Next Article in Journal
Plasma Levels of Interleukins 36α, 36β, and 37 in Patients with Psoriasis and Their Correlation with Disease Activity Parameters
Next Article in Special Issue
Circulating Neuroendocrine Tumor Biomarkers: Past, Present and Future
Previous Article in Journal
Decrease in Tear Film Lipid Layer Thickness in Patients with Keratoconus
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Increasing Incidence of Neuroendocrine Neoplasms Worldwide: Current Knowledge and Open Issues
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 11
Issue 18
10.3390/jcm11185253
Review Report
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

Printed Edition

A printed edition of this Special Issue is available at MDPI Books....
share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

Surgical Outcomes, Long-Term Survivals and Staging Systems of World Health Organization G3 Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors

J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11(18), 5253; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11185253
by Min Yang 1, Lin Zeng 2, Shengzhong Hou 3, Bole Tian 3, Shuguang Jin 1,† and Yi Zhang 3,*,†
Reviewer 1:
Takanori Morikawa
Reviewer 2:
Talia L. Fuchs
J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11(18), 5253; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11185253
Submission received: 10 August 2022 / Revised: 30 August 2022 / Accepted: 31 August 2022 / Published: 6 September 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Neuroendocrine Tumors: Etiology, Diagnosis, and Therapy)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript titled “Surgical outcomes, long-term survivals and staging systems of World Health Organization Ｇ3 pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors” is interesting and the authors advocated the importance of mTNM staging system to stratifying G3 pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors and I agree with their opinion. However, there are some minor issues in this manuscript and it is necessary to correct some points. My suggestions are described below;

 

1)     As for analysis of prognostic factors, the number of harvested LN or LN ratio (the number of metastatic LN per the number of retrieved LN) is also important. So, if possible, these factors should be added.

2)     Table 3 is confusing and difficult to understand at a glance. So, it should be revised to be more concise.

3)     In line 163, there was a typographical error “stagy”, which should be revised.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an excellent study that explores an area in need of improved diagnostic and prognostic stratification. The methods are sound and the results have been appropriately interpreted. The formatting of Table 3 needs to be improved.

There has been recent interest in the significance of necrosis in pancreatic NET, with a recent paper suggesting that the presence of necrosis in G1/G2 NETs should upgrade them to G3 NETs (PMID: 35934531). The paper would make a more significant and relevant contribution to the literature if it were to address the issue of necrosis in this cohort. It would be interesting to see what proportion of their G3 NETs had necrosis and whether this was a significant prognostic factor. Moreover, it would be really interesting to examine the G1/G2 NETs to look for necrosis and to see if the prognosis of these tumours is comparable to the G3 tumours in this cohort. This latter suggestion may need to be addressed in a follow-up study.

The paper also requires modifications to the English language.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop