Title: Imaging features of epidermoid cysts in intrapancreatic spleen: A single center study of
24 patients
Version: 3 Date: 14 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
Please consider language correction is some parts, for better understanding.
Image acquisition
Please explain why MRCP only was performed and not contrast enhanced MRI. DWI technique
could also be beneficial for the differential diagnosis.
Results
Regarding the diagnoses, please clarify if the results refer to the first diagnosis before surgery,
or to the diagnosis of the two radiologists during the retrospective analysis.
Concerning the cases diagnosed as benign cystic lesion, or serous cystadenoma, please explain
why surgery was performed?
Concerning MRCP findings as none of the lesions communicated with the pancreatic dust, how
the diagnosis of IPMN was proposed in one patient?
Discussion-Image analysis
Please change the following “The lesions of ECIPAS show no marked reinforcement in arterial
phase: to “The lesions of ECIPAS show no marked enhancement in arterial phase
Figures
1.Please change “(c) The lesion shows strip-like enhancement in the veneous phase” to “(c) The
lesion shows strip-like enhancement in the venous phase”.
2.Please change “the multilocular mass shows slightly uneven enhancement” to “the
multilocular mass shows slightly heterogenous enhancement”
4.Please change “(a) The mass shows slightly iso-, hyperdense with ill-fined border” to “(a) The
mass shows slightly iso-, hyperdense with ill-defined border”
5.Please change “(d) Coronal T2WI imaging shows a round homogeneous mass with
hyperintense in the tail of the pancreas” to “(d) Coronal T2WI imaging shows a round
homogeneous hyperintense mass in the tail of the pancreas”.
Title: Imaging features of epidermoid cysts in intrapancreatic spleen: A single center study of
24 patients
Version: 3 Date: 14 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
Please consider language correction is some parts, for better understanding.
Image acquisition
Please explain why MRCP only was performed and not contrast enhanced MRI. DWI technique
could also be beneficial for the differential diagnosis.
Results
Regarding the diagnoses, please clarify if the results refer to the first diagnosis before surgery,
or to the diagnosis of the two radiologists during the retrospective analysis.
Concerning the cases diagnosed as benign cystic lesion, or serous cystadenoma, please explain
why surgery was performed?
Concerning MRCP findings as none of the lesions communicated with the pancreatic dust, how
the diagnosis of IPMN was proposed in one patient?
Discussion-Image analysis
Please change the following “The lesions of ECIPAS show no marked reinforcement in arterial
phase: to “The lesions of ECIPAS show no marked enhancement in arterial phase
Figures
1.Please change “(c) The lesion shows strip-like enhancement in the veneous phase” to “(c) The
lesion shows strip-like enhancement in the venous phase”.
2.Please change “the multilocular mass shows slightly uneven enhancement” to “the
multilocular mass shows slightly heterogenous enhancement”
4.Please change “(a) The mass shows slightly iso-, hyperdense with ill-fined border” to “(a) The
mass shows slightly iso-, hyperdense with ill-defined border”
5.Please change “(d) Coronal T2WI imaging shows a round homogeneous mass with
hyperintense in the tail of the pancreas” to “(d) Coronal T2WI imaging shows a round
homogeneous hyperintense mass in the tail of the pancreas”.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Imaging features of epidermoid cysts in intrapancreatic spleen: A single center study of
24 patients
Version: 3 Date: 14 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
Please consider language correction is some parts, for better understanding.
Image acquisition
Please explain why MRCP only was performed and not contrast enhanced MRI. DWI technique
could also be beneficial for the differential diagnosis.
Results
Regarding the diagnoses, please clarify if the results refer to the first diagnosis before surgery,
or to the diagnosis of the two radiologists during the retrospective analysis.
Concerning the cases diagnosed as benign cystic lesion, or serous cystadenoma, please explain
why surgery was performed?
Concerning MRCP findings as none of the lesions communicated with the pancreatic dust, how
the diagnosis of IPMN was proposed in one patient?
Discussion-Image analysis
Please change the following “The lesions of ECIPAS show no marked reinforcement in arterial
phase: to “The lesions of ECIPAS show no marked enhancement in arterial phase
Figures
1.Please change “(c) The lesion shows strip-like enhancement in the veneous phase” to “(c) The
lesion shows strip-like enhancement in the venous phase”.
2.Please change “the multilocular mass shows slightly uneven enhancement” to “the
multilocular mass shows slightly heterogenous enhancement”
4.Please change “(a) The mass shows slightly iso-, hyperdense with ill-fined border” to “(a) The
mass shows slightly iso-, hyperdense with ill-defined border”
5.Please change “(d) Coronal T2WI imaging shows a round homogeneous mass with
hyperintense in the tail of the pancreas” to “(d) Coronal T2WI imaging shows a round
homogeneous hyperintense mass in the tail of the pancreas”.
assistant