Reviewer’s report  
 
Title: Pancreatic hamartoma: A case report and literature review.  
 
Version: 0 Date: 01 Sep 2015  
 
Reviewer: Yoshitsugu Tajima  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
The authors reported an extremely rare case of pancreatic hamartoma arising in a 68 -year-old 
man and reviewed the literature of this rare pancreatic entity. This article is potentially important 
and interesting for readers of BMC Gastroenterology. However, there is plenty of room for 
improvement in this manuscript.  
1. A total of 12 cases of pancre atic hamartoma cited in Table 2 are collected from 5 English 
literatures reported from Japan, including 8 cases reported by Yamaguchi et al. (Ref. 20). 
These 8 cases were collected from 8 hospitals in Japan, namely, it was not a single -institute 
experience . Therefore, the authors are required to deny any overlap between cases cited in 
Table 2.  
2. There is too much repetition in the manuscript. The first paragraph in the Discussion session 
should be deleted.  
3. The explanation of Figures 1 and 2 is obscure and co nfused. Arrows or arrowheads should 
be indicated in the Figures. In addition, there are some discrepancies in description between 
the manuscript and Figure Legends, e.g., "The size of the pancreatic tumor had become 
smaller, measuring 2.5 cm in maximum dia meter" in the Text (Page 7, lines 10 to 11) and 
"The tumor shown is 3.9 x 3.6 cm in size" in the Figure Legends (Figure 1 -b).  
4. The multi -cystic lesion was located within a soft -tissue mass to form a pancreatic tumor and 
the soft -tissue mass consisted of fa tty tissue based on density of CT and signal intensity of 
MRI. Why did the authors suppose the pancreatic tumor as to be a malignant transformation 
of IPMN of the pancreas?  
5. The title of Table 1 is inadequate.  
6. Finally, the manuscript, including Tables, ne eds to be revised by a native English speaker 
with more extensive experience in medical and scientific editing before submitting the paper 
to the Journal  
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your commen ts 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.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in you r 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:  
 
Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complet e 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 a ny 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 competi ng 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.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests  
 
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 attach ments 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://creativecommon s.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: Pancreatic hamartoma: A case report and literature review.  
 
Version: 0 Date: 01 Sep 2015  
 
Reviewer: Yoshitsugu Tajima  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
The authors reported an extremely rare case of pancreatic hamartoma arising in a 68 -year-old 
man and reviewed the literature of this rare pancreatic entity. This article is potentially important 
and interesting for readers of BMC Gastroenterology. However, there is plenty of room for 
improvement in this manuscript.  
1. A total of 12 cases of pancre atic hamartoma cited in Table 2 are collected from 5 English 
literatures reported from Japan, including 8 cases reported by Yamaguchi et al. (Ref. 20). 
These 8 cases were collected from 8 hospitals in Japan, namely, it was not a single -institute 
experience . Therefore, the authors are required to deny any overlap between cases cited in 
Table 2.  
2. There is too much repetition in the manuscript. The first paragraph in the Discussion session 
should be deleted.  
3. The explanation of Figures 1 and 2 is obscure and co nfused. Arrows or arrowheads should 
be indicated in the Figures. In addition, there are some discrepancies in description between 
the manuscript and Figure Legends, e.g., "The size of the pancreatic tumor had become 
smaller, measuring 2.5 cm in maximum dia meter" in the Text (Page 7, lines 10 to 11) and 
"The tumor shown is 3.9 x 3.6 cm in size" in the Figure Legends (Figure 1 -b).  
4. The multi -cystic lesion was located within a soft -tissue mass to form a pancreatic tumor and 
the soft -tissue mass consisted of fa tty tissue based on density of CT and signal intensity of 
MRI. Why did the authors suppose the pancreatic tumor as to be a malignant transformation 
of IPMN of the pancreas?  
5. The title of Table 1 is inadequate.  
6. Finally, the manuscript, including Tables, ne eds to be revised by a native English speaker 
with more extensive experience in medical and scientific editing before submitting the paper 
to the Journal  
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your commen ts 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.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in you r 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:  
 
Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complet e 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 a ny 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 competi ng 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.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests  
 
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 attach ments 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://creativecommon s.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: Pancreatic hamartoma: A case report and literature review.  
 
Version: 0 Date: 01 Sep 2015  
 
Reviewer: Yoshitsugu Tajima  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
The authors reported an extremely rare case of pancreatic hamartoma arising in a 68 -year-old 
man and reviewed the literature of this rare pancreatic entity. This article is potentially important 
and interesting for readers of BMC Gastroenterology. However, there is plenty of room for 
improvement in this manuscript.  
1. A total of 12 cases of pancre atic hamartoma cited in Table 2 are collected from 5 English 
literatures reported from Japan, including 8 cases reported by Yamaguchi et al. (Ref. 20). 
These 8 cases were collected from 8 hospitals in Japan, namely, it was not a single -institute 
experience . Therefore, the authors are required to deny any overlap between cases cited in 
Table 2.  
2. There is too much repetition in the manuscript. The first paragraph in the Discussion session 
should be deleted.  
3. The explanation of Figures 1 and 2 is obscure and co nfused. Arrows or arrowheads should 
be indicated in the Figures. In addition, there are some discrepancies in description between 
the manuscript and Figure Legends, e.g., "The size of the pancreatic tumor had become 
smaller, measuring 2.5 cm in maximum dia meter" in the Text (Page 7, lines 10 to 11) and 
"The tumor shown is 3.9 x 3.6 cm in size" in the Figure Legends (Figure 1 -b).  
4. The multi -cystic lesion was located within a soft -tissue mass to form a pancreatic tumor and 
the soft -tissue mass consisted of fa tty tissue based on density of CT and signal intensity of 
MRI. Why did the authors suppose the pancreatic tumor as to be a malignant transformation 
of IPMN of the pancreas?  
5. The title of Table 1 is inadequate.  
6. Finally, the manuscript, including Tables, ne eds to be revised by a native English speaker 
with more extensive experience in medical and scientific editing before submitting the paper 
to the Journal  
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your commen ts 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.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in you r 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:  
 
Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complet e 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 a ny 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 competi ng 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.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests  
 
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 attach ments 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://creativecommon s.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