Title: Contrast-enhanced CT findings-based model to predict MVI in patients with
hepatocellular carcinoma
Version: 2 Date: 17 Oct 2022
Reviewer's report:
Comment on the manuscript 04eb8bea-487e-404e-b0a6-3df6ec4cb37a by Yue, et al.
Microvascular invasion (MVI) is one of the most reliable biomarkers for prediction of
early recurrence for patients undergoing liver resection for HCC. The authors identified the
independent variables, such as tumor margin, direct bilirubin, tumor size, and AFP for MVI, and
established the prediction model based on nomogram. However, many researchers have reported
the same type of prediction model for MVI, and I could not find novel findings in this study.
There are several questions and suggestions for corrections:
1) It is well known that DCP (PIVKAII) is one of the markers for PVTT, however, this tumor
maker was not measured in this study, which is crucial for predicting MVI.
2) Current conclusion is just a summary of results. When HCC patients harbor high risk of MVI,
how does the surgeons should make a plan for treatment?
3) From the flowchart in Fig. 1, I assumed that the patients with macroscopic PVTT were
included in this study. These patients should be removed from the cohort
4) I would recommend to the authors to restructure the paragraphs of their paper based on the
STROBE guidelines and avoid giving numbers about patients analyzed in the methods part. This
belongs to the results part.
5) Finally, what is the noyes compared with the previous reports?
Title: Contrast-enhanced CT findings-based model to predict MVI in patients with
hepatocellular carcinoma
Version: 2 Date: 17 Oct 2022
Reviewer's report:
Comment on the manuscript 04eb8bea-487e-404e-b0a6-3df6ec4cb37a by Yue, et al.
Microvascular invasion (MVI) is one of the most reliable biomarkers for prediction of
early recurrence for patients undergoing liver resection for HCC. The authors identified the
independent variables, such as tumor margin, direct bilirubin, tumor size, and AFP for MVI, and
established the prediction model based on nomogram. However, many researchers have reported
the same type of prediction model for MVI, and I could not find novel findings in this study.
There are several questions and suggestions for corrections:
1) It is well known that DCP (PIVKAII) is one of the markers for PVTT, however, this tumor
maker was not measured in this study, which is crucial for predicting MVI.
2) Current conclusion is just a summary of results. When HCC patients harbor high risk of MVI,
how does the surgeons should make a plan for treatment?
3) From the flowchart in Fig. 1, I assumed that the patients with macroscopic PVTT were
included in this study. These patients should be removed from the cohort
4) I would recommend to the authors to restructure the paragraphs of their paper based on the
STROBE guidelines and avoid giving numbers about patients analyzed in the methods part. This
belongs to the results part.
5) Finally, what is the noyes compared with the previous reports?
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Contrast-enhanced CT findings-based model to predict MVI in patients with
hepatocellular carcinoma
Version: 2 Date: 17 Oct 2022
Reviewer's report:
Comment on the manuscript 04eb8bea-487e-404e-b0a6-3df6ec4cb37a by Yue, et al.
Microvascular invasion (MVI) is one of the most reliable biomarkers for prediction of
early recurrence for patients undergoing liver resection for HCC. The authors identified the
independent variables, such as tumor margin, direct bilirubin, tumor size, and AFP for MVI, and
established the prediction model based on nomogram. However, many researchers have reported
the same type of prediction model for MVI, and I could not find novel findings in this study.
There are several questions and suggestions for corrections:
1) It is well known that DCP (PIVKAII) is one of the markers for PVTT, however, this tumor
maker was not measured in this study, which is crucial for predicting MVI.
2) Current conclusion is just a summary of results. When HCC patients harbor high risk of MVI,
how does the surgeons should make a plan for treatment?
3) From the flowchart in Fig. 1, I assumed that the patients with macroscopic PVTT were
included in this study. These patients should be removed from the cohort
4) I would recommend to the authors to restructure the paragraphs of their paper based on the
STROBE guidelines and avoid giving numbers about patients analyzed in the methods part. This
belongs to the results part.
5) Finally, what is the noyes compared with the previous reports?
assistant