Corrigendum to "Adjuvant immunotherapy in older patients with stage III and resected stage IV melanoma: Toxicity and recurrence-free survival outcomes from the Dutch melanoma treatment registry" [Eur. J. Cancer 212, 2024, 115056]

Abstract

The authors regret an error in Figure S3 of this manuscript. The Kaplan-Meier plot does not start at 100 %, as it should. This style has now been amended in all supplementary figures [Figure presented] Figure S3.Recurrence-free survival in older melanoma patients (≥65)treated with adjuvant anti-PD-1 therapy by comorbidity categories.Recurrence-free survivalof patients with 1–2 comorbidities vs. 0 comorbidities p = 0.542, (HR 1.15 95 %, CI: 0.73–1.83). Patients with 3 or more comorbidities vs. 0 comorbidities p < 0.001 (HR of 2.76, 95 % CI: 1.79–4.26). One patient was not included in this analysis due to missing data necessary for calculating RFS. We kindly request that the other figures (S2, S4, S5) be updated to align with this new style, which we believe represents a significant improvement. The table displaying numbers at risk is now better aligned with the figure, and we have replaced symbols with traditional Kaplan-Meier lines to enhance clarity. [Figure presented] Figure S2. Kaplan–Meier estimate of recurrence-free survival in older melanoma patients (≥65) treated with adjuvant anti-PD-1 therapy. One patient was not included in this analysis due to missing data necessary for calculating RFS. [Figure presented] Figure S4. Recurrence-free survival in older melanoma patients (≥65) treated with adjuvant anti-PD-1 therapy by ECOG Performance Status categories. HR: 3.78, 95 %C.I. 1.16–12.39, p = 0.028. 38 patients were not included in this analysis due to missing data necessary for calculating RFS. [Figure presented]Figure S5. Recurrence-free survival in older melanoma patients (≥65) treated with adjuvant anti-PD-1 therapy by tumor stage (AJCC 8 th edition). The RFS was compared across all stages relative to stage IIIA. Only stage IIIC showed a significantly decreased RFS (HR: 1.66, 95 %C.I. 1.66–2.48, p = 0.014). One patient was not included in this analysis due to missing data necessary for calculating RFS. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.