The authors of the article [1] have advised that there is an errors:
1. Incorrect captions under Tables 3 and 4 – it should be MECA – myoepithelial carcinoma. It was wrongly given as: MECA – mucoepidermoid carcinoma.
2. Incorrect title of Table 4 – it should be Genetic rearrangements in the myoepithelial carcinoma de novo and the myoepithelial carcinoma ex PA presented in the study by Dalin et al. in relation to oncological outcomes. It was wrongly given as: Genetic rearrangements in the mucoepidermoid carcinoma de novo and the mucoepidermoid carcinoma ex PA presented in the study by Dalin et al. in relation to oncological outcomes.
3. Date in Table 4:
Correct Table
Table 4
Genetic rearrangements in the myoepithelial carcinoma de novo and the myoepithelial carcinoma ex PA presented in the study by Dalin et al. in relation to oncological outcomes
It was wrongly given as:
Table 4
Genetic rearrangements in the mucoepidermoid carcinoma de novo and the mucoepidermoid carcinoma ex PA presented in the study by Dalin et al. in relation to oncological outcomes
4. In Table 2, in the row Carcinoma ex Pleomorphic adenoma in the References column, there is an error in citing Stenman – instead of 70 it is correctly 90 (Stenman G. Fusion oncogenes in salivary gland tumors: molecular and clinical consequences. Head Neck Pathol 2013; 7 Suppl 1: S12-19).
5. In the Myoetithelial carcinoma section, the sentence was changed to correct: In both PAs and MECAs ex PAs, FGFR2 point mutations were confirmed, which might be indicative of an aggressive disease course [103]. It was wrongly given as: In both PAs and MECAs (without the PA component), FGFR2 point mutations were confirmed, which might be indicative of an aggressive disease course [103].
The article has since been corrected online.
