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 language | English |
|---|---|
| Article number | 2603 |
| Journal | Cancers |
| Volume | 17 |
| Issue number | 16 |
| DOIs |
|
| Publication status | Published - 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
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver