Reviewer’s report
Title:  Complete  excision  of  esophageal  bronchogenic  cyst  by  endoscopic  submucosal  tunnel  
dissection: A case Presentation
Version: 2 Date: 18 Jun 2019
Reviewer: Hyo-Joon Yang
Reviewer's report:
Comments to the Author:
In this case report, the authors presented a case of esophageal bronchogenic cyst (EBC) which was  
completely resected with endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection (ESTD). This case provides clinical  
implications in the treatment of EBC. The report was also relatively well written. However, several  
points need to be revised to improve the quality of the report.
1. EUS finding, page 3, lines 21 - 22 & Fig 2.
"Endoscopic  ultrasound  (EUS)  demonstrated  a  hypoechoic  cystic  lesion  arising  from  muscularis  
propria, with a size of about 2.5*2.0 cm (Fig.2)."
1-1. The size of the EBC in the EUS was 2.5 cm in the text and 3.0 cm in the figure legend. Which one  
was the exact size? Please revise.
1-2. Please provide EUS figure with indications of lesion and size measure. 
2. Case report
Please provide serum levels of CEA and CA19-9 as well as immunohistochemical staining with CEA  
and CA19-9 of the specimen.
3. Case report
Please present actual size of the resected lesion. It would be much better if the authors could provide  
the figure of the resected specimen because the authors emphasized 'complete excision' of the lesion. 
4. Figure 4. 
Please indicate the histological stain used.
5. Discussion
In  my search,  there  was  a  case  of  EBC  which  resected  by ESD  (Raptis  A,  et  al.  Dig  Endosc.  
2018;30:263.). Please cite this report and discuss the difference and clinical relevance of the present  
case. 
6. Discussion, page 4, lines 29 - 30. 
"In our case, ESTD was successful, because the esophageal brochongenic cyst was superficial and  
small in size."
I think this is an important point of this report. Please discuss usual location and size of EBC in  
comparison with this case. Please also provide clinical implications in the decision of the treatment in  
the future cases presenting with esophageal intramural cystic lesion.
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Does the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
Unable to assess
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an additional  
statistical review?
If  an  additional  statistical  review  is  recommended,  please  specify  what  aspects  require  further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.
Not relevant to this manuscript
Quality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
Acceptable
Declaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this
manuscript, either now or in the future?
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the
manuscript?
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that holds
or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?
6. Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this paper?
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' below. If  
your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
No COI
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included on my  
report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report including any 
attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' responses. I agree for my 
report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons CC-BY license 
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments which I do not wish to 
be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments to the editors, which will not  
be published.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal
Reviewer’s report
Title:  Complete  excision  of  esophageal  bronchogenic  cyst  by  endoscopic  submucosal  tunnel  
dissection: A case Presentation
Version: 2 Date: 18 Jun 2019
Reviewer: Hyo-Joon Yang
Reviewer's report:
Comments to the Author:
In this case report, the authors presented a case of esophageal bronchogenic cyst (EBC) which was  
completely resected with endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection (ESTD). This case provides clinical  
implications in the treatment of EBC. The report was also relatively well written. However, several  
points need to be revised to improve the quality of the report.
1. EUS finding, page 3, lines 21 - 22 & Fig 2.
"Endoscopic  ultrasound  (EUS)  demonstrated  a  hypoechoic  cystic  lesion  arising  from  muscularis  
propria, with a size of about 2.5*2.0 cm (Fig.2)."
1-1. The size of the EBC in the EUS was 2.5 cm in the text and 3.0 cm in the figure legend. Which one  
was the exact size? Please revise.
1-2. Please provide EUS figure with indications of lesion and size measure. 
2. Case report
Please provide serum levels of CEA and CA19-9 as well as immunohistochemical staining with CEA  
and CA19-9 of the specimen.
3. Case report
Please present actual size of the resected lesion. It would be much better if the authors could provide  
the figure of the resected specimen because the authors emphasized 'complete excision' of the lesion. 
4. Figure 4. 
Please indicate the histological stain used.
5. Discussion
In  my search,  there  was  a  case  of  EBC  which  resected  by ESD  (Raptis  A,  et  al.  Dig  Endosc.  
2018;30:263.). Please cite this report and discuss the difference and clinical relevance of the present  
case. 
6. Discussion, page 4, lines 29 - 30. 
"In our case, ESTD was successful, because the esophageal brochongenic cyst was superficial and  
small in size."
I think this is an important point of this report. Please discuss usual location and size of EBC in  
comparison with this case. Please also provide clinical implications in the decision of the treatment in  
the future cases presenting with esophageal intramural cystic lesion.
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Does the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
Unable to assess
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an additional  
statistical review?
If  an  additional  statistical  review  is  recommended,  please  specify  what  aspects  require  further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.
Not relevant to this manuscript
Quality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
Acceptable
Declaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this
manuscript, either now or in the future?
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the
manuscript?
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that holds
or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?
6. Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this paper?
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' below. If  
your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
No COI
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included on my  
report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report including any 
attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' responses. I agree for my 
report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons CC-BY license 
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments which I do not wish to 
be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments to the editors, which will not  
be published.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer’s report
Title:  Complete  excision  of  esophageal  bronchogenic  cyst  by  endoscopic  submucosal  tunnel  
dissection: A case Presentation
Version: 2 Date: 18 Jun 2019
Reviewer: Hyo-Joon Yang
Reviewer's report:
Comments to the Author:
In this case report, the authors presented a case of esophageal bronchogenic cyst (EBC) which was  
completely resected with endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection (ESTD). This case provides clinical  
implications in the treatment of EBC. The report was also relatively well written. However, several  
points need to be revised to improve the quality of the report.
1. EUS finding, page 3, lines 21 - 22 & Fig 2.
"Endoscopic  ultrasound  (EUS)  demonstrated  a  hypoechoic  cystic  lesion  arising  from  muscularis  
propria, with a size of about 2.5*2.0 cm (Fig.2)."
1-1. The size of the EBC in the EUS was 2.5 cm in the text and 3.0 cm in the figure legend. Which one  
was the exact size? Please revise.
1-2. Please provide EUS figure with indications of lesion and size measure. 
2. Case report
Please provide serum levels of CEA and CA19-9 as well as immunohistochemical staining with CEA  
and CA19-9 of the specimen.
3. Case report
Please present actual size of the resected lesion. It would be much better if the authors could provide  
the figure of the resected specimen because the authors emphasized 'complete excision' of the lesion. 
4. Figure 4. 
Please indicate the histological stain used.
5. Discussion
In  my search,  there  was  a  case  of  EBC  which  resected  by ESD  (Raptis  A,  et  al.  Dig  Endosc.  
2018;30:263.). Please cite this report and discuss the difference and clinical relevance of the present  
case. 
6. Discussion, page 4, lines 29 - 30. 
"In our case, ESTD was successful, because the esophageal brochongenic cyst was superficial and  
small in size."
I think this is an important point of this report. Please discuss usual location and size of EBC in  
comparison with this case. Please also provide clinical implications in the decision of the treatment in  
the future cases presenting with esophageal intramural cystic lesion.
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Does the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
Unable to assess
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an additional  
statistical review?
If  an  additional  statistical  review  is  recommended,  please  specify  what  aspects  require  further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.
Not relevant to this manuscript
Quality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
Acceptable
Declaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this
manuscript, either now or in the future?
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the
manuscript?
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that holds
or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?
6. Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this paper?
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' below. If  
your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
No COI
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included on my  
report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report including any 
attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' responses. I agree for my 
report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons CC-BY license 
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments which I do not wish to 
be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments to the editors, which will not  
be published.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal
assistant