Francesca Spyrakis1†
Gioele Antonio Tiburtini1†
Stefania Bruno2,3†
Tommaso A. Dragani4*†
Francesca Colombo5†- 1Department of Drug Science and Technology, University of Turin, Turin, Italy
- 2Department of Medical Sciences, University of Turin, Turin, Italy
- 3Molecular Biotechnology Center, University of Turin, Turin, Italy
- 4Department of R&D, Aspidia srl, Milan, Italy
- 5Institute for Biomedical Technologies, National Research Council, Segrate, Italy
A Correction on
PFOA biomonitoring and kidney cancer risk: a meta-analysis of serum levels
By Spyrakis F, Tiburtini GA, Bruno S, Dragani TA and Colombo F (2025). Front. Oncol. 15:1593300. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2025.1593300
There was a mistake in Figures 2 and 3, as well as Supplementary Figures 2 and 4 as published. In the original version of the article, we mistakenly used the beta coefficient for the association between log-PFOA and kidney cancer from Steenland et al., 2022, instead of its OR value.
Figure 2. Forest plot (random-effects model) of studies’ relative risks, 95% confidence intervals (CI), and meta-analyses for: (A) Per natural log-unit increase in serum/plasma PFOA concentrations (ng/mL) and renal cancer risk. (B) Upper versus lower quartile in serum/plasma PFOA concentrations and renal cancer risk. *, Upper quintile data was used, as quartiles were not available in Steenland et al. I², Higgins & Thompson’s statistic.
Figure 3. Funnel plot of Egger’s test on the associations between PFOA exposure and risk of renal cancer among studies included in the meta-analysis. (A) Overall serum/plasma PFOA concentrations (ng/mL) and renal cancer risk. (B) Upper versus lower quartile in serum/plasma PFOA concentrations and renal cancer risk.
The corrected Figures 2 and 3 appear below. The correct Supplementary Figures 2 and 4, have now been replaced.
In the Abstract, “0.59 (95% CI: 0.06–5.89)” was wrong.
This has been corrected to read:
“1.05 (95% CI: 0.69–1.60)”
In the Abstract, 0.98 (95% CI: 0.64–1.50) was wrong.
This has been corrected to read:
“1.36 (95% CI: 0.35–5.23)”
“0.59 (95% CI: 0.06–5.89)” was an error.
“(I² = 90%, P < 0.01)” was an error.
A correction has been made to the section Results, paragraph 3:
“1.05 (95% CI: 0.69–1.60)”
“(I2 = 77.4%, P = 0.012)”
“0.98 (95% CI: 0.64–1.50)” was an error.
“with no statistically significant heterogeneity among the studies (I² = 0%, i = 0.66).” was an error.
A correction has been made to the section Results, paragraph 3:
“1.36 (95% CI: 0.35–5.23)”
“with statistically significant heterogeneity among the studies (I2 = 77.0%, P = 0.013)”
“(P = 0.30 and P = 0.81, respectively)” was an error.
A correction has been made to the section Results, paragraph 3:
“(P = 0.49 and P = 0.30, respectively)”
“0.59 (95% CI: 0.06–5.76)” was an error.
“(I² = 89%, P < 0.0001)” was an error.
A correction has been made to the section Results, paragraph 5:
“1.05 (95% CI: 0.68–1.60)”
“(I2 = 77.5%, P = 0.012)”
“0.96 (95% CI: 0.64–1.45)” was an error.
“with no statistically significant heterogeneity among the studies (I² = 0%, P = 0.71).” was an error.
“(P = 0.37 and P = 0.58, respectively)” was an error.
A correction has been made to the section Results, paragraph 5:
“1.37 (95% CI: 0.35–5.35)”
“with statistically significant heterogeneity among the studies (I² = 76.9%, P = 0.013).”
“(P = 0.55, both)”
“0.75 (95% CI: 0.04–16.01)” was an error.
“with a significant heterogeneity among the studies (I² = 91%, P < 0.01).” was an error.
“(P = 0.74)” was an error.
A correction has been made to the section Results, paragraph 6:
“1.19 (95% CI: 0.92–1.53)”
“with no significant heterogeneity among the studies (I² = 20.8%, P = 0.28).”
“(P = 0.66)”
The original version of this 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.
Keywords: biomonitoring, kidney, PFAS, PFOA, renal cancer
Citation: Spyrakis F, Tiburtini GA, Bruno S, Dragani TA and Colombo F (2025) Correction: PFOA biomonitoring and kidney cancer risk: a meta-analysis of serum levels. Front. Oncol. 15:1705495. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2025.1705495
Received: 15 September 2025; Accepted: 06 October 2025;
Published: 07 November 2025.
Edited and reviewed by:
Francesca Coperchini, University of Pavia, ItalyCopyright © 2025 Spyrakis, Tiburtini, Bruno, Dragani and Colombo. 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: Tommaso A. Dragani, dG9tLmRyYWdhbmlAYXNwaWRpYS5jb20=
†ORCID: Francesca Spyrakis, orcid.org/0000-0002-4016-227X
Gioele Antonio Tiburtini, orcid.org/0009-0003-2989-4343
Stefania Bruno, orcid.org/0000-0002-8879-9536
Tommaso A. Dragani, orcid.org/0000-0001-5915-4598
Francesca Colombo, orcid.org/0000-0003-2015-4317