Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Erratum
  • Open Access

Erratum: Accuracy of microRNAs as markers for the detection of neck lymph node metastases in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma

  • 1, 3,
  • 2,
  • 1,
  • 3,
  • 2,
  • 4, 7Email author and
  • 5, 6, 8Email author
BMC Medicine201513:155

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0406-4

©  de Carvalho et al. 2015

  • Received: 18 June 2015
  • Accepted: 18 June 2015
  • Published:

The original article was published in BMC Medicine 2015 13:108

Author´s correction note

Upon reviewing our recently published research article [1], we noticed that some of the data presented in the manuscript and on the tables were incorrectly presented. These mistakes do not change the overall conclusions regarding the high accuracy of miR-203 and miR-205 as diagnostic markers of neck metastases in HNSCC.

Corrected text

1. (Page 8: End of “Validation and diagnostic accuracy of miR-203 and miR-205 expression in FNA samples”)

Please replace

All in all, the sensitivity rate for both markers was 92.9 % (39/42, CI 95 %, 80.5–98.4), with a specificity level of 100 % (71/71, CI 95 %, 94.9–100) (Table 2; Figure 6B).
Table 2

Sensitivity and specificity values of microRNAs evaluated in discriminating metastatic and non-metastatic lymph nodes in FFPE and FNA biopsies from lymph node samples

microRNA

 

Sensitivity

 

Specificity

Cutoffa

Metastaticb

Macrometastases

Micrometastases

Isolated tumor cells

Non-metastatic

% (95 % CI) (n)

% (95 % CI) (n)

% (95 % CI) (n)

% (95 % CI) (n)

% (95 % CI) (n)

FFPE samples

 miR-200a

5.96

76.0 (54.5-89.8) (19/25)

94.4 (70.6-99.7) (17/18)

40.0 (7.3-82.9) (2/5)

0 (0–80.2) (0/2)

100 (71.7-100) (13/13)

 miR-200c

2.33

88.0 (67.7-96.8) (22/25)

100 (78.1-100) (17/18)

80.0 (29.9-98.9) (4/5)

0 (0–80.2) (0/2)

100 (71.7-100)) (13/13)

 miR-203

1.96

100 (83.4-100) (25/25)

100 (78.1-100) (17/18)

100 (46.3-100) (5/5)

100 (19.8-100) (2/2)

100 (71.7-100) (13/13)

 miR-205

1.54

100 (83.4-100) (25/25)

100 (78.1-100) (17/18)

100 (46.3-100) (5/5)

100 (19.8-100) (2/2)

100 (71.7-100) (13/13)

FNA samples classified by cytology

 miR-203

10

100 (91.5-100) (42/42)

100 (91.5-100) (42/42)

N/A

N/A

100 (94.9-100) (71/71)

 miR-205

10

100 (91.5-100) (42/42)

100 (91.5-100) (42/42)

N/A

N/A

100 (94.9-100) (71/71)

FNA samples classified by histology

 miR-203

10

92.9 (80.5-98.4) (68/71)

100 (89.3-100) (68/68)

0 (0) (0/2)

0 (0) (0/1)

100 (94.9-100) (71/71)

 miR-205

10

92.9 (80.5-98.4) (68/71)

100 (89.3-100) (68/68)

0 (0) (0/2)

0 (0) (0/1)

100 (94.9-100) (71/71)

FFPE, formalin-fixed paraffin embedded; FNA, fine-needle aspiration; PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value; AUC, area under the ROC curve; CI, confidence interval; N/A, not applicable, FFPE, formalin-fixed paraffin embedded; FNA, fine-needle aspiration; PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value; AUC, area under the ROC curve; CI, confidence interval

athe cutoff values for FFPE samples were determined according to the Youden index (value in which the difference between sensitivity and 1-specificity is maximum) obtained from the ROC curves

bthe "metastatic" group comprises all cases with positive lymph nodes (macrometastases, micrometastases or isolated tumor cells)

With the amended text

All in all, the sensitivity rate for both markers was 93.3 % (42/45, CI 95 %, 81.7–98.6), with a specificity level of 100 % (68/68, CI 95 %, 94.7–100) (Table 2; Figure 6B).
Table 2

Sensitivity and specificity values of microRNAs evaluated in discriminating metastatic and non-metastatic lymph nodes in FFPE and FNA biopsies from lymph node samples

microRNA

 

Sensitivity

 

Specificity

Cutoffa

Metastaticb

Macrometastases

Micrometastases

Isolated tumor cells

Non-metastatic

% (95 % CI) (n)

% (95 % CI) (n)

% (95 % CI) (n)

% (95 % CI) (n)

% (95 % CI) (n)

FFPE samples

 miR-200a

5.96

76.0 (54.5-89.8) (19/25)

94.4 (70.6-99.7) (17/18)

40.0 (7.3-82.9) (2/5)

0 (0–80.2) (0/2)

100 (71.7-100) (13/13)

 miR-200c

2.33

88.0 (67.7-96.8) (22/25)

100 (78.1-100) (18/18)

80.0 (29.9-98.9) (4/5)

0 (0–80.2) (0/2)

100 (71.7-100)) (13/13)

 miR-203

1.96

100 (83.4-100) (25/25)

100 (78.1-100) (18/18)

100 (46.3-100) (5/5)

100 (19.8-100) (2/2)

100 (71.7-100) (13/13)

 miR-205

1.54

100 (83.4-100) (25/25)

100 (78.1-100) (18/18)

100 (46.3-100) (5/5)

100 (19.8-100) (2/2)

100 (71.7-100) (13/13)

FNA samples classified by cytology

 miR-203

10

100 (91.5-100) (42/42)

100 (91.5-100) (42/42)

N/A

N/A

100 (94.9-100) (71/71)

 miR-205

10

100 (91.5-100) (42/42)

100 (91.5-100) (42/42)

N/A

N/A

100 (94.9-100) (71/71)

FNA samples classified by histology

 miR-203

10

93.3 (81.7-98.6) (42/45)

100 (91.5-100) (42/42)

0 (0) (0/2)

0 (0) (0/1)

100 (94.7-100) (68/68)

 miR-205

10

93.3 (81.7-98.6) (42/45)

100 (91.5-100) (42/42)

0 (0) (0/2)

0 (0) (0/1)

100 (94.7-100) (68/68)

FFPE, formalin-fixed paraffin embedded; FNA, fine-needle aspiration; PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value; AUC, area under the ROC curve; CI, confidence interval; N/A, not applicable, FFPE, formalin-fixed paraffin embedded; FNA, fine-needle aspiration; PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value; AUC, area under the ROC curve; CI, confidence interval

athe cutoff values for FFPE samples were determined according to the Youden index (value in which the difference between sensitivity and 1-specificity is maximum) obtained from the ROC curves

bthe "metastatic" group comprises all cases with positive lymph nodes (macrometastases, micrometastases or isolated tumor cells)

2. (Page 8: End of “Validation and diagnostic accuracy of miR-203 and miR-205 expression in FNA samples”)

Please replace

Moreover, negative predictive values were of 95.9 % (95 % CI, 88.6–99.1 %) and positive predictive values of 100 % (95 % CI, 90.9–100 %) for both microRNAs (Table 3).
Table 3

Accuracy characteristics of microRNAs in discriminating metastatic and non-metastatic lymph nodes in FFPE and FNA biopsies from lymph node samples

microRNA

PPV

NPV

Accuracy

AUC (95 % CI)

% (95 % CI)

% (95 % CI)

% (95 % CI)

FFPE samples

 miR-200a

100 (82.2-100.0)

68.4 (43.5-87.3)

84.2 (68.1-93.4)

0.92 (0.83-0.99)

 miR-200c

100 (84.4-100.0)

81.2 (54.34-95.73)

92.1 (77.5-97.9)

0.94 (0.85-1.0)

 miR-203

100 (86.2-100)

100 (75.1-100)

100 (88.6-100)

1.0 (0–1.0)

 miR-205

100 (86.2-100)

100 (75.1-100)

100 (88.6-100)

1.0 (0–1.0)

FNA samples classified by cytology

 miR-203

100 (91.5-100)

100 (94.9-100)

100 (96.05-100)

1.0 (0–1.0)

 miR-205

100 (91.5-100)

100 (94.9-100)

100 (96.05-100)

1.0 (0–1.0)

FNA samples classified by histology

 miR-203

100 (90.9-100)

95.9 (88.6-99.1)

97.3 (92.1-99.4)

0.963 (0.921-1.0)

 miR-205

100 (93.2-100)

94.6 (85.1-98.8)

96.7 (93.1-100)

0.966 (0.921-1.0)

FFPE, formalin-fixed paraffin embedded; FNA, fine-needle aspiration; PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value; AUC, area under the ROC curve; CI, confidence interval

With the amended text

Moreover, negative predictive values were of 95.9 % (95 % CI, 88.6–99.1 %) and positive predictive values of 100% (95 % CI, 91.5–100 %) for both microRNAs (Table 3).
Table 3

Accuracy characteristics of microRNAs in discriminating metastatic and non-metastatic lymph nodes in FFPE and FNA biopsies from lymph node samples

microRNA

PPV

NPV

Accuracy

AUC (95 % CI)

% (95 % CI)

% (95 % CI)

% (95 % CI)

FFPE samples

 miR-200a

100 (82.2-100.0)

68.4 (43.5-87.3)

84.2 (68.1-93.4)

0.92 (0.83-0.99)

 miR-200c

100 (84.4-100.0)

81.2 (54.34-95.73)

92.1 (77.5-97.9)

0.94 (0.85-1.0)

 miR-203

100 (86.2-100)

100 (75.1-100)

100 (88.6-100)

1.0 (0–1.0)

 miR-205

100 (86.2-100)

100 (75.1-100)

100 (88.6-100)

1.0 (0–1.0)

FNA samples classified by cytology

 miR-203

100 (91.5-100)

100 (94.9-100)

100 (96.05-100)

1.0 (0–1.0)

 miR-205

100 (91.5-100)

100 (94.9-100)

100 (96.05-100)

1.0 (0–1.0)

FNA samples classified by histology

 miR-203

100 (91.5-100)

95.9 (88.6-99.1)

97.3 (92.1-99.4)

0.963 (0.921-1.0)

 miR-205

100 (91.5-100)

95.9 (88.6-99.1)

97.3 (92.1-99.4)

0.966 (0.921-1.0)

FFPE, formalin-fixed paraffin embedded; FNA, fine-needle aspiration; PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value; AUC, area under the ROC curve; CI, confidence interval

Notes

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Laboratory of Cancer Molecular Biology, Department of Biological Sciences, Federal University of São Paulo, Diadema, Brazil
(2)
Department of Pathology, Barretos Cancer Hospital, Barretos, Brazil
(3)
Molecular Oncology Research Center, Barretos Cancer Hospital, Barretos, Brazil
(4)
Department of Head and Neck Surgery, Barretos Cancer Hospital, Barretos, Brazil
(5)
Laboratory of Cancer Molecular Biology, Department of Biological Sciences, Federal University of São Paulo, Diadema, Brazil
(6)
Cancer and Stem Cell Biology Program, Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School, Singapore, Singapore
(7)
Departamento de Cirurgia de Cabeça e Pescoço, Hospital de Câncer de Barretos, Rua Antenor Duarte Villela, 1331, Barretos, SP, 14784-400, Brazil
(8)
Laboratório de Biologia Molecular do Câncer, UNIFESP, Rua Pedro de Toledo, 669 - 11° andar, L11B, São Paulo, SP, 04039-032, Brazil

Reference

  1. de Carvalho AC, Scapulatempo-Neto C, Maia DC, Evangelista AF, Morini MA, Carvalho AL, et al. Accuracy of microRNAs as markers for the detection of neck lymph node metastases in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. BMC Med. 2015;13(1):108. doi:10.1186/s12916-015-0350-3.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© de Carvalho et al. 2015

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Advertisement

BMC Medicine

ISSN: 1741-7015

Contact us