Erratum
1) In the article Lapatinib: a tyrosine kinase inhibitor with a clinical role in breast cancer, published in the September 2007 issue of Expert Opinion on Pharmacotherapy (Expert Opin. Pharmacother. (2007) 8(13):2189-2204), the following amendments should have been made:
Section 3.1
‘The antiapoptotic effect of lapatinib is, perhaps, through the marked inhibition of survivin protein, a predominantly post-translational effect, mediated by ubiquitin-proteasome degradation.’ should have read:
The proapoptotic effect of lapatinib is, perhaps, through the marked inhibition of survivin protein, a predominantly post-translational effect, mediated by ubiquitin-proteasome degradation.
Section 4.1.2 and Table 1
‘EGF100020’ should read EGF10020.
‘EGF100011’ should read EGF10011.
‘EGF100010’ should read EGF10010.
‘EGF100023’ should read EGF10023.
Table 1
‘EGF100032’ should read EGF10032.
Section 4.1.2, Table 1 and Section 7
‘EGF100030’ should read EGF100030.
Section 4.3.1
‘Although CNS disease developed in a small number of women enrolled in this study, it occurred in fewer women in the combination-therapy group than in the monotherapy group (4 versus 13); the difference was not statistically significant. In spite of the small number of patients with cerebral metastases, this is another strong indication to pursue investigating the efficacy of lapatinib in reducing cerebral metastases [55].’ should have read:
‘Although CNS disease developed in a small number of women enrolled in this study, it occurred in fewer women in the combination-therapy group than in the monotherapy group (4 versus 11); the difference was not statistically significant. In spite of the small number of patients with cerebral metastases, this is another strong indication to pursue investigating the efficacy of lapatinib in reducing cerebral metastases [55].’
‘Improved OS was not observed, probably due to the heterogeneity of the cohorts and their follow-up periods.’ should have read:
Improved OS was not observed, although the two treatment groups (lapatinib plus capecitabine versus capecitabine) were very well matched with similar baseline patients and disease characteristics [55].
The main reasons for the apparent lack of OS effect were:
| (i) | at the time this analysis was conducted (03 April 2006 cut-off), only about 30% of the patients had died, hence these data are ‘immature’. | ||||
| (ii) | enrolment to the study was stopped early on the recommendation of an Independent Data Monitoring Committee (IDMC) based on the clinically meaningful and statistically significant advantage seen in the primary endpoint (TTP) at the interim analysis. The original recruitment target for the study was 528 patients; 399 patients were enrolled at termination of enrolment in April 2006. The lower number of patients recruited may therefore have impacted the ability of the study to detect a significant survival difference. | ||||
| (iii) | after study enrolment was halted, patients receiving capecitabine alone were offered the opportunity to cross-over to receive the lapatinib plus capecitabine combination. | ||||
‘This study also provides strong evidence that there is a significant (p = 0.04) reduction in risk of symptomatic cerebral metastases with lapatinib.’ should have read:
This study also provides strong evidence that there is a significant (p = 0.045) reduction in risk of symptomatic cerebral metastases with lapatinib.
Section 5
‘Diarrhoea-related events in connection with lapatinib therapy have been studied by Koehler et al. [61] in a huge meta-analyses of > 5000 patients from 8 completed MBC and non breast cancer clinical trials.’
Diarrhoea-related events in connection with lapatinib therapy have been studied by Koehler et al. [61] in a huge meta-analyses of > 2000 patients from 8 completed MBC and non breast cancer clinical trials.
‘Other reported side effects of lapatinib include rash (including hand foot and mouth syndrome), nausea and fatigue.’ should have read:
Other reported side effects of lapatinib include rash, nausea and fatigue.
2) In the article Metabolic syndrome management, published in the September 2007 issue of Expert Opinion on Pharmacotherapy (Expert Opin. Pharmacother. (2007) 8(13):2059-2075), the following amendments should have been made:
Abstract
‘Treatment of the metabolic syndrome should focus on treatment of each individual component first. Lifestyle modification, including diet and exercise with a goal of weight reduction, is the foundation of any successful treatment regimen for the metabolic syndrome.’
Treatment of the metabolic syndrome should focus on each individual component, but first, lifestyle modification, including diet and exercise with weight reduction, should be the foundation of any successful treatment regimen for the metabolic syndrome.