Next Article in Journal
The CADTH pCODR Expert Review Committee Process Explained. Comment on Rayson et al. Access to Neoadjuvant Pertuzumab for HER2 Positive Breast Cancer in Canada: A Dilemma Increasingly Difficult to Explain. Curr. Oncol. 2022, 29, 9891–9895
Next Article in Special Issue
The Role of Immunotherapy in the Treatment of Rare Central Nervous System Tumors
Previous Article in Journal
Management and Prevention of Cellular-Therapy-Related Toxicity: Early and Late Complications
 
 
Review
Peer-Review Record

Pediatric Brain Tumours: Lessons from the Immune Microenvironment

Curr. Oncol. 2023, 30(5), 5024-5046; https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol30050379
by Betty Yao 1, Alberto Delaidelli 1,2, Hannes Vogel 3 and Poul H. Sorensen 1,2,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3:
Curr. Oncol. 2023, 30(5), 5024-5046; https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol30050379
Submission received: 27 March 2023 / Revised: 1 May 2023 / Accepted: 10 May 2023 / Published: 15 May 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Current and Future Research in Immunotherapy for Brain Tumors)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper summarized the components of pediatric brain tumor immune microenvironment and related immunotherapies.

The reviewer has the following questions:

  1. Figure 1 is not mentioned in the main text. What subtypes of pediatric brain tumors are involved in Figure 1A? What’s the control for upregulation and downregulation?
  2. In Figure 1B, is the morphology of low-grade and high-grade tumors similar? I suggest labeling lymphocytes and showing lymphopenia by drawing different proportion.

3.       Would another figure for the immunotherapies to medulloblastoma and high-grade gliomas help connect points in this review paper and improve the clarity?

  1. Why did the authors introduce new information about CAR-T in conclusion remarks rather than in discussions?
  2. For the paragraph: “In the context of PBTs themselves, it is also noteworthy that the pediatric BBB does not share the same qualities as its adult counterpart; the younger, functional BBB readily allows plasma-derived proteins regulated, transcytosis-mediated access to the brain parenchyma, but the aged, “leaky” BBB is more permissive to the entry of potentially neurotoxic proteins from peripheral blood [12].”

It might be worthwhile to discuss what developmental/age-related changes make BBB leaky in adults.

 

The authors’ description of establishing the prognostic value of any molecular/cellular aspect of PBT seems convoluted. The particular discussion can be simplified separately for better comprehension.

 

Readers might be interested to learn about any well-known instance of immunotherapy conferring clinical benefit over chemo/radiotherapy in terms of survival in patients with PBT.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Yao et. al have done a great job discussing the immune micro-environment in pediatric brain tumors with a focus on Medulloblastoma and High-grade gliomas. The authors also discussed how immune-tolerance is developed in pediatric brain tumors and summarized the current challenges in immunotherapy. The authors also briefly discussed the therapeutic implications of the tumor immune-microenvironment, describing results from few ongoing trials of CAR-T therapy, checkpoint blockade etc. Overall, it is a well -written, informative article.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

 

The manuscript "Pediatric Brain Tumours: Lessons from the Immune Microenvironment" by Betty Yao and colleagues contains an exhaustive, timely and well written review of the current knowledge, techniques and problems related to immunotherapy of Pediatric Brain Tumours. Despite the text is well written and clear, the large mass of information may sometimes overwhelm the general reader. The addition of figures summarizing the information provided for each of the immune cells and tumours considered will be most desirable.

 

Minor point

row 520 " a subset of for a cohort" please correct " a subset of a cohort".

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop