Title: Evaluation of models to predict prognosis in patients with advanced hepatocellular
carcinoma treated with TACE combined with apatinib
Version: 2 Date: 16 Feb 2024
Reviewer's report:
We revised,, with interest, the manuscript with the title “Evaluation of models to predict
prognosis in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma treated with TACE combined with
apatinib.”
In which the authors evaluated the performance of three predictive scores to predict survival in
patients with HCC treated by TACE and apatinib
A well written manuscript with straightforward study design and results, However, some
comments need to be addressed
Introduction:
Page 5: this phrase [This will aid in choosing appropriate treatment options for clinical
application] , better to be [ this will aid in choosing appropriate patient for selected treatment
options]
Exclusion criteria:
The sentence “ decompensated stage of liver cirrhosis” is not appropriate, as you mentioned in
the inclusion that child class B is included. It’s better to define a score point to include/exclude
patients either child score B 7 or 8 or 9)
Methods:
Did endoscopy have been done  before systemic therapy ?
Results, characteristics of patients:
Line 4: “ while 72 patients developed hepatic metastasis (36%).” What does it mean ?”
Its better to describe tumor sizes in ranges also “minimum – maximum”
Can you provide data about the TACE treatment response after TACE session based on the
appropriate LI-RAD system ?
Discussion, page 11:
“However, the multivariate analysis did not identify tumor number as an independent risk factor
for overall survival”. How can you explain this finding while at the same time, the six and twelve
score (which by definition include tumor burden parameters in its calculation), is defined in the
study as a good prognostic score?
Title: Evaluation of models to predict prognosis in patients with advanced hepatocellular
carcinoma treated with TACE combined with apatinib
Version: 2 Date: 16 Feb 2024
Reviewer's report:
We revised,, with interest, the manuscript with the title “Evaluation of models to predict
prognosis in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma treated with TACE combined with
apatinib.”
In which the authors evaluated the performance of three predictive scores to predict survival in
patients with HCC treated by TACE and apatinib
A well written manuscript with straightforward study design and results, However, some
comments need to be addressed
Introduction:
Page 5: this phrase [This will aid in choosing appropriate treatment options for clinical
application] , better to be [ this will aid in choosing appropriate patient for selected treatment
options]
Exclusion criteria:
The sentence “ decompensated stage of liver cirrhosis” is not appropriate, as you mentioned in
the inclusion that child class B is included. It’s better to define a score point to include/exclude
patients either child score B 7 or 8 or 9)
Methods:
Did endoscopy have been done  before systemic therapy ?
Results, characteristics of patients:
Line 4: “ while 72 patients developed hepatic metastasis (36%).” What does it mean ?”
Its better to describe tumor sizes in ranges also “minimum – maximum”
Can you provide data about the TACE treatment response after TACE session based on the
appropriate LI-RAD system ?
Discussion, page 11:
“However, the multivariate analysis did not identify tumor number as an independent risk factor
for overall survival”. How can you explain this finding while at the same time, the six and twelve
score (which by definition include tumor burden parameters in its calculation), is defined in the
study as a good prognostic score?
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Evaluation of models to predict prognosis in patients with advanced hepatocellular
carcinoma treated with TACE combined with apatinib
Version: 2 Date: 16 Feb 2024
Reviewer's report:
We revised,, with interest, the manuscript with the title “Evaluation of models to predict
prognosis in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma treated with TACE combined with
apatinib.”
In which the authors evaluated the performance of three predictive scores to predict survival in
patients with HCC treated by TACE and apatinib
A well written manuscript with straightforward study design and results, However, some
comments need to be addressed
Introduction:
Page 5: this phrase [This will aid in choosing appropriate treatment options for clinical
application] , better to be [ this will aid in choosing appropriate patient for selected treatment
options]
Exclusion criteria:
The sentence “ decompensated stage of liver cirrhosis” is not appropriate, as you mentioned in
the inclusion that child class B is included. It’s better to define a score point to include/exclude
patients either child score B 7 or 8 or 9)
Methods:
Did endoscopy have been done  before systemic therapy ?
Results, characteristics of patients:
Line 4: “ while 72 patients developed hepatic metastasis (36%).” What does it mean ?”
Its better to describe tumor sizes in ranges also “minimum – maximum”
Can you provide data about the TACE treatment response after TACE session based on the
appropriate LI-RAD system ?
Discussion, page 11:
“However, the multivariate analysis did not identify tumor number as an independent risk factor
for overall survival”. How can you explain this finding while at the same time, the six and twelve
score (which by definition include tumor burden parameters in its calculation), is defined in the
study as a good prognostic score?
assistant