The Unmet Diagnostic and Treatment Needs in Large Cell Neuroendocrine Carcinoma of the Lung
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is a well written and thorough review of the current state of research in LCNE tumors. This will provide an excellent resource to people entering into the field or wishing to catch up on recent advances. The references are thorough and appropriately cited.
A minor critique is that the manuscript spends little time of the diagnosis and focuses on the treatment of LCNE tumors. Therefore, the title is misleading. The manuscript could be expanded to include diagnostic strategies for these types of tumors, with brief mentions of how well current or in-development diagnostic methods (lung cancer screening efforts, risk calculators, radiomic/blood biomarkers) perform in this subset of tumors. Alternatively, the title could be amended to emphasize the focus on treatment.
The English language is appropriate, and minor proofreading will be sufficient.
Author Response
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your kind words. Regarding the title, we tried to focus on both diagnosis and treatment. We didn't realize that the diagnosis part is lacking information and could be expanded. We will find a solution and make the changes you mentioned.
Reviewer 2 Report
I would like to congratulate the authors of an interesting article entitled “The unmet diagnostic and treatment needs in large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma of the lung”.
In their article, the authors very thoroughly present the current issues of diagnosis and treatment of neuroendocrine lung cancer. The article is written in good quality English, is well structured and comprehensively presents the topic discussed.
I only have a few minor comments on the article.
1. Line 34 – I assume that there should be “way” instead of “was”
2. Line 48 “(M:F=17:1),” - although these abbreviations are fairly self-explanatory, any abbreviation used in a manuscript for the first time should be explained. I suggest “male to female ratio of 17 to 1)
3. Line 50 – please explain “G>T” and “C>A”
4. Line 52 – please explain “bp”
Once again, I would like to congratulate the authors on a very interesting manuscript, and I propose that it be published in after minor revision.
Minor editing required.
Author Response
Dear Sir,
I fixed the 4 problems that you mentioned.
Thank you for your review and for your kind words!
