Dear Editor,
We would like to thank the readers for their interest in our article1. Regarding their queries on our article2, our responses are as follows:
Figures 4 and 5 are equivalent to 20x and 100x magnification, respectively. We have added arrows and annotated the areas as mentioned. We have included the scale bars in the original image that was attached to Figure 5 (down and left in the image), but they were perhaps too small for one to easily miss. However, we acknowledge that the scale bar is missing in Figure 4. we have added them in the attached file. We also performed S-100 immunohistochemistry, and the lesional cells were diffusely positive for S-100, supporting the diagnosis. We acknowledge that this detail was not included in the article.
There was no familial history of peripheral nerve sheath tumor in this young patient. We agree that if there were any familial predisposition for peripheral nerve sheath tumors; ideally, genetic testing should be offered. However, in our very resource-limited setting, our center could not afford to perform molecular studies on this case. Unfortunately, in this part of the world, or Sabah especially; it is mainly offered in research settings or for complex, diagnostically challenging cases. The family members of the patient were also not keen and could not afford to pay for the tests themselves; therefore, we were unable to proceed with the genetic testing.
We hope that readers and the reader will find our responses and explanations satisfactory. Thank you for your consideration.