Next Article in Journal
PSA-Stratified Performance of [18F]DCFPyL PET/CT in Biochemically Recurrent Prostate Cancer Patients under Androgen Deprivation Therapy
Next Article in Special Issue
Incidental Vascular Findings in Computed Tomography Performed in the Qualification for the TAVI Procedure
Previous Article in Journal
Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis and Bioinformatic Analysis of Biomarkers for Prognosis of Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma
Previous Article in Special Issue
Multiple Clay Shoveler’s Fractures of the Thoracic Spine
 
 
Interesting Images
Peer-Review Record

Different Uptake of 68Ga-FAPI and 18F-FDG in Lymphadenopathy Caused by Angioimmunoblastic T-Cell Lymphoma in a Patient with Colon Cancer

by Meiqi Wu 1,2, Qingqing Pan 1,2 and Yaping Luo 1,2,*
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Submission received: 19 August 2022 / Revised: 30 August 2022 / Accepted: 8 September 2022 / Published: 13 September 2022
(This article belongs to the Collection Interesting Images)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper under evaluation (Interesting Image) shows the differential uptake of dual tracer PET/CT with 18F-FDG and 68Ga-FAPI in a patient previously treated for colorecal cancer, presenting lung mass coupled with generalized lymph adenopathies. 

While lung mass incorporated both 18F-FDG and 68Ga-FAPI, lymph adenopathies were positive only at 18F-FDG PET/CT, then resuling positive for angioimmunoblastic T cell lymphoma. 

The paper is well written and documented and represents an example of combined use of 18F-FDG and 68Ga-FAPI.

Here some suggestions:

- the interval between the 2 scans (18F-FDG and 68Ga-FAPI PET/CT) should be added to the main text;

- the authors state that institutional review board approved the FAPI PET, the number of the approved study should be added;

- As far as it concerns the prostate lesion, no biopsy was carried out, therefore, the findings should be interpreted with caution. At least, a brief comment on correlative MRI findings (including Pi-RADS) might be of value.

The main limitation of the paper is the lack of histological confirmation of lung metastasis; this should be more clearly stressed in the manuscript.

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’ constructive comments, which helped us to improve our manuscript. Please find out our point-by-point responses to these comments below.

Point 1: the interval between the 2 scans (18F-FDG and 68Ga-FAPI PET/CT) should be added to the main text;

Response 1: Thank you for the comments. 68Ga-FAPI PET/CT for the patient was performed three days after 18F-FDG PET/CT (Page 3, line 55).  

Point 2: the authors state that institutional review board approved the FAPI PET, the number of the approved study should be added;

Response 2: Thank you for the comment. The approval code (zs-1810) has been added in the figure legend and the IRB statement (Page 3, line 50; page 4, line 92).

Point 3: As far as it concerns the prostate lesion, no biopsy was carried out, therefore, the findings should be interpreted with caution. At least, a brief comment on correlative MRI findings (including Pi-RADS) might be of value.

Response 3: Thank you for the comment. A summary of the prostate MRI findings including PI-RADS has been added. "Prostate MRI detected abnormal signal in the prostate apex (central zone), consistent with the lesion shown on 68Ga-FAPI PET/CT, with decreased T2 signal and elevated DWI (PI-RADS 4)" (Page 3, line 69-71).

Point 4: The main limitation of the paper is the lack of histological confirmation of lung metastasis; this should be more clearly stressed in the manuscript.

Response 4: Thank you for the comment. We elaborated on the main clinical considerations of the lung lesion. "He did not have a further lung biopsy due to complicated disease status. Combining the patient’s history, the elevated serum CEA level, and findings on PET/CTs (the smooth margin, singularity, and high uptake of both 18F-FDG and 68Ga-FAPI) of the lung lesion, metastasis from colon cancer or primary lung cancer were primarily considered" (Page 3, line 65-68).

We truly appreciate your pertinent and constructive advice. We have benefitted from your concern and suggestions. Hopefully, our manuscript has been improved after revision according to your comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an interesting images paper. I have no detailed comments. However, the authors can discuss and cite the recommended reference about tumor metabolism, especially the 18F-2-DG.

Tumor energy metabolism and potential of 3-bromopyruvate as an inhibitor of aerobic glycolysis: implications in tumor treatment. Cancers, 2019, 11, 317.

Author Response

Thank you for the comment. We added the reference as ref. 16 in the resubmission. "18F-FDG and 68Ga-FAPI are not tumor specific agents, though enhanced glycolysis is the major characteristic of malignant tumors[16]" (Page 3, line 72-73; page 4, line 132-133). 

Back to TopTop