Please note that an error was made in the publication of a paper in the November 2005 issue (1). The legends for Tables 1 and 2 are correct; however, the actual tables included under each table heading have been reversed. Table 1 refers to the absolute risk values for CIN3+ outcomes. However, it is the table for CIN2+ outcomes that is shown. Similarly, the label for Table 2 accurately states that it will show CIN2+ outcomes but it is the CIN3+ table that is shown.

Table 1.

Risks (positive predictive values) for single, two-stage, and three-stage strategies for CIN3+ as diagnosed by the ALTS clinical center pathologists among women referred for ASCUS and LSIL cytology

 
 

NOTE: Shaded areas, single-strategy risk estimates (24 missing values for LBC, 24 missing values for HPV test); cross-hatched area, dual-strategy risk estimates (cytology and HPV; 260 missing values); white boxes, combination of three strategies (cytology, HPV, and cervicography; 388 missing values).

View Large
Table 2.

Risks (positive predictive values) for single, two-stage, and three-stage strategies for CIN2+ as diagnosed by the ALTS Pathology QC Group among women referred for ASCUS or LSIL cytology

 
 

NOTE: Shaded areas, single-strategy risk estimates (24 missing values for LBC, 24 missing values for HPV test); cross-hatched area, dual-strategy risk estimates (cytology and HPV; 260 missing values); white boxes, combination of three strategies (cytology, HPV, and cervicography; 388 missing values).

View Large
1
Wang SS, et al. Evaluating the risk of cervical precancer with a combination of cytologic, virologic, and visual methods.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
 
2005
;
14
:
2665
–8.
View Original Article
American Association for Cancer Research
2006