Oncologist-Reported Barriers and Facilitators to Offering Cancer Clinical Trials to Their Patients

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I like this paper - clearly written and presented with succinct discussions  - hugely helpful for roadmapping touch points for improving clinical trial participation for our community. As the authors clearly state there is a knowledge gap in this area for many - the paper will help to develop processes to assist with this

The introduction and discussion sections are clearly written and don't over state the results of the study 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your feedback and for taking the time to read our manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.        The authors should expand the Introduction. The introduction could more thoroughly set the stage for the research by providing more context about the overall impact of low participation rates in cancer clinical trials and how it affects clinical outcomes. It would be beneficial to include a brief literature review to summarize previous findings related to the topic and more clearly state the research gap this study intends to fill.

2.        The authors should include more specific details about the selection process for the oncologists and the reasoning behind the choice of qualitative methodology. Clarify if any sampling biases could have occurred and how they were mitigated.

3.        Although the paper identifies numerous barriers and facilitators, the discussion on how these factors interplay and the relative weight or impact of each is somewhat limited. A more detailed analysis could provide deeper insights into which factors are most amenable to intervention.

4.        The subjective nature of self-reporting during interviews can still introduce bias into the data. The perceptions of oncologists may not fully align with the actual experiences and desires of their patients.

5.        The sample size is relatively small (nine oncologists and one research coordinator), which may limit the generalizability of the findings. Larger studies could provide a more robust data set and potentially uncover additional barriers or facilitators not identified here.

6.        The authors should provide a more detailed description of the interview guide and the themes covered, which would help in understanding the depth and scope of the questions asked.

7.        The authors should to structure the results section more clearly.

8.        Deepen the discussion by comparing the findings with existing literature more explicitly, thus situating the study within the broader research field. Discuss the implications of the findings in a broader context, such as how they might influence clinical practice guidelines.

9.        The authors need to clearly summarize the main findings, the significance of the research, and its practical implications in a separate conclusion section. State the main call to action or the primary message that the readers should take away from the study.

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article titled "Oncologist-reported barriers and facilitators to offering cancer clinical trials to their patients" by Brenda S. Castillo et al. provides valuable insights. However, there are several areas that require attention:

1. The authors should provide their own justification for the study, as previous publications have already explored the relevance of the topic. Examples of such publications include articles on PubMed, such as JCO Oncol Pract. 2023 Feb;19(2):e263-e273. doi: 10.1200/OP.22.00472; Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2022 Apr;69(4):e29479. doi: 10.1002/pbc.29479; JNCI Cancer Spectr. 2021 Mar 22;5(3):pkab027. doi: 10.1093/jncics/pkab027; Sci Rep. 2022 Mar 9;12(1):3875. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-07703-5, among others. Consequently, the study does not provide any innovative information.

2. The study has only included ten oncology providers, which may not be representative of the broader population of oncologists.

3. The authors did not mention whether a comparison group was utilized in the study. Without a comparison group, it is challenging to evaluate the impact of the identified barriers and facilitators.

4. The authors did not account for demographic factors of the patients, such as age, income, or education level, in this study.

5. The study is primarily focused on qualitative analysis, not quantitative data, which limits the ability to draw statistical conclusions.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No more comments.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept in present form