Dániel Deme1*
Bálint Ferenc Tamaskovics1,2,3
Nizar Jammoul4Sándor Kovács5
Kmmanuel Oladunjoye Kayode1
James W. Grice6András Telekes1- 1Department of Clinical Oncology, Center of Radiotherapy and Oncology, Nógrád Vármegyei Szent Lázár Hospital, Salgótarján, Hungary
- 2Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical Faculty and University Hospital Düsseldorf, Henrich Heine University, Düsseldorf, Germany
- 3Center of Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Düsseldorf (CIO ABCD), Aachen, Germany
- 4Department of Pathology, Center of Radiotherapy and Oncology, Nógrád Vármegyei Szent Lázár Hospital, Salgótarján, Hungary
- 5Department of Economical and Financial Mathematics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary
- 6Department of Psychology, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, United States
by Deme D, Tamaskovics BF, Jammoul N, Kovács S, Kayode EO, Grice JW and Telekes A (2024). Pathol. Oncol. Res. 30:1611735. doi: 10.3389/pore.2024.1611735
In the published article, there was an error for Figure 1 as published. The correct Figure 1A corresponds to the image of Figure 4B as published, and the correct Figure 1B corresponds to the image of Figure 4A as published.
Figure 1. The significant association between RS and continous variables of characteristics (A) in pN0 cases: four characteristics (p-values of Spearman correlation) (B) in pN1 cases: three characteristics (p-values of Pearson correlation).
In the published article, there was an error for Figure 4 as published. The correct Figure 4A corresponds to the image of Figure 1B as published, and the correct Figure 4B corresponds to the image of Figure 1A as published.
Figure 4. Correlation between RS and NPI risk groups (A) in pN0 cases: Spearman ρ = 0.286 (p = 0.033); dashed lines: thresholds for NPI between the excellent (≤2.4) and the good (>2.4 and ≤3.4); the good (>2.4 and ≤3.4) and the moderate (>3.4) groups; correlation between NPI score and RS for patients with the excellent group [Spearman ρ = −0.151 (p = 0.435)]; correlation between NPI score and RS with the good group [Spearman ρ = 0.159 (p = 0.541)]; correlation between NPI score and RS with the moderate groups [Spearman ρ = 0.719 (p = 0.019)] (B) in pN1 cases: Pearson correlation r = 0.322 (p = 0.049); dashed lines: thresholds for NPI between the good (>2.4 and ≤3.4) and the moderate I (>3.4 and ≤4.4); the moderate I (>3.4 and ≤4.4) and the moderate II (>4.4) groups; correlation between NPI score and RS for patients with the good group [Pearson r = 0.399 (p = 0.434)]; correlation between NPI score and RS for patients with the moderate I group [Pearson r = 0.025 (p = 0.945)]; correlation between NPI score and RS for patients with the moderate II group [Pearson r = 0.294 (p = 0.185)] RS = recurrence score generated through OncotypeDX testing; RS cutoff: for pN0 >50years high RS ≥ 26, and ≤50 years high RS ≥ 16, for pN1 pre- and postmenopausal high RS ≥ 26; NPI = Nottingham Prognostic Index.
In the published article, there was an error for Figure 2 as published. The correct Figure 2 corresponds to the image of Figure 3 as published.
Figure 2. The significant association between RS and categorised variables of characteristics (A) in pN0 cases: four characteristics (p-values for Ki-67 group, PR group and grade of Kruskal-Wallis; for clinical risk of Mann-Whitney) (B) in pN1 cases: one characteristic (p-value for number of nodes of ANOVA).
Figure 3. The significant association between RS and variables of characteristics by randomisation results of OOM (A) in pN0 cases: three characteristics; four characteristics in >50 years cohort (B) in pN1 cases: seven characteristics; eight characteristic in postmenopausal cohort.
In the published article, there was an error for Figure 3 as published. The correct Figure 3 corresponds to the image of Figure 2 as published.
All captions for Figures 1, 2, 3 and 4 are correct as first published.
This does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.
Keywords: breast cancer, pathological characteristics, OncotypeDX, recurrence score, observation oriented modeling
Citation: Deme D, Tamaskovics BF, Jammoul N, Kovács S, Kayode KO, Grice JW and Telekes A (2024) Corrigendum: Association between pathological characteristics and recurrence score by OncotypeDX in resected T1-3 and N0-1 breast cancer: a real-life experience of a North Hungarian regional center. Pathol. Oncol. Res. 30:1611862. doi: 10.3389/pore.2024.1611862
Received: 05 June 2024; Accepted: 12 June 2024;
Published: 08 July 2024.
Edited by:
Pathology and Oncology Research Editorial Office, Frontiers Media SA, SwitzerlandCopyright © 2024 Deme, Tamaskovics, Jammoul, Kovács, Kayode, Grice and Telekes. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Dániel Deme, ZGFuaWVsZGVtZV9tZEB5bWFpbC5jb20=