Performances of Functional and Anatomic Imaging Modalities in Succinate Dehydrogenase A-Related Metastatic Pheochromocytoma and Paraganglioma
, Alexander Ling 2, Clara C. Chen 3, Corina Millo 4, Mickey J. M. Kuo 1,5, Matthew A. Nazari 1, Sara Talvacchio 1, Kailah Charles 1, Markku Miettinen 6, Jaydira Del Rivero 7, Alice P. Chen 8, Naris Nilubol 9, Frank I. Lin 10, Ali Cahid Civelek 11, David Taïeb 12, Jorge A. Carrasquillo 10,13 and Karel Pacak 1,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors, regarding discussion and conclusion you did a good job, but I have to suggest some corrections. You ‘ll find all suggestions listed point by point:
Minor revisions:
- Table 1: “PHEO”, “f” “m” expansions is missing
- lines 163 and 165: I would specify better the meaning of “AL” and “JAC”
- line 202: it is recommended to explain why in patients 1, 5 and 8 you detected primary lesions despite surgery of primary.
- Table 4: I suggest to modify the graphic (under “ratio DR ratio” there is a second line that I don’t understand)
- line 301: the correct word is “Table 3” not “Table 2”
Major revisions
- lines 80-85: it is recommended to add percentage of patient with SDHx-related PPGL with appropriate references.
- line 123: it is recommended to add, not only in the table but also in the text, mutations found and if one of these is more frequently than the others.
- Paragraphs 3.3. 3.4, 3.5: I suggest to combine these paragraphs
Author Response
Thank you for your review. Please see the attachment of our responses.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The Authors conducted a very sound study to identifywhich imaging modality among PET, CT, and MRI performs better in localizing metastatic PPGL lesions related to SDHA.
I feel that the results are relevant mainly for a niche of clinicians involved in the treatment of PPGL; however, the study was very well conducted and the paper is well written.
I can offer some suggestions:
- Table 1 is hard to read, can the Authors rework it to enhance clarity?
- the first part of the Discussion looks like a repetition of the Results. can the Authors consider redrafting?
- can the Authors expand on the relevance of their findings for clinical practice (see for instance lines 367-368). This would further justify publication in a general journal like Cancers.
Author Response
Thank you. Please see the attachment for our responses.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
