This article is mentioned in:

Oncol Lett 28: [Related article:] 302, 2024; DOI: 10.3892/ol.2024.14435

Following the publication of this article, the authors have realized that there were a few errors contained therein that they neglected to correct before the paper was published. These are listed as follows:

i) First, in the Abstract, the sentences commencing on line 17, some factually incorrect information was provided. The remainder of the Abstract should have read as follows (the changed text is highlighted in bold): “In univariate analysis, OS was inferior in patients with non-OCCC and OCCC exhibiting TFPI2 levels ≥201 pg/ml (P<0.001) and ≥255 pg/ml (P=0.036), respectively. Similarly, progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly inferior in patients with non-OCCC and OCCC with TFPI2 levels ≥201 pg/ml and ≥255 pg/ml (both P<0.001), respectively. Multivariate analysis further confirmed that OS was significantly inferior in patients with non-OCCC who had TFPI2 levels ≥201 pg/ml (P=0.021), whereas PFS was inferior in patients with OCCC who had TFPI2 levels ≥255 pg/ml (P=0.020). These findings indicate that TFPI2 may serve as a potential prognostic biomarker for ovarian carcinoma.

ii) Secondly, the following revision of the text was necessary for the Discussion, p. 5, right-hand column, final paragraph, the second sentence: “TFPI2 levels ≥201 pg/ml for predicting OS for non-OCCC and ≥255 pg/ml for predicting OS for OCCC were the cut-off values.”

The authors sincerely apologize for the errors that were present in the text for the Abstract and Discussion, thank the Editor of Oncology Letters for allowing them the opportunity to publish this Corrigendum, and regret any inconvenience that these mistakes may have caused.