Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Pancreatic hamartoma: A case report and literature review.  
 
Version: 0 Date: 02 Sep 2015  
 
Reviewer: Homan  Wai 
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Nice paper with a detailed review of the clinical features, as well as the 
radiographical/surgical/immunohistological features of the tumor.  It was also a nice presentation 
of all the hamartomas reported up to date summarized in a table format.  There are no major 
concerns.  I do have the following suggestions  for consideration : 
I suggest mentioning that the patient did not have any symptoms (abdominal pain, post -prandial 
satiety or pain, malabsorption symptoms)  
Last sentence of the abstract background should read: "The tumor was then diagnosed as a 
pancreatic hamartoma", or  "Given these findings, the tumor was diagnosed as a pancreatic 
hamartoma", or "A diagnosis of pancreatic hamartoma was made"  
Just being curious, why do you use the abbreviation of "enhanced CT" in your case presentation 
(ref page 6, line 56 but in your a bstract/background wrote it out as " enhanced computed 
tomography"?  
Fig. 1 -c was not mentioned in the text.  
I would suggest adding the month (diagnosis, follow -up timeline e.g. 21 months to the Figures 1 
and 2.    e.g. Fig. 1 -b (21mo) but the editor may have different opinion.  
Ref page 9, line 50, I would not use the word "Finally".  Suggestions: "Based on the above 
findings, the tumor was..." or "Giving these findings, the tumor was..." of "The final diagnosis of 
the tumor was..."  
Ref page 9, line 53, may consider stating how it was determined that there was no recurrence.  
CT? MRI? EUS?  
Ref page 10, line 31 - instead of "non -aggressive", use "not aggressive"  
Ref page 11, line 8 - suggest "There are only 30 cases of pancreatic hamartoma reported in th e 
English literature to date (ref 4 -21), including the first case reported by Anthony et al. in 1977 
(ref4)"  
Ref page 11, line 30 -31 - it was not clear whether Noltenius had a case series on pancreatic 
hamartomas.  It doesn't seem so, the way I read it so unds like it was a case series on patients with 
alcoholic pancreatitis but the authors suggested relationship between chronic pancreatitis and 
hamartomas by appearance.  It just needs to be a little more clear.   
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 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.  
 
I recommend additional statistical review  
 
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 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.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests  
 
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: 02 Sep 2015  
 
Reviewer: Homan  Wai 
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Nice paper with a detailed review of the clinical features, as well as the 
radiographical/surgical/immunohistological features of the tumor.  It was also a nice presentation 
of all the hamartomas reported up to date summarized in a table format.  There are no major 
concerns.  I do have the following suggestions  for consideration : 
I suggest mentioning that the patient did not have any symptoms (abdominal pain, post -prandial 
satiety or pain, malabsorption symptoms)  
Last sentence of the abstract background should read: "The tumor was then diagnosed as a 
pancreatic hamartoma", or  "Given these findings, the tumor was diagnosed as a pancreatic 
hamartoma", or "A diagnosis of pancreatic hamartoma was made"  
Just being curious, why do you use the abbreviation of "enhanced CT" in your case presentation 
(ref page 6, line 56 but in your a bstract/background wrote it out as " enhanced computed 
tomography"?  
Fig. 1 -c was not mentioned in the text.  
I would suggest adding the month (diagnosis, follow -up timeline e.g. 21 months to the Figures 1 
and 2.    e.g. Fig. 1 -b (21mo) but the editor may have different opinion.  
Ref page 9, line 50, I would not use the word "Finally".  Suggestions: "Based on the above 
findings, the tumor was..." or "Giving these findings, the tumor was..." of "The final diagnosis of 
the tumor was..."  
Ref page 9, line 53, may consider stating how it was determined that there was no recurrence.  
CT? MRI? EUS?  
Ref page 10, line 31 - instead of "non -aggressive", use "not aggressive"  
Ref page 11, line 8 - suggest "There are only 30 cases of pancreatic hamartoma reported in th e 
English literature to date (ref 4 -21), including the first case reported by Anthony et al. in 1977 
(ref4)"  
Ref page 11, line 30 -31 - it was not clear whether Noltenius had a case series on pancreatic 
hamartomas.  It doesn't seem so, the way I read it so unds like it was a case series on patients with 
alcoholic pancreatitis but the authors suggested relationship between chronic pancreatitis and 
hamartomas by appearance.  It just needs to be a little more clear.   
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 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.  
 
I recommend additional statistical review  
 
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 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.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests  
 
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: 02 Sep 2015  
 
Reviewer: Homan  Wai 
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Nice paper with a detailed review of the clinical features, as well as the 
radiographical/surgical/immunohistological features of the tumor.  It was also a nice presentation 
of all the hamartomas reported up to date summarized in a table format.  There are no major 
concerns.  I do have the following suggestions  for consideration : 
I suggest mentioning that the patient did not have any symptoms (abdominal pain, post -prandial 
satiety or pain, malabsorption symptoms)  
Last sentence of the abstract background should read: "The tumor was then diagnosed as a 
pancreatic hamartoma", or  "Given these findings, the tumor was diagnosed as a pancreatic 
hamartoma", or "A diagnosis of pancreatic hamartoma was made"  
Just being curious, why do you use the abbreviation of "enhanced CT" in your case presentation 
(ref page 6, line 56 but in your a bstract/background wrote it out as " enhanced computed 
tomography"?  
Fig. 1 -c was not mentioned in the text.  
I would suggest adding the month (diagnosis, follow -up timeline e.g. 21 months to the Figures 1 
and 2.    e.g. Fig. 1 -b (21mo) but the editor may have different opinion.  
Ref page 9, line 50, I would not use the word "Finally".  Suggestions: "Based on the above 
findings, the tumor was..." or "Giving these findings, the tumor was..." of "The final diagnosis of 
the tumor was..."  
Ref page 9, line 53, may consider stating how it was determined that there was no recurrence.  
CT? MRI? EUS?  
Ref page 10, line 31 - instead of "non -aggressive", use "not aggressive"  
Ref page 11, line 8 - suggest "There are only 30 cases of pancreatic hamartoma reported in th e 
English literature to date (ref 4 -21), including the first case reported by Anthony et al. in 1977 
(ref4)"  
Ref page 11, line 30 -31 - it was not clear whether Noltenius had a case series on pancreatic 
hamartomas.  It doesn't seem so, the way I read it so unds like it was a case series on patients with 
alcoholic pancreatitis but the authors suggested relationship between chronic pancreatitis and 
hamartomas by appearance.  It just needs to be a little more clear.   
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 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.  
 
I recommend additional statistical review  
 
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 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.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests  
 
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