Submited on: 05 Jul 2014 01:09:14 AM GMT
Published on: 05 Jul 2014 05:15:02 AM GMT

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

    This study focused on a clinical case of testicular cancer which formed a giant abdominal mass secondary to an ectopic right testicle. The treatment strategy is to do debunking surgery, in order to reduce the size of the tumor; then for further chemotherapy. The significance of this report is it brings a case of testicular cancer for its diagnosis, treatment and the outcome of the treatment. Such type of cancer is not often reported, thus, the case report is important clinically.

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

    The treatment strategy of debunking along with chemotherapy is novel for testicular cancer, though there are other cases reported. (See Paraneoplastic limbic encephalitis: ovarian cancer presenting as an amnesic syndrome. Bloch MH, Hwang WC, Baehring JM, Chambers SK. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;104(5 Pt 2):1174-7. and Granulosa cell tumor of the ovary. Schumer ST, Cannistra SA. J Clin Oncol. 2003 Mar 15;21(6):1180-9)). However,  the case reported is still in small numbers, it is still necessary to report.

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


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


    The more cases included would be better, but it would be very long time projects since the rate of occurrence is low. When more cases reported, there will be more discovery regarding to the incidence, progression and prognosis for clinical reference.

  • 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?


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


  • 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?

    It would be better if there is a prognosis included.

  • 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?

    It is good for a specilaized seminar in clinic.

  • Other Comments:


  • Competing interests:
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
  • References:

    J. Mol. Biol. Res. 2011, 1(1):66-76. Int. J. Bio. 2011, 3(3):105-118. Int. J. Biol. Sci. 2010, 6: 361-370.

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    I focus on tumor suppressor and oncogene

  • How to cite:  Yan Y .A review on case report of Primary Debulking Surgery for a Huge Abdominal Mass Revealing a Seminoma on a Cryptorchid Testicle[Review of the article 'Primary Debulking Surgery for a Huge Abdominal Mass Revealing a Seminoma on a Cryptorchid Testicle ' by Ahmed I].WebmedCentral 2014;5(7):WMCRW003085
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse