Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMarch 27, 2022
Decision Letter - Giuseppe Lucarelli, Editor

PONE-D-22-09016Effects of intravesical BCG maintenance therapy duration on recurrence rate in high-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC): Systematic review and network meta-analysis according to EAU COVID-19 recommendationsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Lee,

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 points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 13 2022 11:59PM. 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.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Giuseppe Lucarelli, M.D., Ph.D.

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. 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: No

********** 

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: Yes

********** 

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: Objectives: Authors purposes in this manuscript were to evaluate as a systematic and a network meta-analysis the recurrence rates after TURBT and BCG instillations (in patients with NMIBC receiving induction and maintenance therapy, under and over one year) available in the literature. The work has value in the context of identifying the best recommendation period of BCG instillation for NMIBC.

There are few minor issues that can improve the manuscript.

1. At line 72-73 the purpose of the review is indicated to be the appropriate duration of BCG maintenance therapy both during and after control of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is somehow misleading, because the readers can expect to see a comparative analysis on the studies performed pre and after pandemic. “After control of the COVID-19 pandemic” is the term that has to be modified. The Covid-19 pandemic is not over yet. I would like to ask the authors to rephrase the paragraph.

2. In the Discussion section, from line 194 to 199, the information can be better inserted in the introduction section.

Reviewer #2: I appreciate this meta-analysis and I only suggest minor revision as:

Introduction:

Add impact of reTurb on bcg response : see Urol Oncol. 2022 Jun 5:S1078-1439(22)00186-7. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2022.05.016. Online ahead of print. ;

J Cancer 2018 Oct 20;9(22):4250-4254. doi: 10.7150/jca.26129. eCollection 2018.

Define concept of BCG unresposnsive , according new definition of FDA and add recent evidence of literature : Urol Oncol. 2022 Jun 5:S1078-1439(22)00186-7. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2022.05.016. Online ahead of print.

In discussion remark the concept of delayed treatment during pandemic era

********** 

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: Tataru Octavian Sabin

Reviewer #2: Yes: matteo Ferro

**********

[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.

Revision 1

● Reviewer #1:

Comment 1-1: At line 72-73 the purpose of the review is indicated to be the appropriate duration of BCG maintenance therapy both during and after control of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is somehow misleading, because the readers can expect to see a comparative analysis on the studies performed pre and after pandemic. “After control of the COVID-19 pandemic” is the term that has to be modified. The Covid-19 pandemic is not over yet. I would like to ask the authors to rephrase the paragraph.

Answer 1-1: We revised the paragraph according to your comment.

� Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine the appropriate duration of BCG maintenance therapy during the COVID-19 pandemic since 2020.

Comment 1-2: In the Discussion section, from line 194 to 199, the information can be better inserted in the introduction section.

Answer A-2: According to your comment, we inserted the paragraph in the introduction section.

● Reviewer 2:

Comment 2-1: Add impact of reTurb on bcg response : see Urol Oncol. 2022 Jun 5:S1078-1439(22)00186-7. and J Cancer 2018 Oct 20;9(22):4250-4254.

Answer 2-1: As you commented, we added the reference as follows.

� Ferro et al. conducted a retrospective study to investigate the predictive factors in the response to BCG in patients with a T1G3/HG NMIBC diagnosis [42]. According to their study, multifocality, lymphovascular invasion, and HG on re-TURBT were independent predictors for response to BCG treatment. To reduce the risk of understaging and missing MIBC, re-TURBT should be performed, especially in HG NMIBC. According to another study, independent predictors to identify patients at risk of residual HG disease after a complete TURBT include the tumor size, presence of CIS, and body mass index (BMI)�25 kg/m2 [43]. When deciding to perform re-TURBT, the presence of these factors would also be an important consideration.

Comment 2-2: Define concept of BCG unresposnsive , according new definition of FDA and add recent evidence of literature : Urol Oncol. 2022 Jun 5:S1078-1439(22)00186-7. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2022.05.016. Online ahead of print.\\

Answer 2-2: According to your comment, we added the reference as follows.

� BCG unresponsiveness is one of the important considerations in BCG therapy for patients with NMIBC. According to the EAU guidelines on NMIBC, BCG unresponsive tumors included all BCG refractory tumors (T1G3/high-grade (HG) tumor at 3 months; TaG3/HG tumor after 3 months and/or at 6 months, after either re-induction or first course of maintenance; carcinoma in situ (CIS), without concomitant papillary tumor, at 3 months and persisting at 6 months after either re-induction or first course of maintenance; HG tumor during BCG maintenance therapy) and those who develop T1Ta/HG recurrence within 6 months or CIS within 12 months from the completion of adequate BCG exposure [41]. In general, BCG-unresponsive patients have worse oncological outcomes, and therefore, studies related to factors that can predict BCG response are important in the treatment of NMIBC.

Comment 2-3: In discussion remark the concept of delayed treatment during pandemic era.

Answer 2-3: We added the reference according to your comment.

� During the COVID-19 pandemic, management also has been delayed for muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). According to EAU recommendations, Kang et al. conducted systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) compared with radical cystectomy (RC) alone in improving the overall survival (OS) of patients with T2-4aN0M0 MIBC. The OS was significantly better in the NAC with RC group than in the RC alone group. However, in a subgroup analysis of patients with T2N0M0 MIBC, there was no difference in the OS between the NAC with RC group and the RC alone group. They concluded that, as recommended by the EAU Guidelines Office Rapid Reaction Group, patients with T2N0M0 MIBC should strongly consider omitting NAC until the end of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Giuseppe Lucarelli, Editor

Effects of intravesical BCG maintenance therapy duration on recurrence rate in high-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC): Systematic review and network meta-analysis according to EAU COVID-19 recommendations

PONE-D-22-09016R1

Dear Dr. Lee,

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,

Giuseppe Lucarelli, M.D., Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Giuseppe Lucarelli, Editor

PONE-D-22-09016R1

Effects of intravesical BCG maintenance therapy duration on recurrence rate in high-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC): Systematic review and network meta-analysis according to EAU COVID-19 recommendations

Dear Dr. Lee:

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. Giuseppe Lucarelli

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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 .