All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
After revisions, all reviewers agreed to publish the manuscript. I also reviewed the manuscript and found no obvious risks to publication. Therefore, I also approved the publication of this manuscript.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Vladimir Uversky, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
No comment
No comment
No comment
No comment
The authors are requested to carefully revise the manuscript and answer the questions raised by the reviewers.
The revised manuscript meet the criteria for publication. However, I can still find some errors in the manuscript that may lead to dyslexia, such as the sentences in lines 143-145. Authors should double check that whether the descriptions in the manuscript are consistent with the original intent. As mentioned previously, the schematic diagram (Fig.1) should be more accurately expressed. Although lung metastasis is the most common site of breast cancer metastasis, the schematic of lung cannot be used to represent all metastatic organs. All requests mentioned should be addressed prior to acceptance.
No comment.
No comment.
No.
The manuscript can be accepted in current form.
NA
NA
NA
The authors are requested to carefully revise the manuscript and answer the questions raised by the reviewers.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors agree that they are relevant and useful.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
This review article addresses a topic of significant clinical relevance—the correlation between circulating tumor cells (CTCs) and breast cancer prognosis. Given that breast cancer remains a highly prevalent and aggressive malignancy, and CTCs serve as critical "seeds" for metastatic dissemination, the focus of this work is both timely and valuable. The authors’ comprehensive summary of current evidence provides meaningful clinical insights. However, the manuscript would benefit from improvements in some key areas according to the detail comments. The writing of this study needs to be improved before further consideration for publication.
The selected search strategy demonstrates adequate sensitivity to identify pertinent studies in this field.
“Novelty” While several publications on this topic are already indexed in PubMed, the authors have extended current knowledge by specifically analyzing the prognostic relevance of circulating tumor cells across different breast cancer subtypes. This subtype-stratified approach provides novel insights that advance the field.
“Value of findings” The systematic summary of the correlation between CTCs and breast cancer prognosis provides clinically actionable insights and valuable references for therapeutic decision-making.
1. “Language and Flow” The writing requires refinement, particularly in the use of transitional phrases. Several instances of inappropriate or abrupt transitions were noted, which may hinder readability. For example, ‘however’ on line 30 does not seem appropriate.
2. “Schematic Diagrams” The current figure lack accuracy in conveying key concepts. Optimizing visual elements (e.g., labeling, color schemes, and annotations) would improve their value.
3. Sentence on line 125-128 need more individual reference.
4. I would like to recommend that the authors provide a systematic summary of the reported quantities of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) and CTC clusters in the collected literature, along with a comprehensive analysis of their correlation with breast cancer prognosis.
5. The manuscript would benefit from professional language polishing to meet the journal's publication standards.
In the review by Hao and Zheng, the authors focus on the heterogeneity that characterizes CTCs and CTC clusters in breast cancer. They describe their strategy for identifying the articles for their survey, focusing on the subtypes and patterns associated with different breast cancer subtypes, prognostic features, and finally clarifying their potential as biomarkers. The topic of the review is interesting, given that in recent years, aspects have emerged that have not yet been integrated into clinical practice, aside from enumeration. However, I have a few comments I would like them to address:
The manuscript should be read through entirely and polished. There are several editing errors throughout the manuscript, and some sentences are repeated within the same paragraph, making it verbose and redundant (for example, lines 138-140; lines 141-142). I suggest increasing the level of detail and providing more studies as examples.
In section 2.2, the authors should be more specific and define homotypic clusters and heterotypic clusters. This would make the manuscript more scientifically enriched. Additionally, I propose citing some fundamental studies in the area of CTC clusters that were not mentioned in the manuscript (10.1038/s41591-024-03486-6; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bj.2019.11.002).
Figure 1: Improve the reference to CTC clusters by providing examples of homotypic and heterotypic clusters.
One of the main reasons CTCs struggle to enter clinical practice is the difficulty in isolating them. To date, there are several approaches, each with pros and cons, making it difficult to find the right balance. The authors should emphasize the section related to CTC and CTC cluster detection, creating a very specific and easily consultable table defining the approach, pros, and cons.
Line 531: There seems to be an incorrect phrase in the references. Please check.
No comment
No comment
No comment
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.