Efficacy and Accuracy of Using Magnetic Seed for Preoperative Non-Palpable Breast Lesions Localization: Our Experience with Magseed

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is interesting although the number of patients enrolled is quite low.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1. Information on the method of examination and the definition of negative resection margins of the surgical specimens in BCS is missing.

2. Was the specimens radiography made in two-views procedure?

3. Your experience that "the probe can detect a magnetic seed that is no more than around 4 cm distant from the skin" is inconsistent with the data reported in literature.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Anna D’Angelo et al. reports the clinical result for localization of breast lesion. There seems to, however, be a lack of detail in some important aspects and significance. In addition, the reviewer cannot find the strong valuable compared with other manuscript regarding non-palpable lesions with Magseed.

(1)

The author state “safety” in the title of the manuscript. However, in the manuscript, there is no description for safety. Could you show the evidence for “safety” by using your results? In general, magnetic method is safe compared with radioactive method. What is your definition regarding “safety”.

(2)

The authors introduce other methods without magnetic technology, such as ROLL, RFID, and WGL. T. Kurita et al., demonstrated the magnetic localization method using magnetic material (like Magseed) and magnetic detector (like Sentimag) for non-palpable breast cancer (https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/cancers13122923). The author can mention the comparison in Introduction or Discussion session.

(3)

Figure 5.

・   There is no blue circle in a and b. Please add blue circle or modify the explanation.

・   Please add the scalebar to understand “3.5 cm”.

・   In f, there are some Magseed. Could you explain the reason?

・   The reviewer suggest that the author should add the more descriptions regarding Fig. 5 in the main text.

(4)

L. 103-104

Since the author state that “… to evaluate the distance … and the close margins”, the author should describe quantitative information regarding distance and close margin to enhance the significance of this manuscript for localization and resection compared with other magnetic methods [8, 10-12]. “The re-excision rate is 0%” is excellent. However, without the information of margin, the significance would deteriorate.

Minor comments;

Figure 2

The author mention that Magseed inside the introducer. However, it hard to see Magseed on this picture. Could you add enlarged view for visualization of Magseed.

L. 218

“simple” should be replaced to “sample”. Please check it.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Authors have addressed my concerns, the work is now suitable for publication.