the kappa for other related abnormalities was still acceptable. More important, the operators of performing an AUS in a local community setting were well trained by the two senior experts in gastroenterology (Dr. Tsung-Hui Hu, the second author, and Dr. ChaoSheng Liao, the last author), both of whom have practiced AUS for over 20 years. We think that quality control for screening with AUS would not be a serious problem. Indeed, large samples would be suggested for better operator reliability in the future before conducting such a mass screening. Indeed, in our risk score assessment, we did not include nonalcoholic fatty liver disease or alcoholic steatohepatitis alcoholic, as we did not have such information. We understand this plays an important role in HCC cases resulting from those free of hepatitis viral infection. This may be considered in our Group B (free of hepatitis viral infection). In the current scenario, not including this factor may have little effect, as our HCC cases in Taiwan so far are still dominated by hepatitis viral infection.Finally, on the basis of evidence-based medicine (EBM), we do agree with Cui et al. in pointing out that a randomized controlled trial (RCT) with long-term follow-up, evaluation of the sensitivity and specificity of US (several previous studies have been provided), and the aspect of an economic appraisal should be required before HCC screening with AUS is recommended. Our observational cohort study cannot replace the RCT but it provides a new insight into the possibility of considering mass screening for HCC with AUS in places with a high incidence HCC.