Physical well-being recovery trajectories by reconstruction modality in women undergoing mastectomy and breast reconstruction: Significant predictors and health-related quality of life outcomes

Cai Xu; Peiyi Lu; André Pfob; Andrea L. Pusic; Jennifer B. Hamill; Chris Sidey-Gibbons

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0289182

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMay 4, 2023
26 May 2023 Decision Letter - Shimpei Miyamoto, Editor PONE-D-23-11116Physical well-being recovery trajectories by reconstruction modality in women undergoing mastectomy and breast reconstruction: significant predictors and health-related quality of life outcomesPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Xu, 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 Jul 10 2023 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, Shimpei Miyamoto 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 include a complete copy of PLOS’ questionnaire on inclusivity in global research in your revised manuscript. Our policy for research in this area aims to improve transparency in the reporting of research performed outside of researchers’ own country or community. The policy applies to researchers who have travelled to a different country to conduct research, research with Indigenous populations or their lands, and research on cultural artefacts. The questionnaire can also be requested at the journal’s discretion for any other submissions, even if these conditions are not met. Please find more information on the policy and a link to download a blank copy of the questionnaire here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/best-practices-in-research-reporting. Please upload a completed version of your questionnaire as Supporting Information when you resubmit your manuscript. 3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: “Supported by National Cancer Institute Grant No. R01 CA152192 and in part by National Cancer Institute Support Grant No. P30 CA008748.” Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section: “Cai Xu No relationship to disclose. Peiyi Lu No relationship to disclose. André Pfob No relationship to disclose. Andrea L. Pusic Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: I am a codeveloper of BREAST-Q and receive royalty payments when it is used in for-profit industry-sponsored trials. Jennifer B Hamill No relationship to disclose. Chris Sidey-Gibbons No relationship to disclose.” Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests). If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared. Please include your updated Competing Interests statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 5. 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 ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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 ****** 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 ****** 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: This paper describes the longitudinal changes in physical well-being of the chest up to 2 years after breast reconstruction by surgical technique using latent class growth analysis (LCGA) and identify factors influencing this change. The statistical analysis is well described, and the results are clearly presented. The main research findings of this paper will be important for understanding of quality of life after breast reconstruction, contributing to improved patient care. I would recommend it for acceptance after the minor points listed below. １）Regarding Table 1, there are differences in the four PWBC trajectories between IMPG and AUTOG (e.g., IMPG includes 'medium high-not restored' but AUTOG does not). To facilitate the reader's visual understanding, it is suggested that this be corrected so that the class and graph color corresponds one-to-one. ２）The second line of the abstract states "in patients who underwent postmastectomy and breast reconstruction,". Would it be better to correct it to "postmastectomy breast reconstruction" or "mastectomy and breast reconstruction"? ３）"his/" is inappropriate because the study subjects are all women. (p.10 ; line10) ４）The grammar of "The physical well-being score was AUTOG is significantly better than that in IMPG[11,28]." should be corrected.(p.21 ; lines18-19) I hope these comments will be helpful. ****** 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: No ******** [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.0289182.r001
Revision 1
9 Jun 2023 Author Response Responses to Reviewer1 Reviewer #1: This paper describes the longitudinal changes in physical well-being of the chest up to 2 years after breast reconstruction by surgical technique using latent class growth analysis (LCGA) and identify factors influencing this change. The statistical analysis is well described, and the results are clearly presented. The main research findings of this paper will be important for understanding of quality of life after breast reconstruction, contributing to improved patient care. I would recommend it for acceptance after the minor points listed below. Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback and positive assessment of our paper. We appreciate your recognition of the clarity in our statistical analysis and presentation of results, as well as the significance of our research findings for enhancing quality of life after breast reconstruction and improving patient care. Your detailed suggestions have greatly contributed to refining and strengthening our paper. We are fully committed to upholding the highest research standards and greatly value your expertise in helping us achieve this goal. We have incorporated the corresponding changes into the manuscript's main body, highlighted in red, and provided a detailed explanation for each change below. 1)Regarding Table 1, there are differences in the four PWBC trajectories between IMPG and AUTOG (e.g., IMPG includes 'medium high-not restored' but AUTOG does not). To facilitate the reader's visual understanding, it is suggested that this be corrected so that the class and graph color corresponds one-to-one. Response: Thanks for this good suggestion. We have adjusted the colors in both graphs to establish a one-to-one correspondence between the classes and the graphs, to facilitate the reader's visual understanding. See these new plots below. 2)The second line of the abstract states "in patients who underwent postmastectomy and breast reconstruction,". Would it be better to correct it to "postmastectomy breast reconstruction" or "mastectomy and breast reconstruction"? Response: Thanks for pointing out these details. I took your advice and corrected this sentence to read as “in patients who underwent postmastectomy and breast reconstruction” in Abstract. Actually in main body of context, it keeps using “postmastectomy breast reconstruction”, or PMBR for short. PMBR=postmastectomy breast reconstruction 3)"his/" is inappropriate because the study subjects are all women. (p.10; line10) Response: We agree with the reviewer’ comments and thanks for this interesting suggestion. We removed the word” his/”, our patients here are all women. See page 10 for details. “each included patient will be assigned a new class membership based on their respective posterior class probabilities to represent his/her growth patterns over time, and their respective new class membership attribution will not change at all the assessment time points.” 4)The grammar of "The physical well-being score was AUTOG is significantly better than that in IMPG[11,28]." should be corrected. (p.21; lines18-19) Response: Thanks for your helpful suggestions. I took you advice and changed this sentence in p.21 to this: “The physical well-being score in AUTOG is significantly better than that in IMPG[11,28].” Responses to 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 Response: Yes. Our manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements. 2. Please include a complete copy of PLOS’ questionnaire on inclusivity in global research in your revised manuscript. Our policy for research in this area aims to improve transparency in the reporting of research performed outside of researchers’ own country or community. The policy applies to researchers who have travelled to a different country to conduct research, research with Indigenous populations or their lands, and research on cultural artefacts. The questionnaire can also be requested at the journal’s discretion for any other submissions, even if these conditions are not met. Please find more information on the policy and a link to download a blank copy of the questionnaire here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/best-practices-in-research-reporting. Please upload a completed version of your questionnaire as Supporting Information when you resubmit your manuscript. Response: Yes, we added a subsection ‘Inclusivity in global research’ to our Methods section and adding the following sentence: “Additional information regarding the ethical, cultural, and scientific considerations specific to inclusivity in global research is included in the Supporting Information (S2 Checklist)” in p.10. Of note, the study was originally IRB approved in 2012 which is before single IRB requirements. Each individual center managed its own regulatory process with support from us. We completed this questionnaire and uploaded it as Supporting Information when we resubmit our manuscript. 3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: “Supported by National Cancer Institute Grant No. R01 CA152192 and in part by National Cancer Institute Support Grant No. P30 CA008748.” Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. Response: Role of Funder statement The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. 4. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section: “Cai Xu No relationship to disclose. Peiyi Lu No relationship to disclose. André Pfob No relationship to disclose. Andrea L. Pusic Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: I am a codeveloper of BREAST-Q and receive royalty payments when it is used in for-profit industry-sponsored trials. Jennifer B Hamill No relationship to disclose. Chris Sidey-Gibbons No relationship to disclose.” Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests). If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared. Please include your updated Competing Interests statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. Response: Competing Interests statement This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials. 5. 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. Response: All references listed in this manuscript are complete and correct. No new references were added during the revision process. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289182.r002
13 Jul 2023 Decision Letter - Shimpei Miyamoto, Editor Physical well-being recovery trajectories by reconstruction modality in women undergoing mastectomy and breast reconstruction: significant predictors and health-related quality of life outcomes PONE-D-23-11116R1 Dear Dr. Xu, 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, Shimpei Miyamoto Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289182.r003
Formally Accepted
19 Jul 2023 Acceptance Letter - Shimpei Miyamoto, Editor PONE-D-23-11116R1 Physical well-being recovery trajectories by reconstruction modality in women undergoing mastectomy and breast reconstruction: significant predictors and health-related quality of life outcomes Dear Dr. Xu: 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. Shimpei Miyamoto Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289182.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 .