Correction: Radiat Oncol (2025) 20:120
10.1186/s13014-025-02692-x
After publication of the article, it was brought to our attention that some author corrections were not well implemented in production, below is a list of corrections which have been implemented in the original article.
Keywords should be: Brain metastases, Radiosurgery, Gamma Knife, Linear accelerator, Prescription dose, Hypofractionated radiotherapy, Staged radiosurgery
Treatment protocol, under ‘second prescription’: Wrong (typo)- …8–10 GGy/fraction and (ii)…… Correct: …8–10 Gy/fraction and (ii)..
Treatment protocol, under ‘second prescription’: Typo: ‘Variables defining theintratumoral V10Gy at GKRS 1–3:’. Correct: ‘Variables defining the intratumoral V10Gy at GKRS 1–3:’
Typo/wrong: your staff included my instructions in the text! Wrong: ‘Sentence should start: From a statistical standpoint, Cox regression analysis was used to identify….’ Correct: ‘From a statistical standpoint, Cox regression analysis was used to identify….’
Treatment protocol, under ‘second prescription’: use ‘intratumoral’ throughout the text (not intra-tumoral)
Final version of Table 1 not uploaded
Multiple typos in Table 2 (final version not previously uploaded); the survival in months for case 1 and case 2 was rectified on the galley proof but not picked up by the system (no comment box showing): For Case 1 (breast histology) should read ‘117(alive)’ (not 93), For case 2 (Thymus histology) it should read ‘115(alive)’ (not 90). Case nr 7 – multiple typos in columns ‘met volume’, ‘first prescription’ and ‘second prescription’ (all compressed). Please check my original instructions
Multiple typos in Table 3.
Final version of Table 4 not uploaded
Discussion section: typo: ‘….substandard. KPS/RPA class ….’ should read ‘…substandard KPS/RPA class…’
Discussion section: typo: ‘….radiotherapy (7 out of 29 patients. Although….’ Correct: ‘.radiotherapy (7 out of 29 patients). Although.’.
Discussion section: Please check my previous instructions (asked to delete the appendix as reference here) Incorrect: ‘…24 and 36 months (Tables 3 and 4) (appendix).’ Correct: ….’24 and 36 months (Tables 3 and 4).’
Discussion section: Typo (repetition): ‘Another point worth mentioning is the fact is the fact that…’ Correct: ‘Another point worth mentioning is the fact that….’
Discussion section: Typo:’ .to’mimick’ the ablative effects of 18Gy single…’ Correct: ‘…to ‘mimic’ the ablative effects of 18Gy single…. ‘
Discussion section: Typo (repetition): ‘with clear effects resulting from BED increments of just 10–20 Gy [40], with clear effects resulting from BED increments of just 10–20 Gy [40].’ Correct: ‘….with clear effects resulting from BED increments of just 10–20 Gy [40]. Furthermore…. ‘
Discussion section: typo: ‘…resulting in almost 10 Gy ‘BEDincrement). Correct: ‘…resulting in almost 10 Gy BED increment)’
Limitations section: Sentence previously corrected yet not picked up by system (no comment box retained): Incorrect: ‘….ethical controversies, such as patient randomisation for best management in spite of underlying pro-treatment factors such as the patient’s express wishes and fitness for therapy’. Correct: ‘…ethical controversies, including patient randomisation for best management in spite of underlying pro-treatment factors such as the patient’s express wishes and fitness for therapy’.
Acknowledgement section: Typo: ‘writing and publishing of this paper.’ (double end period). Should read ‘writing and publishing of this paper.’
Supplementary information: ‘Track changed’ versions were published by mistake; clean versions to be updated in the original article
Abbreviation not corrected previously: Correct : ARE = Adverse Radiation Effect
The original publication has been updated. The publisher apologizes to the authors and readers for the inconvenience caused.
Footnotes
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.