Reviewer's report
Title:Inflammatory myoglandular polyp of the cecum: case report and review of
literature
Version: 1Date:19 October 2009
Reviewer: Shoji Hirasaki
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
This is a case report of inflammatory myoglandular polyp (IMGP) of the cecum..
A quality of endoscopic and microscopic photographs is too poor to diagnose.
And this report has some serious concerns.
Major
1. In abstract, authors described that IMGPs must be considered different from
other nonneoplastic polyps of the large bowel. What kinds of nonneoplastic
polyps of the large bowel ? Inflammatory fibroid polyps or juvenile polyps etc?
2. Endoscopic view should be changed. A higher quality one. It is unclear wheter
this polyp is pedunculated and has partially ulcerated surface or not.
3. Histological findings of IFP (inflammatory fibroid poyp) and IMGP are different.
If authors claim that histological diagnosis of biospsy specimen is IFP, authors
should show histological feature of the biopsy specimen.
4. Why did authors think that anemia of this patient was due to this polyp? This
polyp did not reveal evident bleeding.
5. Which is the cause of anemia, autoimmune haemolytic anemia or this polyp?
6. Histological findings (figure 3) should be changed. A higher quality one which
reveals 1) inflammatory granulation tissue in the lamina propria; 2) proliferation of
smooth muscle from the muscolaris mucosae; 3) hyperplastic glands with
occasional cystic dilatation.
7. Authors described that IMGP must be differentiated from other non-neoplastic
polyps such as inflammatory cap polyps (ICP), inflammatory cloacogenic polyps,
polyps secondary to mucosal prolapse syndrome (MPS) and polypoid prolapsing
mucosal folds of diverticular disease in discussion. Don’t you think IMGP must be
differentiated from IFP?
8. In your institute, the large polyp (over 4cm?) is recommended to resect by
surgery? You could resect this polyp by endoscopic resection (including
piecemeal resection) because the biopsy specimen was diagnosed benign and
endoscopic findings did not reveal malignant findings. Couldn’t you avoid
surgery?
Minor
1 It must be considered different from other non-neoplastic polyps for its clinical
and hystopathological features #It must be considered different from other
non-neoplastic polyps for its clinical and histopathological features
2 Figure legends. In figure 2, authors should describe about IMGP feature.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests' below
Reviewer's report
Title:Inflammatory myoglandular polyp of the cecum: case report and review of
literature
Version: 1Date:19 October 2009
Reviewer: Shoji Hirasaki
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
This is a case report of inflammatory myoglandular polyp (IMGP) of the cecum..
A quality of endoscopic and microscopic photographs is too poor to diagnose.
And this report has some serious concerns.
Major
1. In abstract, authors described that IMGPs must be considered different from
other nonneoplastic polyps of the large bowel. What kinds of nonneoplastic
polyps of the large bowel ? Inflammatory fibroid polyps or juvenile polyps etc?
2. Endoscopic view should be changed. A higher quality one. It is unclear wheter
this polyp is pedunculated and has partially ulcerated surface or not.
3. Histological findings of IFP (inflammatory fibroid poyp) and IMGP are different.
If authors claim that histological diagnosis of biospsy specimen is IFP, authors
should show histological feature of the biopsy specimen.
4. Why did authors think that anemia of this patient was due to this polyp? This
polyp did not reveal evident bleeding.
5. Which is the cause of anemia, autoimmune haemolytic anemia or this polyp?
6. Histological findings (figure 3) should be changed. A higher quality one which
reveals 1) inflammatory granulation tissue in the lamina propria; 2) proliferation of
smooth muscle from the muscolaris mucosae; 3) hyperplastic glands with
occasional cystic dilatation.
7. Authors described that IMGP must be differentiated from other non-neoplastic
polyps such as inflammatory cap polyps (ICP), inflammatory cloacogenic polyps,
polyps secondary to mucosal prolapse syndrome (MPS) and polypoid prolapsing
mucosal folds of diverticular disease in discussion. Don’t you think IMGP must be
differentiated from IFP?
8. In your institute, the large polyp (over 4cm?) is recommended to resect by
surgery? You could resect this polyp by endoscopic resection (including
piecemeal resection) because the biopsy specimen was diagnosed benign and
endoscopic findings did not reveal malignant findings. Couldn’t you avoid
surgery?
Minor
1 It must be considered different from other non-neoplastic polyps for its clinical
and hystopathological features #It must be considered different from other
non-neoplastic polyps for its clinical and histopathological features
2 Figure legends. In figure 2, authors should describe about IMGP feature.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests' below
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Inflammatory myoglandular polyp of the cecum: case report and review of
literature
Version: 1Date:19 October 2009
Reviewer: Shoji Hirasaki
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
This is a case report of inflammatory myoglandular polyp (IMGP) of the cecum..
A quality of endoscopic and microscopic photographs is too poor to diagnose.
And this report has some serious concerns.
Major
1. In abstract, authors described that IMGPs must be considered different from
other nonneoplastic polyps of the large bowel. What kinds of nonneoplastic
polyps of the large bowel ? Inflammatory fibroid polyps or juvenile polyps etc?
2. Endoscopic view should be changed. A higher quality one. It is unclear wheter
this polyp is pedunculated and has partially ulcerated surface or not.
3. Histological findings of IFP (inflammatory fibroid poyp) and IMGP are different.
If authors claim that histological diagnosis of biospsy specimen is IFP, authors
should show histological feature of the biopsy specimen.
4. Why did authors think that anemia of this patient was due to this polyp? This
polyp did not reveal evident bleeding.
5. Which is the cause of anemia, autoimmune haemolytic anemia or this polyp?
6. Histological findings (figure 3) should be changed. A higher quality one which
reveals 1) inflammatory granulation tissue in the lamina propria; 2) proliferation of
smooth muscle from the muscolaris mucosae; 3) hyperplastic glands with
occasional cystic dilatation.
7. Authors described that IMGP must be differentiated from other non-neoplastic
polyps such as inflammatory cap polyps (ICP), inflammatory cloacogenic polyps,
polyps secondary to mucosal prolapse syndrome (MPS) and polypoid prolapsing
mucosal folds of diverticular disease in discussion. Don’t you think IMGP must be
differentiated from IFP?
8. In your institute, the large polyp (over 4cm?) is recommended to resect by
surgery? You could resect this polyp by endoscopic resection (including
piecemeal resection) because the biopsy specimen was diagnosed benign and
endoscopic findings did not reveal malignant findings. Couldn’t you avoid
surgery?
Minor
1 It must be considered different from other non-neoplastic polyps for its clinical
and hystopathological features #It must be considered different from other
non-neoplastic polyps for its clinical and histopathological features
2 Figure legends. In figure 2, authors should describe about IMGP feature.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests' below
assistant