513 research outputs found

    Erratum to: Cancer in adolescents and young adults (Pediatric oncology, 10.1007/978-3-319-33679-4)

    No full text
    In the original version for chapter 13, the chapter author name was wrongly given as James Trocoli. The name of the author should be read: James V. Tricoli In the original version for chapter 34, the chapter title was wrongly given as DRAFT: AYA Advocacy in Action-Achievements, Lessons, and Challenges from a Global Movement for Change The correct chapter title should be: AYA Advocacy in Action-Achievements, Lessons, and Challenges from a Global Movement for Change The above mentioned corrections also updated in Table of Contents

    Retraction Note : New recommendations for reversal of high-dose methotrexate cytotoxicity with folinic acid (Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology, (2025), 95, 1, (41), 10.1007/s00280-025-04749-w)

    No full text
    The Editor-in-Chief has retracted this article because Fig. 1 and its legend contained data that was published without the owner’s permission or the patient’s consent. Figure 1 has now been removed. Jesper Heldrup, Stefan Schwartz, Etienne Chatelut, Miriam Hwang do not agree to this retraction. Archie Bleyer did not state explicitly whether they agree ot this retraction. Brooke Bernhardt agrees to this retraction. Laura Ramsey, Lauren Schaff, Carolina Ten, Martin Guscott and Scott Howard did not respond to correspondence from the Editor about this retraction

    Controversies in Oncology: Breast Cancer Were Our Estimates of Overdiagnosis With Mammography Screening in the United States “BasedonFaultyScience”?

    No full text
    Disclosures of potential conflicts of interest may be found at the end of this article. In this report, I address the issues raised by the author of the accompanying article [1] that criticizes our report in the New England Journal of Medicine [2] as “egregious, ” “based on faulty science ” with “questionable ” methods and “incorrect conclusions, ” and an “excellent example of a failure of peer review ” that “should have never been published and should be withdrawn. ” The critic states that “using [our] methods, but with a more accurate extrapolation, there is no evidence of overdiagnosis of invasive breast cancer ” and “contrary to [our] assertion, the rate of late-stage cancer has dropped dramatically. ” In this response, I focus on the criticisms levied againstusanddonotattempttoaddressthecritic’smanyother concerns about the limitations of screening mammography that have been raised during the past years
    corecore