Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Correction: Kalisvaart et al. Relative Wash-In Rate in Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging as a New Prognostic Biomarker for Event-Free Survival in 82 Patients with Osteosarcoma: A Multicenter Study. Cancers 2024, 16, 1954. Relative Wash-In Rate in Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging as a New Prognostic Biomarker for Event-Free Survival in 82 Patients with Osteosarcoma: A Multicenter Study (Cancers, (2024), 16, 11, (1954), 10.3390/cancers16111954)

  • Gijsbert M. Kalisvaart
  • , Richard E. Evenhuis
  • , Willem Grootjans
  • , Thomas Van Den Berghe
  • , Martijn Callens
  • , Judith V.M.G. Bovée
  • , David Creytens
  • , Hans Gelderblom
  • , Frank M. Speetjens
  • , Lore Lapeire
  • , Gwen Sys
  • , Marta Fiocco
  • , Koenraad L. Verstraete
  • , Michiel A.J.van de Sande
  • , Johan L. Bloem

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

In the original publication [1], there was a mistake in the legend of Figure 2 as published. In the original version the legend wrongly states the red line accounts for patients with ‘rWIR ≥ 2.3 (good response),’ whereas it actually accounts for patients with poor response. The corrected Figure 2 appears below. In the original publication, there was a mistake in the legend of Figure 3 as published. In the original version the legend wrongly states the red line accounts for patients with ‘rWIR ≥ 2.3 (good response),’ whereas it actually accounts for patients with poor response. The corrected Figure 3 appears below. In the original publication, there was a mistake in Table 2 as published. The fourth column of the original table wrongly defines good and poor radiological responders. rWIR < 2.3 should define poor response and rWIR ≥ 2.3 should define good response. The corrected Table 2 appears below. In the original publication, there was a mistake in Table 3 as published. The fourth column of the original table wrongly defines good and poor radiological responders. rWIR < 2.3 should define poor response and rWIR ≥ 2.3 should define good response. The corrected Table 3 appears below. The authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.

Original languageEnglish
Article number2603
JournalCancers
Volume17
Issue number16
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 8 Aug 2025

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Correction: Kalisvaart et al. Relative Wash-In Rate in Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging as a New Prognostic Biomarker for Event-Free Survival in 82 Patients with Osteosarcoma: A Multicenter Study. Cancers 2024, 16, 1954. Relative Wash-In Rate in Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging as a New Prognostic Biomarker for Event-Free Survival in 82 Patients with Osteosarcoma: A Multicenter Study (Cancers, (2024), 16, 11, (1954), 10.3390/cancers16111954)'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this