Review History


To increase transparency, PeerJ operates a system of 'optional signed reviews and history'. This takes two forms: (1) peer reviewers are encouraged, but not required, to provide their names (if they do so, then their profile page records the articles they have reviewed), and (2) authors are given the option of reproducing their entire peer review history alongside their published article (in which case the complete peer review process is provided, including revisions, rebuttal letters and editor decision letters).

New to public reviews? Learn more about optional signed reviews and how to write a better rebuttal letter.

Summary

  • The initial submission of this article was received on April 7th, 2016 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on May 25th, 2016.
  • The first revision was submitted on August 2nd, 2016 and was reviewed by 1 reviewer and the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on August 22nd, 2016.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· · Academic Editor

Accept

The revision has been well performed.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

The changes made by the authors are fine to my opinion.

Experimental design

OK

Validity of the findings

OK

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

Dear Authors,

I have read the manuscript and am in agreement with the 2 reviewers that it should only need Minor Revisions.

As noted by reviewer 2, the 2 materials which are used under 2 very different legal routes, this needs a more detailed explanation of the legal use in humans.

·

Basic reporting

•the submission adhere to all PeerJ policies
•professional standards of English language
•well structured article
•relevant figures
•the submission include all results relevant to the hypothesis

Experimental design

•primary research in a retrospective analysis
•clearly defined research question
• high technical standard of investigation procedure
•methods are well described
.

Validity of the findings

• robust and statistically sound data
• uncontrolled data (no comparison with histological findings...)
•the conclusion is connected to the original question investigated
•speculation about the different enhancement patterns of the 2 presented CMs is identified as such

Comments for the author

# " dose of ferumoxytol was 6.0 mg Fe per kg body ": why is the concentration of Fe higher in ferumoxytol; please explain...
# did you compare your MRL results with PLND findings?
# " the availability of ferumoxtran However is limited because it is currently not approved. ": please explain

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

OK

Experimental design

The quality of the results is a little hampered by the small number of subject for the ferumoxytol case (only 4).

Line 97-98 needs a clear ref.

Which T1 method is used in line 107.

Line 166, this is investigated in pigs and described by: J. Pouw Int. J. of nanomedicine 2015. 10, P 1235.

Line 171-172: The second coating (PEG) is not mentioned.

Validity of the findings

A clear presentation of all the obtained data is missing in particular for the ferumoxytol case. In particular with no significant statistics, simply presenting all observed data is the best thing to do. In particular on line 93-95 these data are missing. In this case it is not clear which patients are considered here.

In line 132-133 the time-point of the measurement is not clear.
- What is the order & timing of the administered agent and the MRI
- Can you comment on the washout time of both agents

Comments for the author

The current trend (line 50) is an opinion not supported by facts or lit.

The two materials are used under two very different legal routes, this needs a more detailed explanation of the legal use in humans.

The safety issue on line 72-74 is not clear for a general reader, please explain with more detail

All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.