Actually, you are right and the paper is wrong.
They omitted the fact that they used a different generator and/or vector than the AES s-box. This is why you are not getting the same results.
I ran a brute force generation of all APA s-boxes, and none of them starting with $0x8C$ continued with the results of the paper. It is probable they used two different affine transformations, and it would take 65000 times longer to search that space, so I am not going to do it. There are other problems with the s-box; strict avalanche is inferior to the AES s-box, and there are 4 self inverse elements.
Here is the full report:
Iterative Periods: 2 (2) 12 (2) 26 (2) 176 (1)
Self Inverse error at index 135 0x87
Self Inverse error at index 152 0x98
Self Inverse error at index 171 0xAB
Self Inverse error at index 225 0xE1
SAC Min/Max: -16 +16 12.5%, DSAC: 452, DDSAC: 220, Avg/Dev: 128.2 8.35, Satisfied: 60.9% (39)
GA: 358.6, Dist: 0 62 242 456 544 442 222 68 12
Aval: 0.0312, Dist: 16 0 4 8 20 32 24 20, Totals 124 0.0605
HOSAC Min/Max: -16 +16 12.5%, HODSAC: 1464, HODDSAC: 724, Avg/Dev: 128.1 7.86, Satisfied: 61.2% (137)
HOGA: 1176.8, Dist: 0 242 776 1602 1940 1598 754 234 22
BIC Min/Max: -16 +16, DBIC: 1508, Avg/Dev: 127.9 7.88, Satisfied: 58% (130), BIC: 0.12856
HOBIC Min/Max: -16 +16, DBIC: 5244, Avg/Dev: 128.5 8.1, Satisfied: 57.4% (450), BIC: 0.13498
Differential Uniformity: 4 (255)
Non-linearity: 112 Delta: 16 (255)
AutoCorrelation: 32 (255)
SSI: 133120
There is a revised version of that paper from 2010 which uses $0x5B$ for the generator and $0x5D$ for the vector, and generates a different s-box.
The 2nd paper had reproducible results. It also had no self inverse elements and a full iterative period, although it still did not have fully superior statistical properties to the AES s-box.
It should be noted that APA using the Rijndael affine transformation is a complete mess of fixed points and is unsuitable for cryptographic applications. APA s-boxes within a different finite field than $0x11B$ used by Rijndael are more interesting, field reduced using $0x165$ has the best results.