Content uploaded by Cosimo Alex Leo
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Cosimo Alex Leo on Mar 15, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Oncotarget15165
www.oncotarget.com
www.oncotarget.com Oncotarget, 2018, Vol. 9, (No. 19), pp: 15165-15165
Correction: The benet of tumor molecular proling on
predicting treatments for colorectal adenocarcinomas
Philip Carter1, Costi Alifrangis2, Pramodh Chandrasinghe1,3,4, Biancastella Cereser1,
Lisa Del Bel Belluz1, Cosimo Alex Leo4, Nina Moderau1, Neha Tabassum1, Janindra
Warusavitarne4, Jonathan Krell1 and Justin Stebbing1
1 Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College, London, UK
2 Department of Medical Oncology, Imperial College, London, UK
3 Department of Surgery, University of Kelaniya, Kelaniya, Sri Lanka
4 Department of Colorectal Surgery, St Mark’s Hospital, London, UK
Published: March 13, 2018
Copyright: Carter et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 3.0 (CC BY
3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
This article has been corrected: The proper Materials and Methods and Conicts of Interest information is as follows:
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The Caris CODE database (version 1.0) contains tumor molecular prole data for 841 patients with solid tumors. It
also contains demographic information about these patients, the drug treatments that they received before and after molecular
proling and records of their clinical outcomes while they were still being monitored. There are 95 colorectal adenocarcinoma
patients within this database, and this colorectal cancer cohort was mined after web scraping the data from the Caris CODE
website, to understand if molecular characterization affected drug selection by treating physicians, and if any molecular
subsets had different outcomes across tumor types. Table 1 describes the clinical characteristics of the patients that were
proled. According to Caris Life Sciences, 36% of cases used here had a metastatic sample proled.
As shown in Figure 1, the amount of time that patients were monitored varied, although on average patients’ treatment
records were available for 966 days (733 for matched treatment patients, 1150 for unmatched patients), and on average the
time of monitoring after proling was 497 days. The longest amount of time that records were available, i.e. before and after
diagnosis, up until the last contact day, was 4442 days. The longest period of monitoring after tumor proling (the patient
represented on the furthest right of Figure 1) was 1594 days; this was 1634 days after diagnosis.
The data were analysed independently of Caris. Patients were covered under 1 of 4 different protocols or exemptions,
listed as follows. (1). The Caris Registry Protocol (TCREG-001-00-V2-1209) was approved by WIRB (WIRB Tracking
#20092285) and has an NCT# of NCT02678754. (2). The Caris POA Prospective Repository (COE-001-0815) was approved
by WIRB (WIRB Tracking #20162864) and has an NCT# of NCT03324841. (3). The Caris POA Retrospective Repository
(COE-002-0116) was approved by WIRB (WIRB Tracking #20162657) and has an NCT# of NCT 00326499. (4). ION data is
covered under an IRB exemption. All data are retrospective and have been de-identied prior to Caris receiving it and authors
performing independent analyses.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
No authors declare a conict of interest and received no honoraria for these publications.
Original article: Oncotarget. 2018; 9:11371-11376. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.24257
Correction