You're viewing our updated article page. If you need more time to adjust, you can return to the old layout.

CORRECTION article

Front. Oncol., 11 December 2024

Sec. Hematologic Malignancies

Volume 14 - 2024 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2024.1504102

Corrigendum: Exploring the educational needs of patients with cutaneous lymphoma using an educational needs assessment tool

  • 1. Dermatology and Venereology Unit, Department of Medicine Solna, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden

  • 2. Department of Dermatology, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden

Article metrics

View details

792

Views

241

Downloads

In the published article, there was an error in Table 1 as published. The caption “Disease durationb” was incorrectly written as “Disease durationb”. The corrected Table 1 and its caption “Disease durationb” appear below.

Table 1

Characteristics Value
Age, mean (SD), range, median (IQR), years 63.0 (15.1), 27–90, 68 (23)
Gender, n (%)
 Females 25 (36)
 Males
Diagnosis, n (%)
45 (64)
 Mycosis fungoides 55 (79)
 Lymphomatoid papulosis 10 (14)
 Othera 5 (7)
Disease durationb, mean (SD), median (range), years 9.1 (11.6), 4.5 (0–52)
 <2 years, n (%) 20 (29)
 ≥2 years, n (%) 50 (71)
Current clinical stage for patients with MFc, n (%)
 IA 36 (66)
 IB 15 (27)
 IIA 1 (2)
 IIB 2 (4)
 IIIB 1 (2)
mSWAT, mean (SD), median (range) 12.8 (17.2), 4 (0–70)
Treatment, n (%)
 None +/- emollients 19 (27)
 Skin-directed therapy 42 (60)
  PUVA or UVB +/- topical steroids 6 (14)
  Topical steroids 36 (86)
 Systemic therapyd 9 (13)
Education, n (%)
 Primary school or high school 26 (37)
 Higher education 44 (63)

Patient demographics and grouping variables, n=70.

aPrimary cutaneous anaplastic large cell lymphoma (n=2), Sézary syndrome (n=1), primary cutaneous peripheral T-cell lymphoma unspecified (n=2). bYears since diagnosis. cAccording to the tumor-node-metastasis-blood clinical stage classification. dSystemic therapies: acitretin n=3, alitretinoin n=2, prednisolone n=1, methotrexate n=2, alemtuzumab n=1.

IQR, interquartile range; MF, mycosis fungoides; mSWAT, modified severity-weighted assessment tool; PUVA, psoralen and ultraviolet A-type light; SD, standard deviation; UVB, ultraviolet B-type light.

“Disease durationb.”

In the published article, there was an error in Tables 2 and 3 as published. “Presented as mean score (standard deviation) and (mean percentage of maximum score)” should be changed to “Presented as mean score (standard deviation) and mean percentage of maximum score”. The corrected Tables 2 and 3 and their captions appear below.

Table 2

All
(n=70)
Females
(n=25)
Males
(n=45)
p-value Disease duration
<2 years
(n=20)
Disease
duration
≥2 years
(n=50)
p-value Primary school or high school
(n=26)
Higher education
(n=44)
p-value
Overall informational needsa0–3 2.3 (0.83)
(76%)
2.6 (0.6)
(88%)
2.1 (0.9)
(69%)
0.006 2.1 (0.9)
(70%)
2.3 (0.8)
(78%)
0.316 2.0 (0.9)
(65%)
2.5 (0.7)
(82%)
0.025
Domains
Disease process
0–18
13.5 (4.4)
(75%)
15.0 (3.8)
(83%)
12.7 (4.5)
(71%)
0.030 14.6 (4.1)
(81%)
13.1 (4.5)
(72%)
0.099 12.9 (4.7)
(72%)
13.9 (4.2)
(77%)
0.481
Treatmentsb
0–12
9.6 (3.1)
(80%)
10.6 (2.4)
(88%)
9.0 (3.3)
(75%)
0.024 10.7 (1.9)
(89%)
9.1 (3.4)
(76%)
0.117 9.7 (3.0)
(81%)
9.5 (3.2)
(79%)
0.948
Feelings
0–6
2.6 (2.2)
(44%)
3.1 (2.2)
(52%)
2.3 (2.2)
(39%)
0.150 2.9 (2.4)
(48%)
2.5 (2.2)
(42%)
0.511 3.3 (2.1)
(54%)
2.2 (2.2)
(37%)
0.049
Self-management
0–6
3.4 (2.0)
(57%)
3.9 (1.6)
(65%)
3.2 (2.1)
(52%)
0.178 3.8 (2.2)
(63%)
3.3 (1.9)
(54%)
0.232 3.8 (2.1)
(64%)
3.2 (1.8)
(52%)
0.100
Support systems
0–9
3.7 (2.2)
(41%)
4.3 (1.9)
(48%)
3.4 (2.4)
(37%)
0.039 4.7 (2.1)
(52%)
3.3 (2.2)
(36%)
0.017 4.3 (2.4)
(48%)
3.3 (2.1)
(37%)
0.085
Total score**
0–51
33.0 (11.1)
(65%)
36.8 (8.9)
(72%)
30.8 (11.7)
(61%)
0.032 37.6 (8.5)
(74%)
31.2 (11.6)
(61%)
0.051 34.7 (11.6)
(68%)
32.0 (10.8)
(63%)
0.303

Overall informational needs and educational needs assessment tool domains among 70 patients with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma*.

*Cutaneous T-cell lymphomas include mycosis fungoides (n=55), lymphomatoid papulosis (n=10), primary cutaneous anaplastic large cell lymphoma (n=2), Sézary syndrome (n=1), and primary cutaneous peripheral T-cell lymphoma unspecified (n=2) aIn general, how much information do you want to receive about your lymphoma disease? (1 question bTreatments, missing n=1 (in 1/4 questions). **Including all domains, missing n=1. Presented as mean score (standard deviation) and mean percentage of maximum score. Statistically significant values are marked in bold.

Table 3

All**
(n=55)
Females
(n=20)
Males
(n=35)
p-value Disease duration
<2 years
(n=14)
Disease duration
≥2 years
(n=41)
p-value Primary school or high school
(n=20)
Higher education
(n=35)
p-value
Overall informational needsa
0–3
2.4 (0.76) 2.9 (0.4)
(95%)
2.2 (0.8)
(72%)
0.001 2.2 (0.9)
(73%)
2.5 (0.7)
(83%)
0.315 2.1 (0.9)
(70%)
2.6 (0.6)
(87%)
0.041
Domains
Disease process
0–18
13.8 (4.5)
(77%)
15.7 (3.4)
(87%)
12.7 (4.7)
(70%)
0.008 15.1 (3.8)
(84%)
13.3 (4.6)
(74%)
0.105 13.1 (5.0)
(73%)
14.2 (4.2)
(79%)
0.508
Treatments
0–12
9.8 (3.2)
(81%)
11.0 (2.1)
(92%)
9.1 (3.5)
(75%)
0.015 10.9 (1.6)
91%
9.4 (3.5)
(78%)
0.208 9.6 (3.1) (80%) 9.9 (3.3)
(82%)
0.507
Feelings
0–6
2.7 (2.3)
(45%)
3.2 (2.3)
(53%)
2.4 (2.2)
(40%)
0.239 3.3 (2.4)
(55%)
2.5 (2.2)
(42%)
0.261 3.4 (2.1)
(56%)
2.3 (2.3)
(39%)
0.092
Self-management
0–6
3.7 (1.9)
(61%)
4.2 (1.4)
(70%)
3.4 (2.1)
(57%)
0.232 4.6 (1.7)
(76%)
3.4 (1.9)
(57%)
0.045 4.2 (2.1)
(69%)
3.4 (1.8)
(57%)
0.127
Support systems
0–9
3.7 (2.3)
(41%)
4.4 (2.0)
(49%)
3.3 (2.4)
(37%)
0.054 5.1 (2.2)
(56%)
3.2 (2.2)
(36%)
0.009 4.5 (2.6)
(49%)
3.3 (2.1)
(37%)
0.080
Total score*
0–51
33.7 (11.6)
(66%)
38.5 (8.2)
(75%)
30.9 (12.4)
(61%)
0.021 39.0 (8.7)
(77%)
31.8 (11.9)
(62%)
0.052 34.7 (12.5)
(68%)
33.1 (11.1)
(65%)
0.557

Overall informational needs and educational needs assessment tool domains among 55 patients with mycosis fungoides.

aIn general, how much information do you want to receive about your lymphoma disease? (1 question). *Including all domains. Presented as mean score (standard deviation) and mean percentage of maximum score. Statistically significant values are marked in bold.

“Presented as mean score (standard deviation) and mean percentage of maximum score.”

A correction has been made to the Abstract, Methods. This sentence previously stated:

“The domain scores ranged from 0 to 18 and the total score from 0 to 51, with a higher score indicating a greater need for education.”

The corrected sentence appears below:

“The domain scores ranged from 0 to 18 (total score from 0 to 51). Each domain score was presented as a mean percentage of the maximum possible domain score.”

A correction has been made to the Abstract, Conclusion. This sentence previously stated:

“We found that 65% of the CTCL patients in the cohort, particularly females, expressed a need for education, especially regarding disease process and treatment.”

The corrected sentence appears below:

“CTCL patients in the cohort, particularly females, expressed a need for education, especially regarding disease process and treatment.”

A correction has been made to the Main text, Questionnaires regarding educational needs. This sentence previously stated:

“Therefore, to facilitate comparisons between domains, the total score was divided by the maximum possible score and presented as a mean percentage.”

The corrected sentence appears below:

“Therefore, to facilitate comparisons between domains, each domain score was presented as a mean percentage of the maximum possible domain score.”

A correction has been made to the Main text, Questionnaires regarding educational needs (last sentence). This sentence previously stated:

“The questionnaire was adapted for the purpose of the present study and used several of the original questions (see Supplementary 1), translated from Swedish to English, with the original Swedish questionnaire attached).”

The corrected sentence appears below:

“The questionnaire was adapted for the purpose of the present study and used several of the original questions (see Supplementary 1), translated from Swedish to English, with the original Swedish questionnaire attached.”

A correction has been made to the Main text, Result, overall self-reported educational needs.

This sentence previously stated:

“The answers did not differ significantly depending on disease duration (<2 years vs. = 2 years).”

The corrected sentence appears below:

“The answers did not differ significantly depending on disease duration (<2 years vs. ≥ 2 years).”

A correction has been made to the Main text, Conclusion. This sentence previously stated:

“We found that 65% of the CTCL patients in the cohort, particularly females, expressed a need for education, especially regarding disease process and treatment.”

The corrected sentence appears below:

“CTCL patients in the cohort, particularly females, expressed a need for education, especially regarding disease process and treatment.”

The authors apologize for these errors and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.

Statements

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Summary

Keywords

mycosis fungoides (MF), cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL), educational needs, patient education, self-reported questionnaire

Citation

Ivert LU, Winther AH, Jonsson P and Brauner H (2024) Corrigendum: Exploring the educational needs of patients with cutaneous lymphoma using an educational needs assessment tool. Front. Oncol. 14:1504102. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1504102

Received

30 September 2024

Accepted

03 October 2024

Published

11 December 2024

Volume

14 - 2024

Edited and reviewed by

Francesco Onida, ASST Fatebenefratelli Sacco, Italy

Updates

Copyright

*Correspondence: Hanna Brauner,

Disclaimer

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Outline

Cite article

Copy to clipboard


Export citation file


Share article

Article metrics