Next Article in Journal
Chromatin-Directed Proteomics Identifies ZNF84 as a p53-Independent Regulator of p21 in Genotoxic Stress Response
Next Article in Special Issue
The BETTY Score to Predict Perioperative Outcomes in Surgical Patients
Previous Article in Journal
A Novel Method to Predict Drug-Target Interactions Based on Large-Scale Graph Representation Learning
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Cancers
Volume 13
Issue 9
10.3390/cancers13092114
Review Report
cancers-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Review
Peer-Review Record

Prognostic Factors and Current Treatment Strategies for Renal Cell Carcinoma Metastatic to the Brain: An Overview

Cancers 2021, 13(9), 2114; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13092114
by Valeria Internò 1,2,*, Pierluigi De Santis 1,2, Luigia Stefania Stucci 1,2, Roberta Rudà 3,4, Marco Tucci 1,5, Riccardo Soffietti 4,† and Camillo Porta 1,2,†
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2:
Luidmila Spirina
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Cancers 2021, 13(9), 2114; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13092114
Submission received: 4 April 2021 / Revised: 20 April 2021 / Accepted: 24 April 2021 / Published: 27 April 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Prognostic Factors in Urologic Cancers—Assessment and Integration into Clinical Care)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have written a comprehensive and up to date review about renal cell carcinoma brain metastases, touching pathogenesis to accepted and upcoming treatments. This will be a useful read for oncologists and neurosurgeons alike. I have no modification to suggest.

Author Response

thank you

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors represent data of brain metastasis in kidney cancer patients. The originality and novelty of the study is very high. I can note that the study adds to the existing knowledge-base. The title reflects the content of the paper. It has a logical construction and is written in a clear and easily understandable style. The design of the study is consistent with its aims. The methods are modern and clearly described at all.

On my point of view, the conclusions are clear set up. The discussion section is not critique. It is not discussed the methodology used in the paper.

The references are accurate, up to date, and relevant. However, the paper could be accepted and published.

Author Response

thank you for your suggestions. we modified the conclusions may be in a more adequate matter (line 398 to 414)

Reviewer 3 Report

In this review, the authors described BMRCC prognostic factors and current treatment strategy. This is well written and the information would be helpful. The following points should be revised and clarified to improve the manuscript.

 

 

comments

  1. The abbreviation of SRS should be defined at its first appearance in the Abstract.
  2. In “4. Role of cytoreductive nephrectomy” section, the authors described prospective clinical trial would be needed to clarity the prognostic role of cyNx in BMRCC. The authors also described some positive data of cyNx. However, there are no information in terms of adverse event. I recommend the authors to add the information regarding cyNx adverse event.

Author Response

  1. done
  2.  we added the possible complications of cyNx (lines 209 to 212)
Back to TopTop