94% of researchers rate our articles as excellent or good
Learn more about the work of our research integrity team to safeguard the quality of each article we publish.
Find out more
Junyu Zhang1,2,3,4,5†
Yan Lu2,3,6†Yinxiangzi Sheng2,3,6Weiwei Wang2,3,6Zhengshan Hong2,3,7Yun Sun1,2,3Rong Zhou4,5
Jingyi Cheng1,2,3*- 1Department of Nuclear Medicine, Shanghai Proton and Heavy Ion Center, Fudan University Cancer Hospital, Shanghai, China
- 2Shanghai Key Laboratory of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai, China
- 3Shanghai Engineering Research Center of Proton and Heavy Ion Radiation Therapy, Shanghai, China
- 4College of Physics, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
- 5Key Laboratory of Radiation Physics and Technology, Ministry of Education, Chengdu, China
- 6Department of Medical Physics, Shanghai Proton and Heavy Ion Center, Shanghai, China
- 7Department of Radiotherapy, Shanghai Proton and Heavy Ion Center, Shanghai, China
A Corrigendum on
A comparative study of two in vivo PET verification methods in clinical cases
By Zhang J, Lu Y, Sheng Y, Wang W, Hong Z, Sun Y, Zhou R and Cheng J (2021) Front. Oncol. 11:617787. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2021.617787
In the published article, there was an error in the Funding statement. The funding statement for the Natural Science Foundation of Shanghai was displayed as “21ZR460300”. The correct statement is “Natural Science Foundation of Shanghai (21ZR1460300)’’.
The correct Funding statement appears below.
“This project was supported by the Shanghai Municipal Health Commission (Grant No. 202040279), the Pudong New Area Science and Technology Development Foundation (No. PKJ 2020-Y56), and the Natural Science Foundation of Shanghai (21ZR1460300).’’
The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Keywords: proton therapy, breast cancer, positron emission tomography, depth verification, methods comparison
Citation: Zhang J, Lu Y, Sheng Y, Wang W, Hong Z, Sun Y, Zhou R and Cheng J (2024) Corrigendum: A comparative study of two in vivo PET verification methods in clinical cases. Front. Oncol. 14:1507589. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1507589
Received: 08 October 2024; Accepted: 31 October 2024;
Published: 12 November 2024.
Approved by:
Frontiers Editorial Office, Frontiers Media SA, SwitzerlandCopyright © 2024 Zhang, Lu, Sheng, Wang, Hong, Sun, Zhou and Cheng. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Jingyi Cheng, amNoZW5nMTNAZnVkYW4uZWR1LmNu
†These authors have contributed equally to this work