On page 1080 in the 12 February 2015 issue, phrases referring to strength-of-evidence recommendations were misplaced in two sentences. In the second paragraph of the section headed “Case conclusion, summary, and general recommendations,” there is a passage that reads, “Retrospective studies suggest that PET-CT increases accuracy of initial staging, with implications for patients under consideration for localized radiotherapy; routine use in such patients is recommended. For grade 1C, evaluation for transformation should not be determined solely by PET-CT results including SUV but should incorporate known risk factors for transformation to limit the risk of false discovery and unnecessary biopsies. PET-CT can be used to direct the site of biopsy in FL patients with existing clinical risk factors for HT. For grade 1B, the sensitivity of PET-CT is relatively low for bone marrow involvement.” The passage should read, “Retrospective studies suggest that PET-CT increases accuracy of initial staging, with implications for patients under consideration for localized radiotherapy; routine use in such patients is recommended (grade 1C). Evaluation for transformation should not be determined solely by PET-CT results including SUV but should incorporate known risk factors for transformation to limit the risk of false discovery and unnecessary biopsies. PET-CT can be used to direct the site of biopsy in FL patients with existing clinical risk factors for HT (grade 1B). The sensitivity of PET-CT is relatively low for bone marrow involvement.”
The error has been corrected in the online version, which now differs from the print version.
