Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Pancreatic hamartoma: A case report and literature review.  
 
Version: 0 Date: 27 Aug 2015  
 
Reviewer: Jonas  Rosendahl  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Summary:  
The authors present the case of a 68 year old patient with a pancreatic hamartoma who 
underwent surgery after the tumor size increased within after 31 month.  
 
Review:  
The case summarizes an interesting finding in a patient with a pancreatic tumor. However, there 
is no real new aspect presented in the case here. The proceedings with pancreatic tumors are 
often difficult and as such there is no unambigu ous way what to do, but the proposed strategy in 
this case is difficult to follow. The authors propose that the patient underwent surgery since the 
tumor progressed in size (42 x 39 mm at first diagnosis; after resection 40 x 40 mm), so this 
seems to be no t the best argument. The option of a puncture of the tumor to support the final 
decision is not discussed. The summary of the formerly published cases in Table 2 is not very 
helpful.  
 
Minor points:  
The manuscript can be shortened. There is information in th e manuscript that is not needed.  
The conclusion in the abstract is difficult to understand.  
The authors claim that surgical resection is still required for diagnosis. This is somehow true, but 
the sentence is misleading (I guess the meaning shall be that surgery is often needed to diagnose 
hamartomas).  
The sentence about the allergic reaction after the CT is not useful.  
Why did the patient get a CT, an MRI, and EUS at 21 months. I would assume that the CT is not 
really needed.  
The descriptive part of the MRI findings (page 7) is hard to read and should be revised.  
The histology that finally led to the diagnosis hamartoma should be described.  
Some more information on hamartomas (cystic, solid, or both) might be integrated in the text.  
The suggestion on page  12 line 24 -31 is speculative and might be revised.  
Are really more reports necessary to clarify the clinicopathological features of hamartomas (page 
14, line 2 -6) 
What about other hamartomas (etc. periampullary)?  
What does the review of the literature giv e us for a conclusion in the end?  
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Unable to assess  
 
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.  
 
No 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the man uscript 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:  
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
 
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 s hares 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.  
 
None.  
 
I agree to the open peer r eview 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 a s 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: 27 Aug 2015  
 
Reviewer: Jonas  Rosendahl  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Summary:  
The authors present the case of a 68 year old patient with a pancreatic hamartoma who 
underwent surgery after the tumor size increased within after 31 month.  
 
Review:  
The case summarizes an interesting finding in a patient with a pancreatic tumor. However, there 
is no real new aspect presented in the case here. The proceedings with pancreatic tumors are 
often difficult and as such there is no unambigu ous way what to do, but the proposed strategy in 
this case is difficult to follow. The authors propose that the patient underwent surgery since the 
tumor progressed in size (42 x 39 mm at first diagnosis; after resection 40 x 40 mm), so this 
seems to be no t the best argument. The option of a puncture of the tumor to support the final 
decision is not discussed. The summary of the formerly published cases in Table 2 is not very 
helpful.  
 
Minor points:  
The manuscript can be shortened. There is information in th e manuscript that is not needed.  
The conclusion in the abstract is difficult to understand.  
The authors claim that surgical resection is still required for diagnosis. This is somehow true, but 
the sentence is misleading (I guess the meaning shall be that surgery is often needed to diagnose 
hamartomas).  
The sentence about the allergic reaction after the CT is not useful.  
Why did the patient get a CT, an MRI, and EUS at 21 months. I would assume that the CT is not 
really needed.  
The descriptive part of the MRI findings (page 7) is hard to read and should be revised.  
The histology that finally led to the diagnosis hamartoma should be described.  
Some more information on hamartomas (cystic, solid, or both) might be integrated in the text.  
The suggestion on page  12 line 24 -31 is speculative and might be revised.  
Are really more reports necessary to clarify the clinicopathological features of hamartomas (page 
14, line 2 -6) 
What about other hamartomas (etc. periampullary)?  
What does the review of the literature giv e us for a conclusion in the end?  
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Unable to assess  
 
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.  
 
No 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the man uscript 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:  
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
 
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 s hares 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.  
 
None.  
 
I agree to the open peer r eview 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 a s 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: 27 Aug 2015  
 
Reviewer: Jonas  Rosendahl  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Summary:  
The authors present the case of a 68 year old patient with a pancreatic hamartoma who 
underwent surgery after the tumor size increased within after 31 month.  
 
Review:  
The case summarizes an interesting finding in a patient with a pancreatic tumor. However, there 
is no real new aspect presented in the case here. The proceedings with pancreatic tumors are 
often difficult and as such there is no unambigu ous way what to do, but the proposed strategy in 
this case is difficult to follow. The authors propose that the patient underwent surgery since the 
tumor progressed in size (42 x 39 mm at first diagnosis; after resection 40 x 40 mm), so this 
seems to be no t the best argument. The option of a puncture of the tumor to support the final 
decision is not discussed. The summary of the formerly published cases in Table 2 is not very 
helpful.  
 
Minor points:  
The manuscript can be shortened. There is information in th e manuscript that is not needed.  
The conclusion in the abstract is difficult to understand.  
The authors claim that surgical resection is still required for diagnosis. This is somehow true, but 
the sentence is misleading (I guess the meaning shall be that surgery is often needed to diagnose 
hamartomas).  
The sentence about the allergic reaction after the CT is not useful.  
Why did the patient get a CT, an MRI, and EUS at 21 months. I would assume that the CT is not 
really needed.  
The descriptive part of the MRI findings (page 7) is hard to read and should be revised.  
The histology that finally led to the diagnosis hamartoma should be described.  
Some more information on hamartomas (cystic, solid, or both) might be integrated in the text.  
The suggestion on page  12 line 24 -31 is speculative and might be revised.  
Are really more reports necessary to clarify the clinicopathological features of hamartomas (page 
14, line 2 -6) 
What about other hamartomas (etc. periampullary)?  
What does the review of the literature giv e us for a conclusion in the end?  
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Unable to assess  
 
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.  
 
No 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the man uscript 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:  
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
 
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 s hares 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.  
 
None.  
 
I agree to the open peer r eview 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 a s confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
assistant