Next Article in Journal
Baseline Blood CD8+ T Cell Activation Potency Discriminates Responders from Non-Responders to Immune Checkpoint Inhibition Combined with Stereotactic Radiotherapy in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer
Previous Article in Journal
Bevacizumab-Based Therapies in Malignant Tumors—Real-World Data on Effectiveness, Safety, and Cost
Previous Article in Special Issue
Improved Pancreatic Cancer Detection and Localization on CT Scans: A Computer-Aided Detection Model Utilizing Secondary Features
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Characterization of a Syngeneic Orthotopic Model of Cholangiocarcinoma by [18F]FDG-PET/MRI

Cancers 2024, 16(14), 2591; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16142591
by Lena Zachhuber 1,2, Thomas Filip 3, Behrang Mozayani 4, Mathilde Löbsch 5, Stefan Scheiner 6, Petra Vician 6, Johann Stanek 1, Marcus Hacker 2,7, Thomas H. Helbich 1,8, Thomas Wanek 1, Walter Berger 6 and Claudia Kuntner 1,7,*
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Cancers 2024, 16(14), 2591; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16142591
Submission received: 27 June 2024 / Revised: 4 July 2024 / Accepted: 9 July 2024 / Published: 19 July 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Oncological Imaging)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. What is the meaning of i.p. 18F-FDG PET shown in the articles?

2. Why do the liver tumors exhibit bone and cartilage formation?

3. The glucose level of several mice seems to exceed the standard values, close to the DM level. Will it impact the SUVs of tumors and organs and physiological activity?

4. What does the dynamic PET study mean in the experiment design?

 

5. The necrosis caused decreased SUV of tumors. Is it significant? Can it be possible for other factors? 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting study to present an orthotopic mouse model of cholangiocarcinoma. The mouse cell line was from Ref 20, which is one of the seven cell lines derived from the YAP-driven murine CCA model. The Introduction did not clearly state why SB-1, not the other 6 cell lines, was chozen, and exactly what clinical model this one represents: iCCA, pCCA or dCCA, and at what stage? To be really useful, especially for testing treatment strategies, the paper needs to present what type/stage of CCA this mouse model is modeling? Why not use YAP-driven murine CCA models directly for both male and female mice (SB-1 was derived from male?!)?  

Regarding histology, how were compared to the corresponding human CCA? Please discuss.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

None

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors addressed the points raised by tis reviewer.

Back to TopTop