Sir,I read with great interest the article by Yagnik et al.[1] regarding inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor (IMT) of the bladder. The authors have succinctly described the pathology with relevant pictures. I congratulate the authors for the write up. The article however fails to provide details pertinent to this entity in general and the case in specific. After review of current literature,[23] I would like to raise a few questions and make a few pointsFirst, the authors in the article describe an “irregular heterogeneously enhancing polypoidal bladder base lesion infiltrating bilateral seminal vesicle” on CT imaging; however, no pictures are provided. A contrast-enhanced CT scan picture would have given a wealth of information to the readers. The readers would have become wise if further information was provided on lymph nodes, given the fact that the mass had suspicion of involvement of the seminal vesicles and the prostate.Second, the authors describe having taken “multiple biopsies” from the tumor. They do not mention if the biopsy included the muscle. Did the authors completely resect the tumor? The article does not throw any light on this fact.Third, as it is famously said “the proof of the pudding is in eating it”. The authors state in the article that these tumors tend to reccur. I would be more worried, if the tumor reccurs, particularly so if the tumor was not completely resected at the first instance. A postoperative imaging study of the patient in the form of either an ultrasound or CT imaging would have educated the readers.Last but not the least, the authors describe a well-described rare entity,[23] but it would have gone a long way for the readers, if the authors had addressed the dilemmas with imaging, core issue of recurrence and the importance of follow-up in IMTs.