LAUSR

was a major problem with the analysis in our study. One of our group’s statisticians, who was not an author of this article, recently started analyzing the risk of pharyngeal and laryngeal cancer in the same cohort and identified a problem with the original statistical analyses of the follow-up categories after antireflux surgery and medication. For each follow-up category, only those people with the total study time within the category were kept in the analysis. If an individual was included, the individual’s entire follow-up was used for the calculations. This led to 2 problems: in earlier follow-up categories, the person-years were underestimated, and in later follow-up categories, the person-years were overestimated. Therefore, the entire study has been reanalyzed. Unfortunately, these errors led to incorrect reporting of standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) of the follow-up categories in the study, and the reported pattern of a decreased risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma over time after antireflux surgery and medication is incorrect. Instead, no decrease was found after the correct analyses were conducted. The same mistake was present in the Cox regression analysis, but because both exposed and nonexposed were treated in the same way, the resulting hazard ratios are similar to those initially reported. Finally, some minor corrections of the cohort members led to some small differences in the numbers in the cohort, but these did not change the results. However, the study’s conclusion changes significantly and in a clinically important manner to the following: “Medical and surgical treatment of GERD were not associated with any reduced esophageal adenocarcinoma risk, compared with the background population over time, indicating that treatment of GERD might not prevent esophageal adenocarcinoma.” Thus, we have requested that the journal retract this article.