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.
Dear Mr. Li,
I carefully looked at all the changes you made. You have answered all the questions and made all the necessary changes and it is now acceptable to publish in PeerJ. Congratulations.
Nebojsa Arsenijevic
Dear Mr. Li,
I think it would be extremely important to answer the questions and observations of the reviewers. Particularly note the question under number three (Rev 2).
Hopefully there will be enough time for a quality response.
Prof Nebojsa Arsenijevic
No comment
No comment
No comment
In the Manuscript entitled “Association between the degree of fibrosis in fibrotic focus and the prognosis of breast cancer” the authors provided evidences that high fibrosis in tumor microenvironment fibrotic focuses correlated with the aggressiveness of breast invasive ductal carcinoma, further indicating that the degree of fibrosis in fibrotic focuses might be a useful marker of the prognosis of breast cancer. However, as authors noted in the text, some limitations of the study should be considered in future research in this field.
Taken together, the paper is interesting and well-written thus providing some novel insights into the topic. The Manuscript is recommended for publication.
No comment
There is some information missing in the raw data, which is not of importance for the final results (family tumor histories, drinking and smoking history).
No comment.
The impact and novelty of this manuscript cannot be assessed. However, this research has a very interesting theme that is very scarce in modern literature. The researched connection between clinico-pathological prognostic features in breast cancer is presented systematically in a very interesting way.The acquired results are potentially of great interest.
1. The authors state in the manuscript (line 82-84): “Therefore, a retrospective study was conducted to explore the association between the degree of fibrosis in FF and the prognosis of breast cancer.” The follow up patients was too short to speak about breast cancer prognosis. Maybe it would be more adequate to speak about the connection between the FF and unfavorable clinicоpathological prognostic features.
2.The authors cite a very interesting statement in their manuscript (line 146-147): “In addition, the densities of micro-vessels and micro-lymphatic vessels in FF were significantly higher than those in normal tissue.” Could the research also include the analysis of microvascular density in FF and peritumor tissue? If so, what are the reasons for not including this characteristic in the research?
3. I ask the authors to explain why the FF size was not measured in the research? Hypothetically, the correlation between the degree of fibrosis in FF and the size of FF could maybe give an answer to the crucial question wich of these two parameters has a higher significance.
4.In the raw data 38 BC with equivocal HER-2 status exist.Please explain. Why was the HER-2 status in these patients remained equivocal(2+)? Would the final defining of HER-2 status in these BC change the statistic results ad connection between the fibrosis in FF and HER-2 positivity in BC?
5. In the raw data, in sections P and Q exist 9 BC who have ER-PR+ status. They are mainly classified in the Luminal B breast cancer group. Was 20% of positive tumor cells a limit for PR positivity in the both Luminal BC groups (Luminal A and Luminal B)?
This was a generally well conducted study implicating close association between high fibrosis in fibrotic focus in breast invasive ductal carcinoma and invasiveness and the high malignancy of breast.
Manuscript is clearly written, the aim of the research clearly emerges from the background section. The references are relevant and well stated.
This is original research within aims and scope of the journal. Research question is well defined, investigation is well performed, methods are described with enough details. There is no data about degree of fibrosis in fibrotic focus and prognosis of breast cancer.
Research question is well defined, investigation is well performed, methods are described with enough details. Conclusion fits the obtained data.
Minor points:
Arrows that indicate main findings listed in figure legend should be inserted in Figure 1.
There are missing or extra spaces in lines 66, 71, 72, 148, 247, 248, 272.
It is stated that fibroblastic proliferation can be seen in Fig 1C (stated in figure legend), I suggest high number of fibroblasts instead fibroblastic proliferation, since proliferation of cells can not be detected by H&E staining.
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.