Date of Submission | 02-Aug-2020 |
Date of Acceptance | 30-Aug-2020 |
Date of Web Publication | 08-Oct-2020 |
Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None
DOI: 10.4103/1477-3163.297515
How to cite this article: .. Erratum: Development of clinico-histopathological predictive model for the assessment of metastatic risk of oral squamous cell carcinoma. J Carcinog 2020;19:10 |
How to cite this URL: .. Erratum: Development of clinico-histopathological predictive model for the assessment of metastatic risk of oral squamous cell carcinoma. J Carcinog [serial online] 2020 [cited 2021 Oct 13];19:10. Available from: https://carcinogenesis.com/text.asp?2020/19/1/10/297515 |
In the article titled “Development of clinico-histopathological predictive model for the assessment of metastatic risk of oral squamous cell carcinoma”, published in article number 2, issue 1, Volume 19 of Journal of Carcinogenesis,[1] there are minor errors on page no. 2, paragraph number 4, under methods section. It is currently published as “Single cells or tiny groups of about five or more cells scattered at the ITF were considered as tumor buds. They were graded as low and high based on <5 buds and ≥5 buds, respectively at ×20.[8] Cytoplasmic pseudofragments were identified as non-nucleated, smoothly contoured fragments that were uniformly positively stained for cytokeratin. Based on the number of fragments/field in ×20, they were categorized into low (0–9 fragments) and high grades (≥10 fragments).[9]”
The correct paragraph should be read as “Single cells or tiny groups of about five or more cells scattered at the ITF were considered as tumor buds. They were graded as low and high based on <10 buds and ≥10 buds, respectively at ×200.[8] Cytoplasmic pseudofragments were identified as non-nucleated, smoothly contoured fragments that were uniformly positively stained for cytokeratin. Based on the number of fragments/field in ×200, they were categorized into low (0–9 fragments) and high grades (≥10 fragments).[9]”
References
1. |