Value of endoscopic ultrasonography in the observation of the remnant pancreas after pancreatectomy

Hirotsugu Maruyama; Keiji Hanada; Akinori Shimizu; Tomoyuki Minami; Naomiti Hirano; Fumiaki Hino; Tomoyuki Abe; Hironobu Amano; Yasuhiro Fujiwara

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0245447

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 15, 2020
13 Oct 2020 Decision Letter - Roberto Coppola, Editor PONE-D-20-25624 Value of endoscopic ultrasonography for the remnant pancreas PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Maruyama, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. ==============================This study did not receive the approval from the Reviewers. See the comments below ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 27 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Roberto Coppola, MD, FACS Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. In ethics statement in the manuscript and in the online submission form, please provide additional information about the patient records/samples used in your retrospective study. Specifically, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data/samples were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data/samples from their medical records used in research, please include this information." 3. To comply with PLOS ONE submission guidelines, in your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding your statistical analyses. For more information on PLOS ONE's expectations for statistical reporting, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines.#loc-statistical-reporting.” 4. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide. Additional Editor Comments (if provided): I appreciate the work done by the Authors. The topic is of interest, however I would add some comments and questions: - the Authors should state if PC patients received EUS before Surgery and if data were compared with those achieved during the EUS performed on RP - did the AUthors performe pancreatic margin frozen section examination? If they did, they shoud state at least how many IPMN have been found in the 45 cases object of the study - text and English Language should be revised [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: I Don't Know ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: No ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: I appreciate the work done by the Authors. The topic is of interest, however I would add some comments and questions: - the Authors should state if PC patients received EUS before Surgery and if data were compared with those achieved during the EUS performed on RP - did the AUthors performe pancreatic margin frozen section examination? If they did, they shoud state at least how many IPMN have been found in the 45 cases object of the study - text and English Language should be revised ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245447.r001
Revision 1
10 Dec 2020 Author Response Joerg Heber Editor-in-Chief Associate Editors PLOS ONE Dear Editor We appreciate the opportunity to submit a revised version of our manuscript entitled, “Value of endoscopic ultrasonography in the observation of the remnant pancreas after pancreatectomy” (manuscript ID: PONE-D-20-25624) for consideration for publication in PLOS ONE. We believe that we have addressed all concerns raised by the reviewers as detailed in the accompanying point-by-point responses. All authors concur with the submission of this manuscript. We ascertain that none of the data in this manuscript have been previously reported, nor is the manuscript under consideration for publication elsewhere. We hope that PLOS ONE now finds our manuscript suitable for publication. We appreciate your consideration of our work. Sincerely Yours, Hirotsugu Maruyama Hirotsugu Maruyama, M.D., PhD. Department of Gastroenterology Osaka City University Graduate School of Medicine 1-4-3, Asahimachi, Abeno-ku, Osaka-City, Osaka, 545-8585, Japan e-mail to; hiromaruyama99@gmail.com Phone: +81-6-6645-3811 FAX: +81-6-6645-3813 Point-by-Point Responses (PONE-D-20-25624) Responses to the Editorial and Reviewer comments: We appreciate the editor’s positive and helpful comments about our paper. The reviewer raised some important points for improvement that we have now addressed, as summarized below. Please note that all changes are yellow highlights in the revised manuscript. Comment 1: - the Authors should state if PC patients received EUS before Surgery and if data were compared with those achieved during the EUS performed on RP. Response 1: Thank you for your constructive comment. We could not compare preoperative and postoperative EUS, because of several limitations. First, 32 patients received pre- and post-operative EUS; however, 13 patients did not receive preoperative EUS. Second, it is difficult to compare pre- and post-operative EUS because all patients have been several years since preoperative EUS and the condition of the background pancreas has changed. We described it in the DISCUSSION (limitation): " Our study has several limitations. First, the analyses were based on retrospectively collected data. Second, the variability in echoendoscopes and processors may change the capability to detect pancreatic lesions. Third, we did not compare pre-operative and post-operative EUS because, 13 patients did not receive pre-operative EUS and all patients had passed several years since pre-operative EUS. Therefore, the condition of the background pancreas had changed and accurate comparisons were difficult." (from page 22, line 4 to 7) Comment 2: - did the AUthors performe pancreatic margin frozen section examination? If they did, they shoud state at least how many IPMN have been found in the 45 cases object of the study. Response 2: Thank you for your constructive comment. All cases underwent pancreatic margin frozen section examination. Among the 45 cases, 14 were IPMN cases. In the text, we described "Thirty-third patients had PC. The other patients were 10 cases of IPMN and 2 cases of Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Carcinoma (IPMC)". Thus, 12 cases were described in the text. However, among the 33 cases of pancreatic cancer, 2 cases were pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma concomitant with IPMN of the pancreas. We described in the Results (Baseline characteristics of patients): " Thirty-three patients had PC, two of them had PC concomitant with IPMN of the pancreas. The other patients were 10 cases of IPMN and 2 cases of Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Carcinoma (IPMC)." (from page 12, line 8 to 11) Comment 3: - text and English Language should be revised. Response 3: We appreciate your comment. Our manuscript had undergone English proofreading by a native speaker, and has been revised once again by a professional English language editing service; the calibration certificate has been attached. Please see the revised manuscript. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewer.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245447.r002
2 Jan 2021 Decision Letter - Roberto Coppola, Editor Value of endoscopic ultrasonography in the observation of the remnant pancreas after pancreatectomy PONE-D-20-25624R1 Dear Dr. Maruyama, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Roberto Coppola, MD, FACS Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): The changes made by the Authors in the revised manuscript are complete. The document can be accepted for publication. Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245447.r003
Formally Accepted
8 Jan 2021 Acceptance Letter - Roberto Coppola, Editor PONE-D-20-25624R1 Value of endoscopic ultrasonography in the observation of the remnant pancreas after pancreatectomy Dear Dr. Maruyama: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Professor Roberto Coppola Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245447.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .