JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst (2018) 110(3): djy096 doi: 10.1093/jnci/djy096 Corrigendum CORRIGENDUM Corrigendum to “Neoadjuvant 5-FU or Capecitabine Plus On page 6, the sentence “Although we did observe a numeri- Radiation With or Without Oxaliplatin in Rectal Cancer Patients: A cally greater number of deaths while on or within 45 days of ac- Phase III Randomized Clinical Trial” by Carmen J. Allegra et al. tive treatment .. . this increase did not reach statistical JNCI: J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015; 107(11): doi: 10.1093/jnci/djv248. significance and the overall survival among the arms was iden- tical HR ¼ 1.0)” should instead read as the following: “We ob- On page 4, the sentence “Further unplanned analysis that in- served a numerically greater number of deaths while on or within 45 days of active treatment ... and this increase did cluded only patients at high risk for recurrence (lymph node- positive and clinical stage TIII/IV disease) also demonstrated reach statistical significance but the overall survival among the arms was identical (HR ¼ 0.94).” ...” should instead read as the following: “Further unplanned analysis that included only patients at high risk for recurrence (pathologic lymph node-positive and pathologic stage TIII/IV On page 7 in the discussion, the sentence “An unplanned retro- disease) also demonstrated ...” spective exploratory analysis of only those patients with either clinical stage TIII with node positivity or those with T4 lesions showed ...” should instead read as the following: “An On page 5, the sentence “Although there were numerically more deaths (on treatment and within 45 days of completing unplanned retrospective exploratory analysis of only those patients with either pathologic stage TIII/IV with node positivity neoadjuvant treatment) in the capecitabine arms (4 and 5 vs 1 each for the capecitabine vs 5-FU arms, respectively), these dif- showed ...” ferences did not reach statistical significance (p¼0.64 Fisher’s exact test, post-amendment, 2 vs 9 deaths (0.091, pre and post- In addition, we have published a new Figure 5, which contains amendment, 3 vs 10 deaths)” should instead read as the follow- the corrected hazard ratios in both panel A and B that match ing: “There were numerically more deaths (on treatment and the original text. The hazard ratios were reversed in the original within 45 days of completing neoadjuvant treatment) in the figure, but the text in the results was correct. capecitabine arms (4 and 5 vs 1 each for the capecitabine vs 5- FU arms, respectively), and these differences did reach statisti- The authors regret the errors. cal significance (p¼0.037 Fisher’s exact test, post-amendment, 2 vs 9 deaths (0.056, pre and post-amendment, 3 vs 10 deaths).” Received: April 27, 2018; Revised: Month 0, 0000; Accepted: Month 0, 0000 © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: firstname.lastname@example.org Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jnci/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/jnci/djy096/5003343 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 07 June 2018 CORRIGENDUM
JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute – Oxford University Press
Published: May 24, 2018
It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.
Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.
All for just $49/month
Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly
Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.
Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.
Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.
All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.
“Hi guys, I cannot tell you how much I love this resource. Incredible. I really believe you've hit the nail on the head with this site in regards to solving the research-purchase issue.”Daniel C.
“Whoa! It’s like Spotify but for academic articles.”@Phil_Robichaud
“I must say, @deepdyve is a fabulous solution to the independent researcher's problem of #access to #information.”@deepthiw
“My last article couldn't be possible without the platform @deepdyve that makes journal papers cheaper.”@JoseServera