Erratum.

Abstract

Veterinary Clinical PathologyVolume 46, Issue 1 p. 202-202 ErratumFree Access Erratum This article corrects the following: Use of a 2-tier histologic grading system for canine cutaneous mast cell tumors on cytology specimens Franziska Hergt, Wolf Bomhard, Michael S. Kent, Johannes Hirschberger, Volume 45Issue 3Veterinary Clinical Pathology pages: 477-483 First Published online: August 2, 2016 First published: 10 February 2017 https://doi.org/10.1111/vcp.12465Citations: 1AboutSectionsPDF 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 onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat When this article1 was published in the journal, data for sensitivity and specificity were accidentally switched on page 4 in the Results and on page 5 in the Discussion section, and information on page 4 in the Results section contains contradictory information to data given in Table 1. The correct sentence in the Results section reads as follows: The overall concordance for cytologic grading of MCT was nearly perfect (κ = 0.853) with an accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of 94.3%, 86.8%, and 97.1%, respectively. The correct sentence in the Discussion section reads as follows: Considering the 5 high-grade tumors in histology that were considered low grade on cytology (sensitivity 86.8%), there remains, however, a small risk of misclassification of high-grade MCT on cytology and shows the potential deficiency of applying a cytologic grading system. The correct sentences concerning mitotic figures read as follows: Thirteen of these cases were classified as high-grade on histology. Using histology and therefore nuclear anomaly cut-off criteria defined by Kiupel et al as the gold standard, the sensitivity, specificity, and level of concordance for mitotic figures were 18.5%, 81.8%, with a slight agreement (j = 0.002), respectively. The correct sentence concerning multinucleated cells reads as follows: Six of these cases were considered high grade on histology. Reference 1Hergt F, von Bomhard W, Kent MS, Hirschberger J. Use of a 2-tier histologic grading system for canine cutaneous mast cell tumors on cytology specimens. Vet Clin Pathol. 2016; 45: 477– 483. doi:10.1111/vcp.12387 Citing Literature Volume46, Issue1March 2017Pages 202-202 ReferencesRelatedInformation