Review for 10.1186/s12876-019-1072-3 (2019)

Reviewer’s report
Title:  Complete  excision  of  esophageal  bronchogenic  cyst  by  endoscopic  submucosal  tunnel  
dissection: A case Presentation
Version: 2 Date: 28 Jun 2019
Reviewer: Vincenzo Napolitano
Reviewer's report:
The article is considerable for  the original use of endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection  (ESTD) to  
completely remove a very rare intramural esophageal  bronchogenic  cyst. Nevertheless  there are  
some doubts  about  preoperative diagnosis  and indication to the treatment. As regard to the diagnosis,  
it is known that foregut cysts, may be often  misdiagnosed as a solid soft tissue mass at imaging  
techiques examination , due to high  density of their contents.  It is also known that EUS is more  
accurate  to define the cystic  lesions.  In the reported case it seems that  CT suggested a soft tissue  
mass; on the contrary EUS suggested  a cystc lesion. The authors say that on the basis  of preoperative  
evaluation , a benign esophageal tumor was suspected. So it is not clear which type of lesion they  
intented  to  treat  when  they  planned  ESTD  .  Moreover,   considering  the   small  size   and  the  
morphological  features of the mass, that did not cause any symptom to the patient, it is  probably  
debatable the indication to an immediate treatment.
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
Unable to assess
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 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 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 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