Following the publication of the above article, an interested reader drew to the authors' attention that, in Figs. 7A and 8A. apparently the same mouse had been featured to represent two different experimental groups, albeit displaying distinct fluorescence values. Moreover, following an independent investigation in the Editorial Office, an additional instance of probable data duplication was also noted, comparing between the 'SCC15 / si‑NC' cell migration image in Fig. 2D and the 'SCC15‑EV' migration assay image in Fig. 1C. After having consulted their original data, the authors realized that these errors arose during the process of assembling the images for Figs. 2 and 8. First, the image for the DZNep (42d) experiment in Fig. 7A had inadvertently been used for the mimic NC (7d) experiment in Fig. 8A; moreover, the 'SCC15 / si‑NC' cell migration image in Fig. 2D had been selected incorrectly. The revised versions of Figs. 2 and 8, showing the correct data for the the 'SCC15 / si‑NC' cell migration image in Fig. 2D and the mimic NC (7d) experiment in Fig. 8A, are shown on the next two pages. The authors regret that these errors went unnoticed prior to publication, and thank the Editor of International Journal of Oncology for allowing them the opportunity to publish this corrigendum. All the authors agree with the publication of this corrigendum; furthermore, they also apologize to the readership of the journal for any inconvenience caused. [International Journal of Oncology 52: 1149‑1164, 2018; DOI: 10.3892/ijo.2018.4293].
Keywords: EZH2; OSCC; STAT3; invasion; metastasis; miR-200.