Corrigendum to 'CD44-high neural crest stem-like cells are associated with tumour aggressiveness and poor survival in neuroblastoma tumours' [EBioMedicine 49 (2019) 82-95].

The authors regret that there are errors in Fig. 1, panel d, on the published manuscript. By mistake, the legend and description incorrectly state that the samples analysed are from a Stage 4 subset of the dataset GSE45547, when they correspond to the whole dataset. Consequently, label on (i) is incorrect. In addition, there is a typo mistake in the p value stated in the same panel which should be corrected to 0.048. The indicated p value is the result of applying the logrank test, not bonferroni. The corrected Figure and legend are shown below. The description written in the manuscript corresponding to the results presented in this figure should take into consideration these changes. These errors and corrections do not change the scientific conclusions of the article.

Fig. 1

CD44 expression in human neuroblastoma tumours. (a) CD44 expression in NB tumours according to INSS stage (stages 1 to 4). (ANOVA; **: p<0.005). (b) CD44 expression in high-risk neuroblastoma tumours according to their MYCN amplification status. (t-test; ***: p<0.001). In brackets, number of tumour samples. (c) Expression of CD44 in human neuroblastoma tumour samples sorted by INSS stage (stages 1 to 4) and showing their MYCN status (red= MYCN amplified). (d) Survival curves showing overall survival probability for tumours with high CD44 vs rest when considering all tumour samples (i), MYCN-amplified tumour samples only (ii) or MYCN non-amplified tumour samples only (iii). Patient samples per group are shown in brackets. p values: Logrank. (e) CD44 staining on tissue samples from NB tumours with unfavourable histology.% of CD44+ cells in tissue samples is indicated. Clinical information from these tumours can be seen on Supplementary Table S1. Bar: 200μm. Bar on inset: 25μm. Arrowhead: CD44 expressing cells. Asterisk: examples of unspecific red blood cell staining.

The authors would like to apologize for this error and any inconvenience this may have caused.

The authors would also like to clarify the statistical methodology used for the classification of patients in the survival analysis. A more detailed Statistical analysis section, covering this analysis, is provided as supplementary material.

The authors would like to further clarify that our data do not support that CD44 expression does have prognostic value by itself. The aim of the work is the description and characterization of a population of CD44 high expressing cells and their contribution to malignancy, and not to stablish CD44 as a biomarker to be used for prognosis as a single molecule. In fact, the authors discuss the difficulties presented by the expression of CD44 in different cell populations in neuroblastoma. The authors suggest to continue exploring the potential future use of this marker in combination with others, some of which are described.