Skip to main content
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases logoLink to PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
. 2024 Feb 21;18(2):e0011987. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0011987

Clonorchis sinensis on the prognosis of patients with spontaneous rupture of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: An inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis

Hang-Hang Ni 1,2,#, Zhan Lu 1,#, Cheng-Lei Yang 1,#, Yu-Ting Lv 1, Chun-Xiu Lu 1, Bang-De Xiang 1,3,*
Editor: Javier Sotillo4
PMCID: PMC10911612  PMID: 38381766

Abstract

Background

We examined the impact of the Clonorchis sinensis (C. sinensis) infection on the survival outcomes of spontaneous rupture Hepatocellular Carcinoma (srHCC) patients undergoing hepatectomy.

Methods

Between May 2013 and December 2021, 157 consecutive srHCC patients who underwent hepatectomy were divided into an no C. sinensis group (n = 126) and C. sinensis group (n = 31). To adjust for differences in preoperative characteristics an inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis was done, using propensity scores. Overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were compared before and after IPTW. Multivariate Cox regression analysis was performed to determine whether the C. sinensis infection was an independent prognostic factor after IPTW.

Results

In original cohort, the no C. sinensis group did not show a survival advantage over the C. sinensis group. After IPTW adjustment, the median OS for the C. sinensis group was 9 months, compared to 29 months for the no C. sinensis group. C. sinensis group have worse OS than no C. sinensis group (p = 0.024), while it did not differ in RFS(p = 0.065). The multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that C. sinensis infection and lower age were associated with worse OS.

Conclusions

The C. sinensis infection has an adverse impact on os in srHCC patients who underwent hepatectomy.

Author summary

Clonorchis sinensis, a trematode of the Opisthorchiidae family, is a genus of zoonotic parasite and liver fluke. This species specifically resides in the bile ducts of humans and mammals during its adult stage. Known as a class I carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, Clonorchis sinensis has gained recognition for its association with cholangiocarcinoma. The occurrence of Clonorchis sinensis and its transmission to humans heavily relies on geographical factors and the dietary preferences of its hosts. Individuals, along with other definitive hosts, contract the parasite by consuming raw or undercooked freshwater fish or shrimp that harbor infective metacercariae. A study indicated that patients with hepatocellular carcinoma combined with Clonorchis sinensis infection have a worse prognosis after hepatectomy. This study aimed to determine the prognostic significance of Clonorchis sinensis infection with spontaneous rupture Hepatocellular Carcinoma(srHCC). We have retrospectively analyzed the infection rate of srHCC. We found that 19.7% of patients with srHCC had a combination of Clonorchis sinensis infection. We also found that srHCC patients with Clonorchis sinensis infection have a worse prognosis after hepatectomy. This is a single center study, hopefully lending guidance the prognosis of srHCC with Clonorchis sinensis.

Introduction

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the sixth most common cancer and the third leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide and with the highest incidence in Asia, especially in China [1]. Spontaneous rupture of hepatocellular carcinoma (srHCC) is a special type of HCC with the incidence of 2.3–26% [2,3], and mortality is 25–75% [4]. The mechanisms of srHCC remain unclear. Possible reasons include large tumor size, ischemic necrosis, and vascular compression caused by rapid tumor growth [57].

Clonorchiasis, which is caused by the parasitic zoonosis known as Clonorchis sinensis (C. sinensis), is a major health concern in Asia. It is estimated that around 35 million individuals are infected with this disease, with approximately 15 million of these cases being reported in China alone [810]. The region most severely impacted by this affliction are Guangdong Province and the Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region in Southern China [1113]. C. sinensis transmission occurs when individuals ingest raw or undercooked fish that is contaminated with C. sinensis metacercariae [14]. One study confirmed that C. sinensis could aggravate the progression of liver fibrosis [15]. Our study demonstrated that C. sinensis infection increases risk of HCC in a rat model [16]. Our clinical study also revealed that HCC with C. sinensis infection experience a poor prognosis after hepatectomy [17]. However, no study has reported an association between C. sinensis infection and the prognosis of srHCC. To our knowledge, the prognosis of srHCC remain controversial as yet, only a small number of studies have been conducted to determine the prognostic factors for postoperative survival. Therefore, it is necessary to study whether C. sinensis infection affects the prognosis of srHCC after hepatectomy.

Observational studies, which gather data from routine clinical practice, offer valuable insights into the effects of treatments on a broader range of patients and over a longer period of time. However, these studies may be susceptible to confounding by indications, as inherent differences between treatment groups can make it difficult to reliably estimate the treatment effect by directly comparing outcomes [18]. To address this issue, the use of inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) has gained popularity. This statistical approach, based on propensity scores, has been demonstrated to result in more robust and less biased estimates of treatment effects [19].

In this study, we therefore conducted this retrospective study to analyze C. sinensis associated with the recurrence free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) of HCC patients with spontaneous rupture after hepatectomy via IPTW method.

Materials and methods

Ethics statement

The study was conducted according to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Guangxi Medical University (Approval No.: LW2024004). Individual consent for this retrospective analysis was waived.

Study population

This is a retrospective study at the Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Guangxi Medical University in Nanning, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, China, between May 2013 and December 2021. Of 328 patients with ruptured HCC, 171 were excluded (17 with previous treatment, 95 receiving TAE or TACE, 33 without treatment, and 26 without complete follow up data). A total of 157 patients were included in the analysis, of which 31 patients with C. sinensis and 126 patients without C. sinensis. (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Study flowchart.

Fig 1

TACE, transcatheter arterial chemoembolization; TAE, transcatheter arterial embolization.

Definition

The diagnostic criteria for clonorchiasis are specified below, and the confirmation of Clonorchis Sinensis diagnosis required the presence of any one factor [14,20,21]. (1) Clinical diagnosis cases: In order to qualify for this type of diagnosis, the patient must have a history of eating raw or half-raw freshwater fish or shrimp, and should have a record of living, working, or traveling in endemic areas. Additionally, there should be a noticeable but mild expansion in the intrahepatic bile ducts, which can be detected through imaging (CT, MRI, or ultrasonography can determine the pattern of bile duct expansion). It should be noted that any locally induced expansion due to factors such as bile duct stones, cancerous embolism, tumor compression, or thrombosis will not be considered. (2) The presence of adult C. sinensis in the liver or gallbladder is confirmed through intraoperative or postoperative pathological examination. (3) Preoperative fecal examination has given a positive result in detecting C. sinensis eggs. The diagnosis of srHCC relies on the manifestation of symptoms that include acute abdominal pain and signs of peritonitis, which will be confirmed through contrast-enhanced CT or MRI scans that detect the extravasation of contrast materials from the tumor’s surrounding perihepatic hematoma and signs of peritoneal effusion. When necessary, diagnostic abdominal paracentesis is performed to further validate the diagnosis. The presence of srHCC will be confirmed by intraoperative observations of tumor rupture with hemoperitoneum and postoperative pathology, or contrast medium extravasation in angiography.

Treatment

The objective of performing partial hepatectomy was to remove all detectable cancerous tissue. All operative procedures were performed by experienced surgeons, and the abdominal cavity was extensively explored during the operation. The desirable tumor margin during resection was more than 1 cm. To prevent the spread of tumor cells, a significant quantity of distilled water was used to cleanse the peritoneum. Anthelmintic therapy was not administered to srHCC patients with C. sinensis before or after surgery, and deworming was only done if the patient volunteered for anthelmintic therapy.

Patient Follow-Up

Patients were followed-up at one month after the operation and subsequently every three months for the first two years, every six months thereafter. Laboratory examinations (serum AFP, liver function, blood tests), abdominal ultrasonography, and contrast-enhanced CT were collected. Follow-up period was terminated on March, 2023. The diagnosis of recurrence was based on typical findings of HCC on CT or MR imaging.

Statistical analysis

To minimize the potential bias caused by confounding factors, we utilized stabilized inverse probability of treatment weights (IPTW), a propensity score-based method used to balance baseline variables without sample loss. To achieve this, we employed a logistic regression model that encompassed all available covariates. We aimed to prevent an unintended imbalance in other parameters that may not directly correlate with the probability of receiving the treatment but could still have an unknown impact on the outcome. The obtained propensity score was then used to generate IPTW through appropriate math, which were used to weight each clinical feature, as well as measured outcomes, of each patient in both treatment groups [22,23].

RFS was measured from the date of hepatectomy until tumor recurrence. Overall survival (OS) was measured between the date of hepatectomy and the date of death or the date of the last follow-up visit. RFS and OS was evaluated using the Kaplan–Meier method and compared with the log-rank test. The variables with statistical significance were firstly identified by the univariate Cox regression (P<0.05), and then were analyzed by the multivariate cox regression. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 26.0 (IBM, Chicago, IL, USA) and R software version 4.1.2 (http://www.R-project.org), and a two-sided p< 0.05 denoted statistically significant.

Results

Baseline characteristics

A total of 157 patients were included in this study; of which 31(19.7%) patients with C. sinensis, 126(80.3%) without C. sinensis. There were 135(80.0%) patients with HbsAg and 22(20.0%) without. The median age is 50 years. This study included 133 (84.7%) men and 24 (15.3%) women. Table 1 shows the baseline characteristics of the two study groups before and after IPTW. In the original cohort, there were significant differences with respect to male, HbsAg, Liver cirrhosis, Edmondson stage, AST, PLT, Tumor number and MVI(SMD>0.2). A good covariate balance was achieved after the application of IPTW; the only exception was HbsAg (SMD >0.2).

Table 1. Baseline characteristics of the study population before and after IPTW adjustment.

Variable Original Cohort After IPTW
No C. sinensis (n = 126) C. sinensis (n = 31) SMD No C. sinensis (n = 155.8) C. sinensis (n = 154.0) SMD
Male 103 (81.7) 30 (96.8) 0.500 131.7 (84.6) 133.6 (86.7) 0.062
Age (≤50 years) 68 (54.0) 14 (45.2) 0.177 80.0 (51.4) 80.4 (52.2) 0.017
HbsAg(positive) 111 (88.1) 24 (77.4) 0.285 135.1 (86.7) 120.0 (77.9) 0.233
Liver cirrhosis(positive) 86 (68.3) 15 (48.4) 0.411 101.5 (65.1) 99.6 (64.7) 0.010
PT(≥13s) 55 (43.7) 11 (35.5) 0.168 66.2 (42.5) 80.0 (52.0) 0.191
ALB(≥35 g/L) 80 (63.5) 22 (71.0) 0.160 99.4 (63.8) 91.9 (59.7) 0.085
AFP (≥200 ng/mL) 79 (62.7) 22 (71.0) 0.176 100.6 (64.6) 101.8 (66.1) 0.033
TBIL(≥17.1μmol/L) 65 (51.6) 18 (58.1) 0.130 80.0 (51.4) 74.4 (48.3) 0.061
Edmondson III+IV 91 (72.2) 26 (83.9) 0.284 115.6 (74.2) 114.4 (74.3) 0.001
AST(≥40U/L) 90 (71.4) 17 (54.8) 0.349 106.7 (68.5) 112.5 (73.0) 0.099
ALT(≥40 U/L) 54 (42.9) 11 (35.5) 0.151 64.0 (41.1) 55.1 (35.8) 0.109
PLT(≥100×109/L) 123 (97.6) 31 (100.0) 0.221 152.8 (98.1) 154.0 (100.0) 0.198
Child Pugh B 34 (27.0) 7 (22.6) 0.102 41.5 (26.7) 53.3 (34.6) 0.173
Tumor size (≤10 cm) 77 (61.1) 17 (54.8) 0.127 93.4 (59.9) 85.0 (55.2) 0.096
Tumor number (>1) 39 (31.0) 6 (19.4) 0.270 44.2 (28.4) 38.0 (24.7) 0.084
MVI(positive) 74 (58.7) 23 (74.2) 0.332 95.9 (61.6) 107.1 (69.6) 0.169

SMD is the difference in mean or proportion divided by the pooled standard error; imbalance is defined as an absolute value greater than 0.2.

Abbreviations: AFP, alpha-fetoprotein; ALT, alanine aminotransferase; ALB, albumin; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; HbsAg, hepatitis B surface antigen; MVI, microvascular invasion; PLT, platelet; PT, prothrombin time; TBIL, total bilirubin.

Overall survival and recurrence-free survival before matching

Fig 2 shows the OS and RFS curves for the patients with or without C. sinensis before matching. The median OS for the C. sinensis group was 17 months while that for the no C. sinensis group was 32 months. The 1, 3 and 5-year OS rates for the C. sinensis group were 64.5%, 39.6% and 26.4%, respectively, whereas those for the no C. sinensis group were 72.4%, 46.3% and 37.6%, respectively, with no significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.204). In terms of RFS, the median for the C. sinensis group was 10 months, while that for the no C. sinensis group was 9 months. The 1, 3 and 5-year RFS rates for the C. sinensis group were 38.7%, 10.9%, and 5.5% respectively, while those for the no C. sinensis group were 44.4%, 27.3% and 21.2%, respectively. However, there was no significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.264).

Fig 2.

Fig 2

Recurrence-free survival (RFS) and Overall survival (OS) curves before matching. The RFS curve (A) and the OS curve (B).

Overall survival and recurrence-free survival after inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis

After adjusting for potential confounders using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW), following the analysis, the median RFS for the C. sinensis group was noted to be 6 months, while that for the no C. sinensis group was observed to be 8 months, there was no significant difference in RFS between the two groups (p = 0.065). Similarly, the median OS for the C. sinensis group was found to be 9 months, compared to 29 months for the no C. sinensis group, there was significant difference in OS between the two groups (p = 0.024) (Fig 3).

Fig 3. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) and Overall survival (OS) curves after inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis.

Fig 3

The RFS curve (A) and OS curve (B).

C. sinensis and HBV co-infection Prognostic analysis

24 patients were co-infected with C. sinensis and HBV, the other 133 patients included 7 C. sinensis infections alone, 111 HBV infections alone, and 15 double negative patients. There was no significant difference in RFS between the C. sinensis-positive + HBV-positive group and others group before and after IPTW. Similarly, there was no significant difference in OS between the two groups before and after IPTW (Fig 4).

Fig 4. Overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) curves before and after inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis.

Fig 4

The PFS curve(A) and OS curve(B) before inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis. The PFS curve(C) and OS curve (D) after inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis. C. sinensis, Clonorchis sinensis; HBV, Hepatitis B virus.

Prognostic factors associated with Overall survival after inverse probability of treatment weighting

After IPTW weighting, C. sinensis infection and Age ≤50 years were shown to be associated with Overall survival risk in the univariate analysis(p<0.05). Multivariate Cox regression analyses demonstrated that C. sinensis infection (HR = 1.930) and Age ≤50 years (HR = 1.869) were independent prognostic factors for OS(p<0.05). (Table 2)

Table 2. Univariate and multivariable associations between risk factors and overall survival in patients after IPTW analysis.

Variable Univariate analysis Multivariate analysis
HR 95%CI P HR 95%CI P
gender (M/F) 0.603 0.214–1.694 0.337
Age (≤50 years) 1.771 1.046–3.001 0.033 1.869 1.053–3.316 0.032
Liver cirrhosis (positive) 0.952 0.502–1.807 0.880
PT(≥13s) 1.478 0.840–2.600 0.176
HbsAg(positive) 0.760 0.267–2.161 0.607
ALB(≥35g/L) 0.879 0.435–1.774 0.718
AFP (≥200 ng/mL) 1.331 0.752–2.356 0.327
TBIL(≥17.1μmol/L) 0.782 0.440–1.391 0.403
Edmondson III+IV 1.583 0.805–3.114 0.183
AST(≥40 U/L) 1.463 0.895–2.392 0.130
ALT(≥40 U/L) 1.168 0.633–2.155 0.619
PLT(≥100×109/L) 0.996 0.415–2.393 0.993
Child Pugh B 1.125 0.476–2.658 0.788
Tumor size (≤10 cm) 0.760 0.406–1.422 0.390
Tumor number (≥1) 1.167 0.597–2.279 0.652
MVI (positive) 1.330 0.806–2.194 0.264
Clonorchis sinensis(positive) 1.836 1.083–3.113 0.024 1.930 1.101–3.384 0.022

Abbreviations: AFP, alpha-fetoprotein; ALT, alanine aminotransferase; ALB, albumin; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; HbsAg, hepatitis B surface antigen; MVI, microvascular invasion; PLT, platelet; PT, prothrombin time; TBIL, total bilirubin.

Discussion

Supported by IPTW and multivariate Cox regression analyses, our findings suggest that C. sinensis infection serves as an independent prognostic indicator for OS in patients with srHCC, and is associated with increased mortality rates. While no significant impact on RFS was observed, a clear trend towards higher relapse rates was noted. The weight assigned to each patient in the cohort is determined by their probability of exposure to the C. sinensis being studied. Once the treatment groups are balanced, applying weights during statistical tests or regression models helps mitigate or eliminate the influence of known confounding factors.

To the best of our knowledge, no previous cohort study has investigated the association between C. sinensis infection and srHCC in the overworld population. C. sinensis are prevalent in our region. One study reported that C. sinensis is an important risk factor for ICC and HCC in a high prevalence area [24]. Prior research indicated that certain molecules have the potential to significantly inhibit apoptosis, as well as stimulate the proliferation and migration of human HCC cells. These effects may potentially exacerbate the progression of HCC in patients who are also infected with C. sinensis [25,26]. Patients diagnosed with HCC and co-existing C. sinensis infection typically face a grim outlook following hepatectomy. This study revealed that C. sinensis infection does not affect RFS and OS with surgery for srHCC before IPWT. However, after IPTW, patients with srHCC infected with C. sinensis have a worse OS. The most likely reason is that before IPTW matching, the baseline characteristics of the patients between two group was unbalanced. Our pervious study has demonstrated that patients with HCC and C. sinensis infection experience a poor prognosis after hepatectomy, but C. sinensis is not an independent risk factor affecting OS [17]. This study demonstrated that C. sinensis infection is an independent prognostic factor affecting the OS of patients with srHCC. The utilization of the IPTW technique, which is a comparatively innovative approach in the area under discussion, produced a weighted sample that has a more balanced distribution of covariates between the C. sinensis group and the no C. sinensis group. This allowed us to not only minimize the discrepancies in patient features but also maintain the sample size and statistical potency, leading to a more refined and accurate assessment of the treatment impact.

In China, individuals with HBV infections are frequently located in regions with a high occurrence of C. sinensis [24,27]. The hepatitis B virus is serious pathogen that can cause liver disease and cancer. Study demonstrated that the simultaneous presence of HBV and C. sinensis could have a detrimental effect on liver function and potentially facilitate the proliferation of HBV [28]. This study showed that co-infection of C. sinensis and HBV did not affect the prognosis of patients, possibly because most of the patients in the study were infected with HBV. C. sinensis infection may only promote HBV proliferation, and C. sinensis cannot directly affect the prognosis of hepatocellular carcinoma.

Age was found to be a significant parameter associated with survival in our study. Specifically, we found that srHCC patients with lower age had a worse prognosis. This finding is consistent with previous research results [2931]. Some studies have found that young HCC patients have better prognosis because they have better liver function [3235]. However, others have reported that young patients with advanced tumor factors, have a poor prognosis [3638]. According to the current eighth edition of the AJCC/UICC (American Joint Committee on Cancer/Union for International Cancer Control) classification [39], srHCC is defined as a T4 stage tumor, which is an advanced tumor factor. Our research results also suggest that age is an independent risk factor affecting OS of srHCC patients.

This study has some limitations. Firstly, due its retrospective nature, and the confounding effects between the two groups could not be completely excluded after IPTW analyses. On the other hand, because the underlying liver disease in the present study was chronic hepatitis B infection in most patients, the results should be validated in other study groups with HCV infections or alcohol consumption. Thirdly, this is a single center and small sample analysis, and selection bias was present due to the lack of external validation from another constitution.

In conclusion, our study demonstrated that C. sinensis infection and low age (<50 years) were independent predictors for OS of srHCC patients after hepatectomy. Our results provide important clinical information for srHCC with C. sinensis infection.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

BDX received the financial support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant no. 81960450), the National Major Special Science and Technology Project (grant no. 2017ZX10203207). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(3):209–49. doi: 10.3322/caac.21660 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Xu J, Hong J, Wang Y, Zhou L, Xu B, Si Y, et al. Prognostic Influence of Spontaneous Tumor Rupture in Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma After Hepatectomy: A Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies. Front Surg. 2021;8:769233. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2021.769233 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Yoshida H, Mamada Y, Taniai N, Uchida E. Spontaneous ruptured hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatol Res. 2016;46(1):13–21. doi: 10.1111/hepr.12498 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Kim JY, Lee JS, Oh DH, Yim YH, Lee HK. Transcatheter arterial chemoembolization confers survival benefit in patients with a spontaneously ruptured hepatocellular carcinoma. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012;24(6):640–5. doi: 10.1097/MEG.0b013e3283524d32 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Castells L, Moreiras M, Quiroga S, Alvarez-Castells A, Segarra A, Esteban R, et al. Hemoperitoneum as a first manifestation of hepatocellular carcinoma in western patients with liver cirrhosis: effectiveness of emergency treatment with transcatheter arterial embolization. Dig Dis Sci. 2001;46(3):555–62. doi: 10.1023/a:1005699132142 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Hermann RE, David TE. Spontaneous rupture of the liver caused by hepatomas. Surgery. 1973;74(5):715–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Rossetto A, Adani GL, Risaliti A, Baccarani U, Bresadola V, Lorenzin D, et al. Combined approach for spontaneous rupture of hepatocellular carcinoma. World J Hepatol. 2010;2(1):49–51. doi: 10.4254/wjh.v2.i1.49 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Qian MB, Utzinger J, Keiser J, Zhou XN. Clonorchiasis. Lancet. 2016;387(10020):800–10. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60313-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Young ND, Campbell BE, Hall RS, Jex AR, Cantacessi C, Laha T, et al. Unlocking the transcriptomes of two carcinogenic parasites, Clonorchis sinensis and Opisthorchis viverrini. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2010;4(6):e719. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0000719 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Young ND, Jex AR, Cantacessi C, Campbell BE, Laha T, Sohn WM, et al. Progress on the transcriptomics of carcinogenic liver flukes of humans—unique biological and biotechnological prospects. Biotechnol Adv. 2010;28(6):859–70. doi: 10.1016/j.biotechadv.2010.07.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Jiang ZH, Wan XL, Lv GL, Zhang WW, Lin Y, Tang WQ, et al. High prevalence of Clonorchis sinensis infection in Guangxi, Southern China. Trop Med Health. 2021;49(1):6. doi: 10.1186/s41182-021-00297-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Sun J, Xin H, Jiang Z, Qian M, Duan K, Chen Y, et al. High endemicity of Clonorchis sinensis infection in Binyang County, southern China. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2020;14(8):e0008540. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0008540 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Deng ZH, Fang YY, Zhang QM, Mao Q, Pei FQ, Liu MR. The control of clonorchiasis in Guangdong province, southern China. Acta Trop. 2020;202:105246. doi: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2019.105246 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Kim HG, Han J, Kim MH, Cho KH, Shin IH, Kim GH, et al. Prevalence of clonorchiasis in patients with gastrointestinal disease: a Korean nationwide multicenter survey. World J Gastroenterol. 2009;15(1):86–94. doi: 10.3748/wjg.15.86 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Dong H, Zhao L, Sun H, Shang M, Lv G, Yu X, et al. Coinfection of Clonorchis sinensis and hepatitis B virus: clinical liver indices and interaction in hepatic cell models. Parasit Vectors. 2022;15(1):460. doi: 10.1186/s13071-022-05548-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Qi Y, Hu J, Liang J, Hu X, Ma N, Xiang B. Clonorchis sinensis infection contributes to hepatocellular carcinoma progression in rat. Parasitol Res. 2022;121(12):3403–15. doi: 10.1007/s00436-022-07699-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Li YK, Zhao JF, Yang CL, Zhan GH, Zhang J, Qin SD, et al. Effects of Clonorchis sinensis combined with Hepatitis B virus infection on the prognosis of patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma following Hepatectomy. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2023;17(1):e0011012. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0011012 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Conner SC, Sullivan LM, Benjamin EJ, LaValley MP, Galea S, Trinquart L. Adjusted restricted mean survival times in observational studies. Stat Med. 2019;38(20):3832–60. doi: 10.1002/sim.8206 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Austin PC, Stuart EA. Moving towards best practice when using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using the propensity score to estimate causal treatment effects in observational studies. Stat Med. 2015;34(28):3661–79. doi: 10.1002/sim.6607 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Rana SS, Bhasin DK, Nanda M, Singh K. Parasitic infestations of the biliary tract. Curr Gastroenterol Rep. 2007;9(2):156–64. doi: 10.1007/s11894-007-0011-6 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Choi D, Lim JH, Lee KT, Lee JK, Choi SH, Heo JS, et al. Cholangiocarcinoma and Clonorchis sinensis infection: a case-control study in Korea. J Hepatol. 2006;44(6):1066–73. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2005.11.040 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Seisen T, Jamzadeh A, Leow JJ, Rouprêt M, Cole AP, Lipsitz SR, et al. Adjuvant Chemotherapy vs Observation for Patients With Adverse Pathologic Features at Radical Cystectomy Previously Treated With Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy. JAMA Oncol. 2018;4(2):225–9. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.2374 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Austin PC. Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples. Stat Med. 2009;28(25):3083–107. doi: 10.1002/sim.3697 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Shi Y, Jiang Z, Yang Y, Zheng P, Wei H, Lin Y, et al. Clonorchis sinensis infection and co-infection with the hepatitis B virus are important factors associated with cholangiocarcinoma and hepatocellular carcinoma. Parasitol Res. 2017;116(10):2645–9. doi: 10.1007/s00436-017-5572-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Chen X, Li S, He L, Wang X, Liang P, Chen W, et al. Molecular characterization of severin from Clonorchis sinensis excretory/secretory products and its potential anti-apoptotic role in hepatocarcinoma PLC cells. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2013;7(12) doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0002606 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Chen W, Ning D, Wang X, Chen T, Lv X, Sun J, et al. Identification and characterization of Clonorchis sinensis cathepsin B proteases in the pathogenesis of clonorchiasis. Parasit Vectors. 2015;8:647. doi: 10.1186/s13071-015-1248-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Gao Y, Li Y, Liu X, Zhang T, Yu G, Wang Y, et al. High prevalence of Clonorchis sinensis infections and coinfection with hepatitis virus in riverside villages in northeast China. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):11749. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-68684-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Li W, Dong H, Huang Y, Chen T, Kong X, Sun H, et al. Clonorchis sinensis Co-infection Could Affect the Disease State and Treatment Response of HBV Patients. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016;10(6):e0004806. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0004806 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Han XJ, Su HY, Shao HB, Xu K. Prognostic factors of spontaneously ruptured hepatocellular carcinoma. World J Gastroenterol. 2015;21(24):7488–94. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i24.7488 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Shin BS, Park MH, Jeon GS. Outcome and prognostic factors of spontaneous ruptured hepatocellular carcinoma treated with transarterial embolization. Acta Radiol. 2011;52(3):331–5. doi: 10.1258/ar.2010.100369 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Jin YJ, Lee JW, Park SW, Lee JI, Lee DH, Kim YS, et al. Survival outcome of patients with spontaneously ruptured hepatocellular carcinoma treated surgically or by transarterial embolization. World J Gastroenterol. 2013;19(28):4537–44. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v19.i28.4537 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Lee CR, Lim JH, Kim SH, Ahn SH, Park YN, Choi GH, et al. A comparative analysis of hepatocellular carcinoma after hepatic resection in young versus elderly patients. J Gastrointest Surg. 2012;16(9):1736–43. doi: 10.1007/s11605-012-1966-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Hung HH, Chiou YY, Hsia CY, Su CW, Chou YH, Chiang JH, et al. Survival rates are comparable after radiofrequency ablation or surgery in patients with small hepatocellular carcinomas. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011;9(1):79–86. Epub 2010/09/14. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2010.08.018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Nathan H, Schulick RD, Choti MA, Pawlik TM. Predictors of survival after resection of early hepatocellular carcinoma. Ann Surg. 2009;249(5):799–805. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181a38eb5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Zheng J, Seier K, Gonen M, Balachandran VP, Kingham TP, D’Angelica MI, et al. Utility of Serum Inflammatory Markers for Predicting Microvascular Invasion and Survival for Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24(12):3706–14. doi: 10.1245/s10434-017-6060-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Zeng J, Lin K, Liu H, Huang Y, Guo P, Zeng Y, et al. Prognosis Factors of Young Patients Undergoing Curative Resection for Hepatitis B Virus-Related Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Multicenter Study. Cancer Manag Res. 2020;12:6597–606. doi: 10.2147/CMAR.S261368 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Ha SY, Sohn I, Hwang SH, Yang JW, Park CK. The prognosis of hepatocellular carcinoma after curative hepatectomy in young patients. Oncotarget. 2015;6(21):18664–73. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.4330 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Cho SJ, Yoon JH, Hwang SS, Lee HS. Do young hepatocellular carcinoma patients with relatively good liver function have poorer outcomes than elderly patients? J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2007;22(8):1226–31. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1746.2007.04914.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Amin MB, Greene FL, Edge SB, Compton CC, Gershenwald JE, Brookland RK, et al. The Eighth Edition AJCC Cancer Staging Manual: Continuing to build a bridge from a population-based to a more "personalized" approach to cancer staging. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017;67(2):93–9. doi: 10.3322/caac.21388 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0011987.r001

Decision Letter 0

Javier Sotillo, Uriel Koziol

20 Oct 2023

Dear Dr. Xiang,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Clonorchis sinensis on the prognosis of patients with spontaneous rupture of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: an inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis" for consideration at PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. In light of the reviews (below this email), we would like to invite the resubmission of a significantly-revised version that takes into account the reviewers' comments.

We cannot make any decision about publication until we have seen the revised manuscript and your response to the reviewers' comments. Your revised manuscript is also likely to be sent to reviewers for further evaluation.

When you are ready to resubmit, please upload the following:

[1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to the review comments and a description of the changes you have made in the manuscript. Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

[2] Two versions of the revised manuscript: one with either highlights or tracked changes denoting where the text has been changed; the other a clean version (uploaded as the manuscript file).

Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments.

Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 60 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email. Please note that revised manuscripts received after the 60-day due date may require evaluation and peer review similar to newly submitted manuscripts.

Thank you again for your submission. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive so far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Javier Sotillo

Academic Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Uriel Koziol

Section Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

***********************

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Key Review Criteria Required for Acceptance?

As you describe the new analyses required for acceptance, please consider the following:

Methods

-Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated?

-Is the study design appropriate to address the stated objectives?

-Is the population clearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis being tested?

-Is the sample size sufficient to ensure adequate power to address the hypothesis being tested?

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions?

-Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met?

Reviewer #1: The paragraph "Study Population" should be re-written like this: Of 328 patients with ruptured HCC, 171 were excluded (17 with previous treatment, 95 receiving TAE or TACE, 33 without treatment, and 26 without complete follow up data). In addition, the prognosis-related clinical factors including MVI, BCLC stage, tumor size, and HBV DNA should be compared between 157 included patients and 171 excluded patients. This will let readers know if the 157 patients represent the 328 patients in total. Others are OK.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: 1. It would be better if the authors can provide the information of IPTW in the introduction or method, including the advantages, and how it important and improve the result or previous reports.

2. To obvious, please describe separately between the baseline characteristics and the result that comparison of before and after using IPTW. Importantly, please use Chi-square to compare the different between before and after using IPTW. Could you please explain more about the statistical analysis of this part?

--------------------

Results

-Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan?

-Are the results clearly and completely presented?

-Are the figures (Tables, Images) of sufficient quality for clarity?

Reviewer #1: The results are fully and clearly presented. Tables and Figs need to be polished. HBV infection between the two groups should be included in the survival analysis because HBV replication has been proven to be an independent risk factor of HCC prognosis.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: 1. Are the results clearly and completely presented in Table 1?

2. This finding did not show the significant data of C. sinensis and no C. sinensis group when no using IPTW, could you please explain and discussion in this point.

--------------------

Conclusions

-Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?

-Are the limitations of analysis clearly described?

-Do the authors discuss how these data can be helpful to advance our understanding of the topic under study?

-Is public health relevance addressed?

Reviewer #1: The significance was found in patients adjusted by inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). Pls discuss how this kind of matching might avoid potential bias?

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: 1. Please elucidate how srHCC differ from HCC, what is the significant point to study?

2. Please add more risk factors of HCC and/or srHCC, relationship of HBV, HCV and C. sinensis with HCC.

3. It would be good if the author can add more discuss about C. sinensis in HCC when compare with srHCC.

--------------------

Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications?

Use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity. If the only modifications needed are minor and/or editorial, you may wish to recommend “Minor Revision” or “Accept”.

Reviewer #1: No more comment.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

--------------------

Summary and General Comments

Use this section to provide overall comments, discuss strengths/weaknesses of the study, novelty, significance, general execution and scholarship. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. If requesting major revision, please articulate the new experiments that are needed.

Reviewer #1: In this study, authors evaluated the association of Clonorchis sinensis infection with the risk of ruptured HCC in Guangxi, an endemic province of Clonorchis sinensis infection in China. Previously, this group characterized the association of Clonorchis sinensis infection with the risk of HCC. This is a new study not being reported. The study design is right. The outcomes are important in this field. However, minor revision is needed focusing on following aspects.

1. The paragraph "Study Population" should be re-written like this: Of 328 patients with ruptured HCC, 171 were excluded (17 with previous treatment, 95 receiving TAE or TACE, 33 without treatment, and 26 without complete follow up data). In addition, the prognosis-related clinical factors including MVI, BCLC stage, tumor size, and HBV DNA should be compared between 157 included patients and 171 excluded patients. This will let readers know if the 157 patients represent the 328 patients in total.

2. The significance was found in patients adjusted by inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). Pls discuss how this kind of matching might avoid potential bias?

3. HBV infection between the two groups should be included in the survival analysis because HBV replication has been proven to be an independent risk factor of HCC prognosis.

Reviewer #2: Overview and general recommendation:

This study analyzed the role of C. sinensis infection in the survival outcomes of spontaneous rupture hepatocellular varcinoma patients using inverse probability of treatment weighting and found that C. sinensis infection had an adverse impact on OS in srHCC patients and was independent prognostic factor. This study was novel. However, there still some questions.

Questions and suggestions:

1. As we know, the destiny of tumors and survival outcomes of patients were decided by many factors including the pathological type, size, metastasis of tumors, chemotherapy, patient's physical condition and diet, and so on. However, these factors were not evaluated in this study. Usually, for patients with tumor of late stage, chemotherapy is needed and is a very important factor that will influence the outcomes of patients. Obviously, these factors were not designed and considered.

2. As the author said, most patients in this study were with chronic hepatitis B infection which was another very important virus that destroys the liver function. This should also be evaluated. Line 259, HCV should be HBV.

3. For OS, before IPTW, the median for the C. sinensis group was 17 months while that for the no C. sinensis group was 32 months. There was already a big difference between these two groups. However, the P was below 0.05. Why?

4. From 2013 to 2021, this study lasted for 8 years. When patients had partial hepatectomy and found to be infected with C. sinensis, did not they receive any treatment for this parasite? Any treatment will also have an impact on the results of this study.

5. C. sinensis should be italic.

Reviewer #3: The manuscript entitled “Clonorchis sinensis on the prognosis of patients with spontaneous rupture of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: an inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis” is interesting work, but there are major points need to be addressed before publish as followed;

1. It would be better if the authors can provide the information of IPTW in the introduction part, including the advantages, and how it important and improve the result or previous reports.

2. This finding did not show the significant data of C. sinensis and no C. sinensis group when no using IPTW, could you please explain and discussion in this point.

3. Please Italics for the word “C. sinensis” in the text.

4. To obvious, please describe separately between the baseline characteristics and the result that comparison of before and after using IPTW. Importantly, please use Chi-square to compare the different between before and after using IPTW. Could you please explain more about the statistical analysis of this part?

5. Please elucidate how srHCC differ from HCC, what is the significant point to study?

6. Please add more risk factors of HCC and/or srHCC, relationship of HBV, HCV and C. sinensis with HCC.

7. It would be good if the author can add more discuss about C. sinensis in HCC when compare with srHCC.

--------------------

PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Guangwen Cao

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Figure Files:

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org.

Data Requirements:

Please note that, as a condition of publication, PLOS' data policy requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions outlined in your manuscript. Data must be deposited in an appropriate repository, included within the body of the manuscript, or uploaded as supporting information. This includes all numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.. For an example see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Attachment

Submitted filename: Comment for authors_PNTD-D-23-00960.pdf

pntd.0011987.s001.pdf (39.1KB, pdf)
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0011987.r003

Decision Letter 1

Javier Sotillo, Uriel Koziol

4 Jan 2024

Dear Dr. Xiang,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Clonorchis sinensis on the prognosis of patients with spontaneous rupture of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: an inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis" for consideration at PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. The reviewers appreciated the attention to an important topic. Based on the reviews, we are likely to accept this manuscript for publication, providing that you modify the manuscript according to the review recommendations.

Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 30 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email.

When you are ready to resubmit, please upload the following:

[1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to all review comments, and a description of the changes you have made in the manuscript.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out

[2] Two versions of the revised manuscript: one with either highlights or tracked changes denoting where the text has been changed; the other a clean version (uploaded as the manuscript file).

Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments.

Thank you again for your submission to our journal. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive so far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Javier Sotillo

Academic Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Uriel Koziol

Section Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

***********************

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Key Review Criteria Required for Acceptance?

As you describe the new analyses required for acceptance, please consider the following:

Methods

-Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated?

-Is the study design appropriate to address the stated objectives?

-Is the population clearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis being tested?

-Is the sample size sufficient to ensure adequate power to address the hypothesis being tested?

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions?

-Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met?

Reviewer #1: The methods are clearly described although their English needs to be polished.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Please the approval ethics number(s)/ID(s) of approval ethics.

--------------------

Results

-Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan?

-Are the results clearly and completely presented?

-Are the figures (Tables, Images) of sufficient quality for clarity?

Reviewer #1: The results are well presented.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

--------------------

Conclusions

-Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?

-Are the limitations of analysis clearly described?

-Do the authors discuss how these data can be helpful to advance our understanding of the topic under study?

-Is public health relevance addressed?

Reviewer #1: The outcomes of this study should be reference for understanding the mechanism by which HCC recur.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

--------------------

Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications?

Use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity. If the only modifications needed are minor and/or editorial, you may wish to recommend “Minor Revision” or “Accept”.

Reviewer #1: accept

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

--------------------

Summary and General Comments

Use this section to provide overall comments, discuss strengths/weaknesses of the study, novelty, significance, general execution and scholarship. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. If requesting major revision, please articulate the new experiments that are needed.

Reviewer #1: No more suggestions

Reviewer #2: The author revised the manuscript. However, there are still some should be addressed before being published.

1. Table 1, the baseline characteristics of the study population were not complete. Such as, for age, why patients only with the age ≤50 years) were analyzed? And, like tumor size, what about patients with tumor size >10 cm? What does the size mean, length or width? All the characteristics in this table were only including some part of patient, not whole population in this study. Will not those characteristics missing in this table influence the results?

2. All C. sinensis were not in italic.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

--------------------

PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Guangwen Cao

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Figure Files:

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org.

Data Requirements:

Please note that, as a condition of publication, PLOS' data policy requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions outlined in your manuscript. Data must be deposited in an appropriate repository, included within the body of the manuscript, or uploaded as supporting information. This includes all numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.. For an example see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

References

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article's retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0011987.r005

Decision Letter 2

Javier Sotillo, Uriel Koziol

12 Feb 2024

Dear Dr. Xiang,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Clonorchis sinensis on the prognosis of patients with spontaneous rupture of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: an inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests.

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

Should you, your institution's press office or the journal office choose to press release your paper, you will automatically be opted out of early publication. We ask that you notify us now if you or your institution is planning to press release the article. All press must be co-ordinated with PLOS.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Best regards,

Javier Sotillo

Academic Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Uriel Koziol

Section Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

***********************************************************

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Key Review Criteria Required for Acceptance?

As you describe the new analyses required for acceptance, please consider the following:

Methods

-Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated?

-Is the study design appropriate to address the stated objectives?

-Is the population clearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis being tested?

-Is the sample size sufficient to ensure adequate power to address the hypothesis being tested?

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions?

-Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met?

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

Results

-Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan?

-Are the results clearly and completely presented?

-Are the figures (Tables, Images) of sufficient quality for clarity?

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

Conclusions

-Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?

-Are the limitations of analysis clearly described?

-Do the authors discuss how these data can be helpful to advance our understanding of the topic under study?

-Is public health relevance addressed?

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications?

Use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity. If the only modifications needed are minor and/or editorial, you may wish to recommend “Minor Revision” or “Accept”.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

Summary and General Comments

Use this section to provide overall comments, discuss strengths/weaknesses of the study, novelty, significance, general execution and scholarship. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. If requesting major revision, please articulate the new experiments that are needed.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0011987.r006

Acceptance letter

Javier Sotillo, Uriel Koziol

16 Feb 2024

Dear Dr. Xiang,

We are delighted to inform you that your manuscript, "Clonorchis sinensis on the prognosis of patients with spontaneous rupture of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: an inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis," has been formally accepted for publication in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

We have now passed your article onto the PLOS Production Department who will complete the rest of the publication process. All authors will receive a confirmation email upon publication.

The corresponding author will soon be receiving a typeset proof for review, to ensure errors have not been introduced during production. Please review the PDF proof of your manuscript carefully, as this is the last chance to correct any scientific or type-setting errors. Please note that major changes, or those which affect the scientific understanding of the work, will likely cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript. Note: Proofs for Front Matter articles (Editorial, Viewpoint, Symposium, Review, etc...) are generated on a different schedule and may not be made available as quickly.

Soon after your final files are uploaded, the early version of your manuscript will be published online unless you opted out of this process. The date of the early version will be your article's publication date. The final article will be published to the same URL, and all versions of the paper will be accessible to readers.

Thank you again for supporting open-access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Best regards,

Shaden Kamhawi

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Paul Brindley

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Comment for authors_PNTD-D-23-00960.pdf

    pntd.0011987.s001.pdf (39.1KB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response.docx

    pntd.0011987.s002.docx (17.6KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response2.docx

    pntd.0011987.s003.docx (15.3KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES