Next Article in Journal
Diagnostic Value of Diffusion-Weighted Imaging with Background Body Signal Suppression (DWIBS) for the Pre-Therapeutic Loco-Regional Staging of Cervical Cancer: A Feasibility and Interobserver Reliability Study
Next Article in Special Issue
Stereotactic Radiation for Oligometastatic and Oligoprogressive Stage IV Breast Cancer: A Case-Based Review
Previous Article in Journal
Fatal Progression of Mutated TP53-Associated Clonal Hematopoiesis following Anti-CD19 CAR-T Cell Therapy
Previous Article in Special Issue
Optimizing Adjuvant Treatment Recommendations for Older Women with Biologically Favorable Breast Cancer: Short-Course Radiation or Long-Course Endocrine Therapy?
 
 
Review
Peer-Review Record

Different Re-Irradiation Techniques after Breast-Conserving Surgery for Recurrent or New Primary Breast Cancer

Curr. Oncol. 2023, 30(1), 1151-1163; https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol30010088
by Camille Hardy Abeloos 1, Juhi M. Purswani 1, Paulina Galavis 1, Allison McCarthy 1, Christine Hitchen 1, J. Isabelle Choi 2 and Naamit K. Gerber 1,*
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Curr. Oncol. 2023, 30(1), 1151-1163; https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol30010088
Submission received: 14 November 2022 / Revised: 5 January 2023 / Accepted: 12 January 2023 / Published: 13 January 2023

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a very useful overview about re-irradiation with different techniques.

This is an "hot topic" and a lot of Centres are using external beam radiotherapy, but leterature is lacking.

I think the review is well conducted and i would suggest to the authors adding this reference "The POLO (Partially Omitted Lobe) approach to safely treat in-breast recurrence after intraoperative radiotherapy with electrons"(with argumentation) in the section about "local failure after initial partial breast radiation".

thank you

 

 

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

see attached

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is greatly improved and should be published. It is much clearer and now can be read by the interested reader that is is not a breast surgeon or radiologist.

Back to TopTop