Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Corporate & Special Sales
    • Journal Claims
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Continuing Education
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Corporate & Special Sales
    • Journal Claims
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Continuing Education
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • Follow JNM on Twitter
  • Visit JNM on Facebook
  • Join JNM on LinkedIn
  • Subscribe to our RSS feeds
CorrectionErratum

Erratum

Journal of Nuclear Medicine June 2015, 56 (6) 967;
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

In Figure 2 of the article “Gleason Score at Diagnosis Predicts the Rate of Detection of 18F-Choline PET/CT Performed When Biochemical Evidence Indicates Recurrence of Prostate Cancer: Experience with 1,000 Patients,” by Cimitan et al. (J Nucl Med. 2015;56:209–215), the reported sensitivities for serum prostate-specific antigen are incorrect. The correct sensitivities are 58.4%, 79.5%, 84.2%, and 89.8% for prostate-specific antigen levels of 1.00, 1.50, 2.00, and 5.00 ng/mL, respectively. The authors regret the error.

  • © 2015 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Inc.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine: 56 (6)
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 56, Issue 6
June 1, 2015
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Erratum
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Nuclear Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Nuclear Medicine web site.
Citation Tools
Erratum
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Jun 2015, 56 (6) 967;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Erratum
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Jun 2015, 56 (6) 967;
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • Gleason Score at Diagnosis Predicts the Rate of Detection of 18F-Choline PET/CT Performed When Biochemical Evidence Indicates Recurrence of Prostate Cancer: Experience with 1,000 Patients
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Erratum
  • Erratum
  • Erratum
Show more Erratum

Similar Articles

SNMMI

© 2022 Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Powered by HighWire