Oncol Lett 14: [Related article:] 776-786, 2017; DOI:
10.3892/ol.2017.6254
Following the publication of this article, we have
realized that certain of the percentages and data were calculated
and/or stated incorrectly. The correct percentages and data
(highlighted in bold) should have been presented as follows. In the
Materials and methods section on p. 777, first paragraph, line 13,
the sentence here should have read: “Of the 219 patients, 132
(60.3%), 40 (18.3%) and 43 (19.6%) patients
were pathologically diagnosed…”. Secondly, in the Results section
on p. 781, the final paragraph, line 9, the sentence here should
have read: “Although 27.3% (9/33) and 9.1%
(3/33) of patients with borderline malignancy…”.
Additionally, on p. 780, the right-hand column, lines 2 and 3, the
text should have stated that a serum KL-6 level <515 U/ml
was considered low (median, 515 U/ml).
Furthermore, we noted that, in Table I, the P-value
for the difference in tumor size (<100 vs. ≥100 mm) should have
been written as P=0.3934 (not 0.0034), and in the Results section
on p. 779, the sentence commencing on line 2 should have read:
“Therefore, the levels of serum KL-6 were compared among localized
ovarian tumors, including benign tumors, borderline tumors, ovarian
metastases and stage I/II EOCs.” Finally, in the Discussion, on p.
782, line 3, “tumor size” should have been omitted from this
sentence; thus, the sentence should have read: “Elevated serum KL-6
levels correlated with FIGO stage, histological type, tumor grade,
lymph node metastasis and residual tumor size.”
These errors did not affect the overall conclusions
of the work reported in this study. We sincerely apologize for
these mistakes, and regret any inconvenience these have caused.
