Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2022 Nov 28;17(11):e0278166. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0278166

Central nervous system hemangioblastomas in von Hippel-Lindau disease: Total growth rate and risk of developing new lesions not associated with circulating VEGF levels

Jimmy Sundblom 1,*, Tor Persson Skare 2, Olivia Holm 1, Staffan Welin 3, Madelene Braun 4, Pelle Nilsson 1, Per Enblad 1, Elisabet Ohlin Sjöström 2, Anja Smits 4
Editor: Prashant Chittiboina5
PMCID: PMC9704563  PMID: 36441756

Abstract

Background

Hemangioblastomas of the central nervous system are a prominent feature of von Hippel-Lindau-disease (vHL). Hemangioblastomas are known to secrete vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), suggesting a potential role of VEGF as a biomarker for tumor growth.

Methods

Plasma VEGF samples from 24 patients with von Hippel-Lindau disease were analyzed by solid-phase proximity ligation assay (PLA). Levels were monitored over time together with numeric and volumetric CNS tumor burden, and compared to plasma VEGF levels in healthy controls.

Results

The mean yearly progression in tumor volume was 65.5%. Yearly risk of developing one or several new CNS tumor(s) was 50%. No significant correlation between tumor burden and levels of VEGF was seen. VEGF levels in patients (31.55–92.04; mean 55.83, median 56.41) as measured by immunodetection in a solid-phase PLA did not differ significantly from controls (37.38–104.56; mean 58.89, median 54.12) (p = 0,266).

Conclusion

The increase in total CNS tumor volume in vHL occurred in a saltatory manner. The risk of developing a new lesion was 50% per year. We found no evidence for VEGF secretion from CNS hemangioblastomas in vHL in circulating blood. Other potential biomarkers should be explored to assess progression of tumor burden in vHL.

Introduction

Von Hippel-Lindau disease (vHL) is an autosomal dominant inherited disorder predisposing to development of vascular tumors of the central nervous system (CNS), retina, endocrine tumors, cystic lesions of the pancreas and kidneys, renal clear cell carcinoma (RCC) and several other tumors [1]. CNS hemangioblastoma is one of the most prominent features of vHL, with 90% of patients exhibiting this type of lesion [2]. They occur almost exclusively infratentorially, in the cerebellum, brain stem and spinal cord.

The most common cause of the disease is mutations of the VHL gene on chromosome 3, but the phenotype may exhibit in patients without mutations in the gene itself, probably due to mutations in regulatory sequences [3, 4]. The VHL gene acts as a tumor suppressor and its corresponding protein (pVHL) has two isoforms, a full length pVHL30 and pVHL19 generated by alternative translation. Both proteins are expressed in several types of tissue, regulating transcription of several growth factors, including angiogenic ones [5]. Clinical diagnosis of vHL is made when a patient presents with more than one vHL-associated lesion (including multiple CNS hemangioblastomas), or, in case of a positive family history, one single vHL-associated lesion. Genetic testing should be considered in patients even with a solitary vHL lesion [6]. Negative genetic testing in a patient fulfilling the diagnostic criteria does not exclude the patient from participating in a screening program. Nevertheless, the uptake in screening programs is dependent on compliance, which due to the cumbersome nature of the many investigations can be low [7].

Due to the range of different organ systems involved in vHL, and to the non-predictable nature of the disease, the optimal basis for care is surveillance by multidisciplinary teams. Application of a clinical screening program has been shown to decrease the risk of disabling or fatal tumor development in patients [8]. However, life expectancy in vHL is still low compared to other hereditary cancer syndromes, 52.5 years, with mortality mainly caused by CNS lesions and RCC [9]. Regarding CNS lesions, the current paradigm is surveillance of small tumors and microsurgical extirpation of cerebellar tumors when mass effect is evident, while brain stem and spinal cord tumors are surgically treated when symptoms occur (due to surgical morbidity associated with lesions in these regions) [1012]. Of course, this strategy confers the risk that already developed symptoms will not regress after surgery. Also, small tumors may grow significantly between screening visits. Consequently, readily available biomarkers predicting growth of CNS hemangioblastomas would be a welcome addition to the surveillance program, to fine-tune individual management and possibly also to increase compliance to surveillance in patients. The aim of this study was to analyze circulating VEGF levels in relation to total growth rate and risk of developing new lesions.

Materials and methods

Participants

Twenty-three patients with genetically or clinically confirmed vHL (age 18–68; 14 female, 9 male; Table 1) were prospectively recruited from the Departments of Endocrine Oncology, Neurology or Neurosurgery at Uppsala University Hospital. Plasma samples were collected at yearly visits. VEGF was analyzed at least one timepoint in all 23 individuals.

Table 1. Patients and clinical characteristics.

Patient Mutation Gender Age at inclusion Retinal hemangioma Neuroendocrine tumor Kidney lesion Endolymphatic sac Tumor
VHL001 nc194 C>T (p.Ser65Leu) M 36 Y N Y N
VHL002 nc699 C>G (p.Cys162Trp) F 43 Y N N N
VHL003 none F 32 N N N N
VHL004 none F 65 Y N N N
VHL005 ? F 41 Y N N N
VHL006 nc699 C>G (p.Cys162Trp) F 22 Y N N N
VHL007 nc699 C>G (p.Cys162Trp) M 19 Y N Y N
VHL008 nc778 delG (frameshift) M 28 Y N N N
VHL009 ? F 41 Y Y Y N
VHL010 p26(?) M 21 N N N N
VHL011 nc712 C>T (p.Arg167Trp) F 43 Y N Y N
VHL012 nc712 C>T (p.Arg167Trp) F 44 Y Y Y N
VHL013 none F 54 N N N N
VHL014 deletion (complete) F 46 Y N Y N
VHL015 none F 68 N Y N N
VHL016 nc694 C>T (p.Arg161Stop F 23 Y N N N
VHL017 nc694 C>T (p.Arg161Stop) M 19 N N N N
VHL018 nc778 delG M 55 Y N Y N
VHL019 nc233 A>G (p.Asn78Ser) M 45 N N Y N
VHL020 nc713 G>A (p.Arg167Gln) F 38 Y N N N
VHL021 nc712 C>T (p.Arg167Trp) M 43 Y Y Y N
VHL022 nc505 delTACCC (frameshift) F 54 Y Y Y N
VHL023 deletion (complete) M 18 Y N N N

Plasma samples from healthy control individuals (n = 29) were obtained at yearly visits. All samples were stored at -70 until analysis.

Most patients (n = 22) followed screening protocols stipulating yearly magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies, but seven patients were excluded from the radiological part of the study due to lack of adequate corresponding MRI studies.

Ethical considerations

The study was approved by the regional ethics review board. All participants provided written informed consent.

Plasma VEGF analysis by solid-phase proximity ligation assay (PLA)

Affinity-purified polyclonal biotinylated antibodies against VEGF165 were procured from R&D Systems (BAF293). Streptavidin-conjugated Biovic3 and Biovic5 were purchased from Avidomics. The forward primer (Biofwd), reverse primer (Biorev) and connector oligonucleotide were obtained from Integrated DNA Technologies (IDT). Biotinylated antibodies were immobilized on the Dynabeads MyOne T1 streptavidin coated beads (Thermo Fisher).

The probes were functionalized by conjugating single-stranded DNA molecules of approximately 60 nucleotides in length to antibodies via biotin-streptavidin conjugation.

For the preparation of PLA probes using streptavidin modified oligonucleotides, biotinylated antibodies, were separately mixed with 100 nM streptavidin-oligonucleotides (streptavidin-Biovic3 and streptavidin-Biovic5) at a 1:1 molar ratio. Solid-phase PLA was performed as described previously [13]. The assays commenced with the mixing of 45μl of each sample with the 5μl of the microparticle beads in microtiter wells and incubated for 1–1.5 h at RT under rotation. After the incubation, 50μl of PLA probe mixture at concentration of 500pM for each probe was added to each well. Subsequently, the microparticle beads were washed twice with washing buffer and 50μl of qPCR master mix (1x PCR buffer, 2.5mM MgCl2 (Invitrogen), 0.1μM concentration of each primer (Biofwd and Biorev) and connector oligonucleotide (Biosplint), 0.5X Sybr Green (Thermo Fischer Scientific), 0.08mM ATP, 0.2mM dNTPs (containing dUTP), 1.5 units of Platinum Taq polymerase, 0.02 units of T4 DNA ligase (30U/μl) (Sigma-Aldrich), 0.1 unit of uracil–DNA glycosylase (1U/μl)(Thermo Fischer Scientific)) were added to each well, and followed by detection of ligation product via qPCR performed on ABI 7900 (Thermo Fischer Scientific). For detailed description of the analysis, see S1 File.

Data analysis

The recorded cycle treshold values for q-PCR data were further analyzed with Microsoft Excel. In addition, ImageJ software was used in the results analysis to determine limit of detection (LOD), lowest limit of quantification (LLOQ) and dynamic ranges for all assays. The LOD for the SP-PLAs was defined as the concentration of protein corresponding to CtLOD = CtN − (2 x SN), where CtN is the average Ct acquired for the background noise, and SN is the standard deviation of that value. The LLOQ for SP-PLA was defined as CtN − (10 x SN).

Radiological studies

Radiological studies were performed at different centres since the patients usually underwent MRI at regional hospitals before clinical visit at the vHL center. Thus, protocols differed slightly, but all cranial studies included T1 sequences with and without contrast and T2 TSE sequences. All spinal studies included sagittal T1 w/wo contrast, axial T1 w contrast for every significant tumor and sagittal T2 series (STIR/TSE).

Contrast-enhancing MRI lesions in the posterior fossa and spinal cord were assessed and counted in axial T1 series. Cystic portions associated with contrast enhancing lesions were assessed in axial T2 series. The slice thickness of the cranial MRI investigations was 1 mm for T1 series and 3 mm for T2 series. Slice thickness of spinal MRI investigations was 3 mm.

Very small lesions had to be detectable in at least two adjacent sections as well as confirmed in both coronal and sagittal series to be classified as a tumor.

Tumor volume was assessed by volumetry performed in a picture archiving and communication system (PACS) client (VueMotion Radiology Client; Carestream, Rochester NY). Central elongated T2 spine lesions deemed to represent syringomyelia was not included in cyst volumetry, while lateral/rounded spinal cystic lesions were included.

Each tumor was measured by two individuals separately to increase reliability. Very small tumors (diameter of <1mm, not measurable in more than two adjacent sections, making volumetric assessment impossible due to program limitations) were assigned a volume of 1 mm3.

Genetic analysis

All patient records were obtained and information regarding mutations in the vHL-gene was collected.

Statistical analysis

VEGF levels between patients and controls were compared using students T-test. A p-value of <0.05 was considered significant.

The correlation between tumor volume and VEGF levels in patients with CNS hemangioblastomas was assessed using R2-value, where a strong correlation is suggested by a value close to 1. Significance was further assessed by chi2-testing, where a p-value <0.05 was considered significant.

Results

Tumor burden and growth rate

The number of cranial hemangioblastomas at initial visit in the 16 patients examined by radiological investigations ranged from 0 to 17 (median 4), while the number of spinal hemangioblastomas ranged from 0 to 9. Total tumor volume ranged from 2,46 to 2169,84 mm2 (Table 2).

Table 2. VEGF levels at initial visit in patients with CNS lesions.

Patient no No of CNS lesions Total tumor volume(mm 3 ) Tumor volume including cysts (mm 3 ) VEGF (pM)
VHL002 13 675,37 675,37 38,50
VHL005 4 129,00 129,00 42,85
VHL006 15 275,81 275,81 41,80
VHL007 4 934,17 1174,07 41,23
VHL008 9 547,44 661,14 31,55
VHL009 10 1140,77 1935,57 40,70
VHL010 2 38,59 38,59 45,41
VHL011 17 1202,20 2382,2 76,58
VHL012 13 1527,23 1527,23 60,26
VHL014 3 2169,84 2169,84 68,55
VHL016 1 2,46 2,46 51,99
VHL017 1 30,70 30,70 41,16
VHL020 5 319,50 319,50 44,58
VHL021 2 12,75 236,55 56,41
VHL022 2 43,16 43,16 52,43
VHL023 6 196,15 499,35 92,04

Tumor volume and growth rate are visualized in Fig 1 for all patients undergoing more than one MRI. All patients who showed a decrease in tumor volume had undergone surgery to remove one or more tumors. No decrease in tumor volume was seen in patients not undergoing surgery. The yearly risk of developing a new tumor was 50%. The mean yearly increase in total tumor volume was 65.5%.

Fig 1. Tumor volume increase over time.

Fig 1

Note the differing growth patterns. Dramatic increases seen most often pertained to increased size of one single tumor. Only patients with more than one completed MRI-investigation are shown. Decrease in volume was only seen in patients who had undergone surgery. VEGF was analyzed at initial visit (year 0) in all patients.

There was no difference in tumor progression between female and male participants.

Mutations

Ten different known disease-causing mutations were found in the patients. The most common was Nc699C>G, causing a cysteine to tryptophane change at position 162, which was found in three patients. Two patients exhibited a complete deletion of the vHL gene (Table 1). Two patients had chosen not to undergo genetic testing.

Four patients diagnosed by clinical criteria did not exhibit any known disease-causing mutations in the VHL gene. None of these patients had, or developed, any CNS lesions.

VEGF levels

Plasma VEGF levels did not differ between patients (31.55–92.04 pM; mean 55.83, median 56.41) and controls (37.38–104.56; mean 58.89, median 54.12) (p = 0,266) (Fig 2). Exclusion of patients without known mutations, or with no known CNS lesions, respectively, did not cause any significant changes in mean or median values.

Fig 2. VEGF levels in patients compared to controls.

Fig 2

No difference in VEGF levels was seen between groups.

There was no correlation found between levels of circulating VEGF and total tumor volume among patients harboring CNS lesions (R2 = 0.0639) (Fig 3). Neither was there any correlation found when tumor associated cysts were included in the measurement (R2 = 0,1221).

Fig 3.

Fig 3

a. VEGF levels compared to total tumor volume including cystic portions at initial investigation. No significant correlation was seen. b. VEGF levels compared to only contrast-enhancing tumor volume. No significant correlation could be found. Excluding the one patient with largely elevated VEGF-levels as an outlier still did not suggest any significant correlation.

Discussion

Biomarker development is of paramount importance in diseases, such as vHL, with a varying and unpredictable clinical course, in which surveillance of individual patients is the key for optimal clinical management. At present, the biomarkers used for vHL are standard blood sampling for endocrine and kidney function (including metanephrine for pheochromocytoma), radiological studies for solid tumors and cysts, and opthalmological examination for retinal lesions. Additional“wet” biomarkers that could function as surrogate markers for MRI, would be welcomed for vHL surveillance. The discovery of new biomarkers could also elucidate further pathways affected in the disease and suggest new avenues for treatment.

The case for VEGF as a biomarker in vHL is theoretically strong. pVHL creates complexes regulating ubiquitin-dependent proteolysis (E3 ubiquitin protein ligase), which among other interactions regulates hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF). HIF induces transcription of over 50 genes, including growth factors such as VEGF [14].

Hemangioblastomas are known to secrete VEGF in vitro [15]. There is grade 3 evidence for the use of angiogenesis inhibitors as salvage systemic therapy in vHL and/or sporadic hemangioblastomas, for instance interferon-beta [16], VEGF-targeting tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as sunitinib [17] and semaxanib [18] and monoclonal antibodies such as bevacixumab [19]. Peripheral plasma VEGF levels were monitored and decreased in a study of senaxamib, but whether levels differed from control individuals was not investigated [18].

In the present study, we found no significant difference between vHL patients or control, and no evidence that VEGF levels in blood predict CNS lesion growth or novel CNS lesions. The present findings do not exclude that VEGF could have a predictive role as a biomarker in vHL. The half-time of VEGF in blood is notoriously short and it may well be that VEGF degrades very quickly in blood samples, making it unsuitable as a biomarker. Peripheral blood cells also secrete VEGF, levels of which can increase in many instances, including peripheral vascular disease, inflammation, and platelet activation [20, 21]. It is probable that the levels of circulating VEGF derived from peripheral blood cells are too high for any tumor-derived VEGF to significantly affect levels in peripheral blood.

Furthermore, the nature of this study prevents samples of the same age from being analyzed and thus some samples have been stored longer which can affect protein stability. Repeated freeze thawing can also influence VEGF sample concentration [22] and although the difference in the number of freeze-thaw cycles for these samples is small, it may nevertheless have some impact.

VEGF secreted in central tumors would predominantly circulate in the brain interstitial fluid and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), before being passed on to the blood compartment. Analyzing levels of VEGF in CSF could possibly resolve this issue, and would probably be a superior method, but due to invasiveness and the predisposition of hemangioblastomas for the posterior fossa, lumbar puncture and CSF sampling is not a viable strategy for the disease, due to the inherent risks of lumbar puncture in patients with cerebellar and/or brainstem lesions [23]. VEGF secreted from tumors also differs in isoforms from VEGF from other tissues, and it is possible that investigating different isoforms may yield other results, since the levels of tumor-secreted VEGF might be insignificant in comparison with that secreted for instance by muscle tissue [24]. Neither did VEGF levels in individual patients increase in a predictable manner with increased tumor burden, another reason to suggest that the use of VEGF as a biomarker in clinical studies is probably not recommended.

Tumor cysts, cell sparse and reactive, contain fluid similar in chemical composition to blood and not tumor tissue [25]. The presence or absence of cystic portions of the tumors was not reflected in plasma VEGF levels. Hemangioblastoma cysts are associated with faster growth and more symptoms, and younger patients seem more prone to developing fast-growing cysts [26].

Another limitation of this study is the fact that retinal angiomas were not considered, but in comparison to CNS hemangioblastomas the volume of these must be considered very small.

The increase in total CNS tumor volume over time in VHL patients seems to progress in a saltatory manner, much as individual tumors [2, 26]. Growth rate increases with increased tumor volume, a feature consistent with growth characteristics of other types of tumors, thus assuming exponential growth [27]. This can be explained with the increased proliferation rate of a larger tumor cell population. The risk of developing new CNS tumors in this material was high compared to earlier studies [2, 26], but it should be noted that the follow-up time is quite short. Furthermore, it is conceivable that the patients with low-active disease did not participate fully in the screening program and thus did not enter the study or were excluded from this part of the study due to lack of follow-up investigations. Nevertheless, this data adds valuable information which can improve counseling and support for clinical decision-making for vHL patients.

Conclusion

VEGF as a plasma biomarker in vHL does not show promise as a plasma biomarker for detecting disease progression in this prospective study. Other potential biomarkers should be explored, by means of exploratory approaches such as proteomics and metabolomics.

The total CNS tumor burden increases with increased total tumor volume and exhibit saltatory growth much as individual tumors. The risk of developing a new CNS lesion in one year was found to be 50% in this material.

Supporting information

S1 File. A detailed technical description of the PLA analysis is provided in the supporting information.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

SciLifeLab; PLA and single cell proteomics unit, Uppsala, Sweden was of important assistance in performing the PLA analysis.

Data Availability

All relevant data are available from the OSF database (https://osf.io/2k5pn/).

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Lonser RR, Glenn GM, Walther M, Chew EY, Libutti SK, Linehan WM, et al. von Hippel-Lindau disease. Lancet. 2003;361(9374):2059–67. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(03)13643-4 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Wanebo JE, Lonser RR, Glenn GM, Oldfield EH. The natural history of hemangioblastomas of the central nervous system in patients with von Hippel-Lindau disease. J Neurosurg. 2003;98(1):82–94. doi: 10.3171/jns.2003.98.1.0082 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Dwyer DC, Tu RK. Genetics of Von Hippel-Lindau Disease. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2017;38(3):469–70. Epub 2016/11/17. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A5032 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Flores SK, Cheng Z, Jasper AM, Natori K, Okamoto T, Tanabe A, et al. A synonymous VHL variant in exon 2 confers susceptibility to familial pheochromocytoma and von Hippel-Lindau disease. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2019. Epub 2019/04/04. doi: 10.1210/jc.2019-00235 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Minervini G, Mazzotta GM, Masiero A, Sartori E, Corrà S, Potenza E, et al. Isoform-specific interactions of the von Hippel-Lindau tumor suppressor protein. Sci Rep. 2015;5:12605. Epub 2015/07/27. doi: 10.1038/srep12605 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Nielsen SM, Rhodes L, Blanco I, Chung WK, Eng C, Maher ER, et al. Von Hippel-Lindau Disease: Genetics and Role of Genetic Counseling in a Multiple Neoplasia Syndrome. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(18):2172–81. Epub 2016/04/25. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2015.65.6140 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Rasmussen A, Alonso E, Ochoa A, De Biase I, Familiar I, Yescas P, et al. Uptake of genetic testing and long-term tumor surveillance in von Hippel-Lindau disease. BMC Med Genet. 2010;11:4. Epub 2010/01/12. doi: 10.1186/1471-2350-11-4 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Poulsen ML, Budtz-Jørgensen E, Bisgaard ML. Surveillance in von Hippel-Lindau disease (vHL). Clin Genet. 2010;77(1):49–59. Epub 2009/10/15. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-0004.2009.01281.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Wilding A, Ingham SL, Lalloo F, Clancy T, Huson SM, Moran A, et al. Life expectancy in hereditary cancer predisposing diseases: an observational study. J Med Genet. 2012;49(4):264–9. Epub 2012/02/23. doi: 10.1136/jmedgenet-2011-100562 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Weil RJ, Lonser RR, DeVroom HL, Wanebo JE, Oldfield EH. Surgical management of brainstem hemangioblastomas in patients with von Hippel-Lindau disease. J Neurosurg. 2003;98(1):95–105. doi: 10.3171/jns.2003.98.1.0095 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Lonser RR, Weil RJ, Wanebo JE, DeVroom HL, Oldfield EH. Surgical management of spinal cord hemangioblastomas in patients with von Hippel-Lindau disease. J Neurosurg. 2003;98(1):106–16. doi: 10.3171/jns.2003.98.1.0106 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Ordookhanian C, Kaloostian PE, Ghostine SS, Spiess PE, Etame AB. Management Strategies and Outcomes for VHL-related Craniospinal Hemangioblastomas. J Kidney Cancer VHL. 2017;4(3):37–44. Epub 2017/08/28. doi: 10.15586/jkcvhl.2017.90 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Darmanis S, Kähler A, Spångberg L, Kamali-Moghaddam M, Landegren U, Schallmeiner E. Self-assembly of proximity probes for flexible and modular proximity ligation assays. Biotechniques. 2007;43(4):443–4, 6,, 8 passim. doi: 10.2144/000112551 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Pierscianek D, Wolf S, Keyvani K, El Hindy N, Stein KP, Sandalcioglu IE, et al. Study of angiogenic signaling pathways in hemangioblastoma. Neuropathology. 2017;37(1):3–11. Epub 2016/07/07. doi: 10.1111/neup.12316 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Miyagami M, Katayama Y, Nakamura S. Clinicopathological study of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), p53, and proliferative potential in familial von Hippel-Lindau disease and sporadic hemangioblastomas. Brain Tumor Pathol. 2000;17(3):111–20. doi: 10.1007/BF02484282 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Niemelä M, Mäenpää H, Salven P, Summanen P, Poussa K, Laatikainen L, et al. Interferon alpha-2a therapy in 18 hemangioblastomas. Clin Cancer Res. 2001;7(3):510–6. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Jonasch E, McCutcheon IE, Waguespack SG, Wen S, Davis DW, Smith LA, et al. Pilot trial of sunitinib therapy in patients with von Hippel-Lindau disease. Ann Oncol. 2011;22(12):2661–6. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdr011 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Madhusudan S, Deplanque G, Braybrooke JP, Cattell E, Taylor M, Price P, et al. Antiangiogenic therapy for von Hippel-Lindau disease. JAMA. 2004;291(8):943–4. doi: 10.1001/jama.291.8.943 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Hrisomalos FN, Maturi RK, Pata V. Long-term use of intravitreal bevacizumab (avastin) for the treatment of von hippel-lindau associated retinal hemangioblastomas. Open Ophthalmol J. 2010;4:66–9. Epub 2010/10/21. doi: 10.2174/1874364101004010066 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Wartiovaara U, Salven P, Mikkola H, Lassila R, Kaukonen J, Joukov V, et al. Peripheral blood platelets express VEGF-C and VEGF which are released during platelet activation. Thromb Haemost. 1998;80(1):171–5. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Gorenjak V, Vance DR, Petrelis AM, Stathopoulou MG, Dadé S, El Shamieh S, et al. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells extracts VEGF protein levels and VEGF mRNA: Associations with inflammatory molecules in a healthy population. PLoS One. 2019;14(8):e0220902. Epub 20190816. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0220902 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Kisand K, Kerna I, Kumm J, Jonsson H, Tamm A. Impact of cryopreservation on serum concentration of matrix metalloproteinases (MMP)-7, TIMP-1, vascular growth factors (VEGF) and VEGF-R2 in Biobank samples. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2011;49(2):229–35. Epub 20101201. doi: 10.1515/CCLM.2011.049 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Engelborghs S, Niemantsverdriet E, Struyfs H, Blennow K, Brouns R, Comabella M, et al. Consensus guidelines for lumbar puncture in patients with neurological diseases. Alzheimers Dement (Amst). 2017;8:111–26. Epub 2017/05/18. doi: 10.1016/j.dadm.2017.04.007 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Finley SD, Engel-Stefanini MO, Imoukhuede PI, Popel AS. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of VEGF-neutralizing antibodies. BMC Syst Biol. 2011;5:193. Epub 2011/11/21. doi: 10.1186/1752-0509-5-193 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Gläsker S, Vortmeyer AO, Lonser RR, Lubensky IA, Okamoto H, Xia JB, et al. Proteomic analysis of hemangioblastoma cyst fluid. Cancer Biol Ther. 2006;5(5):549–53. Epub 20060506. doi: 10.4161/cbt.5.5.2657 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Lonser RR, Butman JA, Huntoon K, Asthagiri AR, Wu T, Bakhtian KD, et al. Prospective natural history study of central nervous system hemangioblastomas in von Hippel-Lindau disease. J Neurosurg. 2014;120(5):1055–62. Epub 2014/02/28. doi: 10.3171/2014.1.JNS131431 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Ferté C, Koscielny S, Soria JC. TGR analysis in phase I clinical trials—response. Clin Cancer Res. 2014;20(9):2497. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-14-0366 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Vanessa Carels

22 Jul 2022

PONE-D-22-00869Central nervous system hemangioblastomas in von Hippel-Lindau disease: total growth rate and risk of developing new lesions not associated with circulating VEGF levelsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Sundblom,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 04 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Vanessa Carels

Staff Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: No

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Hemangioblastomas are known to secrete vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), suggesting a potential role of VEGF as a biomarker for tumor growth. The authors looked plasma VEGF samples from 24 patients with von Hippel-Lindau disease were

analyzed by solid-phase proximity ligation assay (PLA). Levels were monitored over time together with numeric and volumetric CNS tumor burden, and compared to plasma VEGF levels in healthy controls. They found no difference not surprisingly. The VEGF level may be different locally or in CSF and major changes are unlikely systematically this negative study verifies this suggestion. Hopefully they can look at CSF level in the future and over various time periods although this may be difficult to have patients consent to. I would like the authors to clarify the tumor volume change in patient #4 in Figure #1. Add the volumes with SD over time year 1,2,3, and 4 and also indicate the volumes for female and male with st deviation as well.

Reviewer #2: The authors have presented evidence for the lack of association between circulating VEGF levels and CNS tumor burden in VHL patients. The authors developed a solid phase PLA to measure VEGF165a. They then measured the serum VEGF levels in VHL patients (clinical criteria) and normal volunteers. They report no difference in serum VEGF levels with VHL disease or with CNS tumor burden.

As with other publications that have reported on paracrine/autocrine actions for pro-angiogenic factors in VHL (PMID: 27748427), the authors report no detectable difference with VHL disease or with increasing tumor burden. The manuscript is well written and covers the prior literature well. However, I have some comments for the authors:

1. The authors do not discuss the rationale for developing a brand new assay to measure circulating VEGF165a levels. Can they explain why off-the-shelf ELISA assays were not used? How was the solid phase PLA validated? What were the positive and negative controls used?

2. Another major issue is the single time-point measurement for VEGF in this study. The study design will inherently fail to detect changes with time/intervention. There is at least some evidence from animal studies that while VEGF levels are not different with/without VHL-/- tumors, interventions can lead to decreased VEGF levels (PMID: 30497198). This finding is like the clinical data (senaxamib study) cited by the authors. Can the authors explain the rationale for a single time point measurement?

3. Did the authors use ellipsoid volume or volumetric segmentation to arrive at tumor volumes?

4. The authors need to correct the text when citing the range of tumor numbers and tumor volumes in Results. Table 2 suggests that the lowest tumor volume is 2,46 mm3 while in the main text, the authors cite 0 mm3.

5. The authors make incorrect statements regarding the lack of information about increase in tumor growth in VHL in Discussion. Information about saltatory growth and the unpredictability has been well described in the prior literature with much larger cohorts.

6. In Figure 1, the authors need to mark the time-point for each patient when the serum VEGF sampling was done.

7. In Figure 2, individual values need to be shown (rather than a summary box-whisker plot).

Reviewer #3: Sundblom et al aimed to study the relations between circulating VEGF levels and HB development/progression in patients with VHL.

The idea is generally sound, but highly simplistic, as the increase in VEGF levels is cellular, and depends on the full loss of VHL in the tumors. Hence, the chances to find such an association is very low, to begin with. Moreover, the sample size is extremely small (although dealing with rare diseases, there are much larger cohorts and multi-center collaboration would be expected on such topics).

The paper could have been written better, both in terms of clinical accuracy and structure. The methods are too detailed in regard to the lab techniques, while the MRI interpretation is quite poor. This is especially important in VHL, where the T2 reflects the cystic portion of the tumors and is not described at all. While this may be explained by the aim to correlate with VEGF, the cystic part, together with the edema, might be at least as important as the solid part. Thus the clinical utility of VEGF must be tested vs. these components as well.

The diagnostic criteria for VHL include multiple hemangioblastomas (this might be the 1st one, in fact), and it is surprising that this criterion of all is not mentioned in the introduction...

The genetic data should be written more clearly, with both cDNA variant detail and protein-levels changes (VHL c.499G>C, p.R167W, for example).

The results should be thoroughly revised, written in a more fluent order, with results supporting the text, and not in isolated short phrases (for example line 232).

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Nov 28;17(11):e0278166. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0278166.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


13 Sep 2022

Regarding reviewer #1

As commented in the manuscript, we also would like to assess VEGF levels in CSF of vHL patients in the future. The nature of the lesions may make this somewhat difficult, but we hope to be able to address this in the future.

The tumor volume change in fig 1 regarding patient 14 (we presume that the 4 mentioned applies to pt 14, since pat 4 is not included in this analysis due to lack of follow-up investigations) is due to surgical intervention. This is hopefully made clearer in the figure legend in the revised manuscript. Since the total tumor volume is an absolute value, no SD is applicable. Gender has been added to the pt numbers in the figure.

Regarding reviewer #2

1. The PLA method was set up by our lab to possibly increase throughput. It was previously validated using an ELISA kit, and select samples in this study were analyzed with an ELISA with similar results.

2. This study was designed to address whether the total CNS tumor volume is reflected in circulating VEGF. We will hopefully be able to continue working and address this very relevant question in the future, but a clinically useful biomarker should reflect the tumor burden at a single time point.

3. Volumetric segmentation was used. This has been made clearer in the methods section.

4. This mistake has been corrected-

5. The statement has been amended. References to relevant articles (already cited) has been added.

6. The VEGF sampling was done at initial visit (year 1). This has been added to the figure legend.

7. The figure has been adjusted accordingly.

Regarding reviewer #3

The critique regarding the small number of patients is relevant, and we wish to start collaborating with other centers to increase the sample size in the future.

In the revised manuscript, the details regarding the laboratory methods have been somewhat shortened. We have also rewritten and expanded on the radiology portion of the methods section. We have also performed volumetry of associated tumor cysts in patients harboring these lesions and investigated whether total tumor volume including cystic parts correlates with VEGF levels. A new figure has been added and the results are presented in the text. Since no correlation was seen this does not change the message of the manuscript. Although clinically important, volumetric measurement of edema is not technically reliable enough to include.

The diagnostic criteria of multiple hemangioblastomas for vHL was mentioned in the introduction (more than one vHL-associated lesion), but we have highlighted this instance further.

The genetic data has been updated as suggested.

The results section has been revised and will now hopefully read in a more fluent way.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Rebuttal letter for revision of PONE.docx

Decision Letter 1

Prashant Chittiboina

6 Nov 2022

PONE-D-22-00869R1Central nervous system hemangioblastomas in von Hippel-Lindau disease: total growth rate and risk of developing new lesions not associated with circulating VEGF levelsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Sundblom,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 21 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Prashant Chittiboina

Guest Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: They have addressed my concerns. They add the requested information and the manuscript should be considered for publication.

Reviewer #3: The manuscript writing improved significantly, although a few minor issues remained.

My main criticism for the study is yet in its core hypothesis – most of the VEGF in the circulation derive from peripheral blood cells, and the chances to see hemangioblastoma-derived VEGF in a meaningful concentration is extremely low. To prove that, even comparing patients with various VHL-related, VEGF-dependent tumors, to controls, shown no difference.

In my view, the authors might want to discuss this point in the discussion.

In addition, please revise the variants descriptions in Table 1 – the 167 codons is described as nc499 in VHL011 and nc712 in VHL012.

Minor

Editing, typos – therefor -> therefore, missing full stop in the abstract, changing fonts in the abstract.

Genetic analysis – VHL gene should be written in capital letters and in Italics.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Nov 28;17(11):e0278166. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0278166.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


9 Nov 2022

Reviewer #3: The manuscript writing improved significantly, although a few minor issues remained.

My main criticism for the study is yet in its core hypothesis – most of the VEGF in the circulation derive from peripheral blood cells, and the chances to see hemangioblastoma-derived VEGF in a meaningful concentration is extremely low. To prove that, even comparing patients with various VHL-related, VEGF-dependent tumors, to controls, shown no difference.

In my view, the authors might want to discuss this point in the discussion.

-The discussion has been updated and references added to stress this important issue.

In addition, please revise the variants descriptions in Table 1 – the 167 codons is described as nc499 in VHL011 and nc712 in VHL012.

-This oversight has been corrected

Minor

Editing, typos – therefor -> therefore, missing full stop in the abstract, changing fonts in the abstract.

Genetic analysis – VHL gene should be written in capital letters and in Italics.

-These typos and others has been amended.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Rebuttal letter for revision of PONE New.docx

Decision Letter 2

Prashant Chittiboina

11 Nov 2022

Central nervous system hemangioblastomas in von Hippel-Lindau disease: total growth rate and risk of developing new lesions not associated with circulating VEGF levels

PONE-D-22-00869R2

Dear Dr. Sundblom,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Prashant Chittiboina

Guest Editor

PLOS ONE

Acceptance letter

Prashant Chittiboina

17 Nov 2022

PONE-D-22-00869R2

Central nervous system hemangioblastomas in von Hippel-Lindau disease: total growth rate and risk of developing new lesions not associated with circulating VEGF levels

Dear Dr. Sundblom:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Prashant Chittiboina

Guest Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. A detailed technical description of the PLA analysis is provided in the supporting information.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Rebuttal letter for revision of PONE.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Rebuttal letter for revision of PONE New.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are available from the OSF database (https://osf.io/2k5pn/).


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES