The authors, editors, and publisher regret that the published article titled “Denosumab versus zoledronic acid in cases of surgically unsalvageable giant cell tumor of bone: A randomized clinical trial” (DOI: 10.1016/j.jbo.2022.100441) bears the same title as a previously retracted article in this journal. Although both studies fall under the same overarching research project with shared ethical approval documentation, they report on distinct datasets, employ different inclusion criteria, and have independent author groups as detailed in the authors' correspondence with the journal.
We wish to clarify that the 2022 study differs fundamentally from the 2019 retracted trial. Following the first approval of denosumab for giant cell tumor of bone patients in mainland China in 2019, cases with incomplete follow-up prior to 2019 were strictly excluded during the second submission process. This resulted in a reduced sample size from 250 patients in the earlier trial to 160 adult patients (aged ≥18 years) in the current study. Most importantly, there is no data reuse between the two studies: each dataset represents independent patient cohorts.
Although both trials evaluated subcutaneous denosumab and intravenous zoledronic acid treatments in patients with giant cell tumor of bone, the 2022 study implemented more stringent inclusion criteria and a longer follow-up period. Notably, the 2022 trial incorporates recurrence-free survival as a key endpoint, which was not addressed in the 2019 study.
To avoid confusion for readers and maintain the scientific record with transparency, the authors have agreed to adopt a revised article title that better reflects these distinctions.
The authors, editors, and publisher apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused to the scientific community. The integrity of the research and transparency remain paramount to the authors and the journal.