Erratum to: Esophagus (2011) 8:289–293 DOI 10.1007/s10388-011-0290-8

The editors of Esophagus regret that the quality of Figs. 3 and 6 in the published article was not adequate for reproduction in the print version. Higher-resolution figures with new layouts are shown on the following page. They will be reproduced in color in the print version. The figure legends have been revised appropriately for the re-submitted figures.

Fig. 3
figure 1

a The resected tumor was 50 × 30 × 30 mm in size, and the cut surface was yellowish, homogeneous and elastic firm. b Histological examination revealed nuclear palisading and lymphoid cuffing. c Immunohistochemically, the tumor was positive for S-100 protein

Full size image
Fig. 6
figure 2

a The resected tumor was 40 × 35 × 27 mm in size, and the cut surface was yellowish, homogeneous and elastic firm. b Histological examination revealed nuclear palisading and lymphoid cuffing. c Immunohistochemically, the tumor was positive for S-100 protein

Full size image