Correction: Kalisvaart et al. Relative Wash-In Rate in Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging as a New Prognostic Biomarker for Event-Free Survival in 82 Patients with Osteosarcoma: A Multicenter Study. Cancers 2024, 16, 1954

Error in Figure 2

In the original publication [1], there was a mistake in the legend of Figure 2 as published. In the original version the legend wrongly states the red line accounts for patients with ‘rWIR ≥ 2.3 (good response),’ whereas it actually accounts for patients with poor response. The corrected Figure 2 appears below.

Error in Figure 3

In the original publication, there was a mistake in the legend of Figure 3 as published. In the original version the legend wrongly states the red line accounts for patients with ‘rWIR ≥ 2.3 (good response),’ whereas it actually accounts for patients with poor response. The corrected Figure 3 appears below.

Error in Table 2

In the original publication, there was a mistake in Table 2 as published. The fourth column of the original table wrongly defines good and poor radiological responders. rWIR < 2.3 should define poor response and rWIR ≥ 2.3 should define good response. The corrected

Table 2. Hazard ratios (HRs) along with the 95% confidence intervals using multivariate Cox regression models for EFS in a study population (n = 82), with prognostic factors including histological response (left), rWIR as a binary variable (middle), and rWIR as a continuous variable (right) as the prognostic factors.

Factors	HR	95% CI	Factors	HR	95% CI	Factors	HR	95% CI
Age Group			Age group			Age Group
Children	Ref		Children	Ref		Children	Ref
AYA	1.36	0.61–3.03	AYA	1.43	0.64–3.22	AYA	1.32	0.59–2.98
Older adults	1.26	0.45–3.55	Older adults	1.55	0.55–4.41	Older adults	1.41	0.50–3.97
Tumour size			Tumour size			Tumour size
Small ≤ 8 cm	Ref		Small ≤ 8 cm	Ref		Small ≤ 8 cm	Ref
Large > 8 cm	0.90	0.46–2.00	Large > 8 cm	0.97	0.47–2.00	Large > 8 cm	0.96	0.46–2.01
Histological response to CTx			DCE-MRI response (binary) to CTx			DCE-MRI response
Good response (<10% viable tum. cells)	Ref		Good response (rWIR ≥ 2.3)	Ref		(continuous) to CTx	0.78	0.60–1.01
Poor response (≥10% viable tum. cells)	1.82	0.86–3.84	Poor response (rWIR < 2.3)	2.39	1.14–5.01
Metastases at presentation			Metastases at presentation			Metastases at presentation
No	Ref		No	Ref		No	Ref
Yes	2.29	0.90–5.83	Yes	2.31	0.90–5.92	Yes	1.85	0.70–4.94

HR = hazard ratio; ref = reference category; 95% CI = 95% confidence interval; CTx = chemotherapy; DCE-MRI = dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging; AYA = adolescents and young adults; and rWIR = relative wash-in rate.

appears below.

Error in Table 3

In the original publication, there was a mistake in

Table 3. Hazard ratios (HRs) along with the 95% confidence intervals using multivariate Cox regression models for EFS with prognostic factors including histological response (left), rWIR as a binary variable (middle), and rWIR as a continuous variable (right) as the prognostic factors in a subpopulation of 70 patients without metastases at presentation.

Factors	HR	95% CI	Factors	HR	95% CI	Factors	HR	95% CI
Age group			Age group			Age group
Children	Ref		Children	Ref		Children	Ref
AYA	1.43	0.59–3.46	AYA	1.46	0.61–3.53	AYA	1.28	0.53–3.13
Older adults	2.11	0.66–6.79	Older adults	2.30	0.74–7.21	Older adults	2.02	0.63–6.50
Tumour size			Tumour size			Tumour size
Small ≤ 8 cm	Ref		Small ≤ 8 cm	Ref		Small ≤ 8 cm	Ref
Large > 8 cm	1.26	0.55–2.92	Large > 8 cm	1.33	0.60–2.97	Large > 8 cm	1.23	0.54–2.80
Histological response to CTx			DCE-MRI response (binary) to CTx			DCE-MRI response (continuous) to
Good responder (<10% viable cells)	Ref		Good responder (rWIR ≥ 2.3)	Ref		CTx	0.69	0.50–0.94
Poor responder (≥10% viable cells)	1.98	0.84–4.67	Poor responder (rWIR < 2.3)	2.28	1.00–5.19

HR = hazard ratio; ref = reference category; 95% CI = 95% confidence interval; CTx = chemotherapy; DCE-MRI = dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging; AYA = adolescents and young adults; and rWIR = relative wash-in rate.

as published. The fourth column of the original table wrongly defines good and poor radiological responders. rWIR < 2.3 should define poor response and rWIR ≥ 2.3 should define good response. The corrected Table 3 appears below.

The authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.