Title: A nomogram for the prediction of overall survival and Prognostic significance of different
treatment modalities for elderly Hepatocellular carcinoma
Version: 3 Date: 16 Jul 2024
Reviewer:  Antonia Federica Sacco
Reviewer's report:
First of all, I found the title not really consistent with the content of the manuscript, it would
be better "A NOMOGRAM FOR PROGNOSTIC PREDICTION AND FOR THERAPEUTIC
DECISION MAKING OF ELDERY HCC PATIENTS".
The reason why it was decided to focus the study on the elderly population could be included in
the introduction (which is instead only explained at the end in the discussion section).
Furthermore, the introduction does not address the limitations of the topic, it is not clear where
the study was carried out (it is generally referred to as "United States" and the study was not
carried out according to the Helsinki declarations.
In paragraph 2.1 ("patients cohort") it would be better to explain the inclusion criteria rather than
the exclusion criteria, which could be mentioned quickly afterwards. However, this part could
also be summarized as it is information already reported in the flowchart.
In paragraph 3.1 ("demographic and clinical characteristics"), play attention because there is an
error in the number of male patients (2261-29.4%, and not 3265-42.4%).
Also there is the table, it is not necessary to describe all the data in the paragraph. However, in
table 1, pay attention as there is no degree of tumor differentiation, which is instead reported
in the paragraph.
Still in the results, in paragraph 3.2 ("selection of prognostic factors"), the data reported are quite
obvious, they do not bring anything new to the scientific community compared to the TNM
system. On the contrary, the data reported in the following paragraphs 3.3 and 3.4 are interesting.
The paper is based on an interesting focus, but the use of the nomogram is not straightforward.
A nomogram should be rewritable in the form of a simple equation, and it does not naturallu
come out of the paper.
The discussion section is too long and distracting, please change the excessively long and
interminable sentences with quicker and clearer concepts.
Finally, please play attention to some mistakes I found: in the paragraph 1 (introduction) on
the 10th line “recent years” it would be better “IN MORE recent years” and the sentence
“some studies have also proved portal vein tumor thrombus, an early phenomenon of vascular
invasion in hepatocellular carcinoma (…)” is repeated twice with two different references. In
the paragraph 3.4 on the 2th line there is no need for the dot between “patients” and “we
estabilished”.
Title: A nomogram for the prediction of overall survival and Prognostic significance of different
treatment modalities for elderly Hepatocellular carcinoma
Version: 3 Date: 16 Jul 2024
Reviewer:  Antonia Federica Sacco
Reviewer's report:
First of all, I found the title not really consistent with the content of the manuscript, it would
be better "A NOMOGRAM FOR PROGNOSTIC PREDICTION AND FOR THERAPEUTIC
DECISION MAKING OF ELDERY HCC PATIENTS".
The reason why it was decided to focus the study on the elderly population could be included in
the introduction (which is instead only explained at the end in the discussion section).
Furthermore, the introduction does not address the limitations of the topic, it is not clear where
the study was carried out (it is generally referred to as "United States" and the study was not
carried out according to the Helsinki declarations.
In paragraph 2.1 ("patients cohort") it would be better to explain the inclusion criteria rather than
the exclusion criteria, which could be mentioned quickly afterwards. However, this part could
also be summarized as it is information already reported in the flowchart.
In paragraph 3.1 ("demographic and clinical characteristics"), play attention because there is an
error in the number of male patients (2261-29.4%, and not 3265-42.4%).
Also there is the table, it is not necessary to describe all the data in the paragraph. However, in
table 1, pay attention as there is no degree of tumor differentiation, which is instead reported
in the paragraph.
Still in the results, in paragraph 3.2 ("selection of prognostic factors"), the data reported are quite
obvious, they do not bring anything new to the scientific community compared to the TNM
system. On the contrary, the data reported in the following paragraphs 3.3 and 3.4 are interesting.
The paper is based on an interesting focus, but the use of the nomogram is not straightforward.
A nomogram should be rewritable in the form of a simple equation, and it does not naturallu
come out of the paper.
The discussion section is too long and distracting, please change the excessively long and
interminable sentences with quicker and clearer concepts.
Finally, please play attention to some mistakes I found: in the paragraph 1 (introduction) on
the 10th line “recent years” it would be better “IN MORE recent years” and the sentence
“some studies have also proved portal vein tumor thrombus, an early phenomenon of vascular
invasion in hepatocellular carcinoma (…)” is repeated twice with two different references. In
the paragraph 3.4 on the 2th line there is no need for the dot between “patients” and “we
estabilished”.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: A nomogram for the prediction of overall survival and Prognostic significance of different
treatment modalities for elderly Hepatocellular carcinoma
Version: 3 Date: 16 Jul 2024
Reviewer:  Antonia Federica Sacco
Reviewer's report:
First of all, I found the title not really consistent with the content of the manuscript, it would
be better "A NOMOGRAM FOR PROGNOSTIC PREDICTION AND FOR THERAPEUTIC
DECISION MAKING OF ELDERY HCC PATIENTS".
The reason why it was decided to focus the study on the elderly population could be included in
the introduction (which is instead only explained at the end in the discussion section).
Furthermore, the introduction does not address the limitations of the topic, it is not clear where
the study was carried out (it is generally referred to as "United States" and the study was not
carried out according to the Helsinki declarations.
In paragraph 2.1 ("patients cohort") it would be better to explain the inclusion criteria rather than
the exclusion criteria, which could be mentioned quickly afterwards. However, this part could
also be summarized as it is information already reported in the flowchart.
In paragraph 3.1 ("demographic and clinical characteristics"), play attention because there is an
error in the number of male patients (2261-29.4%, and not 3265-42.4%).
Also there is the table, it is not necessary to describe all the data in the paragraph. However, in
table 1, pay attention as there is no degree of tumor differentiation, which is instead reported
in the paragraph.
Still in the results, in paragraph 3.2 ("selection of prognostic factors"), the data reported are quite
obvious, they do not bring anything new to the scientific community compared to the TNM
system. On the contrary, the data reported in the following paragraphs 3.3 and 3.4 are interesting.
The paper is based on an interesting focus, but the use of the nomogram is not straightforward.
A nomogram should be rewritable in the form of a simple equation, and it does not naturallu
come out of the paper.
The discussion section is too long and distracting, please change the excessively long and
interminable sentences with quicker and clearer concepts.
Finally, please play attention to some mistakes I found: in the paragraph 1 (introduction) on
the 10th line “recent years” it would be better “IN MORE recent years” and the sentence
“some studies have also proved portal vein tumor thrombus, an early phenomenon of vascular
invasion in hepatocellular carcinoma (…)” is repeated twice with two different references. In
the paragraph 3.4 on the 2th line there is no need for the dot between “patients” and “we
estabilished”.
assistant