Review Reports
- Maria Vittoria Bazzocchi1,
- Carlotta Zilioli1 and
- Vita Ida Gallone1
- et al.
Reviewer 1: Antonios Tzortzakakis Reviewer 2: Cheng Xue Reviewer 3: Wei Chen
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is a very good summary concerning the role of CT in the characterisation of renal tumours. I am missing (mainly in the Discusion) some info about Radiomics as well as the use of 99mTc Sestamibi SPECT/CT in this specific field of oncological imaging.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
the response to your comment can be found in the attachment.
Thank you
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The novelty of this review was a moderate. There have been several reviews in this field. Authors should focus on the diagnostic performance of CT imaging in SRM.
Each part of renal diseases should be with CT imagings.
Differential diagnosis of listed renal diseases should be summarised in a table.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
the response to your comment can be found in the attachment.
Thank you
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
1.Small renal masses are increasingly detected incidentally at imaging. They vary widely in histology and aggressiveness, and include benign renal tumors and renal cell carcinomas that can be either indolent or aggressive. Imaging plays a key role in the characterization of these small renal masses. While a confident diagnosis can be made in many cases, some renal masses are indeterminate at imaging and can present as diagnostic dilemmas for both the radiologists and the referring clinicians.This review focus on CT charaterization of small renal masses,It may help us understanding small renal mass.The following aspects were consider for the review:a.assessing the presence fat;b.assessing the enhancement;c.differntiating renal tumor subtype;d. valuable CT sign.
2.Figure 2, the arrow is missing in the picture, I don't think that there is no sign of a central scar
3.It might be beneficial to include arrows in Figures
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
the response to your comment can be found in the attachment.
Thank you
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
This version is better. There are several typos such as 'mascroscopic' in Figure 7.