Comparison of Models for 3D Printing of Solitary Fibrous Tumor Obtained Using Open-Source Segmentation Software

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Section 2.1 to have more data are required to produce good results

section 2.2 discussion was very general, the discussion should include the technical selection criteria for the software need to be discussed

Table 1 :  What's the benchmark results from the sample data and parameter is shown ?  

Generaly the paper are lacked of  scientific and technical information on the study.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, here we send you the answers to the comments that you proposed and we attach the version in “track changes”

Point 1: Section 2.1 to have more data are required to produce good results

Response 1: We make a more complete explanation

Point 2: section 2.2 discussion was very general, the discussion should include the technical selection criteria for the software need to be discussed

Response 2: A new eligibility criteria has been added for the choice of software in section 2.2, which states that there is prior documentation of its use for segmentation in tumors. Additionally there is a new paragraph in the discussion where the feasibility of using these software is discussed.

Point 3: Table 1 :  What's the benchmark results from the sample data and parameter is shown ?  

Response 3:  The table shows the volume values obtained with each of these software, taking as reference the 3D model generated by the 3D slicer, an overestimation of the volume by ITK-Snap and an underestimation by Invesalius is observed. Additionally, a new parameter was added corresponding to the time it took to perform these tasks for each software, with Invesalius being the fastest to finish this job.

Point 4: Generaly the paper are lacked of  scientific and technical information on the study.

Response 4:  The time used by each software to generate the model has been added to the comparison parameters, flowcharts of the segmentation process have been added, and the discussion has been improved. You can see all these changes in the final version

Without more to add, we hope that this new version is sufficiently improved for its subsequent publication.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In the present manuscript entitled “Comparison of models for 3D printing of solitary fibrous tumor obtained using open-source segmentation software” the authors have assessed free and opensource software in solitary fibrous tumors (SFTs), regarding medical image processing.

This is a significant study, however, there are a number of minor issues that authors have to address to be able to publish their results.

Throughout the text:

1.       Strong recommendation for language editing by a native English speaker. The quality of the text weakens the overall quality of the study.

2.       Please correct several typos throughout the text.

Introduction:

3.       Please provide more information on solitary fibrous tumors regarding:

-          diagnosis, prognosis and treatment

-          current clinical need

Results:

4.       The authors could add a Flow Diagram of the study.

Discussion:

5.       The authors should discuss more the translational impact of their findings for disease management based on more advanced literature.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, here we send you the answers to the comments that you proposed and we attach the version in “track changes”

Point 1: Strong recommendation for language editing by a native English speaker. The quality of the text weakens the overall quality of the study.

Response 1: A native English speaker has revised the entire manuscript to improve the quality of the writing.

Point 2: Please correct several typos throughout the text.

Response 2: All typographical errors were corrected. These changes can be seen in the new version that is in "track changes."

Point 3: Introduction - Please provide more information on solitary fibrous tumors regarding:

-          diagnosis, prognosis and treatment

-          current clinical need

Response 3: We make a more concise description than suggested.

Point 4: The authors could add a Flow Diagram of the study.

Response 4: Two flowcharts have been added (Figures 6 and 10), one for the segmentation process of the healthy part of the lung using the three software and one for the segmentation of the tumor using 3D Slicer.

Point 5: The authors should discuss more the translational impact of their findings for disease management based on more advanced literature.

Response 5: We have made modifications according to the suggestions

Without more to add, we hope that this new version is sufficiently improved for its subsequent publication.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors here have compared three open-source software to measure and differentiate the volumes in SFT. However, there are a few concerns in the current manuscript version.

1.     The term “mesothelioma” is mentioned only in the abstract. Although explanations were given in the main text, the term wasn’t repeated. Please make the abstract reflect the main text.

2.     Materials and Methods: Please mention what is FTS and DPS.

3.     Figures 1 and 2 don’t complement the text. I suggest the authors consider adding the process flow of all the software as one of the figures (like a flow chart)

4.     Sentences and English language are acceptable in the text. However, random full stops and unwanted capitalizations of words could be avoided. A few grammatical errors are peaking. Please fix all these errors for better quality

5.     They say all the software has greater accuracy and time-saving. Please discuss how significantly it reduces time compared to an MRI scan or the time it takes for the software to render the 3D images.

6.     Also, please discuss the analysis time, reproducibility of the results, and how they compared the results to the existing clinical practices.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, here we send you the answers to the comments that you proposed and we attach the version in “track changes”

Point 1: The term “mesothelioma” is mentioned only in the abstract. Although explanations were given in the main text, the term wasn’t repeated. Please make the abstract reflect the main text.

Response 1: The term previously used was changed to "solitary fibrous tumor," which is used throughout the manuscript

Point 2: Materials and Methods: Please mention what is FTS and DPS.

Response 2: FTS was a typo; the correct term is SFT (solitary fibrous tumor). DPS is Doege-Potter syndrome which is now defined for the first time the word is referred to in the introduction

Point 3: Figures 1 and 2 don’t complement the text. I suggest the authors consider adding the process flow of all the software as one of the figures (like a flow chart)

Response 3: The one that was previously named figure 1 was eliminated. Figure 2 (now figure 1) is relevant since it is a tool that only has a slicer. Additionally, 2 flow charts were added (figures 6 and 10) detailing the steps for the segmentation of the healthy lung and the tumor

Point 4: Sentences and English language are acceptable in the text. However, random full stops and unwanted capitalizations of words could be avoided. A few grammatical errors are peaking. Please fix all these errors for better quality

Response 4: A native English speaker has revised the entire manuscript to improve the quality of the writing. These changes can be seen in the new version that is in "track changes."

Point 5: They say all the software has greater accuracy and time-saving. Please discuss how significantly it reduces time compared to an MRI scan or the time it takes for the software to render the 3D images.

Response 5: A new parameter was added to table 1 corresponding to the time it took to perform these tasks for each software, with Invesalius being the fastest to finish this job. A new paragraph was also added in the discussion where the time it takes for these software to generate the 3D model is discussed.

Point 6: Also, please discuss the analysis time, reproducibility of the results, and how they compared the results to the existing clinical practices.

Response 6: We have made modifications according to the suggestions

Without more to add, we hope that this new version is sufficiently improved for its subsequent publication.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper now is ready to publish after the authors amend most of the comment from reviewrs

Reviewer 3 Report

All concerns were addressed