Survival assessment and pre-diagnostic risk factors for lung cancer incidence: Insights from the Golestan Cohort Study

Seyedeh Fatemeh Mousavi; Sahar Masoudi; Negar Rezaei; Farzad Pourghazi; Maryam Sharafkhah; Maysa Eslami; Akram Pourshams; Hossein Poustchi; Gholamreza Roshandel; Rasoul Aliannejad; Sadaf G. Sepanlou; Reza Malekzadeh

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0320931

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionSeptember 15, 2024
15 Sep 2024 Author Response https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0320931.r001
28 Nov 2024 Decision Letter - Sohrab Amiri, Editor PONE-D-24-35243Survival Assessment and Pre-Diagnostic Risk Factors for Lung Cancer Incidence: Insights from the Golestan Cohort StudyPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Sepanlou, 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 Jan 12 2025 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, Sohrab Amiri, PhD 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 the online submission form you indicate that your data is not available for proprietary reasons and have provided a contact point for accessing this data. Please note that your current contact point is a co-author on this manuscript. According to our Data Policy, the contact point must not be an author on the manuscript and must be an institutional contact, ideally not an individual. Please revise your data statement to a non-author institutional point of contact, such as a data access or ethics committee, and send this to us via return email. Please also include contact information for the third party organization, and please include the full citation of where the data can be found. 3. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section. 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: I Don't Know 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: 1. In the introduction section, add a statement about the importance of early detection of lung cancer. 2. State the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the study. 3. State the code of ethics for the study. 4. Remove duplicate results from the discussion section. 5. Referencing is required in various parts of the discussion. For example, "This finding aligns with prior research conducted within the GCS" requires a reference. 6. Has the study considered that exposure to cigarette smoke in non-smokers can have more severe effects on their health? It would be better if exposure to cigarette smoke in non-smokers was also examined. 7. Rewrite the conclusion. 8. Needs grammatical editing. Reviewer #2: This manuscript evaluates the impact of survival assessment and pre-diagnostic risk factors on lung cancer. The study is well-written, clearly addressed, and concluded insights and limitations. Can you please deliberately revise manuscript for any punctuation or grammar issues?. ****** 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 Reviewer #2: 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.0320931.r002
Revision 1
7 Jan 2025 Author Response Dear Prof. Amiri, We really appreciate that you are reconsidering our manuscript entitled “Survival Assessment and Pre-Diagnostic Risk Factors for Lung Cancer Incidence: Insights from the Golestan Cohort Study” for publication in PLOS One. We would like to thank the editors and reviewers for careful and thorough review of this manuscript, which helped us to improve the quality of this manuscript. The manuscript has been revised for better readability according to the suggestions of the reviewers and editors. We hope it reaches your standards for publication in the journal. This cover letter includes a point-by-point response to the comments. The changes are also highlighted in the main manuscript. Sincerely yours, Sadaf G. Sepanlou 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: We revised the entire manuscript according to PLOS ONE’s style requirements. 2. In the online submission form you indicate that your data is not available for proprietary reasons and have provided a contact point for accessing this data. Please note that your current contact point is a co-author on this manuscript. According to our Data Policy, the contact point must not be an author on the manuscript and must be an institutional contact, ideally not an individual. Please revise your data statement to a non-author institutional point of contact, such as a data access or ethics committee, and send this to us via return email. Please also include contact information for the third party organization, and please include the full citation of where the data can be found. Response: Thank you for addressing the data availability statement. We designate the Digestive Diseases Research Institute (DDRI) at Tehran University of Medical Sciences as the institutional contact point. The updated data statement is as follows: Data Availability Statement: Data are available from the Digestive Diseases Research Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. Address: North Kargar Street, Shariati Hospital, Digestive Diseases Research Institute. Phone: 82415000 Fax: 82415400 Email: shariati.ddri@gmail.com Postal Code: 1411713135 3. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section. Response: Thank you for your comment. The ethics statement was moved from the end of the manuscript to the methods section. 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. Response: Thank you for your point. We haven’t cited any retracted article. References were revised according to the requirements of the journal. Per the comment of the respected reviewer, References 1 and 2 were corrected. Reference 4 was dropped. References 5 and 8 were added to the list. Reference number 21 (20 in former version) was corrected. References number 34 and 37 and 44 were added. Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author (if any): Response to Reviewer #1 Comment 1: "In the introduction section, add a statement about the importance of early detection of lung cancer." Response: Thank you for the insightful recommendation. We have updated the introduction to emphasize the significance of early detection in reducing lung cancer mortality on lines 62-66. Comment 2: "State the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the study." Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We have clarified the inclusion and exclusion criteria in the methods section. This statement was added to the methods section: “The exclusion criteria in the original Golestan Cohort Study were unwillingness to participate at any stage of the study for any reason; being a temporary resident; and having a current or previous diagnosis of an upper gastrointestinal cancer.” Specifically, we included all participants diagnosed with lung, tracheal, or bronchial cancers from the beginning of the study and monitored them until their death. While we did not apply specific exclusion criteria, to mitigate potential bias from reverse causation, we conducted a sensitivity analysis excluding cases detected within the first two years of follow-up. Comment 3: "State the code of ethics for the study." Response: Thank you for highlighting the importance of clearly stating the ethical considerations of our study. We have ensured that the ethics statement is comprehensively included in the Methods section of our manuscript. This statement details the ethical approvals obtained from the Digestive Diseases Research Institute of the Tehran University of Medical Sciences (Ref: FWA00001331), the U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI), and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) (Ref: CN/23/3). Additionally, we have confirmed that all participants provided written informed consent prior to their participation in the study. Comment 4: "Remove duplicate results from the discussion section." Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have carefully revised sections of the discussion to eliminate any duplication of results. Comment 5: "Referencing is required in various parts of the discussion. For example, 'This finding aligns with prior research conducted within the GCS' requires a reference." Response: Thank you for highlighting the importance of proper referencing. While the sentence mentioned already includes an appropriate citation, we have thoroughly reviewed the entire discussion section to ensure that all statements are adequately supported by relevant references. Comment 6: "Has the study considered that exposure to cigarette smoke in non-smokers can have more severe effects on their health? It would be better if exposure to cigarette smoke in non-smokers was also examined." Response: Thank you for raising this important point. While our study did not specifically assess the effects of cigarette smoke exposure in non-smokers, we have acknowledged this as a limitation in the manuscript. We have included a statement in the limitations section to highlight that future research should consider examining the impact of secondhand smoke exposure on health outcomes. Comment 7: "Rewrite the conclusion." Response: We appreciate your suggestion to enhance the conclusion of our manuscript. The conclusion has been thoroughly revised to succinctly summarize the key findings of our study, emphasize their significance in the context of lung cancer research, and suggest potential directions for future investigations. Comment 8: "Needs grammatical editing." Response: Thank you for pointing out the need for grammatical improvements. We have conducted a comprehensive grammatical review of the entire manuscript to ensure clarity, coherence, and readability. Response to Reviewer #2 Comment: "This manuscript evaluates the impact of survival assessment and pre-diagnostic risk factors on lung cancer. The study is well-written, clearly addressed, and concluded insights and limitations. Can you please deliberately revise manuscript for any punctuation or grammar issues?" Response: Thank you very much for your kind and encouraging feedback on our manuscript. We truly appreciate your positive remarks regarding the clarity and presentation of our study. In response to your suggestion, we have carefully reviewed the manuscript for any punctuation or grammatical issues and made the necessary corrections to enhance the overall readability and quality of the text. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0320931.r003
27 Feb 2025 Decision Letter - Sohrab Amiri, Editor Survival assessment and pre-diagnostic risk factors for lung cancer incidence: insights from the Golestan Cohort Study PONE-D-24-35243R1 Dear Dr. Sepanlou, 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, Sohrab Amiri, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0320931.r004
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Sohrab Amiri, Editor PONE-D-24-35243R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Sepanlou, 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 Sohrab Amiri Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0320931.r005

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 .