Corrigenda

Abstract

BJU InternationalVolume 108, Issue 7 p. 1232-1232 Free Access Corrigenda This article corrects the following: Prediction of patient-specific risk and percentile cohort risk of pathological stage outcome using continuous prostate-specific antigen measurement, clinical stage and biopsy Gleason score Ying Huang, Sumit Isharwal, Alexander Haese, Felix K.H. Chun, Danil V. Makarov, Ziding Feng, Misop Han, Elizabeth Humphreys, Jonathan I. Epstein, Alan W. Partin, Robert W. Veltri, Volume 107Issue 10BJU International pages: 1562-1569 First Published online: September 28, 2010 First published: 13 September 2011 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10636.xAboutSectionsPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat In 1, the following errors appeared in the print issue BJU 107:10. On page 1562, inside the box “What's known on the subject? and What does the study add?”, the second line of the first paragraph, “(multinomial logistic regression method)”, should not have been published. The last sentence of the first paragraph, “applied the ‘predictiveness curve’ statistical modeling concept to the Partin Tables and then created a new Partin Nomogram using total PSA (tPSA) as a continuous variable” should have appeared as “created a new Partin Nomogram using total PSA (tPSA) as a continuous variable, and then generated the corresponding ‘predictiveness curve’.” On the 5th row up from the bottom of the box, “Fig. 2” should have appeared as “Fig. 4”. On page 1564, in Fig. 1, in the second row, “SV” should have appeared as “SV+”, and “LN” should have appeared as “LN+” ; in Table 2 on the same page, “SN+” should have appeared as “SV+”, and “LV+” should have appeared as “LN+”. On page 1566, in the first line of the third paragraph, “operator” should have appeared as “operating”; on the third line of the third paragraph on the same page, the sentence “For the JHH cohort and the UCHE cohort, the model with continuous PSA or discrete PSA appear to have similar capacity to classify a subject into its correct pathological stage.” should have been inserted after “… are shown in the Appendix.” On page 1567, in the first column, in the last line of the first paragraph, “clinical stage” should have appeared as “pathological stage”; in the second line up from the bottom of the second paragraph on the same page, “OC < pL (>pH)” should have appeared as “OC > pH (< pL)”. On page 1567, in the second column, in the first line of the first paragraph, “Fig. 3” should have appeared as “Fig. 4”. On page 1569, in the APPENDIX, “Receiver operator characteristic curves” should have appeared as “The receiver operating characteristic curves”. REFERENCE 1 Huang Y, Isharwal S, Haese A, Chun FKH, Makarov DV, Feng Z, Han M, Humphreys E, Epstein JI, Partin AW, Veltri RW. Prediction of patient-specific risk and percentile cohort risk of pathological stage outcome using continuous prostate-specific antigen measurement, clinical stage and biopsy Gleason score. BJU Int 2011; 107: 1562– 9. Wiley Online LibraryCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Volume108, Issue7October 2011Pages 1232-1232 ReferencesRelatedInformation