Next Article in Journal
Obesity in Qatar: A Case-Control Study on the Identification of Associated Risk Factors
Next Article in Special Issue
Initial Experience with 64Cu-DOTATATE Digital PET of Patients with Neuroendocrine Neoplasms: Comparison with Analog PET
Previous Article in Journal
Optical Density Optimization of Malaria Pan Rapid Diagnostic Test Strips for Improved Test Zone Band Intensity
Previous Article in Special Issue
64Cu-DOTATATE Positron Emission Tomography (PET) of Borrelia Burgdorferi Infection: In Vivo Imaging of Macrophages in Experimental Model of Lyme Arthritis
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Limited Diagnostic Utility of Chromogranin A Measurements in Workup of Neuroendocrine Tumors

Diagnostics 2020, 10(11), 881; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics10110881
by Jonas Baekdal 1,2,*, Jesper Krogh 1,2, Marianne Klose 1,2, Pernille Holmager 1,2, Seppo W. Langer 1,3, Peter Oturai 1,4,5, Andreas Kjaer 1,4,5, Birgitte Federspiel 1,6, Linda Hilsted 1,7, Jens F. Rehfeld 1,7, Ulrich Knigge 1,2,8 and Mikkel Andreassen 1,2
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Diagnostics 2020, 10(11), 881; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics10110881
Submission received: 11 October 2020 / Revised: 27 October 2020 / Accepted: 28 October 2020 / Published: 29 October 2020
(This article belongs to the Collection Feature Papers)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a well conducted and written study that addresses an important question about the diagnostic utility of chromogranin A in the initial work up for a NET.

Minor queries:

  1. The authors could elaborate on PIA of chromogranin A , most readers may be unaware

2. A diagram of chromogranin processing and the fragments generated may be helpful (as supplement?)

3. what would the author's recommendations be to patients who cannot discontinue PPI? Would H2 antagonists also impact on chromogranin A measurements?

4. Are there any chromogranin A byproducts that may be of interest that have better diagnostic accuracy

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you very much for the suggestions to improve the manuscript.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This data from single center, but from ENETS COE.

The data is from 4 years and good numbers, with good collection.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer 2

Thank you for the appreciation of our results. 

Kind regards,

Jonas Baekdal et al.

Back to TopTop