Reviewer's report
Title:Endoscopic resection of duodenal bulb carcinoid tumor larger than 10mm
in diameter.
Version: 1Date:23 March 2011
Reviewer: Stefan von Delius
Reviewer's report:
The authors report a series of 4 duodenal neuroendocrine tumors resected by
EMR. They conclude, that even tumors larger than 10 mm can be treated by
endoscopic resection after confirming that the tumor confined to the submucosal
layer in EUS examination and exclusion of lymph node involvement by
abdominal CT and US.
Overall, this is an interesting topic.
In general, the terminology should be “neuroendocrine tumors” and not
“carcinoids”.
Case presentation
To my opinion such a case presentation must include more details about the
patients, i.e. age, sex, clinical presentation (especially in the light of the presence
of a neuroendocrine tumor: diarrhea, ulcers,…?), comorbidities and the grading
of the tumor. Moreover, details about pathology should be given: Grading?
Immunohistochemistry?
Were the tumors endocrinologically active or inactive?
Please improve grammar and English expression, e.g. replace “swollen” by
“enlarged”, … .
To me the manuscript seems not suitable for publication in the current form.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Reviewer's report
Title:Endoscopic resection of duodenal bulb carcinoid tumor larger than 10mm
in diameter.
Version: 1Date:23 March 2011
Reviewer: Stefan von Delius
Reviewer's report:
The authors report a series of 4 duodenal neuroendocrine tumors resected by
EMR. They conclude, that even tumors larger than 10 mm can be treated by
endoscopic resection after confirming that the tumor confined to the submucosal
layer in EUS examination and exclusion of lymph node involvement by
abdominal CT and US.
Overall, this is an interesting topic.
In general, the terminology should be “neuroendocrine tumors” and not
“carcinoids”.
Case presentation
To my opinion such a case presentation must include more details about the
patients, i.e. age, sex, clinical presentation (especially in the light of the presence
of a neuroendocrine tumor: diarrhea, ulcers,…?), comorbidities and the grading
of the tumor. Moreover, details about pathology should be given: Grading?
Immunohistochemistry?
Were the tumors endocrinologically active or inactive?
Please improve grammar and English expression, e.g. replace “swollen” by
“enlarged”, … .
To me the manuscript seems not suitable for publication in the current form.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Endoscopic resection of duodenal bulb carcinoid tumor larger than 10mm
in diameter.
Version: 1Date:23 March 2011
Reviewer: Stefan von Delius
Reviewer's report:
The authors report a series of 4 duodenal neuroendocrine tumors resected by
EMR. They conclude, that even tumors larger than 10 mm can be treated by
endoscopic resection after confirming that the tumor confined to the submucosal
layer in EUS examination and exclusion of lymph node involvement by
abdominal CT and US.
Overall, this is an interesting topic.
In general, the terminology should be “neuroendocrine tumors” and not
“carcinoids”.
Case presentation
To my opinion such a case presentation must include more details about the
patients, i.e. age, sex, clinical presentation (especially in the light of the presence
of a neuroendocrine tumor: diarrhea, ulcers,…?), comorbidities and the grading
of the tumor. Moreover, details about pathology should be given: Grading?
Immunohistochemistry?
Were the tumors endocrinologically active or inactive?
Please improve grammar and English expression, e.g. replace “swollen” by
“enlarged”, … .
To me the manuscript seems not suitable for publication in the current form.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
assistant