The July 10, 2016, article by Denduluri et al, entitled “Selection of Optimal Adjuvant Chemotherapy Regimens for Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 (HER2) -Negative and Adjuvant Targeted Therapy for HER2-Positive Breast Cancers: An American Society of Clinical Oncology Guideline Adaptation of the Cancer Care Ontario Clinical Practice Guideline” (J Clin Oncol 34:2416-2427, 2016), contained errors.
Under Recommendations in the Bottom Line section, based on the findings of the trial conducted by the Gruppo Italiano Mammella investigators, which demonstrated improved disease-free survival and overall survival observed with four cycles of epirubicin 90 mg/m2 and cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m2 followed by four cycles of paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 delivered every 2 weeks (dose-dense EC-P) compared to every 3 weeks, the guideline adaptation should have included the dose-dense EC-P regimen, as provided below, in the list of acceptable adjuvant chemotherapy regimens for patients with higher-risk early breast cancer.
This guideline adaptation should also have been provided in two additional places: under the panel lists “Acceptable Adjuvant Chemotherapy Regimens for Patients With Higher-Risk Early Breast Cancer” and in Table 1 in the row “Acceptable adjuvant chemotherapy regimens for patients with higher-risk early breast cancer (CCO recommendation 13).” In this table, the text in the right column should now read Not adapted.
Dose-dense EC-P = Epirubicin 90mg/m2, cyclophosphamide 600mg/m2 every 2 weeks 4 cycles followed by paclitaxel 175mg/m2 every 2 weeks for 4 cycles.
The regimen Epirubicin 90mg/m2, cyclophosphamide 600mg/m2 every 2 weeks 4 cycles followed by paclitaxel 175mg/m2 every 2 weeks for 4 cycles should have been provided under “Acceptable Adjuvant Chemotherapy Regimens for Patients With Higher-Risk Early Breast Cancer.” The sentence “The ASCO Panel modified the CCO list of acceptable adjuvant chemotherapy regimens to remove the “dose-dense, dose-intense epirubicin-cyclophosphamide → paclitaxel” regimen because of higher toxicity and lack of overall survival benefit” under “ASCO Panel rationale and discussion” is now incorrect. The paragraph for “ASCO Panel rationale and discussion” should be removed.
The online version has been corrected in departure from the print. The authors apologize for the errors.