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.
This feature is available to Subscribers Only
Sign In or Create an Account Close Modal