Computer Simulations of Dual-Antenna Microwave Ablation and Comparison to Experimental Measurements
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please correct non-english words in line 131.
The resolution of Fig 4 can be improved .
Technically , the spacing variation between two antennas can produce strong coupling effect in the near field . This results distortion ,thereby affecting the region of interest to be heated. Can this be thought as a major limitation in this work.
What other limitations the authors have felt while doing this work. Inclusion of limitations in the paper would reflect more originality.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have used simulations and ex vivo tissue experiments to calculate the ablation zone caused by a dual-applicator MW ablation treatment.
On first glance this seems a tidy and well organized manuscript with a clear goal.
I think there is nothing really novel about this study, since the heating pattern of dual antenna MW ablation has been studied previously both ex vivo, in vivo and in situ:
See for reference:
--> https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.13122128
--> https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiomed.2013.07.013
The authors should make more effort in showing why their study is unique and worth publishing, given this literature is already published.
There are some points that have confused me, mainly regarding assumptions about perfusion rate.
The authors have not properly established perfusion and the values they have used for perfusion are not properly justified.
Hence, I have my doubts about the whole part after line 257.
Further, it is often not clear what is an experimental result and what is a simulation result.
Finally, some point-to-point remarks:
100: Pennes should not be capitalized.
98, 100: (Equation(#)) format should be replaced by (#)
112: The blood perfusion rate has the following units: m^3/(s kg). Can the authors double check all units?
115: Model Valitaion based on ex vivo experiments
131: Please check chinese letters appearing in pdf file after "The isothermal model..."
143: The thermal damage parameters were not measured but taken from literature. Can the authors be more specific about how they chose those parameters? What is the uncertainty?
149: The authors say that 54°C is most frequently used. Did the authors validate that this is also the case for their phantom tissue?
158: "learn" is not the proper wordC
163-164: Can the authors explain where they have found this definition of blood perfusion? In reference [30] the word perfusion is not even mentioned.
165-166: Can the authors explain on what data these perfusion values are based? This is not properly cited. The baseline perfusion values for a non heated liver are around 860 ml/min/kg according to IT'IS database: https://itis.swiss/virtual-population/tissue-properties/database/heat-transfer-rate/
186: Are those temperatures the simulated or the measured temperatures?
196: Figure 4, left shows a difference in the slope between Experiment and simulation. This shows that the simulation input parameters are not properly set, leading to a different heating pattern.
363 I do not understand this sentence.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I would like to thank the authors for their adaptations. Their methodology desciption has been impoved, and I now understand better the intent of the paper. Especially in respect to the existing literature.
I have only two requests:
-->185-186: These perfusion values are not properly cited. Can the authors refer to literature on which this can be based?
-->the authors claim that this manuscipt can work as a guideline/practical reference for dual MWA treatments. Since the authors have only studied one specific MWA applicator model in their study, do they think it is correct to generalize? If yes, in what extend can this be generalized.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
