Breast cancer incidence and predictions (Monastir, Tunisia: 2002–2030): A registry-based study

Imen Zemni; Meriem Kacem; Wafa Dhouib; Cyrine Bennasrallah; Rim Hadhri; Hela Abroug; Manel Ben Fredj; Moncef Mokni; Ines Bouanene; Asma Sriha Belguith

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0268035

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionDecember 10, 2021
21 Jan 2022 Decision Letter - Gopal Ashish Sharma, Editor PONE-D-21-39057Breast cancer incidence and predictions (Monastir, Tunisia: 2002-2030): A registry-based studyPLOS ONE Dear Dr ZEMNI Imen, Warm regards, On behalf of PLOS One Team , I Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the minor reveiwer points raised during the process. ============================== At the outset, I would congratulate authors to highlight the Breast Cancer trends in context to Monastir, Tunisia. This would further enrich the scientific community on the topic. It is kindly conveyed that, to increase the scientific validity of manuscript please add/clarify/incorporate the points raised by reviewer, e.g Denominator population, discussion articles etc. Please revisit the manuscript for few typos also Authors had highlighted one of the key observation, " In our study, about 10.5% of breast cancer cases occurred in women under 35 years old" which would raise the concern of policy makers for strengthening early screening and diagnosis. Recently, across the world we had observed similar trend, particularly in young females as reported in the submitted manuscript also . Study enforces the need for appropriate interventions for early screening and diagnosis. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by March 7, 2022. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. PLOS ONE team looks forward to receiving your revised manuscript at earliest feasible time. Kind regards, Gopal Ashish Sharma, MBBS, MD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf. 2. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter. 3. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ 4. 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. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: 1. Abstract: The second line "Among females'.....causing mortality" needs rephrasing. 2. For the worldwide readers, it would be better that the spelling of "Crud" as in crude incidence rate be written uniformly as "Crude" 3. In methodology section, As you have included only females with new breast cancer in your study, (Male breast cancer cases were excluded), it is not clear that you used sex specific population as denominator or not. The title of the relevant tables should also mention the word "females". 4. The time point of the popuation used as denominator (eg mid-year...or something else ) is not mentioned. 5. Statistial analysis section should mention the full details of the SPSS software used like the city, country etc. 6. In discussion section, Spelling of "contralateral" (Line with refefrence no. 30) Reviewer #2: This is an ambitious endeavour the authors undertook and they have been successful in reaching a conclusion that is useful for both the scientific community and general population alike. The paper follows IMRAD. Introduction well enunciates the background of the problem and reason for its exploration. The methodology is adequate but I could not locate the ethics committee recommendations or consent. The results are lucid and in agreement with the latest GLOBOCAN estimates. The discussion in this paper is a momentous tasks and needs more trends to be discussed worldwide, although the authors have tried to reason well that why Montasir has higher breast cancer incidence rate in comparison to the national rate and how does it stand globally. May I suggest more scientific discussions to the authors. You are also requested to compare with predictions from Machine Learning Models. https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.3322/caac.21660 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1460458220983878 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6659231/ https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2778204 https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(21)00265-0/fulltext chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/viewer.html?pdfurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjournal.waocp.org/article_16333_aa05a4f1e68d4a4a60d9936cac9a2ad2.pdf https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/503219 https://www.koreascience.or.kr/article/JAKO201525249375821.page There were no limitations and biases mentioned in the paper and authors are requested to add them as well. spelling errors noted (crud = crude) ****** 6. 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: Dr Vijay Kumar Barwal Reviewer #2: Yes:** Vidisha Vallabh [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment 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. Registration is free. 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 PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268035.r001
Revision 1
1 Apr 2022 Author Response Response to Reviewers Dear Editor, Thank you for your attention to our work. The comments and suggestions we have received are valuable and very helpful to improve our manuscript. We have made revisions based on your latest comments and suggestions, as described in the authors' response. We respond in detail to each of the reviewers’ comments. They raised important issues and we agree with almost all their comments. We have revised our manuscript according to their indications. We hope that they will find our responses to their comments satisfactory, and we are willing to finish the revised version of the manuscript including any further suggestion that the reviewers may have. The revision has been developed in consultation with all coauthors, and each author has given approval to the final form of this revision. All changes made in the revised version will be visible in red. Please find as attached files: The “Response to Reviewers”, the “'Revised Manuscript with Track Change” and the “Manuscript” (the unmarked version of the revised manuscript). We sincerely hope that the revision of the manuscript will be satisfactory and the enclosed version will be acceptable for publication. Once again thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely Yours, Dr Imen ZEMNI Journal Requirements: 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. Response: Thank you. We did the required modifications. 2. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. Response: Thank you. We attached an Excel supplementary file intitled “S1 File. Female breast cancer new cases in Monastir between 2002 and 2013” in Supporting Information. (Lines 461 and 462) 3. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. Response: Thank you. We indicated the ORCID iD of the corresponding author. 4. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. Response: Thank you. We reviewed the reference list and added other references as it was recommended by reviewer 2. Review Comments: Reviewer 1: 1. Abstract: The second line "Among females'.....causing mortality" needs rephrasing. Response: Thank you. We did the necessary modifications. (Lines 32 and 33) 2. For the worldwide readers, it would be better that the spelling of "Crud" as in crude incidence rate be written uniformly as "Crude". Response: Thank you. We did the necessary modifications. (Lines 82,113,141,142,145,149 and 305) 3. In methodology section, As you have included only females with new breast cancer in your study, (Male breast cancer cases were excluded), it is not clear that you used sex specific population as denominator or not. The title of the relevant tables should also mention the word "females". Response: Thank you. As we have included only females with new breast cancer in our study, we used female population as denominator. We added this information in the methodology section (Lines 115 and 116). We also mentioned the word "female" in the titles of the relevant tables (Lines 155,161 and 179). 4. The time point of the population used as denominator (eg mid-year...or something else ) is not mentioned. Response: Thank you. We computed the point incidence rate of breast cancer (per 100,000 population) for each year based on the Tunisian National Institute of Statistics data. Incidence rates were expressed per 100,000 person-years: The Tunisian National Institute of Statistics carries out censuses of the Tunisian population every 10 years. The last censuses were carried out between April and May 2014. Data on the population estimate in other years are given through projections made by the Tunisian National Institute of Statistics. 5. Statistical analysis section should mention the full details of the SPSS software used like the city, country etc. Response: Thank you. We did the necessary modifications. (Lines 112 and 113) 6. In discussion section, Spelling of "contralateral" Response: Thank you. We corrected the spelling. (Line 276) Reviewer 2: 1. The methodology is adequate, but I could not locate the ethics committee recommendations or consent. Response: Thank you. We mentioned in the methodology section that the protocol of this study was approved by the ethics Committee of the faculty of medicine of Monastir (Reference Number: IORG0009738N°101/OMB0990-0279).) (Lines 124,125 and 126) 2. The discussion in this paper is a momentous tasks and needs more trends to be discussed worldwide, although the authors have tried to reason well that why Monastir has higher breast cancer incidence rate in comparison to the national rate and how does it stand globally. May I suggest more scientific discussions to the authors. You are also requested to compare with predictions from Machine Learning Models. Response: Thank you. We revised the discussion and we added paragraphs to discuss: � The incidence rate in Monastir comparatively to other national results and international findings (lines 201-211). � Trends of breast cancer incidence comparatively to last reports from Tunisia and to statistics from the different regions in the World (Lines 230-257). � Trends according age groups (Line 258-267). 3. There were no limitations and biases mentioned in the paper and authors are requested to add them as well. Response: Thank you. We added a paragraph for limitations at the end of the manuscript (Lines 279-287). 4. Spelling errors noted (crud = crude) Response: Thank you. We did the necessary modifications. (Lines 82,112,136,137,144 and 264) Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response-to-Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268035.r002
21 Apr 2022 Decision Letter - Gopal Ashish Sharma, Editor Breast cancer incidence and predictions (Monastir, Tunisia: 2002-2030): A registry-based study PONE-D-21-39057R1 Dear Dr.Imen Zemni, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Gopal Ashish Sharma, MBBS, MD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Revised manuscript is accepted for publication as both the reviewers had conveyed the accepatnce of changes proposed through journal and available electronic means. Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: I thanks all the authors for considering our suggestions regarding the revision and further improvement of this manuscript. ****** 7. 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:** Dr. Vijay Kumar Barwal, IGMC Shimla, India https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268035.r003
Formally Accepted
16 May 2022 Acceptance Letter - Gopal Ashish Sharma, Editor PONE-D-21-39057R1 Breast cancer incidence and predictions (Monastir, Tunisia: 2002-2030): A registry-based study Dear Dr. Zemni: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Gopal Ashish Sharma Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268035.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .