Reviewer's report 
 An Unusual Presentation of Ruptured Appendiceal Cystadenoma Associated with Left Colon Cancer: Title: 
A Case Report and Review of Literature 
 2  2 August 2006 Version: Date: 
 Alexandra Tsaroucha Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
This is an interesting case report presenting a rare case of ruptured appendiceal cystadenoma with localized pseudomyxoma peritonei presenting as right inguinal hernia in a patient with colon cancer. Our 
recommendation is to ACCEPT the paper subject to MINOR ESSENTIAL REVISION based on the following 
comments: 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
1. The title should be changed to describe the case more accurately. The following is suggested: 
â€œRuptured Appendiceal Cystadenoma Presenting as Right Inguinal Hernia in a Patient with Colon Cancer: A Case Report and Review of Literatureâ€ . 
2. Line 11 of the case report description: â€œWe noted that no oral contrast media was leaking from the 
cecum into the peritoneal cavity(Figure 3).â€  Explain more. What did you use? 
3. Line 5 of the discussion: â€œA second tumor originating from gastrointestinal tract, ovary, breast and kidney has been reported [12]â€ . Rewrite sentence with more explanation. 
4. Line 9 of the discussion: â€œWe reviewed our ten patients with appendiceal mucoceles receiving 
appendectomies during the past 13 years. Three of them had presented as ruptured lesions. None of the 
other patients was diagnosed to have colonic cancer. The concomitant pathologies are often clinically silent 
[1]. This patient was also asymptomatic before the rupture of the mucocele and its presentation as right 
inguinal hernia.â€  This description should be made more clear and be expanded. You mention more 
patients than the presented case and explanations should be more detailed. The conclusion from the study of these additional patients is not clear. 5. The last sentence of the discussion, which acts as conclusions of the study, should be a separate 
paragraph and should not contain references. Move these references (25, 26, 27) further up in the 
discussion. 6. The annotated text follows in the next page. Address all comments. English has problems and should be fixed before second submittal. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
Reviewer's report 
 An Unusual Presentation of Ruptured Appendiceal Cystadenoma Associated with Left Colon Cancer: Title: 
A Case Report and Review of Literature 
 2  2 August 2006 Version: Date: 
 Alexandra Tsaroucha Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
This is an interesting case report presenting a rare case of ruptured appendiceal cystadenoma with localized pseudomyxoma peritonei presenting as right inguinal hernia in a patient with colon cancer. Our 
recommendation is to ACCEPT the paper subject to MINOR ESSENTIAL REVISION based on the following 
comments: 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
1. The title should be changed to describe the case more accurately. The following is suggested: 
â€œRuptured Appendiceal Cystadenoma Presenting as Right Inguinal Hernia in a Patient with Colon Cancer: A Case Report and Review of Literatureâ€ . 
2. Line 11 of the case report description: â€œWe noted that no oral contrast media was leaking from the 
cecum into the peritoneal cavity(Figure 3).â€  Explain more. What did you use? 
3. Line 5 of the discussion: â€œA second tumor originating from gastrointestinal tract, ovary, breast and kidney has been reported [12]â€ . Rewrite sentence with more explanation. 
4. Line 9 of the discussion: â€œWe reviewed our ten patients with appendiceal mucoceles receiving 
appendectomies during the past 13 years. Three of them had presented as ruptured lesions. None of the 
other patients was diagnosed to have colonic cancer. The concomitant pathologies are often clinically silent 
[1]. This patient was also asymptomatic before the rupture of the mucocele and its presentation as right 
inguinal hernia.â€  This description should be made more clear and be expanded. You mention more 
patients than the presented case and explanations should be more detailed. The conclusion from the study of these additional patients is not clear. 5. The last sentence of the discussion, which acts as conclusions of the study, should be a separate 
paragraph and should not contain references. Move these references (25, 26, 27) further up in the 
discussion. 6. The annotated text follows in the next page. Address all comments. English has problems and should be fixed before second submittal. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report 
 An Unusual Presentation of Ruptured Appendiceal Cystadenoma Associated with Left Colon Cancer: Title: 
A Case Report and Review of Literature 
 2  2 August 2006 Version: Date: 
 Alexandra Tsaroucha Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
This is an interesting case report presenting a rare case of ruptured appendiceal cystadenoma with localized pseudomyxoma peritonei presenting as right inguinal hernia in a patient with colon cancer. Our 
recommendation is to ACCEPT the paper subject to MINOR ESSENTIAL REVISION based on the following 
comments: 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
1. The title should be changed to describe the case more accurately. The following is suggested: 
â€œRuptured Appendiceal Cystadenoma Presenting as Right Inguinal Hernia in a Patient with Colon Cancer: A Case Report and Review of Literatureâ€ . 
2. Line 11 of the case report description: â€œWe noted that no oral contrast media was leaking from the 
cecum into the peritoneal cavity(Figure 3).â€  Explain more. What did you use? 
3. Line 5 of the discussion: â€œA second tumor originating from gastrointestinal tract, ovary, breast and kidney has been reported [12]â€ . Rewrite sentence with more explanation. 
4. Line 9 of the discussion: â€œWe reviewed our ten patients with appendiceal mucoceles receiving 
appendectomies during the past 13 years. Three of them had presented as ruptured lesions. None of the 
other patients was diagnosed to have colonic cancer. The concomitant pathologies are often clinically silent 
[1]. This patient was also asymptomatic before the rupture of the mucocele and its presentation as right 
inguinal hernia.â€  This description should be made more clear and be expanded. You mention more 
patients than the presented case and explanations should be more detailed. The conclusion from the study of these additional patients is not clear. 5. The last sentence of the discussion, which acts as conclusions of the study, should be a separate 
paragraph and should not contain references. Move these references (25, 26, 27) further up in the 
discussion. 6. The annotated text follows in the next page. Address all comments. English has problems and should be fixed before second submittal. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
assistant