Review for 10.1186/s12876-017-0630-9 (2017)

Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title:  Clinicopathological features and surgical outcomes of neuroendocrine tumors of ampulla 
of Vater  
 
Version: 1 Date: 25 Mar 2017 
 
Reviewer:  Stanisław  Hać 
 
Reviewer’s report:  
 
Dear Editor  
 
Thank you for the possibility of reviewing the manuscript entitled "Clinicopathological features 
and surgical outcomes of neuroendocr ine tumors of ampulla of Vater". The manuscript describe 
rare but clinically relevant problem of NETAoVs treatment strategy.  
 
This case study is informative from clinical point of vew. My suggestion is that the manuscript is 
of potential interest for BMC Ga stroenterology readers.  
 
 
I have few suggestions for authors before publication:  
 
1. Section Methods  
 
The pathological data were assessed by the same pathologist, according to World Health 
Organization (WHO) classification, and European Neuroendocrine Tumour Society (ENETS) 
and International Union Against Cancer (UICC) staging systems.  
 
In that paragraph I would expect the specification of classification (number and year) without 
necessity of references confrontation.  
 
2. The Discussion section is relatively short and do not inform about different modalities and 
potential pitfals during NETAoVs treatment. Th is section should be rebuild before publication.  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments 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 your comments to the authors.  
 
Unable to assess  
 
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