Next Article in Journal
Examining the Utility of Rapid Salivary C-Reactive Protein as a Predictor for Neonatal Sepsis: An Analytical Cross-Sectional Pilot Study
Previous Article in Journal
Revealing the Boundaries of Selected Gastro-Intestinal (GI) Organs by Implementing CNNs in Endoscopic Capsule Images
Previous Article in Special Issue
Comparison of Adverse Events of Different Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition Methods: A Single-Center Retrospective Analysis
 
 
Interesting Images
Peer-Review Record

Groove Pancreatitis—Tumor-like Lesion of the Pancreas

by Gabriella Gábos 1,*, Carmen Nicolau 1, Alexandra Martin 2 and Ofelia Moșteanu 3
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Submission received: 6 February 2023 / Revised: 19 February 2023 / Accepted: 21 February 2023 / Published: 24 February 2023

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors present the manuscript titled "Groove pancreatitis-tumor-like lesion of the pancreas" for review. While groove pancreatitis is not a commonly encountered entity it is gaining greater recognition as a mimic of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. The authors do present a report that is relatable to many in everyday practice and would be a useful reference.  Below are some edits that the manuscript may benefit from:

1) Line 27: please change "tightening" to narrowing

2) Line 27: A space should be placed after the last period as a new paragraph is starting.

3) Line 86: please change to: allowing a diagnosis by cytopathology in approximately 90% of cases.

4) Line 100:  please change "implicate" to involve 

5) Line 102: "which is exceptional with pancreatic adenocarcinoma" this sentence structure is awkward and confusing, needs to be modified. 

6) Line 104: please change "tightening" to "narrowing" 

 

Author Response

Good afternoon!

Please see below the point-by-point response to the reviewer's comment. Also I attached the modified manuscript!

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

 

Point 1: Line 27: please change "tightening" to narrowing

 

Response 1: “tightening” was changed to narrowing

 

Point 2: Line 27: A space should be placed after the last period as a new paragraph is starting.

 

Response 2: A new paragraph was started after the last period

 

Point 3: Line 86: please change to: allowing a diagnosis by cytopathology in approximately 90% of cases.

 

Response 3: “a cytohistological diagnosis” was changed to “a diagnosis by cytopathology”

 

Point 4: Line 100:  please change "implicate" to involve

 

Response 4: “implicate” was changed to involve

 

Point 5: Line 102: "which is exceptional with pancreatic adenocarcinoma" this sentence structure is awkward and confusing, needs to be modified. 

 

Response 5: "which is exceptional with” was changed to “ as opposed to”

 

Point 6: Line 104: please change "tightening" to "narrowing" 

 

Response 6: “tightening” was changed to narrowing

 

Kind regards,

Gabriella Gabos

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors reported a case with groove pancreatitis and discussed its relation with pancreases malignancy. I have some comments:

1. The authors should report other case reports in this study as a literature review.

2. A case report has been recently published on this topic; please cite it (https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.22516/25007440.505).

3. Please state about the clinical presentation and diagnostic points of groove pancreatitis in more detail.

4. What about ethical issues?

Author Response

Good afternoon!

Please see below the answers to your comments.

Thank you,

Kind regard

 

Point 1: The authors should report other case reports in this study as a literature review.

 

Response 1: Additional case studies were included in the text (see comments)

 

Point 2: A case report has been recently published on this topic; please cite it (https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.22516/25007440.505).

 

Response 2: The requested case report was cited

 

Point 3: Please state about the clinical presentation and diagnostic points of groove pancreatitis in more detail.

 

Response 3: The clinical presentation and diagnostic points were discussed in more details (see comments)

 

Point 4: What about ethical issues?

 

Response 4: We obtained informed consent from the patient and patient’s personal information and materials do not disclose patient’s privacy. See statement’s after the presentation.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for your responsive revisions.

Back to TopTop