Title: Prognostic Value of Platelet-to-Lymphocyte Ratio in Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients
Treated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Version: 1 Date: 15 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editor, thank you so much for inviting me to revise this manuscript about liver tumors.
This study addresses a current topic.
The manuscript is quite well written and organized. English could be improved.
Figures and tables are comprehensive and clear.
The introduction explains in a clear and coherent manner the background of this study.
We suggest the following modifications:
• Introduction section: although the authors correctly included important papers in this setting,
we believe the evolving systemic treatment scenario for liver tumors should be further
discussed and some recent papers added within the introduction (PMID: 32772560; PMID:
39518127 ;PMID: 36579504; PMID: 36232663; PMID: 37819422  ), only for a matter of
consistency. We think it might be useful to introduce the topic of this interesting study.
• Methods and Statistical Analysis: nothing to add.
• Discussion section: Very interesting and timely discussion. Of note, the authors should expand
the Discussion section, including a more personal perspective to reflect on. For example, they
could answer the following questions – in order to facilitate the understanding of this complex
topic to readers: what potential does this study hold? What are the knowledge gaps and how do
researchers tackle them? How do you see this area unfolding in the next 5 years? We think it
would be extremely interesting for the readers.
However, we think the authors should be acknowledged for their work. In fact, they correctly
addressed an important topic, the methods sound good and their discussion is well balanced.
One additional little flaw: the authors could better explain the limitations of their work, in the
last part of the Discussion.
We believe this article is suitable for publication in the journal although major revisions are
needed. The main strengths of this paper are that it addresses an interesting and very timely
question and provides a clear answer, with some limitations.
We suggest a linguistic revision and the addition of some references for a matter of consistency.
Moreover, the authors should better clarify some points. e authors should better clarify some
points.
Title: Prognostic Value of Platelet-to-Lymphocyte Ratio in Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients
Treated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Version: 1 Date: 15 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editor, thank you so much for inviting me to revise this manuscript about liver tumors.
This study addresses a current topic.
The manuscript is quite well written and organized. English could be improved.
Figures and tables are comprehensive and clear.
The introduction explains in a clear and coherent manner the background of this study.
We suggest the following modifications:
• Introduction section: although the authors correctly included important papers in this setting,
we believe the evolving systemic treatment scenario for liver tumors should be further
discussed and some recent papers added within the introduction (PMID: 32772560; PMID:
39518127 ;PMID: 36579504; PMID: 36232663; PMID: 37819422  ), only for a matter of
consistency. We think it might be useful to introduce the topic of this interesting study.
• Methods and Statistical Analysis: nothing to add.
• Discussion section: Very interesting and timely discussion. Of note, the authors should expand
the Discussion section, including a more personal perspective to reflect on. For example, they
could answer the following questions – in order to facilitate the understanding of this complex
topic to readers: what potential does this study hold? What are the knowledge gaps and how do
researchers tackle them? How do you see this area unfolding in the next 5 years? We think it
would be extremely interesting for the readers.
However, we think the authors should be acknowledged for their work. In fact, they correctly
addressed an important topic, the methods sound good and their discussion is well balanced.
One additional little flaw: the authors could better explain the limitations of their work, in the
last part of the Discussion.
We believe this article is suitable for publication in the journal although major revisions are
needed. The main strengths of this paper are that it addresses an interesting and very timely
question and provides a clear answer, with some limitations.
We suggest a linguistic revision and the addition of some references for a matter of consistency.
Moreover, the authors should better clarify some points. e authors should better clarify some
points.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Prognostic Value of Platelet-to-Lymphocyte Ratio in Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients
Treated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Version: 1 Date: 15 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editor, thank you so much for inviting me to revise this manuscript about liver tumors.
This study addresses a current topic.
The manuscript is quite well written and organized. English could be improved.
Figures and tables are comprehensive and clear.
The introduction explains in a clear and coherent manner the background of this study.
We suggest the following modifications:
• Introduction section: although the authors correctly included important papers in this setting,
we believe the evolving systemic treatment scenario for liver tumors should be further
discussed and some recent papers added within the introduction (PMID: 32772560; PMID:
39518127 ;PMID: 36579504; PMID: 36232663; PMID: 37819422  ), only for a matter of
consistency. We think it might be useful to introduce the topic of this interesting study.
• Methods and Statistical Analysis: nothing to add.
• Discussion section: Very interesting and timely discussion. Of note, the authors should expand
the Discussion section, including a more personal perspective to reflect on. For example, they
could answer the following questions – in order to facilitate the understanding of this complex
topic to readers: what potential does this study hold? What are the knowledge gaps and how do
researchers tackle them? How do you see this area unfolding in the next 5 years? We think it
would be extremely interesting for the readers.
However, we think the authors should be acknowledged for their work. In fact, they correctly
addressed an important topic, the methods sound good and their discussion is well balanced.
One additional little flaw: the authors could better explain the limitations of their work, in the
last part of the Discussion.
We believe this article is suitable for publication in the journal although major revisions are
needed. The main strengths of this paper are that it addresses an interesting and very timely
question and provides a clear answer, with some limitations.
We suggest a linguistic revision and the addition of some references for a matter of consistency.
Moreover, the authors should better clarify some points. e authors should better clarify some
points.
assistant