Corrigendum to “Externally validated HPV-based prognostic nomogram for oropharyngeal carcinoma patients yields more accurate predictions than TNM staging” [Radiother Oncol 113(3) (2014) 324–30](S0167814014003922)(10.1016/j.radonc.2014.09.005))

Emmanuel Rios Velazquez, Frank Hoebers, Hugo J.W.L. Aerts, Michelle M. Rietbergen, Ruud H. Brakenhoff, René C. Leemans, Ernst Jan Speel, Jos Straetmans, Bernd Kremer, Philippe Lambin

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/Letter to the editorAcademic

Abstract

The authors sincerely apologize for an incorrectness in Fig. 1. This was drawn to their attention by a guest user of the website www.predictcancer.org where the variables in the model derived from the paper can be used interactively. The labels for the clinical T-Stage variable were incorrectly ordered as T1, T2, T3, T4. The correct order should be T1, T2, T4 and T3. In addition, the endpoint in Fig. 1 refers to Progression Free Survival. The corrected Fig. 1 and corrected legend are presented below. The authors do not think this mistake affects the results and conclusions of the paper, because the HRs in Table 2 of the original article already indicated higher values for T3 compared to T4 tumor. At first glance this appears counterintuitive, however in previous studies [1] it was also demonstrated that higher T-stage was not associated with worse outcome after chemoradiation, because the most prominent factor appeared to be tumor volume. In this respect, a small tumor with bone invasion (i.e. T4) might respond more favourably to radiation, compared to a more voluminous T3 tumor without bone invasion.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)337-338
Number of pages2
JournalRadiotherapy and Oncology
Volume124
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Aug 2017

Cite this

@article{b62582b2a0314c3dad33cb1c973b8cac,
title = "Corrigendum to “Externally validated HPV-based prognostic nomogram for oropharyngeal carcinoma patients yields more accurate predictions than TNM staging” [Radiother Oncol 113(3) (2014) 324–30](S0167814014003922)(10.1016/j.radonc.2014.09.005))",
abstract = "The authors sincerely apologize for an incorrectness in Fig. 1. This was drawn to their attention by a guest user of the website www.predictcancer.org where the variables in the model derived from the paper can be used interactively. The labels for the clinical T-Stage variable were incorrectly ordered as T1, T2, T3, T4. The correct order should be T1, T2, T4 and T3. In addition, the endpoint in Fig. 1 refers to Progression Free Survival. The corrected Fig. 1 and corrected legend are presented below. The authors do not think this mistake affects the results and conclusions of the paper, because the HRs in Table 2 of the original article already indicated higher values for T3 compared to T4 tumor. At first glance this appears counterintuitive, however in previous studies [1] it was also demonstrated that higher T-stage was not associated with worse outcome after chemoradiation, because the most prominent factor appeared to be tumor volume. In this respect, a small tumor with bone invasion (i.e. T4) might respond more favourably to radiation, compared to a more voluminous T3 tumor without bone invasion.",
author = "Velazquez, {Emmanuel Rios} and Frank Hoebers and Aerts, {Hugo J.W.L.} and Rietbergen, {Michelle M.} and Brakenhoff, {Ruud H.} and Leemans, {Ren{\'e} C.} and Speel, {Ernst Jan} and Jos Straetmans and Bernd Kremer and Philippe Lambin",
year = "2017",
month = "8",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.radonc.2017.06.017",
language = "English",
volume = "124",
pages = "337--338",
journal = "Radiotherapy and Oncology",
issn = "0167-8140",
publisher = "Elsevier Ireland Ltd",
number = "2",

}

Corrigendum to “Externally validated HPV-based prognostic nomogram for oropharyngeal carcinoma patients yields more accurate predictions than TNM staging” [Radiother Oncol 113(3) (2014) 324–30](S0167814014003922)(10.1016/j.radonc.2014.09.005)). / Velazquez, Emmanuel Rios; Hoebers, Frank; Aerts, Hugo J.W.L.; Rietbergen, Michelle M.; Brakenhoff, Ruud H.; Leemans, René C.; Speel, Ernst Jan; Straetmans, Jos; Kremer, Bernd; Lambin, Philippe.

In: Radiotherapy and Oncology, Vol. 124, No. 2, 01.08.2017, p. 337-338.

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/Letter to the editorAcademic

TY - JOUR

T1 - Corrigendum to “Externally validated HPV-based prognostic nomogram for oropharyngeal carcinoma patients yields more accurate predictions than TNM staging” [Radiother Oncol 113(3) (2014) 324–30](S0167814014003922)(10.1016/j.radonc.2014.09.005))

AU - Velazquez, Emmanuel Rios

AU - Hoebers, Frank

AU - Aerts, Hugo J.W.L.

AU - Rietbergen, Michelle M.

AU - Brakenhoff, Ruud H.

AU - Leemans, René C.

AU - Speel, Ernst Jan

AU - Straetmans, Jos

AU - Kremer, Bernd

AU - Lambin, Philippe

PY - 2017/8/1

Y1 - 2017/8/1

N2 - The authors sincerely apologize for an incorrectness in Fig. 1. This was drawn to their attention by a guest user of the website www.predictcancer.org where the variables in the model derived from the paper can be used interactively. The labels for the clinical T-Stage variable were incorrectly ordered as T1, T2, T3, T4. The correct order should be T1, T2, T4 and T3. In addition, the endpoint in Fig. 1 refers to Progression Free Survival. The corrected Fig. 1 and corrected legend are presented below. The authors do not think this mistake affects the results and conclusions of the paper, because the HRs in Table 2 of the original article already indicated higher values for T3 compared to T4 tumor. At first glance this appears counterintuitive, however in previous studies [1] it was also demonstrated that higher T-stage was not associated with worse outcome after chemoradiation, because the most prominent factor appeared to be tumor volume. In this respect, a small tumor with bone invasion (i.e. T4) might respond more favourably to radiation, compared to a more voluminous T3 tumor without bone invasion.

AB - The authors sincerely apologize for an incorrectness in Fig. 1. This was drawn to their attention by a guest user of the website www.predictcancer.org where the variables in the model derived from the paper can be used interactively. The labels for the clinical T-Stage variable were incorrectly ordered as T1, T2, T3, T4. The correct order should be T1, T2, T4 and T3. In addition, the endpoint in Fig. 1 refers to Progression Free Survival. The corrected Fig. 1 and corrected legend are presented below. The authors do not think this mistake affects the results and conclusions of the paper, because the HRs in Table 2 of the original article already indicated higher values for T3 compared to T4 tumor. At first glance this appears counterintuitive, however in previous studies [1] it was also demonstrated that higher T-stage was not associated with worse outcome after chemoradiation, because the most prominent factor appeared to be tumor volume. In this respect, a small tumor with bone invasion (i.e. T4) might respond more favourably to radiation, compared to a more voluminous T3 tumor without bone invasion.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85022221186&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.radonc.2017.06.017

DO - 10.1016/j.radonc.2017.06.017

M3 - Comment/Letter to the editor

VL - 124

SP - 337

EP - 338

JO - Radiotherapy and Oncology

JF - Radiotherapy and Oncology

SN - 0167-8140

IS - 2

ER -