Submited on: 05 Oct 2015 07:14:38 AM GMT
Published on: 05 Oct 2015 08:07:12 AM GMT
 
C-kit in testicular cancer
Posted by Prof. Paolo Declich on 13 Nov 2015 11:15:13 AM GMT Reviewed by WMC Editors

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

    I read with interest the above captioned paper. It deserves some positive comment as well as some criticism.

    The author tested a number of primitive testicular cancer (15 Germ cell tumor, a leiomyosarcoma and a lymphoma) and a metastatic adenocarcinoma with antibodies against C-Kit (CD117) and Bcl-2. He found that all seminomatous cancer and cancer with a seminaomatous component were CD117 positive, whereas the non-seminomatous component of GC tumors was negative. Moreover, all GC tumors were Bcl-2 negative, whereas the lymphoma, as exptected, was Bcl-2 positive. On the other hand, also metastatic adenocarcinoma expressed CD117, and Bcl-2 positivity was not restricted to lymphoma, but also the metastatic adenocarcinoma and the leyomiosarcoma (weakly) expressed it. So, the differential diagnostic use of the two markers seems of modest value.

    The author did not state how he choose his case series. Did he collect all testis cancers in a definite period of time? Did he choose to study GM tumors along with selected cases, as the presence of a leyomiosarcoma and a metastatic adenocarcinoma might suggest.


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

    The positivity of CD117 in seminomatous cancers is already well known


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

    NA


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

    NA


  • 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?

    Lack of selection criteria


  • 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?

    Selection criteria are not stated


  • 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:

    NA

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

    I am a surgical pathologist with 30 year of professional experience

  • How to cite:  Declich P .C-kit in testicular cancer[Review of the article 'C-Kit and Bcl-2 Expression in Testicular Cancer ' by Lai S].WebmedCentral 2015;6(11):WMCRW003258
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse