Oncol Rep 32: [Related article:] 1071–1077, 2014; DOI:
10.3892/or.2014.3313
Following the publication of the above article, a
concerned reader has contacted the Editorial Office to draw
attention to the fact that there appeared to be discrepancies
between the numbers of patients reported with low- or high-ZNF703
expression in Fig. 3 on p. 1074: Fig. 3A reported 70 patients with
low ZNF703 expression and 68 patients with high expression;
however, the stage-stratified Kaplan-Meier curves showed the
following: In Fig. 3B, stages I–IIIA: 57 low-expression and 20
high-expression patients, and in Fig. 3C, stages IIIB-IV: 20
low-expression and 41 high-expression patients (and so 70 vs. 68
patients in Fig. 3A, and 77 vs. 61 patients in Fig. 3B and C). In
addition, the AJCC stage-specific counts reported in Table I also
showed internal inconsistencies in terms of the overall numbers of
low- and high-expression patients, and finally, an additional
discrepancy was noted for the definition of the high expression
group: The Materials and methods section stated that an
immunohistochemical score of ≥6 was classified as high expression,
whereas the Table I column heading defined high expression as
‘>6’. To clarify these apparent discrepancies, the authors
should resolve the following: i) provide the actual numbers of low-
and high-expression patients in each AJCC stage group; ii) clarify
whether the cutoff used for the Kaplan-Meier analyses was ≥6 or
>6; iii) provide the exact patient numbers used to generate Fig.
3A, B and C; and iv) clarify whether the counts, totals and
percentages in Table I require correction. Finally, upon performing
an independent analysis of the data in this paper in the Editorial
Office, it came to light that, regarding the wound healing assay
data shown in Fig. 6A on p. 1076, the ‘24 h / Control’ and ‘24 h /
NC siRNA’ panels showed an overlapping section of data, such that
data which were intended to show the results of experiments
performed under different conditions had apparently been derived
from the same original source.
The authors have been contacted by the Editorial
Office to offer an explanation for the apparent anomalies in the
description of the data, and the incorrect assembly of data in Fig.
6, in this paper, and we are awaiting their response. Owing to the
fact that the Editorial Office has been made aware of this
potential issue concerning the scientific integrity of this paper,
we are issuing an Expression of Concern to notify readers of this
potential problem while the Editorial Office continues to
investigate this matter further.
