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.
