Erratum to: Adv Ther (2016) 33:747–759 DOI 10.1007/s12325-016-0327-4

The authors would like to correct the errors in Table 1 and text in the published article. The correct table and the text should read as below.

In Table 1, the numbers for the intent-to-treat population for biliary stent and previous Whipple procedure were erroneously switched. Table 1 should appear as below.

Table 1 Baseline characteristics
Full size table

The corresponding text for Table 1 under the Baseline Characteristics heading in the Results section should read, “Fewer patients in the Canadian cohort had a KPS of 100 than in the ITT population,” i.e., removing “or previous Whipple procedure” from the original sentence which read “Fewer patients in the Canadian cohort had a KPS of 100 or previous Whipple procedure than in the ITT population.”

Under the Statistical Analyses section, the second-to-last sentence reads “A nonstratified log-rank test was PFS between the treatment arms, and the HR and two-sided 95% CIs were estimated by a Cox proportional hazards model.” It should read “A stratified log-rank test was used to compare PFS between the treatment arms, and the HR and two-sided 95% CIs were estimated by a Cox proportional hazards model.”

In the Discussion (last paragraph beginning at the bottom of page 756), the sentence reads, “Health Canada has approved nab-P + Gem and FOLFIRINOX for the treatment of patients with MPC based on the phase III MPACT and PRODIGE trials (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT00112658), respectively, in which nab-P + Gem and FOLFIRINOX demonstrated superior efficacy vs. Gem alone [4, 9, 20].” It should read, “Based on the results of the phase III MPACT and PRODIGE trials (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT00112658), both the nab-P + Gem and FOLFIRINOX regimens are accessible in Canada; however, Health Canada only reviewed and approved nab-P + Gem for the first-line treatment of MPC [4, 7, 9, 20].”