The main objective of this article is to present a case report of an intraosseous cavernous hemangioma arising from intranasal which is really rare. This is important because rare diseases are an important public-health issue and a challenge for the medical community. Of the more than 7000 rare diseases, only approximately 350 have treatments that are approved by the FDA. More importantly, patients who have a rare disease face difficulty in every step of their medical care, including diagnosis, treatment, and preserving the quality of life. Sometimes, patients go years without receiving the correct diagnosis for their condition. Once they finally have an answer, often no treatment is available for their condition.Therefore, I got interested in this paper because the authors reported a rare cancer case and difficult to diagnose.

The author makes no claim that this 51 years old woman is the first case report of this kind. He acknowledges that there are other such case reports, though few. I believe that this report is not a claim, but a factual statement.

This is only a single case report. Other cases already reported in the literature and having diagnostic problem due to rare nature of the disease.

The authors conclude that the final diagnosis for this rare cancer is histological and endoscopic surgery gives good functional results. They also mentioned complete surgical excision results in no signs of recurrence. In this case, nasal endoscopy even after one year of surgery showed no sign of tumor relapse. Whereas their statement is definitely correct, the authors do not provide proof for their conclusion. There is no figure or image that proves their statement. Furthermore, the size of the study case is very small. Building up and withdrawing conclusions based on one case is of no statistical value and should be validated by performing the study on a larger population and preferably longitudinally.

There is no protocol, but rather a case study with some literature review. As it is single case report it is not applicable.

This is not a research study to warrant experiments. Therefore, I believe the value of the paper lies not so much within the case it reports but within the kind of literature review in the discussion section that has been done.

the study can be done with a larger size of, and then the paper can be more reliable and complete if supported by the figures showing the results. However, it has to be considered the study is based on a very rare case and for sure it cannot be easy to find such more subjects with same conditions.

The approach is standard whereas the case is a rare type of cancer. I am not a specialist in this area, but I would say it could be presented in a seminar or conference to bring to people’s attention to an uncommon case.

Since I had no information about this rare disease, the topic seemed very interesting. It is important to understand the presence of such rare diseases, we do come across such cases now and then, and should not miss the diagnosis. However, I would suggest the authors re-write the abstract, the current one is in my opinion too brief and without any specific reasoning to report this case. The other weakness is the short introduction, which doesn’t seem a really good introductory part for a reader. The discussion is sufficiently well written and sounds relevant and evidence-based. Overall, the case report is worthwhile reporting and helps to understand of this rare entity.

I am a Ph.D. student in pharmaceutical science, and my research topic is about infectious diseases.