Review for 10.1186/s12876-020-01500-y (2020)

Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Eosinophilic peritonitis with colon cancer: A case report
Version: 
0 
Date: 
27 May 2020
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS: 
RELEVANCE - Does this case report make a contribution to medical
knowledge, have educational value, or highlight the need for a change in clinical
practice or diagnostic/prognostic approaches? 
Yes, this report contributes to medical knowledge
CASE DESCRIPTION - Are the details of the case sufficiently well described to
understand the patient's symptoms and course of treatment? 
No - there are minor issues
DIAGNOSIS/INTERPRETATION - Based on the facts presented, are the
diagnosis, interpretation, and course of treatment medically sound?
Yes, the work described is medically sound
DISCUSSION OF THE CASE - Does the discussion appropriately analyse the
importance of the findings and their relevance to future understanding of disease
processes, diagnosis or treatment? Has an adequate literature review pertinent to
the case been included?
Yes, the case is discussed fully in the context of the literature
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Could an appropriately REVISED
version of this work represent a technically sound contribution?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS: 
GENERAL COMMENTS: This paper deals with a very rare case of eosinophilic
peritonitis, colon cancer and eosinophilic ascites. The corticosteroid treatment
resolves the eosinophilic peritonitis and ascites without affecting the colon
cancer outcome. 
Importantly, it appears that eosinophils are more concentrated
within colon cancer after steroid treatment. This would suggest the possibility
that the colon cancer itself can trigger the eosinophils cancer infiltration.
REQUESTED REVISIONS: 
One important limitation is the authors' statement that ascites contains a lot of
eosinophils but I did not find a figure regarding this finding. 
Thus, the authors
should show in a cytospin the presence of eosinophils into the ascites.
Otherwise, they cannot state that eosinophils were present. Also, the
identification of eosinophils inside the different tissue is not very clear. Thus, the
authors should indicate with an arrow in the figures where eosinophils are
present. Finally, the simple characterization with HE or another staining (I
suppose, because this is not indicated in the text) of eosinophils is not enough to
state that those cells are indeed eosinophils. IHC with appropriate eosinophils
and neutrophils markers (eosinophil peroxidase (EPO), eosinophil cationic
protein (ECP), human neutrophil lipocalin (HNL), and myeloperoxidase (MPO))
should be applied to confirm the staining.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS: 
Please see above
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 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.
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square.
Reviewers with declared or apparent competing interests are not utilized for
these reviews. This reviewer has agreed to publication of their comments online
under a Creative Commons Attribution License attributed to Research Square
and was paid a small honorarium for completing the review within a specified
timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewer
recommendation.
Reviewer Publication Consent.
 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
) if this manuscript is accepted for
publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the published
report have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not
be published.
If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the editorial
office before completing the review.
If you wish, you can include your name in your published report. Please note
you must decide whether to include your name at the start of the process and
confirm this decision whenever prompted. If you change your decision later, we
will not be able to publish your name.
I agree to the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 license; please 
do not
 publish my name
with my report. (default)