Management of Oligometastatic Breast Cancer: An Expert Committee’s Opinion
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
A very interesting report where the authors surveyed the oncologists to come up with better management and care options for oligometastatic breast cancer. The results from this survey will assist in developing a better diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment regimens for oligometastatic breast cancer.
I request the authors to summarize the findings (questions/answers wise) in a tabular form for a quick grasp of the readers.
Author Response
A very interesting report where the authors surveyed the oncologists to come up with better management and care options for oligometastatic breast cancer. The results from this survey will assist in developing a better diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment regimens for oligometastatic breast cancer.
Response: We thank the Reviewer for taking the time to review our manuscript and for the comments.
I request the authors to summarize the findings (questions/answers wise) in a tabular form for a quick grasp of the readers.
Response: We now provide a summary table for each of the three sections of the survey.
Reviewer 2 Report
In this article the authors have chosen a very important topic with great impact, however there are some considerations that must be taken into account.
First of all, some of the quotes in the introduction should be modified, including some more current ones that better contextualize the subject, for example reference 1 and 2.
The methods are not fully described, for a BC expert to receive the survey, how long would they have to have been in that position? Is there any exclusion criteria for not being able to take the survey?
On the other hand, were the items that were answered free responses or were there options to mark?
Neither do they define the number of participants in the survey or with what minimum number they found that the participation was sufficient to be able to generalize the results.
It would be convenient for the authors to show a summary table of the main findings found and show the response to each item in the survey, so that other professionals can be of help.
I believe that the time the survey was open is insufficient for specialists to respond.
The conclusions of the study are very few, they really do not provide information about the manuscript.
Author Response
In this article the authors have chosen a very important topic with great impact, however there are some considerations that must be taken into account.
Response: We thank the Reviewer for taking the time to review our manuscript and for the comments.
First of all, some of the quotes in the introduction should be modified, including some more current ones that better contextualize the subject, for example reference 1 and 2.
Response: We agree with the Reviewer that references #1, #2, and #3 are old, but they were cited to describe the historical context that was prevalent prior to the oligometastasis concept. We consider that correctly setting the oligometastasis concept in time is important to highlight the historical perspective and the evolution in time. Furthermore, reference #2 is the original reference that described the oligometastasis concept. Still, we revised the Introduction and added some additional references.
The methods are not fully described, for a BC expert to receive the survey, how long would they have to have been in that position? Is there any exclusion criteria for not being able to take the survey?
Response: We thank the Reviewer for the comment. All participating experts had at least 7 years of experience in managing metastatic cancer in their respective specialties. Indeed, experts who refused to participate were not included in the panel. Still, we realize that we might have created some confusion with the word “survey”. The present study was not a large-scale survey, but rather an expert committee opinion. Therefore, what we termed “survey” was in fact the questions the members of the expert committee had to answer first before the discussion to reach a consensus. The members of the committee are the authors of this manuscript. It was clarified in the manuscript.
On the other hand, were the items that were answered free responses or were there options to mark?
Response: We thank the Reviewer. The responses were either yes/no (with the possibility of adding comments) or free text. We now provide a summary table for each of the three sections of the panel.
Neither do they define the number of participants in the survey or with what minimum number they found that the participation was sufficient to be able to generalize the results.
Response: We thank the Reviewer for the comment. We realize that we might have created some confusion with the word “survey”. The present study was not a large-scale survey, but rather an expert committee opinion. Therefore, what we termed “survey” was in fact the questions the members of the expert committee had to answer first before the discussion to reach a consensus. The members of the committee are the authors of this manuscript. It was clarified in the manuscript.
It would be convenient for the authors to show a summary table of the main findings found and show the response to each item in the survey, so that other professionals can be of help.
Response: We agree with the Reviewer. We now provide a summary table for each of the three sections of the survey.
I believe that the time the survey was open is insufficient for specialists to respond.
Response: We thank the Reviewer. As indicated above, only the members of the expert committee completed the questionnaire.
The conclusions of the study are very few, they really do not provide information about the manuscript.
Response: We agree with the Reviewer. Still, this manuscript presents opinions, not hard facts, and we prefer to remain conservative in our conclusions pending robust evidence from clinical trials.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have satisfactorily resolved the comments that have been requested.
