Correction: Dexa-BEAM versus MIFAP as salvage regimen for recurrent lymphoma: a prospective randomized multicenter phase II trial with a median follow‑up of 14.4 years

Correction: Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology (2022) 148:1171–1181 10.1007/s00432-021-03702-7

Fig. 2(b)

Fig. 2.

Kaplan–Meier curves showing PFS from Dexa-BEAM for HL (N = 13) vs. MIFAP (N = 12) for HL (a) and PFS for Dexa-BEAM (N = 24) for NHL vs. MIFAP (N = 24) for NHL (b), OS from Dexa-BEAM for HL (N = 13) vs. MIFAP (N = 12) for HL (c) and OS from Dexa-BEAM (N = 24) for NHL vs. MIFAP (N = 24) for NHL (d), HR hazard ratio

Published values:

	MIFAP	DexaBEAM
Median PFS, months (95% CI)	0.28 (0.72 – 26.2)	3.83
HR (95% CI) (compared with DexaBEAM)	0.88

Corrected values:

	MIFAP	DexaBEAM
Median PFS, months (95% CI)	3.83 (0.07 – 26.2)	0.28
HR (95% CI) (compared with DexaBEAM)	0.87

Fig. 2(c)

Published values:

	DexaBEAM
Survival at 5 years, % (95% CI)	47.9
Survival at 10 years, % (95% CI)	47.9
Survival at 15 years, % (95% CI)	47.9

Corrected values:

	DexaBEAM
Survival at 5 years, % (95% CI)	76.9
Survival at 10 years, % (95% CI)	76.9
Survival at 15 years, % (95% CI)	76.9

Fig. 2(d)

Published value:

	MIFAP
Survival at 15 years, % (95% CI)	8.3

Corrected value:

	MIFAP
Survival at 15 years, % (95% CI)	8.2