapy

    Follow up and further assessments


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    No


  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    Cases are usually presented for juniors to gain experience on diagnosis and treatment options and this is a usual thing to present on regular bases


  • Other Comments:

    References should be consistent in the term of the number of authors to include before adding et al.

  • Competing interests:
    No
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    oncology/reviewer/editor

  • How to cite:  El-Abd E I.Radiation Therapy of Cerebellar Gangliogliomas: Case Report and Review of the Literature [Review of the article 'Radiation Therapy of Cerebellar Gangliogliomas: Case Report and Review of the Literature ' by Benjaafar N].WebmedCentral 2012;3(8):WMCRW002168
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Radiation Therapy of Cerebellar Gangliogliomas: Case Report Ant Review of the Literature
Posted by Anonymous Reviewer on 03 Jul 2012 04:27:58 PM GMT

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    The manuscript entitled “Radiation Therapy of Cerebellar Gangliogliomas: Case Report Ant Review of the Literature ” by Lalya et al. is an interesting article. An attempt was made to show the effect of chemo-radiation therapy on Ganglioglioma patient.


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    No


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    Yes


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    Because of the localization of the tumor, surgery was not possible, so the patient received a first line chemotherapy with carboplatin and vincristine. However the dose of these drugs has not been mentioned in the present manucript?. Earlier reports by Packer et al., has reported Carboplatin at a dose of 175 mg/m2 and Vincristine at a dose of 1.5 mg/m2. did not show any statistical difference in progression-free survival rates between children with neurofibromatosis Type 1 and those without the disease. Furthermore, no details has been mentioned about the time, duration of administration and infusion rate of the drugs  and whether they both the drugs has been given concurrently or one followed by the other.


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    NA


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    No


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    Yes

     


  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    No

     


  • Other Comments:

    1. The authors did not mention the criteria’s for evaluation of chemo-radiation therapy tolerance.

  • Competing interests:
    None
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    NA

  • How to cite:  Anonymous.Radiation Therapy of Cerebellar Gangliogliomas: Case Report Ant Review of the Literature[Review of the article 'Radiation Therapy of Cerebellar Gangliogliomas: Case Report and Review of the Literature ' by Benjaafar N].WebmedCentral 2012;3(7):WMCRW002025
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    To present the results on radiation therapy of gangliogliomas.


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    No. There are some other reports on this matter.


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    Yes


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    Yes


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    Not apply


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    Yes


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    No


  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    Yes. Results of this study shold be know for those Oncologysts interested in this field.


  • Other Comments:

    It is mandatory to write correctly the title. I consider the authors must include two or three photomicrograps with the more common microscopic findings of this entity.

    The above mentioned will increase the quality of the article.

  • Competing interests:
    None.
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    I am an Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology trained in an Anatomic Pathology.

  • How to cite:  Ledesma-Montes C .Radiation Therapy of Cerebellar Gangliogliomas.[Review of the article 'Radiation Therapy of Cerebellar Gangliogliomas: Case Report and Review of the Literature ' by Benjaafar N].WebmedCentral 2012;3(7):WMCRW002022
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse