Prof Hicks and co-authors submitted an interesting invited manuscript entitled “ENETS consensus guidelines for synoptic reporting of molecular imaging studies”. This manuscript showed a well coordinated multidisciplinary interaction of various specialists involved in the field about a complex topic. This is in line with the mission and objectives of an international multi-specialty scientific society like ENETS.

Minor comments:

1. To prevent possible misunderstanding I would avoid using the term “guidelines”, e.g. in the Abstract. I would replace it with “guidance” or “suggestion”.

2. Pag. 4 of 23: “Through publication of standards-of-care consensus guidelines, the European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society (ENETS) promotes practices and procedures that aim to harmonise the diagnosis and treatment of neuroendocrine neoplasia (NEN) with the ultimate goal of improving patient outcomes.” I would change to “……. To harmonise the diagnostic and therapeutic approach …..”

3. Pag. 6 of 23: In “Results” : I would replace “mitotic rate” with “mitotic index”

4. Pag. 11 of 23: In “Conclusion” : “…. pertinent to the detection, staging and therapeutic response …”, I would change it to “…. pertinent to the diagnosis, characterization, staging and therapeutic approach ….”

5. In Table 1: I would replace “PRRT” with “RLT”. Furthermore for “typical and atypical carcinoids” I would add “Thymus” to “Lung”