Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title:  Clinicopathological features and surgical outcomes of neuroendocrine tumors of ampulla 
of Vater  
 
Version: 1 Date: 26 Mar 2017 
 
Reviewer:  Katarzyna  Kusnierz  
 
Reviewer’s report:  
 
The authors correctly addressed to most of the comments and corrected the thesis. However, 
when referring t o „resection margins", they have used the definition of R0 resection, which 
requires correction and clarification.  
 
 
An explanation is required in terms of the following sentence:  
 
"All patients underwent R0 resection, which was defined as no microscopic or macroscopic 
residual tumor with negative surgical margin".  
 
My question concerning the R0 resection meant 2 used definitions of negative surgical margin: 
1/ the revised R0 definition (1 mm margin clearance) or  2/ resection margins are classified as R0 
- no tumor at the resection margin (without tumor cells directly at the resection line).  
 
I understand that the authors referred to the definition no 2. Nevertheless, I do not agree with the 
R0 definition presented by the authors: "all patients underwent R0 re section, which was defined 
as no microscopic or macroscopic residual tumor with negative surgical margin". What does the 
term „or macroscopic" imply? No macroscopic residual tumor within the margin does not 
indicate R0 resection.  
 
Please provide proper defi nition of  the R0 resection.  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
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 shown?  
If not, please explain in your 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:  
 
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 t he 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 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 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 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 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:  Clinicopathological features and surgical outcomes of neuroendocrine tumors of ampulla 
of Vater  
 
Version: 1 Date: 26 Mar 2017 
 
Reviewer:  Katarzyna  Kusnierz  
 
Reviewer’s report:  
 
The authors correctly addressed to most of the comments and corrected the thesis. However, 
when referring t o „resection margins", they have used the definition of R0 resection, which 
requires correction and clarification.  
 
 
An explanation is required in terms of the following sentence:  
 
"All patients underwent R0 resection, which was defined as no microscopic or macroscopic 
residual tumor with negative surgical margin".  
 
My question concerning the R0 resection meant 2 used definitions of negative surgical margin: 
1/ the revised R0 definition (1 mm margin clearance) or  2/ resection margins are classified as R0 
- no tumor at the resection margin (without tumor cells directly at the resection line).  
 
I understand that the authors referred to the definition no 2. Nevertheless, I do not agree with the 
R0 definition presented by the authors: "all patients underwent R0 re section, which was defined 
as no microscopic or macroscopic residual tumor with negative surgical margin". What does the 
term „or macroscopic" imply? No macroscopic residual tumor within the margin does not 
indicate R0 resection.  
 
Please provide proper defi nition of  the R0 resection.  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
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 shown?  
If not, please explain in your 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:  
 
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 t he 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 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 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 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 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:  Clinicopathological features and surgical outcomes of neuroendocrine tumors of ampulla 
of Vater  
 
Version: 1 Date: 26 Mar 2017 
 
Reviewer:  Katarzyna  Kusnierz  
 
Reviewer’s report:  
 
The authors correctly addressed to most of the comments and corrected the thesis. However, 
when referring t o „resection margins", they have used the definition of R0 resection, which 
requires correction and clarification.  
 
 
An explanation is required in terms of the following sentence:  
 
"All patients underwent R0 resection, which was defined as no microscopic or macroscopic 
residual tumor with negative surgical margin".  
 
My question concerning the R0 resection meant 2 used definitions of negative surgical margin: 
1/ the revised R0 definition (1 mm margin clearance) or  2/ resection margins are classified as R0 
- no tumor at the resection margin (without tumor cells directly at the resection line).  
 
I understand that the authors referred to the definition no 2. Nevertheless, I do not agree with the 
R0 definition presented by the authors: "all patients underwent R0 re section, which was defined 
as no microscopic or macroscopic residual tumor with negative surgical margin". What does the 
term „or macroscopic" imply? No macroscopic residual tumor within the margin does not 
indicate R0 resection.  
 
Please provide proper defi nition of  the R0 resection.  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
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 shown?  
If not, please explain in your 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:  
 
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 t he 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 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 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 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 as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published . 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
assistant