Next Article in Journal
Analysis of Calculated Liver Scores for Long-Term Outcome in 423 Cutaneous Melanoma Patients
Next Article in Special Issue
Prioritizing Radiation and Targeted Systemic Therapies in Patients with Resected Brain Metastases from Lung Cancer Primaries with Targetable Mutations: A Report from a Multi-Site Single Institution
Previous Article in Journal
Response Rates and Transplantation Impact in Patients with Relapsed Acute Promyelocytic Leukemia
Previous Article in Special Issue
Traditional Prostate Cancer Risk Assessment Scales Do Not Predict Outcomes from Brain Metastases: A Population-Based Predictive Nomogram
 
 
Communication
Peer-Review Record

Are Dual-Phase 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose PET-mpMRI Diagnostic Performances to Distinguish Brain Tumour Radionecrosis/Recurrence after Cranial Radiotherapy Usable in Routine?

Cancers 2024, 16(18), 3216; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16183216
by Axel Cailleteau 1,*, Ludovic Ferrer 2,3, Delphine Geffroy 4, Vincent Fleury 2, Paul Lalire 2, Mélanie Doré 1 and Caroline Rousseau 2,3
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2:
Cancers 2024, 16(18), 3216; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16183216
Submission received: 20 August 2024 / Revised: 11 September 2024 / Accepted: 16 September 2024 / Published: 21 September 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Brain Metastases: Diagnosis and Treatment)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

This study investigates the diagnostic performance of dual-phase 18F-FDG PET-mpMRI in distinguishing cerebral radionecrosis from local tumor recurrence after cranial radiotherapy.

My comments:

 

Material and Methods:

Image Analysis:  

The authors do not provide information on how the images were analyzed by the two evaluators. It’s unclear if they  reached a consensus, if there was a third evaluator in case of disagreement, or how potential discrepancies were resolved.

The acronym DICOM is not spelled out.

Experience level of the oncology radiation therapist performing the semi-quantitative analysis?

There's no mention of any measures taken to ensure consistency in ROI delineation across patients.

 

Discussion:

The authors should address whether their sample size is sufficient for generalizing the results to other populations. If the sample size is deemed small or not fully representative of the target population, this should be clearly stated as a limitation.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic is very important. However, the following points need to be addressed.

The first sentence of the abstract seems incorrect. Are there any references to support it? The composite criterion appears inadequate for accurately distinguishing between true tumor progression and radiation necrosis, especially considering that the gold standard, pathology, was only available in 18.2% of cases in the cohort. Therefore, the findings are not entirely convincing.

Please provide more details about the statistical analysis. The determination of the cutoff in the current study requires further detailed explanation.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This revised version fulfilled my raised suspicion.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am satisfied with the point-to-point response. 

Back to TopTop