In the article beginning on page 237 in the 17 January 2019 issue, the following errors are present.
Page 237, sixth line from end of abstract: “95.7%” should read “96%.”
Page 238, second paragraph of Results, line 7: “26.3%” should read “27.6%.”
Page 239, text in left column: in line 2, “24-36 Gy” should read “24-52 Gy”; in lines 4 and 5, “105 patients received >30 Gy (20.5%)” should read “167 patients received >30 Gy (32.6%).”
Page 239, right column, last paragraph: in lines 2 and 3, “(n = 60; 22.0%)” should read “(n = 23; 13.9%).”
Page 242, Table 2: in the data for stage II disease, in column 3, the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) should be 2.26 and 1.60-3.19, respectively.
Page 243, left column, line 2: “4 times” should read “3 times.”
Page 243, Figure 3A: in the data below the graph, the numbers of patients at risk at 24, 48, and 72 months are incorrect. The corrected Figure 3 is shown below.
Ability of post-RT imaging to predict recurrence. (A) Patients without CMR after primary RT have a significantly higher rate of progression. (B) Patients without CR after primary RT have a nonsignificantly higher rate of progression.
Ability of post-RT imaging to predict recurrence. (A) Patients without CMR after primary RT have a significantly higher rate of progression. (B) Patients without CR after primary RT have a nonsignificantly higher rate of progression.
Page 244, Appendix, last line: “Andrew Worth” should read “Andrew Wirth.”
The corrections do not alter the scientific conclusions of the study. The errors have been corrected in the online version of the article.
This feature is available to Subscribers Only
Sign In or Create an Account Close Modal