Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Correction: Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology (2022) 148:1171–1181 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00432-021-03702-7
Fig. 2(b)
Published values:
MIFAP | DexaBEAM | |
|---|---|---|
Median PFS, months (95% CI) | 0.28 (0.72 – 26.2) | 3.83 |
HR (95% CI) (compared with DexaBEAM) | 0.88 |
Corrected values:
MIFAP | DexaBEAM | |
|---|---|---|
Median PFS, months (95% CI) | 3.83 (0.07 – 26.2) | 0.28 |
HR (95% CI) (compared with DexaBEAM) | 0.87 |
Fig. 2(c)
Published values:
DexaBEAM | |
|---|---|
Survival at 5 years, % (95% CI) | 47.9 |
Survival at 10 years, % (95% CI) | 47.9 |
Survival at 15 years, % (95% CI) | 47.9 |
Corrected values:
DexaBEAM | |
|---|---|
Survival at 5 years, % (95% CI) | 76.9 |
Survival at 10 years, % (95% CI) | 76.9 |
Survival at 15 years, % (95% CI) | 76.9 |
Fig. 2(d)
Published value:
MIFAP | |
|---|---|
Survival at 15 years, % (95% CI) | 8.3 |
Corrected value:
MIFAP | |
|---|---|
Survival at 15 years, % (95% CI) | 8.2 |
Kaplan–Meier curves showing PFS from Dexa-BEAM for HL (N = 13) vs. MIFAP (N = 12) for HL (a) and PFS for Dexa-BEAM (N = 24) for NHL vs. MIFAP (N = 24) for NHL (b), OS from Dexa-BEAM for HL (N = 13) vs. MIFAP (N = 12) for HL (c) and OS from Dexa-BEAM (N = 24) for NHL vs. MIFAP (N = 24) for NHL (d), HR hazard ratio
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kürzel, S., Blaudszun, A., Stahl, L. et al. Correction: Dexa-BEAM versus MIFAP as salvage regimen for recurrent lymphoma: a prospective randomized multicenter phase II trial with a median follow‑up of 14.4 years. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 149, 929–931 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00432-022-04324-3
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00432-022-04324-3