Correction to: Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-021-00318-3.

The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake:

1) Page 1 (Abstract): 2nd last sentence of Results subsection.

Replace “(HR = 0.91; 95% CI, 0.74-1.13)” with “(HR = 1.10; 95% CI, 0.89-1.35)”.

Entire sentence should read “Enzalutamide-treated patients who crossed over to abiraterone had a comparable risk of death versus abiraterone-treated patients who crossed over to enzalutamide (HR = 1.10; 95% CI, 0.89-1.35)”

2) Page 5, 1st column (Pairwise comparison with crossover to NHT only):

Replace “After baseline covariate adjustment, OS was comparable across subsets with an adjusted HR of 0.91 (95% CI, 0.74–1.13, referenced to enzalutamide to abiraterone crossover) .... (Fig. 3B).” with “After baseline covariate adjustment, OS was comparable across subsets with an adjusted HR of 1.10 (95% CI, 0.89–1.35, referenced to abiraterone to enzalutamide crossover) ... (Fig. 3B).”

Entire sentence should read “After baseline covariate adjustment, OS was comparable across subsets with an adjusted HR of 1.10 (95% CI, 0.89–1.35, referenced to abiraterone to enzalutamide crossover) with comparable median OS of 27.20 months in the enzalutamide to abiraterone subset versus 28.53 months in the abiraterone to enzalutamide subset (Fig. 3B).”

3) Page 5, 2nd column, last line (Sensitivity analysis)

Delete the clause “but a directional change was seen in the crossover subset”.

Entire sentence should read “Sensitivity analysis that further adjusted for baseline PSA, hemoglobin, and alkaline phosphatase confirmed our base case findings of a statistically significant OS effect in favor of enzalutamide over abiraterone in the overall population and in the subset receiving first-line treatment only, and no significant difference in the other subsets (Fig. 4).

4) Page 6: Replace Figure 3B with a newly provided Figure 3B

5) Page 7: Replace Figure 4 with a newly provided Figure 4

6) Page 7, 2nd column (Discussion): Delete the sentences “In sensitivity analysis, the direction of the OS HRs remained unchanged in the patient subsets with the exception of the subset of patients who crossed over to their respective alternative NHT only (i.e., a statistically nonsignificant change in HR from 0.91 to 1.08). This finding indicates that the crossover subset was sensitive to the three baseline prognostic variables and that any OS benefits of crossover with NHTs are tied to baseline characteristics. Thus, some patients may benefit from crossover in one direction and others in the reverse, but the baseline characteristics that predict this need to be further explored.”

Next sentence should start “In our study, evidence that ...”

7) An unrelated typographical error was noted on Page 7: Figure 4 legend (2nd column): the word “phosphatase” is missing.

Should read “Adjusted for the covariates included in the base case analysis as well as prostate specific antigen, hemoglobin, and alkaline phosphatase within 6 months prior to the index date”

The original article has been corrected.