Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Imaging Findings for Pancreatic Hamartoma: two case reports and a review of the 
literature  
 
Version: 0 Date: 20 Nov 2019  
 
Reviewer: Amy Tyberg  
 
Reviewer's report:  
These are interesting cases of benign pancreatic hamaromas being d iagnosed after surgical 
resection.  
The paper nicely reviews the imaging characteristics of each these lesions in each patient. I think 
the concept is good, as more descriptions of these lesions in the literature are needed to prevent 
unnecessary surgery a s occurred in these patients.  
However:   
1. Many of the imaging descriptive terms are not worded correctly, such as "blood echoes" and 
"uneven internal density" and "boundry was clear after enhancement" to name a few. Instead, it 
should be "borders were w ell-defined after enhancement" and "heterogenous internal content" 
for example.  
2. The language of the paper needs quite a bit of editing prior to publication. There are many 
grammatical mistakes throughout.  
3. The abstract needs to be rewritten to accur ately reflect the conclusion of the paper - currently 
the conclusion states that "the diagnosis of pancreatic hamartoma should be considered", but in 
actuality the conclusion is that detailed review of multiple imaging modalities may help in 
diagnosis of P H and prevent unnecessary surgery for patients with this diagnosis.   
 
 
 
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.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data sh own?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manus cript 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 complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, f ees, funding, or salary from an 
organisation that may in any way gain or lose fin ancial ly from the publication of this 
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat 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 you r reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I have no competing interests.  
 
 
 
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understan d 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/lice nses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments 
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be in cluded 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: Imaging Findings for Pancreatic Hamartoma: two case reports and a review of the 
literature  
 
Version: 0 Date: 20 Nov 2019  
 
Reviewer: Amy Tyberg  
 
Reviewer's report:  
These are interesting cases of benign pancreatic hamaromas being d iagnosed after surgical 
resection.  
The paper nicely reviews the imaging characteristics of each these lesions in each patient. I think 
the concept is good, as more descriptions of these lesions in the literature are needed to prevent 
unnecessary surgery a s occurred in these patients.  
However:   
1. Many of the imaging descriptive terms are not worded correctly, such as "blood echoes" and 
"uneven internal density" and "boundry was clear after enhancement" to name a few. Instead, it 
should be "borders were w ell-defined after enhancement" and "heterogenous internal content" 
for example.  
2. The language of the paper needs quite a bit of editing prior to publication. There are many 
grammatical mistakes throughout.  
3. The abstract needs to be rewritten to accur ately reflect the conclusion of the paper - currently 
the conclusion states that "the diagnosis of pancreatic hamartoma should be considered", but in 
actuality the conclusion is that detailed review of multiple imaging modalities may help in 
diagnosis of P H and prevent unnecessary surgery for patients with this diagnosis.   
 
 
 
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.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data sh own?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manus cript 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 complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, f ees, funding, or salary from an 
organisation that may in any way gain or lose fin ancial ly from the publication of this 
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat 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 you r reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I have no competing interests.  
 
 
 
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understan d 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/lice nses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments 
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be in cluded 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: Imaging Findings for Pancreatic Hamartoma: two case reports and a review of the 
literature  
 
Version: 0 Date: 20 Nov 2019  
 
Reviewer: Amy Tyberg  
 
Reviewer's report:  
These are interesting cases of benign pancreatic hamaromas being d iagnosed after surgical 
resection.  
The paper nicely reviews the imaging characteristics of each these lesions in each patient. I think 
the concept is good, as more descriptions of these lesions in the literature are needed to prevent 
unnecessary surgery a s occurred in these patients.  
However:   
1. Many of the imaging descriptive terms are not worded correctly, such as "blood echoes" and 
"uneven internal density" and "boundry was clear after enhancement" to name a few. Instead, it 
should be "borders were w ell-defined after enhancement" and "heterogenous internal content" 
for example.  
2. The language of the paper needs quite a bit of editing prior to publication. There are many 
grammatical mistakes throughout.  
3. The abstract needs to be rewritten to accur ately reflect the conclusion of the paper - currently 
the conclusion states that "the diagnosis of pancreatic hamartoma should be considered", but in 
actuality the conclusion is that detailed review of multiple imaging modalities may help in 
diagnosis of P H and prevent unnecessary surgery for patients with this diagnosis.   
 
 
 
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.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data sh own?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manus cript 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 complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, f ees, funding, or salary from an 
organisation that may in any way gain or lose fin ancial ly from the publication of this 
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat 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 you r reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I have no competing interests.  
 
 
 
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understan d 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/lice nses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments 
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be in cluded as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
assistant