Erratum

This article refers to:

An adjusted indirect comparison of everolimus and sorafenib therapy in sunitinib-refractory metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients using repeated matched samples

Correction to: An adjusted indirect comparison of everolimus and sorafenib therapy in sunitinib-refractory metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients using repeated matched samples.

Di Lorenzo G, et al. An adjusted indirect comparison of everolimus and sorafenib therapy in sunitinib-refractory metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients using repeated matched samples. Expert Opin Pharmacother 2011;12(10):1491-7.

In the original 2011 published article, PFS results for everolimus were calculated based on updated RECORD-1 PFS data up to November 2008. However, the final central PFS analysis reported previously for RECORD-1 by Motzer and colleagues was performed using data up to February 2008 [1]. To be consistent with the previously reported RECORD-1 final PFS analysis and given that no further central review of tumor assessments was performed after February 2008, it has been deemed more appropriate to utilize the February 2008 dataset for our PFS analysis. The updated version of Table 2 is shown below, with changes presented in bold:

Table

Survival estimates, weeks, median (Range)	RECORD-1 everolimus patients (N = 277)	RECORD-1 sunitinib-failure everolimus patients (N = 127)	RECORD-1 sunitinib-failure patients (N*)	Phase II sorafenib patients (N = 52)	Phase II sorafenib clear cell patients (N = 45)
OS	64.0 (52 – 78)	54.4 (42 – 72)	81.5 (78 – 86)	32.0 (16 – 64)	32.0 (22 – 64)
PFS	21.3 (17 – 24)	17.4 (15 – 24)	20.5 (16 – 24)	16.0 (8 – 40)	16.0 (8 – 40)

*Distribution represents results from 1000 stratified random repeated samples of N = 41 (matched to sorafenib population by MSKCC risk score).

MSKCC: Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center; OS: Overall survival; PFS: Progression-free survival.

The revised results still show a clinically meaningful increase in median PFS in favor of everolimus compared with sorafenib (median PFS of 20.5 weeks [95% CI: 16 – 24] vs 16.0 weeks [95% CI: 8 – 40], respectively). The primary objective of overall survival estimates was not affected because the November 2008 dataset represented the most complete assessment of overall survival available from RECORD-1 at the time. Therefore, the final conclusions presented in the paper remain unchanged.