Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Comparison of overall survival on surgical resection versus transarterial 
chemoembolization with or without radiofrequency ablation in intermediate st age hepatocellular 
carcinoma: A propensity score matching analysis  
 
Version: 0 Date: 09 Feb 2020  
 
Reviewer: Quirino Lai  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
- Comparison of overall survival on surgical resection versus transarterial chemoembolization 
with or withou t radiofrequency ablation in intermediate stage hepatocellular carcinoma: A 
propensity score matching analysis (BMGE -D-20-00078)  
 
This is a retrospective study coming from Taiwan focused on the role of resection, TACE and 
TACE+RFA in the treatment of HCC p atients with BCLC B status.  
 
The study is of interest, investigating the beneficial effect of resection and multimodal 
TACE+RFA in the specific setting of BCLC -B cases. The PSM method further improved the 
quality of the study.  
 
 
I have some comments:  
 
1) In Results, the Authors must specify the different numerosities of the different groups selected 
using the PSMs. They did it when they compared resection and TACE alone, but they failed to 
do so for the other two PSMs.  
 
2) Were the 140 cases selected compari ng Resection vs. TACE+RFA the same of the selected 
patients in the comparison between Resection vs. TACE alone? Otherwise, Table 2 is not 
correct.  
 
3) Was caliper width really 0.02? I suspect it was 0.2.  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in t he manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please speci fy what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of  written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1.  Have you in the past five years received  reimbursements, f ees, funding, or salary 
from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financial ly from the 
publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2.  Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gai n or 
lose financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the 
future?  
 
3.  Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents  relating to the content 
of the manuscript?  
 
4.  Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salar y from an organization 
that holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5.  Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6.  Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answe r no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have  no competing interests' 
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understan d that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted f or publication, my named report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the websi te along with the authors'  
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons 
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments 
which I do not wish to be included in my name d report can be in cluded as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Comparison of overall survival on surgical resection versus transarterial 
chemoembolization with or without radiofrequency ablation in intermediate st age hepatocellular 
carcinoma: A propensity score matching analysis  
 
Version: 0 Date: 09 Feb 2020  
 
Reviewer: Quirino Lai  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
- Comparison of overall survival on surgical resection versus transarterial chemoembolization 
with or withou t radiofrequency ablation in intermediate stage hepatocellular carcinoma: A 
propensity score matching analysis (BMGE -D-20-00078)  
 
This is a retrospective study coming from Taiwan focused on the role of resection, TACE and 
TACE+RFA in the treatment of HCC p atients with BCLC B status.  
 
The study is of interest, investigating the beneficial effect of resection and multimodal 
TACE+RFA in the specific setting of BCLC -B cases. The PSM method further improved the 
quality of the study.  
 
 
I have some comments:  
 
1) In Results, the Authors must specify the different numerosities of the different groups selected 
using the PSMs. They did it when they compared resection and TACE alone, but they failed to 
do so for the other two PSMs.  
 
2) Were the 140 cases selected compari ng Resection vs. TACE+RFA the same of the selected 
patients in the comparison between Resection vs. TACE alone? Otherwise, Table 2 is not 
correct.  
 
3) Was caliper width really 0.02? I suspect it was 0.2.  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in t he manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please speci fy what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of  written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1.  Have you in the past five years received  reimbursements, f ees, funding, or salary 
from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financial ly from the 
publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2.  Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gai n or 
lose financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the 
future?  
 
3.  Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents  relating to the content 
of the manuscript?  
 
4.  Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salar y from an organization 
that holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5.  Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6.  Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answe r no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have  no competing interests' 
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understan d that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted f or publication, my named report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the websi te along with the authors'  
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons 
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments 
which I do not wish to be included in my name d report can be in cluded as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Comparison of overall survival on surgical resection versus transarterial 
chemoembolization with or without radiofrequency ablation in intermediate st age hepatocellular 
carcinoma: A propensity score matching analysis  
 
Version: 0 Date: 09 Feb 2020  
 
Reviewer: Quirino Lai  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
- Comparison of overall survival on surgical resection versus transarterial chemoembolization 
with or withou t radiofrequency ablation in intermediate stage hepatocellular carcinoma: A 
propensity score matching analysis (BMGE -D-20-00078)  
 
This is a retrospective study coming from Taiwan focused on the role of resection, TACE and 
TACE+RFA in the treatment of HCC p atients with BCLC B status.  
 
The study is of interest, investigating the beneficial effect of resection and multimodal 
TACE+RFA in the specific setting of BCLC -B cases. The PSM method further improved the 
quality of the study.  
 
 
I have some comments:  
 
1) In Results, the Authors must specify the different numerosities of the different groups selected 
using the PSMs. They did it when they compared resection and TACE alone, but they failed to 
do so for the other two PSMs.  
 
2) Were the 140 cases selected compari ng Resection vs. TACE+RFA the same of the selected 
patients in the comparison between Resection vs. TACE alone? Otherwise, Table 2 is not 
correct.  
 
3) Was caliper width really 0.02? I suspect it was 0.2.  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in t he manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please speci fy what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of  written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1.  Have you in the past five years received  reimbursements, f ees, funding, or salary 
from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financial ly from the 
publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2.  Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gai n or 
lose financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the 
future?  
 
3.  Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents  relating to the content 
of the manuscript?  
 
4.  Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salar y from an organization 
that holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5.  Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6.  Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answe r no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have  no competing interests' 
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understan d that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted f or publication, my named report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the websi te along with the authors'  
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons 
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments 
which I do not wish to be included in my name d report can be in cluded as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
assistant