We thanks the reviewer for this comment. We have now elaborated on many issues throughout the discussion, as was described thorough this response letter. Regarding the conclusion, we have rephrased it for better accuracy: “TTFields were identified to be most efficient for treatment of HCC cells at 150 kHz, and this frequency further demonstrated in vivo efficacy.” Why only one frequency was used in vivo, and the difference between frequency and dose, were explained in response 4.
Finally, adding to all the above questions, I found a very weak Discussion section which must be extended. Moreover, in the Discussion section, the authors concluded that “TTFields display efficacy for treatment of HCC in vitro and in vivo, with an optimal frequency of 150 kHz”. This is not a correct statement. While for in vitro data, the authors have data, for in vivo they used only one frequency of 150 Hz. At least one different dose should have been studied for comparison since this is a completely different tumor environment than the in vitro one.