The Authors regret that there was a typo in the percentage of response groups in the abstract and main text. The 3rd sentence is the abstract should read: “The RR to rechallenge with BRAFi ± MEKi was 43.3%: complete response (CR) 2.6%, partial response (PR) 40.7%, stable disease (SD) 24.8% and progressive disease 31.9%, 3 missing.” The 15th sentence is the abstract should read: “The overall RR to BRAFi rechallenge was 43.3% for evaluable patients: CR in 3 patients (2.6%), PR in 46 (40.7%), SD in 28 (24.8%), PD in 36 (31.9%) and data missing in 3 patients.” The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.
Valpione, S., Carlino, M.S., Mangana, J., Mooradian, M.J., Mcarthur, G., Schadendorf, D., et al. (2018). Corrigendum to “Rechallenge with BRAF-directed treatment in metastatic melanoma: A multi-institutional retrospective study*” [Eur J Cancer 91 (2018) 116–124](S0959804917314867)(10.1016/j.ejca.2017.12.007). EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER, 93, 158-158 [10.1016/j.ejca.2018.02.001].
Corrigendum to “Rechallenge with BRAF-directed treatment in metastatic melanoma: A multi-institutional retrospective study*” [Eur J Cancer 91 (2018) 116–124](S0959804917314867)(10.1016/j.ejca.2017.12.007)
Di Giacomo A. M.;
2018-01-01
Abstract
The Authors regret that there was a typo in the percentage of response groups in the abstract and main text. The 3rd sentence is the abstract should read: “The RR to rechallenge with BRAFi ± MEKi was 43.3%: complete response (CR) 2.6%, partial response (PR) 40.7%, stable disease (SD) 24.8% and progressive disease 31.9%, 3 missing.” The 15th sentence is the abstract should read: “The overall RR to BRAFi rechallenge was 43.3% for evaluable patients: CR in 3 patients (2.6%), PR in 46 (40.7%), SD in 28 (24.8%), PD in 36 (31.9%) and data missing in 3 patients.” The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
https://hdl.handle.net/11365/1233345