Reviewer’s report  
 
Title: Pancreatic hamartoma: A case report and literature review.  
 
Version: 0 Date: 07 Sep 2015  
 
Reviewer: Riruke  Maruyama  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
I think this case report is worth reporting since there have not been many papers about pancreatic 
hamartoma. The literature review is well done in this manuscript, although their discussion 
doesn't add much to what is already known. Some rec ommendations I should like to make are as 
below.  
1. Who rendered the pathological diagnosis of pancreatic hamartoma? Usually, at least one 
pathologist is involved in every final diagnosis of tumor or tumor -like lesion. Moreover, 
pathological diagnosis is the main point at issue. However, no pathologist i s included in this 
paper as a co -author. The authors should put the names of pathologists in the list of authors, 
unless the pathological diagnosis was made only by the surgeons in this case.  
2. Citation order of the references is wrong, e.g. the reference  #3 first appears after #4 (line 40 -
50, page 10).  
3. Figure 4 -b has two histological images. It is much easier for the readers to understand the 
authors' intention if they are separated into Figure 4 -b and 4 -c. 
4. What made the lesion decrease in size 21 m onths after the initial visit and increase in size 7 
months later? The authors' comment is "this type of chronological morphological change is 
likely one of the clinical features of pancreatic hamartoma". Are there any other specific 
considerations regardi ng this point?  
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.  
 
Unable to assess  
 
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:  
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
 
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: 07 Sep 2015  
 
Reviewer: Riruke  Maruyama  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
I think this case report is worth reporting since there have not been many papers about pancreatic 
hamartoma. The literature review is well done in this manuscript, although their discussion 
doesn't add much to what is already known. Some rec ommendations I should like to make are as 
below.  
1. Who rendered the pathological diagnosis of pancreatic hamartoma? Usually, at least one 
pathologist is involved in every final diagnosis of tumor or tumor -like lesion. Moreover, 
pathological diagnosis is the main point at issue. However, no pathologist i s included in this 
paper as a co -author. The authors should put the names of pathologists in the list of authors, 
unless the pathological diagnosis was made only by the surgeons in this case.  
2. Citation order of the references is wrong, e.g. the reference  #3 first appears after #4 (line 40 -
50, page 10).  
3. Figure 4 -b has two histological images. It is much easier for the readers to understand the 
authors' intention if they are separated into Figure 4 -b and 4 -c. 
4. What made the lesion decrease in size 21 m onths after the initial visit and increase in size 7 
months later? The authors' comment is "this type of chronological morphological change is 
likely one of the clinical features of pancreatic hamartoma". Are there any other specific 
considerations regardi ng this point?  
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.  
 
Unable to assess  
 
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:  
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
 
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: 07 Sep 2015  
 
Reviewer: Riruke  Maruyama  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
I think this case report is worth reporting since there have not been many papers about pancreatic 
hamartoma. The literature review is well done in this manuscript, although their discussion 
doesn't add much to what is already known. Some rec ommendations I should like to make are as 
below.  
1. Who rendered the pathological diagnosis of pancreatic hamartoma? Usually, at least one 
pathologist is involved in every final diagnosis of tumor or tumor -like lesion. Moreover, 
pathological diagnosis is the main point at issue. However, no pathologist i s included in this 
paper as a co -author. The authors should put the names of pathologists in the list of authors, 
unless the pathological diagnosis was made only by the surgeons in this case.  
2. Citation order of the references is wrong, e.g. the reference  #3 first appears after #4 (line 40 -
50, page 10).  
3. Figure 4 -b has two histological images. It is much easier for the readers to understand the 
authors' intention if they are separated into Figure 4 -b and 4 -c. 
4. What made the lesion decrease in size 21 m onths after the initial visit and increase in size 7 
months later? The authors' comment is "this type of chronological morphological change is 
likely one of the clinical features of pancreatic hamartoma". Are there any other specific 
considerations regardi ng this point?  
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.  
 
Unable to assess  
 
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:  
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
 
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