‘Beyond Cancer’ Rehabilitation Program to Support Breast Cancer Survivors to Return to Health, Wellness and Work: Feasibility Study Outcomes

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors provide a comprehensive review on one most diffuse female tumor rehabilitation program.

Along with new therapies and prognostic/predictive biomarkers research, it is important to keep in mind the overcoming of possible social and work adaptation issues. This part of therapy may frequently be overlooked and thus it is important to emphasize the support of cancer survivors and diffuse the programs similar to "Beyond Cancer".

Management and the implementation  of program's effectiveness, with mentioned positive aspects and challenges is another interesting point of the paper, which many be of a great utility and an example for another centers, that may be new to this topic, encouraging wider rehabilitation implementation.

I strongly encourage the article to be accepted as a useful source of information for cancer survivors' rehabilitation enhancement.

Author Response

The authors wish to thank the reviewer for this very positive and encouraging review of the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

There are new research on breast cancer that you should include in your article in the introduction and the comparison of data in the results. It is suggested that you perform a new literature review and modify the results of your study. Among those articles are some from the MDPI group that may include. 

Table 5 is different from the others, it should have the same format. Moreover is too long and a better explanation is suggested.

Author Response

The authors acknowledge the comment made by this reviewer and have updated the overview of relevant literature in the introduction where appropriate. A total of 6 references were added that ranged in publication year from 2022-2023. Thank you for this suggestion – we feel that this has improved the paper. Where relevant, we have also added a few of these new citations to the Discussion section when reviewing the study results.  See tracked changes within the manuscript for details.

The authors note also the comments regarding Table 5. As suggested, the formatting has been modified so that it is similar to the other tables in the manuscript. We also acknowledge that there is a lot of detail in this table, and this is due to the nature of the (qualitative) findings that are presented. We have found in our experience that this is an effective way of presenting qualitative data and also suggest that it would take even more space if in text. Before submitting this paper the authors attempted to reduce this content down as much as possible. We have had another go at further reducing content (see tracked changes), but also note that we are reluctant to remove much more as this the findings are critical to the feasibility study outcomes.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

.