Category: oncology retractions

A new record: A retraction, 27 years later

jsbmbIn October, we noted the apparent record holder for longest time between publication and retraction: 25 years, for “Retention of the 4-pro-R hydrogen atom of mevalonate at C-2,2′ of bacterioruberin in Halobacterium halobium,” published in the Biochemical Journal in 1980 and retracted in 2005. (Although an author requested that another 52-year-old paper be retracted, it remains untouched in the literature.)

That record has now been broken. Congratulations to the Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology and the authors of a December 1985 paper, “Increasing the response rate to cytotoxic chemotherapy by endocrine means.” Here’s the notice, which appears in the January 2013 issue of the journal, making 27 years — and a month, if you’re counting: Continue reading A new record: A retraction, 27 years later

“This publication should be ignored”: Authorship issues, flawed data fell neuro-oncology paper

Neon 2009 regular volume.inddThe Journal of Neuro-Oncology wants you to ignore the following paper: “A single chain (scFv425):sTRAIL fusion protein with specificity for the EGF receptor is effective in vitro but not in an in vivo brain tumor animal model.”

The 2007 article, from a group in The Netherlands, suffered from two fatal problems. According to the retraction notice: Continue reading “This publication should be ignored”: Authorship issues, flawed data fell neuro-oncology paper

Five retractions for cancer research team for manipulated figures

The International Journal of Cancer, a Wiley title, has retracted a pair of articles from a group at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, for image manipulation.

The papers, from the lab of Adi Gazdar, the W. Ray Wallace Distinguished Chair in Molecular Oncology Research who is known for his massive collection of human cancer cells, were published in 2005.

The first was titled “Aberrant methylation of Reprimo in human malignancies.” According to the retraction notice: Continue reading Five retractions for cancer research team for manipulated figures

Giving thanks for plagiarism detection software: Catching up on retractions for the sincerest form of flattery

Today, on Thanksgiving in the U.S., Retraction Watch is taking a bit of a holiday as we dig into some turkey — not to be confused with retractions from Turkey. We’d like to give thanks for the thousands of Retraction Watch readers all over the world who’ve helped us shine a spotlight on the scientific process, warts and all.

And we imagine that journal editors around the globe are giving thanks to plagiarism detection software such as iThenticate, so today’s post is a roundup of some recent retractions for plagiarism: Continue reading Giving thanks for plagiarism detection software: Catching up on retractions for the sincerest form of flattery

The Nature paper that required three corrections

courtesy Nature

In baseball, it’s three strikes and you’re out. In Nature, apparently, you can stay at the plate after three swings-and-misses.

That’s what we concluded from a Corrigendum in last week’s issue, for “CD95 promotes tumour growth,” originally published in May 2010 and now corrected not once, not twice, but three times.

Here was the first Corrigendum, from March 2011: Continue reading The Nature paper that required three corrections

Intent was there, but not the intention-to-treat analysis: Breast cancer study retracted

A group of Dutch researchers has retracted a paper they published in March after apparently learning that they’d bungled their statistical analysis in the study.

The article, “Effects of a pre-visit educational website on information recall and needs fulfilment in breast cancer genetic counselling, a randomized controlled trial,” was published in Breast Cancer Research by Akke Albada of the Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research and colleagues.

But according to the notice, Utrecht, we have a problem: Continue reading Intent was there, but not the intention-to-treat analysis: Breast cancer study retracted

Pfizer retracts study of experimental cancer treatment figitumumab for incorrect analyses

Pfizer has retracted a 2009 Journal of Clinical Oncology study purporting to show a benefit of their experimental drug for lung cancer figitumumab after discovering that its clinical lead on the project had done analyses improperly.

Here’s the text of the notice: Continue reading Pfizer retracts study of experimental cancer treatment figitumumab for incorrect analyses

ORI investigating University of Florida ob-gyn researcher accused of misconduct

A prominent researcher at the University of Florida is under federal investigation for research misconduct and has lost at least one paper as a result of the fraud.

The researcher, Nasser Chegini, was a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the U of Florida until about six months ago, when he retired, according to the chair’s office. Nasser has received at least $4 million in federal grant funding, according to the university.

The retracted paper, “MicroRNA 21: response to hormonal therapies and regulatory function in leiomyoma, transformed leiomyoma and leiomyosarcoma cells,” was published in 2010 by Molecular Human Reproduction. The authors were Qun Pan and Xiaoping Luo and Chegini.

As the notice explains: Continue reading ORI investigating University of Florida ob-gyn researcher accused of misconduct

Jumbled analysis leads to retraction of cancer study — but also another paper

The authors of a study on cancer incidence and survival in the Dutch migrant community have retracted it after realizing they’d made some errors that significantly affected the results.

But in what seems like an appropriate reward for coming forward, the newly analyzed data, with additional information, will be part of a forthcoming paper in another journal by the same authors.

The original retrospective study came out in May 2011 in the European Journal of Cancer Prevention and found that risk and survival of breast and stomach cancers differed depending on the person’s mother country. The problem was that the study jumbled up many of the participants’ homelands during the analysis.

The authors issued the following retraction: Continue reading Jumbled analysis leads to retraction of cancer study — but also another paper

In detailed notice, radiology journal retracts lung cancer paper for likely plagiarism

The editors of Acta Radiologica have retracted a study of patients with lung cancer, with a notice that tells the whole story:

The manuscript “Measurement of tumor volume by PET to evaluate prognosis in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer treated by non-surgical therapy” was submitted to Acta Radiologica on November 3, 2010 and, after a review, accepted for publication on February 26, 2011 (1). The article was published in Acta Radiol 2011;52:646–50. Authors were: Honjiang Yan, Renben Wang (corresponding author), Fen Zhao, Kubli Zhu, Shumei Jiang, Wei Zhao, and Rui Feng, from the Department of Radiation Oncology and Department of Nuclear Medicine, Shandong Tumor Hospital, Jinan, China. Continue reading In detailed notice, radiology journal retracts lung cancer paper for likely plagiarism