Next Article in Journal
Bronchial Asthma and Sarcopenia: An Upcoming Potential Interaction
Previous Article in Journal
Harmonized Z-Scores Calculated from a Large-Scale Normal MRI Database to Evaluate Brain Atrophy in Neurodegenerative Disorders
 
 
Systematic Review
Peer-Review Record

What Lies behind Paraneoplastic Hypercalcemia Secondary to Well-Differentiated Neuroendocrine Neoplasms? A Systematic Review of the Literature

J. Pers. Med. 2022, 12(10), 1553; https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm12101553
by Elisa Giannetta 1,*,†, Franz Sesti 1,†, Roberta Modica 2, Erika Maria Grossrubatscher 3, Alberto Ragni 4, Isabella Zanata 5, Annamaria Colao 2 and Antongiulio Faggiano 6
J. Pers. Med. 2022, 12(10), 1553; https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm12101553
Submission received: 6 August 2022 / Revised: 16 September 2022 / Accepted: 16 September 2022 / Published: 21 September 2022

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The main question of this review was to address the timing and prevalence of hypercalcemia in well-differentiated neuroendocrine neoplasms. Due to the paucity of reviews, it was relevant to systematize information presented in the current medical literature.

The review is well-structured and easy to read. The presented tables are well organized and informative.

 

Conclusions are consistent with the text of the manuscript . Probably, the table which addresses the differences between hypercalcemia in paraneoplastic syndrome related to solid and hematologic malignancies vs hypercalcemia in neuroendocrine tumors would be added.

The better prognosis of patients with paraneoplastic hypercalcemia in well-differentiated NEN is probably related to a lower Ki-index, thus the more indolent course of the disease is related to better survival. 

Author Response

we thank the reviewer for its comments and suggestions that help us to improve our MS. We provided in the text a new paragraph to summarize the most relevant differences between paraneoplastic hypercalcemia in NENs, solid and hematological tumor. Section: Discussion, Page 5 lines 351-358.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This review is a comprehensive analysis from multiple previous literatures. The authors have done a good analysis and the conclusion they have made are very clear.  

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for his comments, we are pleased with his appreciation for our work and we are pleased to submit the revised version of the MS.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop