Title: Preoperative fibrinogen-to-albumin ratio predicts the prognosis of patients with
hepatocellular carcinoma subjected to hepatectomy
Version: 1 Date: 30 Mar 2022
Reviewer:  Masaji Hashimoto
Reviewer's report:
The conclusion of this study was FAR had higher predictive accuracy than other inflammation-
based models and AFP.  The reason of this superiority comparing other inflammation-based
models was leukocyte-based markers were often affected by other factors and might not reflect
the inflammatory state of cancer patients. How  and when the results of NAR, PLR, MLR and
SII in Table 2 and Table 3 were calculated? Were the results in each patients calculated in one
point or the mean value of several point?
Title: Preoperative fibrinogen-to-albumin ratio predicts the prognosis of patients with
hepatocellular carcinoma subjected to hepatectomy
Version: 1 Date: 30 Mar 2022
Reviewer:  Masaji Hashimoto
Reviewer's report:
The conclusion of this study was FAR had higher predictive accuracy than other inflammation-
based models and AFP.  The reason of this superiority comparing other inflammation-based
models was leukocyte-based markers were often affected by other factors and might not reflect
the inflammatory state of cancer patients. How  and when the results of NAR, PLR, MLR and
SII in Table 2 and Table 3 were calculated? Were the results in each patients calculated in one
point or the mean value of several point?
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Preoperative fibrinogen-to-albumin ratio predicts the prognosis of patients with
hepatocellular carcinoma subjected to hepatectomy
Version: 1 Date: 30 Mar 2022
Reviewer:  Masaji Hashimoto
Reviewer's report:
The conclusion of this study was FAR had higher predictive accuracy than other inflammation-
based models and AFP.  The reason of this superiority comparing other inflammation-based
models was leukocyte-based markers were often affected by other factors and might not reflect
the inflammatory state of cancer patients. How  and when the results of NAR, PLR, MLR and
SII in Table 2 and Table 3 were calculated? Were the results in each patients calculated in one
point or the mean value of several point?
assistant