Comparison of Conventional and Radiomic Features between ¹⁸F-FBPA PET/CT and PET/MR

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It is a very interesting article.

Some suggestions:

1) I encourage authors to add some emblematic figures with captions of brain or head and neck lesions in 18F-FBPA PET/CT and PET/MR of the same patient;

2) in line 261 "tumor tumor" is not correct;

3) it is important to follow scrupulously manuscript preparation instructions and to correct any discrepancies (for example in references).

of para-aortic limph node involvement and colon involvement at CT and PET/CT. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the paper. I have a few comments. 

1. Previous studies comparing FDG PET/CT and PET/MRI have shown similar results. How does this study add new informaton?
2. You compare sarcoma, an adenocarcinoma and astrocytomas - tumors with great biological differences. Is that methodologically correct?
3. The paper has many grammatic errors and needs to be checked again (especially many changes from presence to past tence). 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper written by Liao et al. is an interesting paper that compared 18F-FBPA PET/CT and PET/MR measurements of some conventional and radiomic features.

The idea of the authors is brilliant because the increasing diffusion of PET/MR scanners and the trend to use radiomic features is huge. Thus, the comparison of the main features can have a strong clinical impact and try to ansewer to a question not yet understood.

Of course the number of patients evaluated is relatively low (n 15) but it is impossible to ask a higher number fot his kinf of study.

I believe that the manuscript needs to be accepted after some revisions.

• I don't like the term "routine", it is too vague and not appropriate. I suggest conventional or classic as alternative.
• Paragraph 2.1 and 2.2 have the same title (Patient cohort), is it normal?
• in the introduction about he strengths and limitations of PET/CT and PET/MR I suggest add the higha vailability of PET/CT tomogaph compared to PET/MRI, the strong and long experience in PET/CT, and the need of radiologist with skills in MRI (in not all countries a nuclear medicine physician is also a radiologist)
• who performed radiomic analysis? please add initials. Is it an expert about images analysis?
• in the table 1 please add average before age and specify the last two types of brain tumors
• discussion is too long and heavy, I mean that some parts could be reduced without losting the concept. Please modify

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the revised manuscript. 

I have no further comments.