Peer Review History

Original SubmissionNovember 11, 2019
Decision Letter - John Souglakos, Editor

PONE-D-19-31377

Does quality of life return to pre-treatment levels five years after curative intent surgery for colorectal cancer? Evidence from the ColoREctal Wellbeing (CREW) study

PLOS ONE

Dear Prof Foster,

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.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Feb 29 2020 11:59PM. When you are 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.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

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). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

John Souglakos, MD, 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

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information.

3. We noticed you have some minor occurrence(s) of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed:

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11764-017-0636-x

In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the Methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed.

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:"I have read the journal's policy and one author of this manuscript has the following competing interest: Professor Deborah Fenlon has received an honorarium for teaching from Roche."

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.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

Additional Editor Comments:

Thank you for the submission of the manuscript.

The results are interesting and may contribute to the current knowledge in the field.

Some minor revisions are required.

Please replay to reviewer comments and suggestion.

Sincerely

[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: In the present very interesting and well-written manuscript, the authors report on the 5-year postoperative course of QOL, as compared to the preoperative status, in a cohort of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). They have found that at least 25% of them report a worse QOL at all time points of post-surgery follow up. Of the risk factors, aging is weakly associated with worse postoperative QOL, and only among those of 70-80 year-old. Strong preexisting risk factors for worse post-surgery QOL are comorbidities, poor QOL, depression, low levels of self-confidence, and low levels of social support. The authors support the view that some of these factors, as being amenable to change, should be identify by Health Care Professionals at the stage of initial CRC diagnosis for preemptive intervention, support and improvement.

To my opinion some revision is required in order to strengthen the quality of the manuscript:

• The size of the paper is rather lengthy; in particular the sections of “Introduction” and “Discussion”.

• Including colon and rectal cancer in the same entity of CRC does not represent reality. Unlike colon cancer, rectal cancer patients very often receive pre-operative treatment (mostly chemo-radiotherapy), are subjected to an operation with significantly high postoperative morbidity (anastomotic leak), present severe long-term postoperative functional problems (LARS) and some of them carry a permanent stoma. Although the authors report in the section of “Results” that neo-adjuvant treatment is related to worse postoperative QOL, they do not comment the finding in the section of “Discussion”. I would suggest that the impact of rectal cancer surgery on QOL should be reported separately from that of colon cancer, with an emphasis on the LARS syndrome, the anastomotic failure and stoma management, if data are available.

• Similarly it seems worthy that the authors assess the impact of the approach, open or laparoscopic on the post-surgery QOL.

**********

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 to be viewed.]

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 us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Revision 1

Reviewer Comments

Thank you to the reviewer for their insightful comments.

To my opinion some revision is required in order to strengthen the quality of the manuscript:

• The size of the paper is rather lengthy; in particular the sections of “Introduction” and “Discussion”.

We acknowledge that the paper is quite lengthy, due to the scale of the project. We have edited parts of the manuscript where possible to reduce length.

• Including colon and rectal cancer in the same entity of CRC does not represent reality. Unlike colon cancer, rectal cancer patients very often receive pre-operative treatment (mostly chemo-radiotherapy), are subjected to an operation with significantly high postoperative morbidity (anastomotic leak), present severe long-term postoperative functional problems (LARS) and some of them carry a permanent stoma. Although the authors report in the section of “Results” that neo-adjuvant treatment is related to worse postoperative QOL, they do not comment the finding in the section of “Discussion”. I would suggest that the impact of rectal cancer surgery on QOL should be reported separately from that of colon cancer, with an emphasis on the LARS syndrome, the anastomotic failure and stoma management, if data are available.

• Similarly it seems worthy that the authors assess the impact of the approach, open or laparoscopic on the post-surgery QOL.

Thank you for highlighting the importance of acknowledging the clinical differences between people with colon and rectal cancer. Of course the reviewer is quite correct but our main analyses which investigated which factors were associated with worsened quality of life (QOL) over the five years did not find an effect of tumour site. If we had focussed on QOL in the shorter term, this may have been a significant factor. This may also explain why we did not find a significant effect of some of the other clinical factors which the reviewer highlights e.g. open vs. laproscopic surgery, and we did not have data available for some of the other factors (this limitation has been noted). Nevertheless, we repeated the descriptive and regression model analyses for people with colon and rectal cancer separately and have added this to the manuscript We have also added text to note that although clinical factors are of course important, health care professionals (HCPs) are likely to be aware of these already. Our intention in this paper is to highlight the importance of psychosocial factors, particularly those which are amenable to change, to encourage HCPs to recommend early intervention for these issues e.g. low self-efficacy.

Decision Letter - John Souglakos, Editor

Does quality of life return to pre-treatment levels five years after curative intent surgery for colorectal cancer? Evidence from the ColoREctal Wellbeing (CREW) study

PONE-D-19-31377R1

Dear Dr. Foster,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. 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 enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and 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.

With kind regards,

John Souglakos, MD, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - John Souglakos, Editor

PONE-D-19-31377R1

Does quality of life return to pre-treatment levels five years after curative intent surgery for colorectal cancer? Evidence from the ColoREctal Wellbeing (CREW) study

Dear Dr. Foster:

I am 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 notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, 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.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Professor John Souglakos

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 .