006).”" In the main “”Results”" section of the article The sentence under the heading “” EGFR protein expression “” read: “”The positive rate of EGFR protein in NSCLC tumor cells were 46%, which was significantly higher than its expression in normal lung (p = 0.0234) and paracancerous (p = 0.020)”" Which should have been: “”The positive

rate of EGFR protein in NSCLC tumor cells were 46%, which was significantly higher than its expression in normal lung (p = 0.034) and paracancerous (p = 0.020)”" Under the heading “” Correlation between EGFR expression and clinical features “” The second sentence read: “”It shows that the difference of EGFR expression was only significant between the nodal positive and negative subgroups (56.4% vs.10%, p = 0.04).”" But the passage should have been “”The expression of EGFR in different subgroups were compared #Seliciclib nmr randurls[1|1|,|CHEM1|]# and summarized in Table three. It shows that the difference of EGFR expression was only significant between the nodal positive and negative subgroups (56.4% vs. 9.1%, p = 0.006). There is no significant difference between age (60 vs. under 60 ys), gender, adeno- vs. non-adenocarcinoma, the differentiation of tumor, and staging.”" This is the correct table three (table 1). Table 1 (corrected table 3). EGFR expression and clinical characteristics Clinical features EGFR Positive expression rate P value   negative positive  

  Ages       0.448 < 60 18 14 43.80%   ≥60 9 9 50%   Sex       0.445 Male 16 15 48.40%   Female 11 8 42.10%   Pathologic type       0.543 Squamous carcinoma selleck 13 8 38.10%   Adencarcinoma 13 13 50.0%   Mixed type 1 2 66.70%   Tumor length       0.535 ≤3 cm 9 7 43.80%   > 3 cm 18 16 47.10%   Level of Differentiation       0.474 Poor Differentiated 6 4 40%   Moderate and Well Differentiated 21 19 47.50%   TNM Stage       0.194 I-II 10 5 33.30%   III-IV 17 18 51.40%   Lymph node       0.006* N0 10 1 9.10%   N1-3 17 22 56.40%   *P < 0.05

Correct tables four (table 2), five (table 3) and six (table 4). Table 2 (corrected table four) COX-2 expression in neoplastic and normal tissue Tissue type Number of Niclosamide cases COX-2 Positive rate(%) P value     positive negative     Neoplastic tissue 50 45 5 90 0.000* Normal tissue 6 0 6 0   P < 0.05 Table 3 (corrected table five) COX-2 expression in tumor and paracancerous tissue Tissue type Number of cases COX-2 Positive rate(%) P value     positive negative     Neoplastic tissue 50 45 5 90 0.000* Paracancerous tissue 7 1 6 14.3   P < 0.05 Table 4 (corrected table six) 6 COX-2 expression and correlation with clinical features Clinical features COX-2 Positive expression rate P value   negative positive     Ages       0.599 ≤60 3 30 90.90%   > 60 2 15 88.20%   Sex       0.362 Male 4 27 87.10%   Female 1 18 94.70%   Pathologic type       0.022* Squamous carcinoma 5 16 76.20%   Adencarcinoma 0 26 100%   Mixed type 0 3 100%   Tumor length       0.518 ≤3 cm 2 14 87.50%   > 3 cm 3 31 91.20%   Level of Differentiation       0.