I appreciate the opportunity to review this manuscript on a timely and important subject. The inclusion of both patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs) is a significant strength, and the finding that they share overlapping psychosocial priorities is particularly valuable. I believe this manuscript would be an excellent addition to the Cancer Control library, provided that several issues are addressed.

Introduction
The background in the Introduction should be expanded for a stronger contextual understanding of the literature. For instance, the opening paragraph, consisting of only two sentences, briefly touches on the psychological aspects of living with cancer. A more detailed discussion of mental health concerns associated with a cancer diagnosis would provide broader context and enhance the article's implications. Additionally, elaborating on unmet needs of those affected by cancer with citations from existing literature would strengthen this section.

The Canadian Association of Psychosocial Oncology should be mentioned as another agency providing guidelines for psychosocial care.

On page 3, line 61, the use of "this" is unclear. Clarifying its reference would improve readability. This issue recurs throughout the manuscript, where "this" is used ambiguously, requiring readers to backtrack for clarity.

Methods
Sampling both patients and HCPs is commendable; however, Allied health professionals should be explicitly identified for transparency. For example, were they psychologists, social workers, or occupational therapists?

On page 4, line 93, the process by which eligible patients were identified by clinical team members should be explained in more detail—just one or two additional sentences would suffice.

On page 5, lines 122 and 124, the text "one author" and "second author" should also include their initials for transparency.

On page 6, lines 136–138, the interviewer’s self-identification as “white, female, and degree educated with a background in Health Psychology” appears superficial without an explanation of how these attributes might bias findings. Either provide an explanation or remove this statement.

On page 6, line 141, replace "she" with "The interviewing researcher" to avoid awkward phrasing.

On page 6, line 150, "dynamic" should be pluralized to "dynamics."

Results
The sixth theme appears problematic as it lacks specificity compared to other themes. While the study aims to identify core psychosocial priorities in cancer care, this theme simply reiterates the study's purpose ("core priorities of psychosocial care"). It should either be defined more concretely or removed to avoid circularity, i.e., the sixth theme of "core priority of psychosocial care" is "core priorities of psychosocial care."

Discussion
No comments are necessary here—the Discussion section reads well and effectively summarizes the findings.

Thank you for allowing me to review your important work!

Thank you for the opportunity to review the revised manuscript. I am pleased to see that the authors have addressed my previous comments thoroughly and thoughtfully. Their detailed responses and revisions have significantly improved the manuscript. I have only a few minor suggestions that, once considered, will further strengthen the work. With these final adjustments, I believe the manuscript will be well-suited for publication.

Introduction

On page 5, line 47, I recommend revising the phrasing “in Europe” to something like: “In a study conducted across four Italian hospitals,” to more accurately reflect the study population.

The text connecting HPC’s unmet needs to compassion fatigue is well developed. In the same paragraph (page 6), I encourage the authors to consider also briefly include the relationship between HPC unmet needs and moral injury or distress, as this is an important and emerging area of research that could further enrich the background.

Discussion

On page 32, line 51, there is a grammatical issue in the sentence: “As has been previously established in previous research.” The word “previous(ly)” is redundant. Please remove one instance for clarity.

On page 33, line 44, I suggest adding the word “those” for improved readability: “…communicating with patients, especially *those* with metastatic cancer.”

Overall, I commend the authors for their careful and comprehensive revisions. Addressing these minor points will further enhance the clarity and quality of the manuscript. I look forward to seeing the final version.

I have no additional comments. Congratulations to the authors on this manuscript.