In the original article an error occurred with the ellipsoid volume formula and subsequently there were errors in Table 2. The volume was calculated using formula V = 4/3*(height*width*length) whereas the correct formula is: V = 4/3*(height/2*width/2*length/2). Therefore, the results reported in Table 2 are 8 times bigger than the actual volume. The corrected Table 2 appears below.
Table 2
| HU normal liver pre-CE | HU normal liver post-CE | HU lesion pre-CE | HU lesion post-CE | Max dimension* | Ellipsoid volume** | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DIAGNOSIS | ||||||
| Nodular hyperplasia (n = 19) | 63.82 (53.79–69.79)ab | 144.54 (120.59–169.15) | 45.68 (40.72–54.79) | 114.37 (50.96–144.87) | 4.53 (2.45–6.75)ab |
40.78 (6.15–112.86)ab |
| Other benign lesions† (n = 18) | 66.84 (64.36–72.54)a | 137.60 (126.71–154.01) | 39.50 (29.94–45.99) | 75.65 (61.37–121.17) | 2.15 (1.12–5.33)b |
2.41 (0.39–26.78)c |
| Hepatocarcinoma (n = 13) | 58.63 (53.12–63.02)b | 127.72 (116.12–135.06) | 41.48 (34.87–46.93) | 67.39 (56.03–83.93) | 11.11 (5.67–13.76)a | 393.57 (54.80–727.31)a |
| Other malignant lesions (n = 18) | 60.03 (54.59–64.55)b | 142.87 (117.56–157.18) | 39.93 (34.39–46.12) | 83.19 (66.32–121.40) | 3.59 (2.11–4.61)b | 8.31 (3.67–23.60)bc |
| p-value | <0.01 | 0.29 | 0.80 | 0.13 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
Quantitative features of the lesions, classified based on cytological or histological examination, are reported as medians along with the first and third quartile values and the p-value.
HU, Hounsfield Unit; c.m., contrast medium.
Values are expressed in cm.
Values are expressed in cm3.
Different letters along columns means values significantly different for post-hoc multiple comparisons.
Other begin lesions = 1 biliary duct adenoma, 1 inflammation, 2 haematoma, 2 adenomas, 2 normal parenchyma, 11 degenerations.
‡Other malignant lesions = 1 mast cell tumor, 1 plasmocytoma, 1 biliary duct carcinoma, 1 undifferentiated carcinoma, 1 melanoma, 1 metastasis of mammary neoplasia, 2 lymphomas, 4 endocrine neoplasia, 7 sarcomas.
The authors apologize for this error 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.
Summary
Keywords
decision tree, HCC (hepatic cellular carcinoma), contrast - enhanced CT, computed tomography, focal liver lesion
Citation
Burti S, Zotti A, Bonsembiante F, Contiero B and Banzato T (2021) Corrigendum: Diagnostic Accuracy of Delayed Phase Post Contrast Computed Tomographic Images in the Diagnosis of Focal Liver Lesions in Dogs: 69 Cases. Front. Vet. Sci. 8:782672. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2021.782672
Received
24 September 2021
Accepted
11 October 2021
Published
04 November 2021
Volume
8 - 2021
Edited and reviewed by
Sibylle Maria Kneissl, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Austria
Updates
Copyright
© 2021 Burti, Zotti, Bonsembiante, Contiero and Banzato.
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 Banzato tommaso.banzato@unipd.it
This article was submitted to Veterinary Imaging, a section of the journal Frontiers in Veterinary Science
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.