- Email: [email protected]
Correction to Lancet Oncol 2014; 15: 1047–48
Corrections
Correction to Lancet Oncol Correction to Lancet Oncol Correction to Lancet Oncol 2014; 15: 1109–18 2014; 15: 1147–56 2014; 15: 1039 The Lancet Oncology. Patient priority in the era of patent expiries. Lancet Oncol 2014; 15: 1039—In this Editorial, the third and fourth sentences of the second paragraph should have read, “This is not the first time a pharmaceutical company has tried to maintain revenue streams in the face of a declining pipeline and expiring patents. Earlier this year, Pfizer attempted a takeover of AstraZeneca in the UK in a deal estimated at £63 billion, a move considered by many as not only a means to avoid corporation tax in the USA, but also a way to substantially boost the company’s pipeline without heavy investment in research and development.” We apologise for this error, which has been corrected online as of Sept 4, 2014.
Correction to Lancet Oncol 2014; 15: 1047 Roobol MJ, Bokhorst LP. The ProtecT trial: what can we expect? Lancet Oncol 2014; 15: 1046–47—In this Comment, the last sentence in the second-tolast paragraph should have stated “… the 10-year prostate cancer survival reported by active surveillance cohorts, with more similar tumour characteristics, ranges from 96–100%”. This correction has been made to the online version as of Sept 29, 2014.
Correction to Lancet Oncol 2014; 15: 1047–48 Reckamp KL. Future of ALK inhibition in non-small-cell lung cancer. Lancet Oncol 2014; 15: 1047–48—In this Comment, the fourth sentence of the second paragraph should read “Crizotinib was superior to chemotherapy as secondline treatment for ALK-positive NSCLC, with similar response rate and progression-free survival to the phase 1 trial.3”. This correction has been made as of Sept 29, 2014.
www.thelancet.com/oncology Vol 15 October 2014
Lane JA, Donovan JL, Davis M, et al, for the ProtecT study group. Active monitoring, radical prostatectomy, or radiotherapy for localised prostate cancer: study design and diagnostic and baseline results of the ProtecT randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2014; 15: 1109–18—Richard M Martin has been added to the author list of this Article, between Tim J Peters and David E Neal. He has received grants from Cancer Research UK. In table 3, the first footnote should have stated “*One person was aged 49 years when the primary care list was generated, but fitted the stated inclusion criteria as per protocol”. In table 4, the second footnote should also have stated “†One person was aged 49 years when the primary care list was generated, but fitted the stated inclusion criteria as per protocol”. The asterisk footnote in table 4 should have appeared after “Age (years)” in the first column. Additionally, the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number for the CAP trial (ISRCTN92187251) has been added, and an updated appendix has been uploaded. These corrections have been made to the online version as of Sept 29, 2014.
Correction to Lancet Oncol 2014; 15: 1239 Seto T, Kato T, Nishio M, et al. Erlotinib alone or with bevacizumab as first-line therapy in patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer harbouring EGFR mutations (JO25567): an open-label, randomised, multicentre, phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol 2014; 15: 1236–44—In figure 3 of this Article (published on Aug 28, 2014), under the ‘Age (years)’ subheading, the first subgroup should read “<75”. This correction has been made to the online version as of Sept 29, 2014, and the printed version is correct.
Fizazi K, Scher HI, Miller K, et al. Effect of enzalutamide on time to first skeletalrelated event, pain, and quality of life in men with castration-resistant prostate cancer: results from the randomised, phase 3 AFFIRM trial. Lancet Oncol 2014; 15: 1147–56—In the Methods section of the Summary, first skeletal-related events should have been defined as “radiation therapy or surgery to bone, clinically apparent pathological bone fracture, spinal cord compression, or change of antineoplastic therapy to treat bone pain”, and the final sentence of the Findings in the Summary should have read “Patients in the enzalutamide group had longer median time to HRQoL deterioration than did those in the placebo group (9·0 months, 95% CI 8·3–11·1, vs 3·7 months, 95% CI 3·0–4·2; HR 0·45, 95% CI 0·37–0·55; p<0·0001)”. In table 2 of this Article, the number and percentage for the placebo group in the row for both bone and soft tissue disease localisation at screening should have been “241 (60%)”. SAS (version 9.2) was used for statistical analysis. The second sentence of the sixth paragraph of the Results should have read “Compared with placebo, enzalutamide resulted in a significant increase in the time to pain progression (median not yet reached [95% CI not yet reached to not yet reached] in the enzalutamide group vs 13·8 [13·8 to not yet reached] months in the placebo group, HR 0·56 [95% CI 0·41–0·78]; p=0·0004; figure 3)”. The p value in the third sentence of the third paragraph of the Discussion should have been <0·0001. These corrections have been made to the online version as of Sept 29, 2014.
Published Online September 4, 2014 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S1470-2045(14)70239-6
e475
Correction to Lancet Oncol Correction to Lancet Oncol Correction to Lancet Oncol 2014; 15: 1109–18 2014; 15: 1147–56 2014; 15: 1039 The Lancet Oncology. Patient priority in the era of patent expiries. Lancet Oncol 2014; 15: 1039—In this Editorial, the third and fourth sentences of the second paragraph should have read, “This is not the first time a pharmaceutical company has tried to maintain revenue streams in the face of a declining pipeline and expiring patents. Earlier this year, Pfizer attempted a takeover of AstraZeneca in the UK in a deal estimated at £63 billion, a move considered by many as not only a means to avoid corporation tax in the USA, but also a way to substantially boost the company’s pipeline without heavy investment in research and development.” We apologise for this error, which has been corrected online as of Sept 4, 2014.
Correction to Lancet Oncol 2014; 15: 1047 Roobol MJ, Bokhorst LP. The ProtecT trial: what can we expect? Lancet Oncol 2014; 15: 1046–47—In this Comment, the last sentence in the second-tolast paragraph should have stated “… the 10-year prostate cancer survival reported by active surveillance cohorts, with more similar tumour characteristics, ranges from 96–100%”. This correction has been made to the online version as of Sept 29, 2014.
Correction to Lancet Oncol 2014; 15: 1047–48 Reckamp KL. Future of ALK inhibition in non-small-cell lung cancer. Lancet Oncol 2014; 15: 1047–48—In this Comment, the fourth sentence of the second paragraph should read “Crizotinib was superior to chemotherapy as secondline treatment for ALK-positive NSCLC, with similar response rate and progression-free survival to the phase 1 trial.3”. This correction has been made as of Sept 29, 2014.
www.thelancet.com/oncology Vol 15 October 2014
Lane JA, Donovan JL, Davis M, et al, for the ProtecT study group. Active monitoring, radical prostatectomy, or radiotherapy for localised prostate cancer: study design and diagnostic and baseline results of the ProtecT randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2014; 15: 1109–18—Richard M Martin has been added to the author list of this Article, between Tim J Peters and David E Neal. He has received grants from Cancer Research UK. In table 3, the first footnote should have stated “*One person was aged 49 years when the primary care list was generated, but fitted the stated inclusion criteria as per protocol”. In table 4, the second footnote should also have stated “†One person was aged 49 years when the primary care list was generated, but fitted the stated inclusion criteria as per protocol”. The asterisk footnote in table 4 should have appeared after “Age (years)” in the first column. Additionally, the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number for the CAP trial (ISRCTN92187251) has been added, and an updated appendix has been uploaded. These corrections have been made to the online version as of Sept 29, 2014.
Correction to Lancet Oncol 2014; 15: 1239 Seto T, Kato T, Nishio M, et al. Erlotinib alone or with bevacizumab as first-line therapy in patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer harbouring EGFR mutations (JO25567): an open-label, randomised, multicentre, phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol 2014; 15: 1236–44—In figure 3 of this Article (published on Aug 28, 2014), under the ‘Age (years)’ subheading, the first subgroup should read “<75”. This correction has been made to the online version as of Sept 29, 2014, and the printed version is correct.
Fizazi K, Scher HI, Miller K, et al. Effect of enzalutamide on time to first skeletalrelated event, pain, and quality of life in men with castration-resistant prostate cancer: results from the randomised, phase 3 AFFIRM trial. Lancet Oncol 2014; 15: 1147–56—In the Methods section of the Summary, first skeletal-related events should have been defined as “radiation therapy or surgery to bone, clinically apparent pathological bone fracture, spinal cord compression, or change of antineoplastic therapy to treat bone pain”, and the final sentence of the Findings in the Summary should have read “Patients in the enzalutamide group had longer median time to HRQoL deterioration than did those in the placebo group (9·0 months, 95% CI 8·3–11·1, vs 3·7 months, 95% CI 3·0–4·2; HR 0·45, 95% CI 0·37–0·55; p<0·0001)”. In table 2 of this Article, the number and percentage for the placebo group in the row for both bone and soft tissue disease localisation at screening should have been “241 (60%)”. SAS (version 9.2) was used for statistical analysis. The second sentence of the sixth paragraph of the Results should have read “Compared with placebo, enzalutamide resulted in a significant increase in the time to pain progression (median not yet reached [95% CI not yet reached to not yet reached] in the enzalutamide group vs 13·8 [13·8 to not yet reached] months in the placebo group, HR 0·56 [95% CI 0·41–0·78]; p=0·0004; figure 3)”. The p value in the third sentence of the third paragraph of the Discussion should have been <0·0001. These corrections have been made to the online version as of Sept 29, 2014.
Published Online September 4, 2014 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S1470-2045(14)70239-6
e475