Misc

Correction to: Nature Communicationshttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-53223-3, published online 25 November 2024 The original version of the Transparent Peer Review File associated with this Article was updated shortly after publication to correct an error on page 21 wherein “Reduction: 64.7% [46.5–80.3] (22/34)” was incorrectly presented as “Reduction: 64.7% [45.6–80.3] (22/34)”.

The article Policy recommendations for promoting nuclear medicine therapy in Japan 2025, from the Working Group for promoting nuclear medicine therapy of the Japan Society of Clinical Oncology by Kotaro Suzuki, Hideaki Miyake, Anri Inaki, Shoko Takano, Yasutoshi Kuboki, Takashi Mizowaki, Katsumasa Nakamura, Makoto Ueno, Shigemi Matsumoto, Daisuke Obinata, Tohru Nakagawa, Masato Murakami, Yoshiyuki Majima, Megumu Yokono, Masao Namba, Takayuki Yoshino was originally published electronically on the publisher’s internet portal https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-025-02858-3 on 30 September 2025 without Open Access. With the author(s)’ decision to opt for Open Choice, the copyright of the article changed on November 20, 2025 © to The Author(s) 2025 and the article is forthwith distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, duplication, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The original article has been corrected.

The authors regret that in the last line of Table 1 [Table presented], the total patient number available for PD-L1 testing was incorrectly given as 293; this figure should read 151. The corrected table is given below. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.

The authors regret that Fig. 2B was accidently excluded from the final manuscript. This has now been corrected. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused[Formula presented].

The authors report that in the original publication the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 scores for durvalumab-cisplatin-gemcitabine and pembrolizumab-cisplatin-gemcitabine are 4 and 1, respectively. The higher ESMO-MCBS v1.1 score for cisplatin-gemcitabine-durvalumab is due to the high 2-year OS gain observed with this regimen (14.2%). This was, however, based on only 9 patients (2.6% of the durvalumab-treated patients) who were still alive at that time. Thus, it should be noted that it does not currently provide evidence that durvalumab is vastly superior to pembrolizumab in combination with cisplatin-gemcitabine as both drugs incur similar clinical benefit with a HR OS of 0.75 and 0.83 and absolute median OS benefit of 1.6 and 1.8 months, respectively. Future updates to the ESMO-MCBS methodology will account for the proportion of study patients included in tail of the curve survival analyses, resulting in a lower MCBS score for durvalumab-cisplatin-gemcitabine. Recommendation 4a should read as follows: “Recommendation 4a. The combination of cisplatin-gemcitabine with durvalumab or pembrolizumab should be considered as standard of care in first-line BTC [I, A; ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit (MCBS) v1.1 score for durvalumab: 4; ESMO-MCBS v1.1 score for pembrolizumab: 1]. Cisplatin-gemcitabine-S1 is an alternative therapeutic option for fit patients [II, B].”[Figure presented] The revised Figure 1 Algorithm for the treatment of biliary tract cancer is given below. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.