Reviewer's report
Title:Overall Survival in Response to Sorafenib Versus Radiotherapy in
Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma with Major Portal Vein Tumor
Thrombosis: Propensity Score Analysis
Version:1Date:9 March 2014
Reviewer: Tatehiro Kagawa
Reviewer's report:
The authors compared the survival benefits of sorafenib vs. radiotherapy in
patients who had unresectable HCC with portal vein thrombosis (PVTT), and
concluded that radiotherapy was superior to sorafenib.
The evidence on the treatment regimens for advanced HCC remains insufficient.
In this regard, this paper provides important information to hepatologists.
However, there are several flaws that preclude recommendation for acceptance.
1. The authors should limit patients to Child A at the enrollment, because they did
not compare Child A and Child . Table 1 can be omitted.
2. The authors should describe about the previous treatments in more detail.
Surgery, TACE, RFA, etc. They should also mention that the patients had not
received sorafenib or radiotherapy before enrollment, if correct.
3. The number of patients with Child A who received radiotherapy was 28 in text
and Table 2, but 34 in Table 1. Which is correct?
4. The authors should describe what the values in the Tables represent. Mean or
median?
5. The word 'Main/first branch' in Tables 2 and 3 should be replaced with PVTT.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:Overall Survival in Response to Sorafenib Versus Radiotherapy in
Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma with Major Portal Vein Tumor
Thrombosis: Propensity Score Analysis
Version:1Date:9 March 2014
Reviewer: Tatehiro Kagawa
Reviewer's report:
The authors compared the survival benefits of sorafenib vs. radiotherapy in
patients who had unresectable HCC with portal vein thrombosis (PVTT), and
concluded that radiotherapy was superior to sorafenib.
The evidence on the treatment regimens for advanced HCC remains insufficient.
In this regard, this paper provides important information to hepatologists.
However, there are several flaws that preclude recommendation for acceptance.
1. The authors should limit patients to Child A at the enrollment, because they did
not compare Child A and Child . Table 1 can be omitted.
2. The authors should describe about the previous treatments in more detail.
Surgery, TACE, RFA, etc. They should also mention that the patients had not
received sorafenib or radiotherapy before enrollment, if correct.
3. The number of patients with Child A who received radiotherapy was 28 in text
and Table 2, but 34 in Table 1. Which is correct?
4. The authors should describe what the values in the Tables represent. Mean or
median?
5. The word 'Main/first branch' in Tables 2 and 3 should be replaced with PVTT.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Overall Survival in Response to Sorafenib Versus Radiotherapy in
Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma with Major Portal Vein Tumor
Thrombosis: Propensity Score Analysis
Version:1Date:9 March 2014
Reviewer: Tatehiro Kagawa
Reviewer's report:
The authors compared the survival benefits of sorafenib vs. radiotherapy in
patients who had unresectable HCC with portal vein thrombosis (PVTT), and
concluded that radiotherapy was superior to sorafenib.
The evidence on the treatment regimens for advanced HCC remains insufficient.
In this regard, this paper provides important information to hepatologists.
However, there are several flaws that preclude recommendation for acceptance.
1. The authors should limit patients to Child A at the enrollment, because they did
not compare Child A and Child . Table 1 can be omitted.
2. The authors should describe about the previous treatments in more detail.
Surgery, TACE, RFA, etc. They should also mention that the patients had not
received sorafenib or radiotherapy before enrollment, if correct.
3. The number of patients with Child A who received radiotherapy was 28 in text
and Table 2, but 34 in Table 1. Which is correct?
4. The authors should describe what the values in the Tables represent. Mean or
median?
5. The word 'Main/first branch' in Tables 2 and 3 should be replaced with PVTT.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
assistant