Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Prognostic value of progesterone receptor in solid pseudopapillary neoplasm of the 
pancreas: evaluation of a  pooled case series  
 
Version: 1 Date: 17 Oct 2018  
 
Reviewer: Reviewer 2  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:  
 
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research 
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?  
Yes - there is a clear objective  
 
DESIGN - Is the curren t approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for the 
objective?  
No - there are major issues  
 
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow 
confidence in the results?  
No - there are major issues  
 
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not 
overstated?  
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable  
 
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Could an appropriately REVISED version of this 
work represent a technica lly sound contribution?  
Maybe - with major revisions  
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:  
GENERAL COMMENTS: There is novelty in terms of correlating the negative progesterone 
receptor status with clinical outcome of the patients with solid neoplasm.  The authors col lected a 
good number of the cases in this relatively rare pancreatic tumor.  
 
REQUESTED REVISIONS:  
The major problem of this manuscript is that the authors simply retrieved the data of PR from the 
patients' chart. The authors did not immunostain nor re -evaluate the immunostained slides.  
 
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:  
At least the authors should re -evaluate immunostained slides of PR by two pathologists 
independently and obtain its labeling index.  
Note: This reviewer report can be downloaded - see attached pdf file.  
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
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 t he 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 manuscrip t 
 
  
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following que stions:  
 
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 o r 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 y ou 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 in terests 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.  
 
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square. Reviewers  with 
declared or apparent competing interests are not utilized for these reviews. This reviewer has 
agreed to publication of their comments online under a Creative Commons Attribution License 
attributed to Research Square and was paid a small honorarium f or completing the review within 
a specified timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewer 
recommendation.  
 
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 websi te 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 name d 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: Prognostic value of progesterone receptor in solid pseudopapillary neoplasm of the 
pancreas: evaluation of a  pooled case series  
 
Version: 1 Date: 17 Oct 2018  
 
Reviewer: Reviewer 2  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:  
 
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research 
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?  
Yes - there is a clear objective  
 
DESIGN - Is the curren t approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for the 
objective?  
No - there are major issues  
 
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow 
confidence in the results?  
No - there are major issues  
 
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not 
overstated?  
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable  
 
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Could an appropriately REVISED version of this 
work represent a technica lly sound contribution?  
Maybe - with major revisions  
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:  
GENERAL COMMENTS: There is novelty in terms of correlating the negative progesterone 
receptor status with clinical outcome of the patients with solid neoplasm.  The authors col lected a 
good number of the cases in this relatively rare pancreatic tumor.  
 
REQUESTED REVISIONS:  
The major problem of this manuscript is that the authors simply retrieved the data of PR from the 
patients' chart. The authors did not immunostain nor re -evaluate the immunostained slides.  
 
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:  
At least the authors should re -evaluate immunostained slides of PR by two pathologists 
independently and obtain its labeling index.  
Note: This reviewer report can be downloaded - see attached pdf file.  
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
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 t he 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 manuscrip t 
 
  
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following que stions:  
 
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 o r 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 y ou 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 in terests 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.  
 
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square. Reviewers  with 
declared or apparent competing interests are not utilized for these reviews. This reviewer has 
agreed to publication of their comments online under a Creative Commons Attribution License 
attributed to Research Square and was paid a small honorarium f or completing the review within 
a specified timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewer 
recommendation.  
 
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 websi te 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 name d 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: Prognostic value of progesterone receptor in solid pseudopapillary neoplasm of the 
pancreas: evaluation of a  pooled case series  
 
Version: 1 Date: 17 Oct 2018  
 
Reviewer: Reviewer 2  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:  
 
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research 
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?  
Yes - there is a clear objective  
 
DESIGN - Is the curren t approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for the 
objective?  
No - there are major issues  
 
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow 
confidence in the results?  
No - there are major issues  
 
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not 
overstated?  
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable  
 
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Could an appropriately REVISED version of this 
work represent a technica lly sound contribution?  
Maybe - with major revisions  
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:  
GENERAL COMMENTS: There is novelty in terms of correlating the negative progesterone 
receptor status with clinical outcome of the patients with solid neoplasm.  The authors col lected a 
good number of the cases in this relatively rare pancreatic tumor.  
 
REQUESTED REVISIONS:  
The major problem of this manuscript is that the authors simply retrieved the data of PR from the 
patients' chart. The authors did not immunostain nor re -evaluate the immunostained slides.  
 
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:  
At least the authors should re -evaluate immunostained slides of PR by two pathologists 
independently and obtain its labeling index.  
Note: This reviewer report can be downloaded - see attached pdf file.  
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
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 t he 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 manuscrip t 
 
  
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following que stions:  
 
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 o r 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 y ou 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 in terests 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.  
 
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square. Reviewers  with 
declared or apparent competing interests are not utilized for these reviews. This reviewer has 
agreed to publication of their comments online under a Creative Commons Attribution License 
attributed to Research Square and was paid a small honorarium f or completing the review within 
a specified timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewer 
recommendation.  
 
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 websi te 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 name d 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