Talk:WikiJournal Preprints/Endometrial cancer
This article is an unpublished pre-print undergoing public peer review organised by the WikiJournal Preprints.
It is adapted from the Wikipedia page Endometrial cancer. It contains some or all of that page's content licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike License and will also be used to update that article after peer review.You can follow its progress through the peer review process at this tracking page.First submitted:
Article text
QID: create wikidata item
License: 
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction, provided the original author and source are credited.
Article information
This is the pre-publication public peer review for the article Endometrial cancer
Plagiarism check
edit
Pass. WMF copyvio tool using TurnItIn. Short phrases such as "Risk factors for endometrial cancer include..." were similarly used in external pages, but not regarded as plagiarism. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 10:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Initial editorial review
edit
Comments by Thomas Shafee ,
These editorial comments were submitted on , and refer to this previous version of the article
Overall the article is well written, with well-chosen figures. Before sending this for external peer review, I have a few minor formatting recommendations:
- The History and culture section is interesting but too short. It should either be expanded, merged or removed.
- For journal-style publication, figures should be numbered and each referred to in the main text.
Once the two above are done, I shall invite external peer reviewers to assess the content. Additionally, for publication, all the creative commons images will need their authors added to the |attribution= parameter (I've filled in fig 1, see previous publications for examples).
First peer reviewer
edit
Review by Liane Deligdisch ,
These assessment comments were submitted on , and refer to this previous version of the article
The article by Emily-Temple-Wood et al on the vast subject of Endometrial Cancer contains important information and is documented by a rich bibliography. There are however numerous mistakes and confusion on certain subjects which have to be corrected. On page Here are the most important ones:
1. The diagnostic method for Endometrial Cancer is by Endometrial biopsy which is taken by Dilation and Curettage (D&C) from patients under anesthesia, usually in the OR setting. Another way to obtain endometrial tissue for diagnosis is by Endometrial aspirate (Vabra) done in the physician's office with no anesthesia. This method is quite reliable, but less than the D&C done with a sharp curette. The authors do not mention Endometrial aspirate but say that "D&C has higher false negative than endometrial biopsy" which makes no sense!
2. On page 5 the text says "P53 or PTEN" . These are two very different tumor markers, not interchangeable, as the authors later explain, P53 being associated with high malignant potential tumors.
3. Also on page 5 Endometrial glandular dysplasia is mentioned as a precursor of cancer, The accepted precursor is endometrial hyperplasia with atypia which should be described and compared to hyperplasia without atypia, an important and very common diagnosis in women with vaginal bleeding who may or may not (more often) develop carcinoma. Precursors of Type I Endometrial Carcinoma are also designated as Endometrial Intraepithelial Neoplasia (EIN) and of Type II Endometrial Intraepithelial Carcinoma (EIC). This is a debated issue but if mentioned this is the correct way.
4. On page 9,top "Mixed carcinomas have both Type I and Type II cells" is incorrect. Malignant Mixed Muellerian (or Mesodermal) Tumors also called MMMT consist of malignant epithelial (carcinoma) and malignant mesenchymal (sarcoma) types of tissue, which are homologous or heterologous and generally high grade neoplasms.
5. Statistics of Incidence and Mortality from 2012 should be updated.
6. On page 4 it is stated that smoking is a protective factor but no clear reference is given.
7. The illustrations of histopathologic sections (fig. 3 and 6) need clear explanatory legends, as in the text the descriptions are insufficient. I suggest to illustrate sections of Type I and a Type II Endometrial Carcinoma.
Second peer review
edit
reviewer-annotated pdf
Review by Shalini Rajaram ,
These assessment comments were submitted on , and refer to this previous version of the article
The reviewer submits suggested edits in the attached PDF