1 Ralph Lauren Centre for Breast Cancer Research, The Royal Marsden Hospital, London, UK.
2 The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.
3 UK NEQAS ICC & ISH, University College London Cancer Institute, London, UK.
4 Ontario Institute for Cancer Research, Ontario, Canada.
5 Cancer Studies, King’s College London, London, UK.
In the published version of Table 3 in this paper there were errors in the numbers given. These errors were reproduced in the manuscript text that referred to Table 3. The corrected table and text are shown below. The errors do not substantially alter the figures or their interpretation.
Table 3 shows the numbers and proportions of cases classified into each HER2 category sub‐divided according to ER and PR status. Comparing ER‐positive and ER‐negative tumours:
a substantially larger proportion of ER‐negative tumours were HER2 3+ (28.1 versus 9.1%);
a larger proportion of ER‐positive tumours were HER2 2+ (15.9 versus 10.6%);
within the 2+ category, a larger proportion of ER‐negative tumours were HER2 gene amplified (25.0 versus 15.9%);
in ER‐positive tumours PR status affected the proportion of tumours classified as either HER2 0 or 1+ (PR‐negative: 63.7%, PR‐positive: 77.8%) and the proportion classified as HER2 3+ (PR‐negative: 19.4%, PR‐positive: 6.6%);
in ER‐negative tumours PR status did not substantially affect HER2 categorisation, but it should be remembered that the number of ER‐negative/PR‐positive cases was very small (n = 690, 1.1% of the total population) and confidence in this result is less than for others reported here.
A separate, unrelated error occurred elsewhere in the manuscript when the effect of ER status on HER2 positivity rates was being discussed. The corrected text is shown below:
Table 1.
Distribution of cases by HER2 category, and by HER2 gene amplification status for the 2+ category. This analysis has been further categorised by ER and PR status (defined by final categorical result).
| HER2 status | ER‐neg/PR‐neg | ER‐neg/PR‐pos | ER‐neg total | ER‐pos/PR‐neg | ER‐pos/PR‐pos | ER‐pos total | Grand total | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | |
| 0 | 4269 | 40.6 | 235 | 37.3 | 4504 | 40.4 | 2725 | 30.7 | 12 569 | 34.9 | 15 294 | 34.1 | 19 798 | 35.3 |
| 1+ | 2183 | 20.7 | 155 | 24.6 | 2338 | 21.0 | 2929 | 33.0 | 15 434 | 42.9 | 18 363 | 40.9 | 20 701 | 37.0 |
| 2+ | 1119 | 10.6 | 63 | 10.0 | 1182 | 10.6 | 1502 | 16.9 | 5621 | 15.6 | 7123 | 15.9 | 8305 | 14.8 |
| 3+ | 2955 | 28.1 | 177 | 28.1 | 3132 | 28.1 | 1719 | 19.4 | 2368 | 6.6 | 4087 | 9.1 | 7219 | 12.9 |
| Grand total * | 10 526 | 18.8 | 630 | 1.1 | 11 156 | 19.9 | 8875 | 15.8 | 35 992 | 64.2 | 44 867 | 80.1 | 56 023 | 100.0 |
| 2+ amplification status | ||||||||||||||
| 2+ (non‐amplified) | 837 | 74.8 | 49 | 77.8 | 886 | 75.0 | 1218 | 81.1 | 4770 | 84.9 | 5988 | 84.1 | 6874 | 82.8 |
| 2+ (amplified) | 282 | 25.2 | 14 | 22.2 | 296 | 25.0 | 284 | 18.9 | 851 | 15.1 | 1135 | 15.9 | 1431 | 17.2 |
neg = negative, pos = positive.
Percentage figures shown for the totals are proportions of the total cases in the whole analysis.
‘They also saw a similar trend to the one we report for higher HER2‐positive rates in younger compared to more elderly patients (26.9% in age < 40 years, 17.9% in age 65+ years), and a higher prevalence for HER2‐positive cases in the ER‐negative versus the ER‐positive tumour type (31.2% in ER‐negative, 13.3% in ER‐positive)’.
The authors apologise for any confusion which may have arisen as a result of these errors.