In the original article, there was a mistake in Figure 1 as published. The figure illustration is wrong due to a software bug during picture output. The corrected Figure 1 appears below.
Figure 1
In the original article, references 14 and reference 37 are the same. We have renumbered the references.
In the original article, there was an additional error in Results, Mutation Profiles at Baseline, paragraph two. In the sentence “For patients who received cetuximab as second-line treatment, the RAS mutation discrepancy was 13.3% (2/6)”, the percentage is wrong and needs to be changed from 13.3% to 33.3%. The corrected paragraph appears below.
“For the KRAS, NRAS, and BRAF V600E genes, the concordance rates between the tumor tissue test by PCR and ctDNA test by NGS were 86.4%, 86.4%, and 100%, respectively. The RAS mutation discrepancy was also compared among treatments (Figure 1B). For patients who received cetuximab as first-line treatment, the RAS mutation discrepancy was 13.3% (2/15). Both of these patients also had NRAS mutations. The mutation sites were NRAS p.Q61K (0.31%), NRAS p.G13R (0.07%), and NRAS p.G12R (0.37%). For patients who received cetuximab as second-line treatment, the RAS mutation discrepancy was 33.3% (2/6). One patient had a KRAS p.G12V mutation (2.17%) and the other patient had both KRAS p.Q61H (0.02%) and NRAS p.G13C (0.03%) mutations. The only patient who received cetuximab as third-line treatment had a KRAS mutation. The mutation sites included KRAS p.Q61Hc.183A>T (0.05%), KRAS p.Q61Hc.183A>C (0.91%), and KRAS p.G12A (0.58%). The clonal and subclonal landscapes were detected at baseline (Figure 1C). Subclonal mutations were found in 31.8% (7/22) of the patients. The three most common clonal mutation genes were TP53, APC, and BRAF, while the three most common subclonal mutation genes were PIK3CA, KRAS, and NRAS.”
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.
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.
Supplementary Material
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fonc.2022.903586/full#supplementary-material
Summary
Keywords
colorectal cancer, next-generation sequencing, circulating tumor DNA, dynamic monitoring, prognosis
Citation
Yang W, Zou J, Li Y, Liu R, Yan Z, Chen S, Zhao X, Guo W, Huang M, Li W, Zhu X and Chen Z (2022) Corrigendum: Longitudinal Circulating Tumor DNA Profiling in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer During Anti-EGFR Therapy. Front. Oncol. 12:903586. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.903586
Received
24 March 2022
Accepted
11 April 2022
Published
11 May 2022
Volume
12 - 2022
Edited by
Antonio Avallone, G. Pascale National Cancer Institute Foundation (IRCCS), Italy
Reviewed by
Luca Lazzari, IFOM - The FIRC Institute of Molecular Oncology, Italy
Updates
Copyright
© 2022 Yang, Zou, Li, Liu, Yan, Chen, Zhao, Guo, Huang, Li, Zhu and Chen.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Zhiyu Chen, chanhj75@aliyun.com
†These authors have contributed equally to this work
This article was submitted to Gastrointestinal Cancers: Colorectal Cancer, a section of the journal Frontiers in Oncology
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.