http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7911-913X
Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionJune 18, 2019 |
|---|
|
PONE-D-19-17310 Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography Findings of Canine Renal Tumors Including Renal Cell Carcinoma, Lymphoma, and Hemangiosarcoma PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Akiyoshi, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. ============================== Please address all Reviewer comments. ============================== We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Aug 17 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:
Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Douglas H. Thamm, V.M.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Please specify the method of anesthesia used during this study. In addition please specify the source of dogs examined in this study. For more information on our submission guidelines for studies reporting animal research please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-animal-research. 3. Thank you for including your ethics statement: This retrospective case study was approved by the relevant Ethics and Welfare Committees prior to publication. Please amend your current ethics statement to include the full name of the ethics committee that approved your specific study. For additional information about PLOS ONE submissions requirements for animal ethics, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-animal-research Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”). [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Partly Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: N/A ********** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Review of: Contrast enhanced CT findings of canine renal tumors including RCC, LSA and HAS Overall I think this is an interesting concept for a paper that has the potential to assist in differentiation of primary renal tumors via imaging characteristics. Having said that I think that there is flaws in the presentation of the information that makes this paper difficult to read and interpret. The discussion in particular is confusing and the imaging results need to be presented in a more coherent fashion. I would completely remove the information regarding the MRI the 1 patient had. This is not the point of this paper and with only 1 patient is more distracting than anything. Understanding that there is only a small number of patients, it would still be worthwhile to run some statistics on the differences in HU in the different phases between the patients to see if there is anything notable, rather than just stating that there is. I’m not sure why metastatic renal tumors and other tumors were excluded if you had a reasonable number of these patients. There is a whole paragraph in the discussion about the difference between renal LSA and metastatic renal lesions. Either include metastatic renal tumors in your analysis or remove this paragraph from the discussion. If you are not including them, perhaps change the title to “primary renal tumors”. I do not think the term “bulky lymphadenopathy” is appropriate in this article. There is certainly historical precedence for describing regional lymphadenopathy that way but it was primarily for mediastinal LSA and primarily a radiographic diagnosis. It is a term I am unfamiliar with in veterinary medicine and on CT. If a reference can be provided for the definition of what makes it “bulky” and it’s use in CT then I would be open to considering it. KEYWORDS should not include terminology already in the title Line 19 – US in my mind is used to obtain imaging findings to help to RANK differential diagnosis Line 43 – is lymphoma a mesenchymal tumor? Line 52 – what is the difference between metastatic and disseminated? With disseminated are you talking re: lymphoma because you use the term metastatic with regards to lymphoma later on in this article when discussing pulmonary pathology Line 53 – do you mean ultrasound rather than FNA? How does FNA diagnose solitary masses, echotextural changes or renomegaly? Line 51-59 – not sure this belongs in intro. I do think the lack of histology on all the renal tumors is a short coming in this study and perhaps this should be in the discussion section for why it’s ok you didn’t have that Line 78 – do you mean renal cystadenocarcinomas in the German Shepherds? It sounds like you are saying here the LSA was in GSH’s. Line 83 – The fact this was a retrospective study should be stated clearly in the introduction. Line 87 – why did you exclude metastatic renal tumors? How do you know the renal HSA was not metastatic? Please state if there was no other masses found and if it was a whole body CT Line 90 – this statement makes it sound like it was prospective study Line 93 – the anesthesia protocol should be more clearly stated, same with CT protocol rather than just referencing a previous paper. Line 99-100 – please reference how you determined when the corticomedullary vs nephrogenic vs excretory phases were in these dogs here, and potentially mention in intro a bit about why kidneys are evaluated this way rather than the traditional CTA in the introduction. You spend a lot of time focusing on the vessel enhancement to help with differentiation so it would help non radiologists to understand better how you came to that conclusion in your findings Line 114 – was this >5mm overall or >5mm above the normal range in the paper referenced? Because there is a large range in sizes of the various abdominal lymph nodes in this paper. Line 118 – explanation of methodology of ROI measurement should be above the statement re: mean attenuation values. Line 124 – as stated I think that statistical comparisons of the mean attenuation values between tumors in the different phases should be calculated to help decide if there truly is a difference, rather than a subjective statement to that effect. You say you look at the normalization of the CT data under statistical analysis but then nothing more is mentioned about it? Line 132 – why were the 25 dogs excluded? Line 133 – I would put the final line re: diagnosis before you list the breakdown of the tumor types and please state (or put in table) how many were diagnosed re: histo vs. cytology for the RCC Line 156 – is the table referenced here? Line 161 – number of tumors and presence of vessel enhancement shouldn’t be in the same sentence. Line 165 – I think I am confused by what you mean by enhanced areas gradually expanded around the vessels, do you think there was vascular leakage, or high intratumoral pressure preventing enhancement? I understand you spend some time on this in the discussion, but I feel the initial description is poor. Line 163-166 – I think that this whole section needs to be made clearer. The ideal goal in this series of cases would be to have a contrast enhancement pattern that helped differentiate between the tumor types. The table would be much clearer than the actual statements Line 177-212 – remove, this is not relevant to this paper Line 213 – was this regional lymphadenopathy? Line 214- was this confirmed or suspected lung mets Line 215 – table should be referenced sooner Line 255 – mean attenuation value of mass? Renal cortex? Blood vessels? These values should probably be put in a table to clarify the findings Line 268 – ideally you would start your discussion with the big take home point of this paper. Admittedly I am having trouble telling what that is. Do you think you can differentiate between the tumor types on CT? Line 268-278 – this whole section is confusing with awkward wording that leaves me unsure why this is relevant when you didn’t go back and have a pathologist subtype your RCC’s. If you are going to include this discussion point you should have the slides re-evaluated. It is a long paragraph to get to the point that in human medicine CT can differentiate LSA from clear cell RCC. Maybe put this statement first then limit you in depth review of human literature, try to focus more on veterinary literature. Line 283 – state similar attenuation values but you didn’t actually prove this with a test. Or did you? Because you talked re: shapiro wilk test and p value in methods but then no mention of it in results Line 288-293 – confusing, how does aortic peak enhancement and corticomedullary phase compare and why does vessel enhancement in corticomedullary phase indicate neovascularization? Lines 268-301 – basically this whole portion is there to bring home the fact that you think you can differentiate RCC from LSA and HSA on CT because of the corticomedullary enhancement if I’m reading this right. If you agree with this and can show that there is a statistically different enhancement pattern in this phase this would be the big take home point of the paper and shouldn’t be buried in all of the confusing references to human medicine. Line 302-306 – HSA was also heterogenous. Did you not evaluate the ct images for calcification? Line 307 – this was an ultrasound study, not CT Line 316 – are we talking normal dogs? Please be clear on this. Line 322 – are you saying that RCC and LSA looked similar on imaging characteristics? I thought that you were trying to make the enhancement pattern of RCC on corticomedullary phase an important finding Line 330 – please be clear this is in human medicine, not veterinary. And how did you extrapolate from this to homogenous enhancement, there are many tumors without active tumor thrombus that are heterogeneously enhancing because of intratumoral pressure and leaky blood vessels Line 333 – this is a human reference so how do you know this is true of the dog Line 334 – I think this is a weak statement re: needing further studies, I am getting the impression your study found NO differences between the various tumor types with regards to enhancement patterns, which should then be stated Line 335 – you just said you didn’t know the enhancement pattern of renal LSA in the dog Line 337 – in humans Line 342 – please explain what you mean by this Line 346 – Moreover is confusing term to use here Line 351-361 – why discuss this when you excluded metastatic lesions; the statement line 357-359 should definitely be removed since you never looked at this Line 362-372 – why are these findings divergent? Shoko’s paper seems to say the same thing re: non parenchymal HSA as you are saying re: renal HSA, but I may still be confused by the imaging findings you are trying to describe in your study Line 380-385 – a lot of discussion re: human angiosarcomas, very little re: canine HSA Line 384 – can’t you see this on your histo? Did you go back and look at these samples or other samples. I don’t think you can say this without support. You say they is similar attenuation values in all phases but had just stated there was gradual expansion of contrast around the vessels. Line 391 – you say again that further study is needed. I appreciate that you were not trying to overinterpret your results given the small population included but I do think that if you did not find any differentiating features between tumors (honestly having a hard time trying to suss out if you think you did) then that should be stated in the abstract and clearly at the beginning on the discussion Line 397 – remove “showed” and be clear that the lung mets were not confirmed Line 399-401 – confusing to talk re: human lymph nodes, please focus on literature related to dogs more than humans Line 403 – please be clear that the CVC invasion was in 1 dog Line 405 – be clear this is in humans Line 399-409 – paragraph on metastatic lesions should be in different paragraph than the CVC information Line 414 – I’m not sure what this statement means Line 419 – why is this not specific to LSA rather than just renal LSA? And generally metastasis of LSA is not the term used. You may want to again use veterinary references to describe how generally pulmonary infiltration by LSA is a diffuse disease presenting as interstitial pattern on rads Line 421 – again not sure bulky is good terminology Line 422 – why does gastric LSA matter in this discussion point? Line 423-426 – this is a confusing series of sentences with a leap on conjecture at the end Lines 427-438 – were any of your dogs azotemic? Was this a concern you had? This paragraph seems to be unnecessary Lines 439-452 – remove Lines 454-456 – your first limitation could be “small number of dogs with limited tumor types” to avoid excess words with limitation 2. Also consider this was a retrospective study as a limitation, lack of histo on all tumors and metastatic lesions Line 457 – I did not walk away from this report thinking that CT was useful, I was overall confused about what your findings were. This paragraph makes what was a confusing discussion much clearer, but you need to present your results in a more coherent fashion. A table and some statistical analysis may help with this. Also be careful to state that the corticomedullary phase in RCC and the enhancement expansion around BV’s in LSA was seen in your study only rather than making broad statements that it might be a specific imaging finding. Reviewer #2: This is a good summary of Renal cancer CT findings for a limited number of canine cases. a. I would be careful about making comments like "may be specific to" on the bases of so few cases. Instead, I would suggest "in our small series only XXXX had" for a given characteristic including specifically the various vascular patterns mentioned for RCC and HSA. b. The extensive review of the human literature makes the Discussion unnecessarily long. I would include human information only to compare and contrast to what was observed based on the 15 patients in this study. The Discussion is a time to summarize points of clinical value as well as compare to other reports and I would suggest taking your specific findings that are clinically useful in individual paragraphs and in that same paragraph contrast to the human reports which would give the manuscript a more focused approach. Note that the Discussion is over twice as long as any of the other segments of the paper. It should be no more than 1/2 what is is. c. In line 378, "has" should be "HSA". d. I am not sure that including the magnetic resonance findings in this paper adds much, particularly if the MR data for the patients is not put in table form like what was done for the CT data. Eliminating the MR data (and potentially putting it together in another manuscript would allow for greater MRI depth, and it would shorten the current paper while focusing exclusively in CT as the title indicates. ********** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes: Daniel A Feeney, DVM, MS, Diplomate, American College of Veterinary Radiology, Professor, University of Minnesota College of Veterinary Medicine [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. |
| Revision 1 |
|
PONE-D-19-17310R1 Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography Findings of Canine Renal Tumors Including Renal Cell Carcinoma, Lymphoma, and Hemangiosarcoma PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Akiyoshi, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. ============================== Please address all Reviewer comments. Based on the comments of the Reviewer, it appears that editing of the entire manuscript by a native English speaker would greatly enhance readability. ============================== We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Oct 05 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:
Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Douglas H. Thamm, V.M.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: (No Response) ********** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Partly ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: I Don't Know ********** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: No ********** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: No ********** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Review for: CECT Findings of Canine Primary Renal Tumors Including RCC, LSA and HAS Overall there has been a lot of effort and work put into revising this article and I would like to thank the authors for taking into consideration the comments previously put forth. There are still some significant grammatical errors that need to be addressed. For example: Line 20: It should read that AUS is used “to rank” not “for the RANK” Line 35: In my opinion saying “marked” or “severe” lymphadenopathy is better terminology than “remarkable” or “bulky” Line 300: Double negative to say “is the absence of lack of necrosis” Line 339: says "renal HSA has" Line 357: RCC was detected lung metastasis Line 380 Line 388 There are other similar grammatical, spelling or wording errors that need to be addressed that I have not pointed out. I particularly appreciated the addition of the beginning portion of the discussion which I personally think makes this article worthwhile to continue revising towards an acceptable publication format. There are still some specific concerns I have, which are listed as follows: Line 24: instead of “consequently” consider wording such as “In this retrospective study” so that it is clear in the abstract that is what type of study this is. Line 29: Lymphoma should not be plural here. Line 43: This is the wrong reference. That particular “what’s your diagnosis” is regarding HOD in a dog. I would also like to state that your reference formatting for this and other articles lists the volume but not the issue which can make it difficult to locate an article. In particular for this paper, which did not come up in a Google scholar search, pages aren’t listed on the JAVMA website which made it hard to find. Also if you are going to report the incidence of a tumor that reference should not be from a “What’s your diagnosis” article. I assume there is an actual reference that is quoted in this paper which is the one that should be used. Line 81: take out “originating from another tumor or multiple tumors" as that is the definition of metastatic Line 125: add ‘reported’ for the normal range Line 127: change to “lung mets was determined from the thoracic portion of the the CT examined in a detailed, lung window” Line 153: I’d report the number of tumors in each category at the start of this paragraph then the breakdown Line 183: saying RCC’s had no BV enhancement on certain phases in the body with the table above it saying 89% had vessel enhacement is confusing Lines 213-232: in your discussion you never discuss what the significance of having a meaningful effect size or the results of the post hoc test being significant means. If you are not going to explain these results to the reader, please exclude. In line 238 you say meaningful effect size was detected but need more of an explanation for this Line 244: while it is obvious, please include brief description for excretory phase here also. Line 255, 347, 352: be careful to state that findings in this study were not significant Line 269-270: I assume you mean the masses created by the RCC and LSA? Line 278: “renal fna can be used to assist with the cytological diagnosis of” Line 322-325: remove, you didn’t include metastatic lesions so no need to include in discussion Line 341: I’d remove the description of human angiosarcomas after saying they have irregular vascular spaces or channels. Line 364: why do you think this is true? You only had 1 dog that had RCC and lymphadenopathy Line 368: add “may be” Line 376: add “possible” ********** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. |
| Revision 2 |
|
PONE-D-19-17310R2 Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography Findings of Canine Renal Tumors Including Renal Cell Carcinoma, Lymphoma, and Hemangiosarcoma PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Akiyoshi, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. ============================== Please address the additional comments of the Reviewer. ============================== We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Nov 23 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:
Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Douglas H. Thamm, V.M.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: (No Response) ********** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: I Don't Know ********** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes ********** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: No ********** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: CT characteristics of PRIMARY (we did change to primary, correct?)renal tumors The entire manuscript is a more organized , more easily read and interpreted study at this stage so thank you for all the hard work to make this a valuable contribution to veterinary science. Couple notes, your reference #37that states most lymphoma cases were unilateral I think is misleading. There are many references saying the majority of renal LSA cases in dogs are bilateral, much similar to your study. Look for Taylor, A. et al, JSAP 2019; Taylor, A, et al. VRU 2014 I think there was a misunderstanding regarding my comments about effect size. If you are going to say in results it was meaningful, as was post hoc testing being meaningful between tumor types, I think a discussion point would be what this means – that maybe there would be significant differences if you had larger sample size? Or that you truly think this is meaningful/significant? Please make clear what this meant to you. Line 154-155 should be at the start of the paragraph Table 1 – should say “Presumed” lung metastasis Line 277-278 – I assume the lower HU’s in comparison to the renal cortex means that the masses in the individual dogs compared to the renal cortex in same imaging study and NOT compared to the quoted values in the start of this paragraph? Still the occasional wording/grammar errors. ********** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. |
| Revision 3 |
|
Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography Findings of Canine Renal Tumors Including Renal Cell Carcinoma, Lymphoma, and Hemangiosarcoma PONE-D-19-17310R3 Dear Dr. Akiyoshi, We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication. Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. With kind regards, Douglas H. Thamm, V.M.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: |
| Formally Accepted |
|
PONE-D-19-17310R3 Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography Findings of Canine Primary Renal Tumors Including Renal Cell Carcinoma, Lymphoma, and Hemangiosarcoma Dear Dr. Akiyoshi: I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE. With kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Douglas H. Thamm Academic Editor PLOS ONE |
Open letter on the publication of peer review reports
PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.
We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.
Learn more at ASAPbio .