Abiraterone prescribed by medical oncologist versus urologist in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: Real-world data from a public institution in Peru.

Abstract

Retraction The abstract by Motta et al entitled, “Abiraterone prescribed by medical oncologist versus urologist in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: Real-world data from a public institution in Peru,” published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology 39, no. 15 suppl (May 20, 2021) e18793-e18793, was retracted by the authors due to a data management error that may significantly change final results. This abstract was retracted on June 29, 2021. e18793 Background: Abiraterone, an androgen synthesis inhibitor, is used in the treatment of metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) worldwide. Today, in some centers systemic treatment is indicated by both clinical and surgery oncologist, we aimed to evaluate if benefit with abiraterone differs between medical oncologist and urologist in a national cancer center. Methods: A single institution retrospective cohort was carried out. The medical records was queried for mCRPC population from 2019 to 2020 were reviewed. The main endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Descriptive statistics was used to summarize data. Chi2 test, estimating p-values, was used to compare the different variables with the type of service. Cox regression was performed for time to progression (months) with type of service, Hazard estimates and a 95% confidence interval (95% CI). Results: : Sixty-seven patients were included, 26 from clinical oncology and 41 from urology department. Mean age was 69 years in both groups. All patients received abiraterone. Forty-three patients (64.2%) had ECOG 0-1. Eighteen (69.2%) patients from clinical oncology and twenty five (60.9%) from urology departments had regular follow-up (every 3 months) with CT scans. Patients from clinical oncology and urology departments received abiraterone from second line in 65.3% and 17%, respectively. Sixteen patients had adverse events (23.1% in clinical oncology group and 24.4% in urology group). Six patients had grade 3-4 adverse events [3 (11.5%) belonged to clinical oncology and 3 (7.3%) to urology (HR 0.46, IC 95% 0.07-2.87; p=0.405)]. Seventeen (41.5%) patients from urology department lost sight during treatment meanwhile seven (26.9%) of patients from clinical oncology lost sight, mainly due to coronavirus pandemic. Fifty-one patients (76.1%) progressed in both groups, 80.8% belonged to clinical oncology and 73.2% to urology department. Mean time of progression was 5.1 months in patients from clinical oncology and 4.3 months from urology department (HR = 0.85; IC: 0.48 a 1.51; p=0.578). Conclusions: Although there is a slight difference in the patients who were lost from sight, the differences were not statistically significant between the groups. However, we highlight that patients with mCRPC had a worse progression-free time in both groups than in other international reports and it is necessary to explore the factors involved.[Table: see text]