In the published article, there was a mistake in the Funding statement. The original text of the Funding statement was unspecific, since financial support was received for the publication costs only.

The first two sentences of the original Funding statement read:

“The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This publication was funded by the Open Access Publishing Fund of Leipzig University, supported by the German Research Foundation (DFG).”

The correct Funding statement appears below.

Funding

“The authors declare that financial support was received for the publication of this article, which was funded by the Open Access Publishing Fund of Leipzig University, supported by the German Research Foundation (DFG). The funder was not involved in the study design, collection, analysis, interpretation of data, the writing of this article or the decision to submit it for publication.”

In the published article, there was an error in the Abstract section.

The words “in patients with lung cancer” were added after the term “(mOS)”.

Abstract, Background. This sentence previously stated:

“Recently, we could show that the co-mutations of KRAS + KEAP1, STK11 + KEAP1 and KRAS + STK11 + KEAP1 lead to a significantly shorter median overall survival (mOS) across treatments by analyzing multiple datasets.”

The corrected sentence appears below:

“Recently, we could show that the co-mutations of KRAS + KEAP1, STK11 + KEAP1 and KRAS + STK11 + KEAP1 lead to a significantly shorter median overall survival (mOS) in patients with lung cancer across treatments by analyzing multiple datasets.”

In the published article, there was an error in the Abstract section.

The word “STK1” was replaced with “STK11” at the end of the sentence.

Abstract, Results. This sentence previously stated:

“Whereas TP53-mutations seem to have protective effects in the context of further KEAP1- and KRAS + KEAP1-alterations (improved mOS), their role seems contrary if acquired in an already existing combination of mutations as KRAS + STK11, KRAS + STK11 + KEAP1 and STK1 + KEAP1.”

The corrected sentence appears below:

“Whereas TP53-mutations seem to have protective effects in the context of further KEAP1- and KRAS + KEAP1-alterations (improved mOS), their role seems contrary if acquired in an already existing combination of mutations as KRAS + STK11, KRAS + STK11 + KEAP1 and STK11 + KEAP1.”

In the published article, there was an error in the Abstract section. The word “co-mutationshad” was replaced with “co-mutations had” in the last sentence of the results section.

Abstract, Results. This sentence previously stated:

“TP53 co-mutationshad a negative influence on KRAS- only mutated LUAD (mOS reduced significantly by more than 30%).”

The corrected sentence appears below:

“TP53 co-mutations had a negative influence on KRAS- only mutated LUAD (mOS reduced significantly by more than 30%).”

In the published article, there was an error in the Introduction section.

The word “KRAS” was italicized.

1 Introduction, Paragraph 5. This sentence previously stated:

“Whereas, TP53 mutations alone had no impact on response and survival, a subgroup (12 patients) with KRAS G12C + TP53 co-mutations defined long-term responders to immunotherapy (9).”

The corrected sentence appears below:

“Whereas, TP53 mutations alone had no impact on response and survival, a subgroup (12 patients) with KRAS G12C + TP53 co-mutations defined long-term responders to immunotherapy (9).”

In the published article, there was an error in the Material and methods section.

The word “compromise” was replaced with “comprised”.

2 Materials and methods, Paragraph 1. This sentence previously stated:

“All data compromise patients with advanced tumor stages (mainly stage IV).”

The corrected sentence appears below:

“All data comprised patients with advanced tumor stages (mainly stage IV).”

In the published article, there was an error in the Results section.

The symbol “>“ was replaced with “<“.

3 Results, 3.1 Demographics and incidences of (co-)mutations in NSCLC and LUAD, Paragraph 3. This sentence previously stated:

“While mutations in KRAS, STK11 and KEAP1 significantly co- occurred among themselves (q > 0.05), there was neither a significant co-occurrence nor a significant mutual exclusivity between mutations in one of the three genes and TP53 mutations.”

The corrected sentence appears below:

“While mutations in KRAS, STK11 and KEAP1 significantly co- occurred among themselves (q < 0.05), there was neither a significant co-occurrence nor a significant mutual exclusivity between mutations in one of the three genes and TP53 mutations.”

In the published article, there was an error in the Discussion section.

The word “mutation” was replaced with “mutational pattern”.

4 Discussion, Paragraph 1. This sentence previously stated:

“By employing this database approach, we were able to show that TP53 mutations had an influence on mOS for better or worse depending on the concurrent mutation.”

The corrected sentence appears below:

“By employing this database approach, we were able to show that TP53 mutations had an influence on mOS for better or worse depending on the concurrent mutational pattern.”

The authors apologize for these errors and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.