Correction

In the article [1] there were errors in Tables three, four, five, six and seven. The incorrect values were produced due to typographical errors during translation stage. These errors affect neither the published discussion nor the conclusions of the paper. However, a few changes to the results section are detailed here.

In the Abstract, under "Results" the first two sentences read

"The positive rate of EGFR protein in NSCLC tumor cells was 46%, which was significantly higher than its expression in normal lung (p = 0.0234) and paracancerous tissues (p = 0.020). EGFR expression was significantly higher in nodal positive than in nodal negative patients (p = 0.04)."

But should have been:

"The positive rate of EGFR protein in NSCLC tumor cells was 46%, which was significantly higher than its expression in normal lung (p = 0.034) and paracancerous tissues (p = 0.020). EGFR expression was significantly higher in nodal positive than in nodal negative patients (p = 0.006)."

In the main "Results" section of the article

The sentence under the heading "EGFR protein expression" read: "The positive rate of EGFR protein in NSCLC tumor cells were 46%, which was significantly higher than its expression in normal lung (p = 0.0234) and paracancerous (p = 0.020)"

Which should have been:

"The positive rate of EGFR protein in NSCLC tumor cells were 46%, which was significantly higher than its expression in normal lung (p = 0.034) and paracancerous (p = 0.020)"

Under the heading "Correlation between EGFR expression and clinical features" The second sentence read: "It shows that the difference of EGFR expression was only significant between the nodal positive and negative subgroups (56.4% vs.10%, p = 0.04)."

But the passage should have been "The expression of EGFR in different subgroups were compared and summarized in Table three. It shows that the difference of EGFR expression was only significant between the nodal positive and negative subgroups (56.4% vs. 9.1%, p = 0.006). There is no significant difference between age (60 vs. under 60 ys), gender, adeno- vs. non-adenocarcinoma, the differentiation of tumor, and staging."

This is the correct table three (table 1).

Table 1 (corrected table 3). EGFR expression and clinical characteristics
Full size table

Correct tables four (table 2), five (table 3) and six (table 4).

Table 2 (corrected table four) COX-2 expression in neoplastic and normal tissue
Full size table
Table 3 (corrected table five) COX-2 expression in tumor and paracancerous tissue
Full size table
Table 4 (corrected table six) 6 COX-2 expression and correlation with clinical features
Full size table

Under the heading "Correlation of EGFR and COX-2 expression" The sentence reads: "As shown in Table seven, no correlation was found between COX-2 and EGFR protein expression (Χ 2 = 0.112, P = 0.555)."

But should have read: "As shown in Table seven, no correlation was found between COX-2 and EGFR protein expression (P > 0.05)."

Correct table seven (Table 5).

Table 5 (corrected table seven) Correlation of EGFR and COX-2 protein expression
Full size table