Erratum to evaluation of PD-L1 expression on circulating tumour cells in small cell lung cancer.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.21037/tlcr-21-819.]. 2022 Translational Lung Cancer Research. All rights reserved.

This article (1) titled “Evaluation of PD-L1 expression on circulating tumour cells in small cell lung cancer” (doi: 10.21037/tlcr-21-819), unfortunately contains errors in the results part of the abstract and the main text, Figure 3, Figure 5, Figure S5 and the figure legend of Figure S5.

Firstly, the authors identified some errors in the Results section of the Abstract. The details are as follows:

In the first sentence, “11/20 (55.0%) using the Parsortix system” should be corrected to “10/20 (50.0%) using the Parsortix system”.

In the third sentence, “268 of the 3,501 (7.7%) CTCs isolated with EpCAM-coated beads and in 33/366 (9.0%)” should be corrected to “257 of the 3,501 (7.3%) CTCs isolated with EpCAM-coated beads and in 30/363 (8.3%)”.

Meanwhile, the authors identified some errors in the “CTC enumeration and characterization” section and “PD-L1 expression on CTCs” section of the Results part in the main text. The details are as follows:

In the “CTC enumeration and characterization” section, “in 11 of 20 (55.0%) samples” should be corrected to “in 10 of the 20 (50.0%) samples”.

“However, six samples (1312, 1318, 1325, 1341, 1374, and 1434)” should be corrected to “seven samples (1312, 1318, 1325, 1341, 1374, 1381, and 1457)”.

In the “PD-L1 expression on CTCs” section, “in 3 samples processed” should be corrected to “in 4 samples processed”.

“268 (7.7%) found positive for PD-L1. In comparison, 33 of 366 (9.0%)” should be corrected to “257 (7.3%) found positive for PD-L1. In comparison, 30 of 363 (8.3%)”.

Moreover, the corrected Figure 3, Figure 5, Figure S5 can be found below.

Corrected Figure 3:

Corrected Figure 5:

Corrected Figure S5:

Lastly, in the figure legend of Figure S5, the sentence “Patient 1471 had EpCAM-positive CTCs.” should be deleted.

The authors confirmed that the errors were made inadvertently during the compilation of the raw and production of these figures in GraphPad because of the overlap and closeness between the two isolation platforms and both immunofluorescence methods employed in the study. Note that the changes do not affect the interpretation or conclusions of the presented study.

The authors apologize for the oversight.

Click here to view the updated version of the article.