Imaging of Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms
, Ginevra Danti 1, Benedetta Matteuzzi 1, Vincenza Granata 3, Silvia Pradella 1,2, Laura Recchia 4, Luca Brunese 4 and Vittorio Miele 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this manuscript, researchers have demonstrated imaging of pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms, so called panNENs). CT and MRI imaging modalities have been used for tumor detection. The research on pancreatic disease has potential and contribute to the understanding of the mechanism. The writing has been prepared well. The literature search is sufficient. Minor comments will on the figure. Could research add scale bar? Overall, the quality of this manuscript is meeting the basic requirement of this journal. "Accepted" is suggested.
Author Response
Minor comments will on the figure. Could research add scale bar?
I could not add scale bar but some sizes of the pancreatic lesions have been added
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper introduces a review recent publications
for the topic of Imaging of pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms.
The topic selected by the authors is interesting from several
points of view, for instance research, applications and to
improve life expectancy.
In a widespread way,
the paper is well written paper: in methodology,
documentation of sources, references and organization.
However, some issues to
improved are the following:
(1) The abstract is an introduction to the importance of the topic.
However, it does not summarize the article. Then, it needs to
be completely rewritten according to the standard requirements of
an abstract.
(2) A paragraph reviewing some similar works or related works
is missing in the introduction.
Then, it should be included.
(3) There is not a conclusions section. Then a new section
of conclusions with possible challenges for future work should be included.
(4) Some strange symbols appear in different parts of the text,
even in the bibliography (see the marks on the pdf file).
Finally, my conclusion is the following: ``
The results obtained in the paper interesting.
However, some minor inaccuracies are necessary to be fixed.
After the revision I will have
no objection to recommend it for
publication in IJERPH.''
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
(1) The abstract is an introduction to the importance of the topic.
However, it does not summarize the article. Then, it needs to
be completely rewritten according to the standard requirements of
an abstract.
The abstract was modified according to the reviewer’s comments.
(2) A paragraph reviewing some similar works or related works
is missing in the introduction.
Then, it should be included.
The paragraph reviewing some similar works or related works has been added in the introduction as suggested by the reviewer.
(3) There is not a conclusions section. Then a new section
of conclusions with possible challenges for future work should be included.
Conclusions have been added as suggested by the reviewer.
(4) Some strange symbols appear in different parts of the text,
even in the bibliography (see the marks on the pdf file).
I removed the strange symbols appearing in the text.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
In my opinion, the article is interesting and would be possible to publish in the present form.
