Peer Review History

Original SubmissionFebruary 13, 2024

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Data Access Timeframe Query.docx
Decision Letter - Kekeli Kodjo Adanu, Editor

PONE-D-24-04284Availability and Geographic Access to Breast Cancer Pathology Services in GhanaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Sutherland,

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.

Congratulations to the authors for a well written manuscript. Further comments can be found under "Additional Editor Comments". 

​Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 20 2024 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,

Kekeli Kodjo Adanu, MB CHB, MPH

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

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. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. 

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: 

The study was supported by the University of Utah Center for Global Surgery through the Gardner & Holt Grant with no specific grant or award number. Additional funding included the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Grant # T32CA126607 (Price, M). We would also like to acknowledge the following persons and institutions for their immense contributions towards the success of the project: Dr. Alberta Biritwum-Nyarko and Mrs Irina Ofei both of the Ghana Health Services; the Director General of the Ghana Health Services, Dr. Patrick Kuma Aboagye; the Health Facilities Regulatory Agency, Ghana; the Ensign Global College; Dr. Moustafa Moustafa; Dr. Ousman Sanyang, Dr. Grace Ayensu-Danquah and Mr. Jonathan Nellermoe.

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. 

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: 

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

Please include your amended statements within 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: 

Although AFR is employed by Hologic, she maintained her role on this project under her Adjunct appointment at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.  The remaining authors have no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

   

We note that one or more of the authors are employed by a commercial company: Hologic and Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health 

a. Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form.

Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement. 

“The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors, but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.”

If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement. 

b. Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc.  

Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation 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 this adherence statement is not accurate and  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 both an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. We note that Figures 2 and 3 in your submission contain map images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 2 and 3 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.  

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

6. 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.

Additional Editor Comments:

Congratulations to the Authors for a well written paper.

However, there are some few issues that require clarification.

Introduction - The authors laid a good background for the study and the rationale for the study was adequately explained.

Discussion - The authors made the claim that the concentration of pathologist in major referral centers facilitated efficient diagnostic services. Please justify this. Will a more equitable distribution of pathologist in-country rather lead to a more efficient diagnostic delivery system? Please clarify this further in your discussion.

With regards to the low reportage of ER/PR testing and Her-2/neu testing by health facilities, in spite of the availability of these tests at the referral centers, please clarify the following

1. Who were the respondents at the various health facilities?

2. Are these respondents health professionals with adequate knowledge/information on these tests and what they meant?

3. Will the knowledge or lack thereof of respondents influence the outcome obtained and could that be a possible limitation of your study?

[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: 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 is a cross-sectional survey of hospitals that assess pathology service- related parameters, including whether breast pathology was available on-site or via external referral, the number of pathology consultants and specialists, the availability of other diagnostic modealities including ER, PR and HER2 testing, and the time taken for the biopsy results to be ready.

The number of hospitals included (328 hospitals) and the duration (12 months) are ok for the data to be statistically of value.

The Geospatial mapping used to identify areas of limited access is informative and attractive.

The survey questions are adequate and clear.

The methodology in general is written orderly and with clear language.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript is well-written, and the data are clearly presented.

The conclusions of the study are clearly stated, and the discussion is comprehensive.

The authors may need to revise the manuscript for the very infrequent typo errors.

**********

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: Dalia Abd El-Kareem

Reviewer #2: Yes: Prof. Dr. Amal Abd El hafez

**********

[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

Thank you very much for your review of our original research article entitled “Availability and Geographic Access to Breast Cancer Pathology Services in Ghana”. We again confirm that this work is original and has not been published elsewhere, nor is it currently under consideration for publication elsewhere. Please find the responses to the specific items highlighted from the review below:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE’s style requirements.

a. The style templates have been reviewed and our manuscript has been adjusted accordingly.

2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

a. Thank you for pointing this out. The correct grant information has been included in the ‘Funding information’ section:

i. Gardner & Holt Grant with no specific grant or award number

ii. National Cancer Institute (NCI) Grant #T32CA126607 (Price, M).

3. Please remove funding information from the acknowledgements section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the funding statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your funding statement. Currently, your funding statement reads as follows: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work. Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

a. Funding information has been removed from the acknowledgements section

b. Our amended funding statement we would like to have updated is as follows:

i. The study was supported by the University of Utah Center for Global Surgery through the Gardner & Holt Grant with no specific grant or award number. Additional funding included the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Grant #T32CA126607 (Price, M). Hologic provided support in the form of salary for Rositch, A. but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection, and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific role of this author is articulated in the ‘author contribution’s’ section.

4. Thank you for stating AFR’s employment at Hologic in the competing interest’s section.

a. Please provide an amended funding statement declaring this commercial affiliation as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study

i. This has been added to the funding statement in part 3 above.

b. Please also provide an updated competing interests statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc. Within your competing interest’s statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials. Please include both an updated funding statement and competing interests’ statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

i. A. Rositch, a co-author, is currently an employee of Hologic, however Hologic had no role in the study design, data collection, and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The majority of this study was completed while A. Rositch was engaged as a full-time faculty member at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, only the manuscript co-author revision phase occurred while A. Rositch was an employee at Hologic. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

5. We note that Figures 2 and 3 in your submission contain map images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the CC BY 4.0, which means that the manuscript, images and supporting information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as google software (Google maps, street view, and earth). We require you to either present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or remove the figures from your submission;

a. Figures 2 and 3 were generated in Arc GIS Pro by our research team using the Esri Arc GIS pro base maps “world topographic map”. We have obtained written permission from Esri for publication under the CC BY 4.0 license and this documentation is submitted with this resubmission.

6. 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 include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

a. Our reference list is accurate and up to date with no references cited that have been retracted.

b. The following two references have been added for completeness.

i. 33. Esri. "Topographic" [basemap]. Scale Not Given. "World Topographic Map". December, 2023. http://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=30e5fe3149c34df1ba922e6f5bbf808f.

ii. 34. WorldPop. WorldPop 2021 Population Density Raster [Internet]. WorldPop; 2021 [December 2023]]. Available from: [www.worldpop.org].

7. Response to editor’s and reviewers’ comments

a. Discussion – the authors made the claim that the concentration of pathologist in major referral centers facilitated efficient diagnostic services. Please justify this. Will a more equitable distribution of pathologist in-country rather lead to a more efficient diagnostic delivery system? Please clarify this further in your discussion.

i. We agree with your reasoning. Our intention with this sentence/paragraph was to highlight the success of such widespread referral pathways, and such widespread capacity for referrals is only possible with a larger concentration of pathologists. We have re-arranged the sentence and added an additional sentence to now read as follows:

1. The concentration of pathologists in major centers, particularly in Kumasi and Accra, has facilitated efficient diagnostic referral services. If pathologists were more equitably distributed throughout the country it is unknown if this would result in improved service availability or if this would instead diminish the capacity of the already established referral patterns.

b. With Regards to the low reportage of ER/PR testing and HER2/Neu testing by health facilities, in spite of the availability of these tests at the referral centers, please clarify the following:

i. Who were the respondents at the various health facilities?

1. The more in-depth methodology of how and to whom the survey was administered is outlined in the other papers that are cited in our methods section. As to the respondents for the survey, they were “key administrative personnel, the most knowledgeable clinical specialist (eg, medical director, hospital superintendent) of each facility, or the lead breast cancer specialist. If a question was encountered that the respondent did not know, the appropriate person within the hospital was contacted.” The following sentence in the methods section has been updated to include the words “and methods of administration”.

a. The full survey design and methods of administration have been previously described in detail by Moustafa, et. al. [31] and Schoenhals et. al. [32]

ii. Are these respondents health professionals with adequate knowledge/information on these tests and what they meant?

1. See response above. In many cases yes, and when not, or the information was not known by the respondent health professionals with the knowledge were contacted.

iii. Will the knowledge or lack thereof of respondents influence the outcome obtained and could that be a possible limitation of your study?

1. Absolutely, with any human response we would expect there be to some level of error, for this we have added the following sentence in the limitations section of our manuscript.

a. While the in-person surveys were with the most knowledgeable individual on breast cancer services at each hospital and additional providers were consulted where information was missing, there could remain errors related to respondents’ knowledge or lack thereof.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_Price.docx
Decision Letter - Kekeli Kodjo Adanu, Editor

Availability and Geographic Access to Breast Cancer Pathology Services in Ghana

PONE-D-24-04284R1

Dear Dr. Sutherland,

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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,

Kekeli Kodjo Adanu, MB CHB, MPH

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Congratulations on this detailed and well written research on the availability of breast cancer pathology services in Ghana. This adds considerably to the scarce body of knowledge on the subject matter. Congratulations once again.

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Kekeli Kodjo Adanu, Editor

PONE-D-24-04284R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Sutherland,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, 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 customercare@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. Kekeli Kodjo Adanu

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 .