Correction to:
Megias D, Phillips M, Clifton-Hadley L, Harron E, Eaton DJ, Sanghera P, et al. Dose specification for hippocampal sparing whole brain radiotherapy (HS WBRT): considerations from the UK HIPPO trial QA programme. Br J Radiol 2017; 90: 20160829. doi: 10.1259/bjr.20160829
Unfortunately, since publication of the above paper, it has emerged that several errors are present that were either not picked up or introduced during production.
On page 3, in the text under Table 1: “D95, volume (%) of PTV receiving 95% of the prescribed dose” should read “D95, dose (Gy) received by 95% of volume”
On page 4, the 2nd paragraph in the right column: “to the dose (Gy) received by 98% of volume and dose (Gy) received by 2% of volume for a given PTV reporting dose to water” should read “to the D98 and D2 for a given PTV reporting dose to water”
On page 4, the 3rd paragraph in the right column: “The difference reported in the dose (Gy) received by 98% of volume and dose (Gy) received by 2% of volume for Plans 10m and 10w is reasonably small at approximately 1–2%.” should read “The difference reported in the D98 and D2 for Plans 10m and 10w is reasonably small at approximately 1–2%.”
On page 5, the 1st paragraph in the left column: “In contrast, in Figure 5b, the dose– volume histogram curves for the PTVhs_3000 highlight a difference in the volume (%) of PTV receiving 95% of the prescribed dose–dose (Gy) received by 80% of volume of approximately 3–5%, reflecting a volume now inclusive of cranium with higher mass stopping power ratio (water/bone).” should read “In contrast, in Figure 5b, the dose–volume histogram curves for the PTVhs_3000 highlight a difference in the D95–80 of approximately 3–5%, reflecting a volume now inclusive of cranium with higher mass stopping power ratio (water/bone).”
In figure 5, the order of the graphs was reversed – graph (a) should be graph (b) and vice versa.
The publisher and authors regret these errors.