Cited by 287

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

First-line icotinib versus cisplatin/pemetrexed plus pemetrexed maintenance therapy for patients with advancedEGFR mutation-positive lung adenocarcinoma (CONVINCE): a phase 3, open-label, randomized study

Shi, Y.K., Wang, L., Han, B.H., Li, W., Yu, P., Liu, Y.P., Ding, C.M., Song, X., Ma, Z.Y., Ren, X.L., Feng, J.F., Zhang, H.L., Chen, G.Y., Han, X.H., Wu, N., Yao, C., Song, Y., Zhang, S.C., Song, W., Liu, X.Q., Zhao, S.J., Lin, Y.C., Ye, X.Q., Li, K., Shu, Y.Q., Ding, L.M., Tan, F.L., Sun, Y.·2017·Annals of Oncology

Abstract

Background Icotinib has been previously shown to be non-inferior to gefitinib in non-selected advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients when given as second- or further-line treatment. In this open-label, randomized, phase 3 CONVINCE trial, we assessed the efficacy and safety of first-line icotinib versus cisplatin/pemetrexed plus pemetrexed maintenance in lung adenocarcinoma patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation. Patients and methods Eligible participants were adults with stage IIIB/IV lung adenocarcinoma and exon 19/21 EGFR mutations. Participants were randomly allocated (1 : 1) to receive oral icotinib or 3-week cycle of cisplatin plus pemetrexed for up to four cycles; non-progressive patients after four cycles were maintained with pemetrexed until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by independent response evaluation committee. Other end points included overall survival (OS) and safety. Results Between January 2013 and August 2014, 296 patients were randomized, and 285 patients were treated (148 to icotinib, 137 to chemotherapy). Independent response evaluation committee-assessed PFS was significantly longer in the icotinib group (11.2 versus 7.9 months; hazard ratio, 0.61, 95% confidence interval 0.43-0.87; P = 0.006). No significant difference for OS was observed between treatments in the overall population or in EGFR-mutated subgroups (exon 19 Del/21 L858R). The most…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/annonc/mdx359

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 8 references

Research works printed but not linked: 12

  1. Scagliotti, 2008, Phase III study comparing cisplatin plus gemcitabine with cisplatin plus pemetrexed in chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced-stage non-small-cell lung cancer, J Clin Oncol, 26, 3543, 10.1200/JCO.2007.15.0375 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Bover, 2009, Maintenance pemetrexed plus best supportive care versus placebo plus best supportive care for non-small-cell lung cancer: a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 study, Lancet, 374, 1432, 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61497-5 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Zhou, 2011, Erlotinib versus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for patients with advancedEGFR, mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (OPTIMAL, CTONG-0802): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 study, Lancet Oncol, 12, 735, 10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70184-X · DOI · Paper page
  4. Hu, 2012, Synthesis and biological evaluation of crown ether fused quinazoline analogues as potentEGFR inhibitors, Bioorg Med Chem Lett, 22, 6301, 10.1016/j.bmcl.2012.06.067 · DOI
  5. Shi, 2013, Icotinib versus gefitinib in previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (ICOGEN): a randomised, double-blind phase 3 non-inferiority trial, Lancet Oncol, 14, 953, 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70355-3 · DOI
  6. Hu, 2014, A single-arm, multicenter, safety-monitoring, phase IV study of icotinib in treating advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), Lung Cancer, 86, 207, 10.1016/j.lungcan.2014.08.014 · DOI
  7. Shi, 2014, A prospective, molecular epidemiology study of EGFR mutations in Asian patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer of adenocarcinoma histology (PIONEER), J Thorac Onco, 9, 154, 10.1097/JTO.0000000000000033 · DOI
  8. Zhou, 2015, Final overall survival results from a randomised, phase III study of erlotinib versus chemotherapy as first-line treatment ofEGFR mutation-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (OPTIMAL, CTONG-0802), Ann Oncol, 26, 1877, 10.1093/annonc/mdv276 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Hu, 2015, The efficacy and safety of icotinib in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer previously treated with chemotherapy: a single-arm, multi-center, prospective study, PLoS One, 10, e0142500, 10.1371/journal.pone.0142500 · DOI
  10. Zhang, 2016, Trial-based cost-utility analysis of icotinib versus gefitinib as second-line therapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer in China, PLoS One, 11, e0151846, 10.1371/journal.pone.0151846 · DOI
  11. Qian, 2013, Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of EGFR-TKIs in the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer, Chin J Drug Eval, 30, 305
  12. Liang, 2014, Network meta-analysis of erlotinib, gefitinib, afatinib and icotinib in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer harboringEGFR mutations, PLoS One, 9, e85245, 10.1371/journal.pone.0085245 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 287

Metadata

Authors
Shi, Y. K., Wang, L., Han, B. H., Li, W., Yu, P., Liu, Y. P., Ding, C. M., Song, X., Ma, Z. Y., Ren, X. L., Feng, J. F., Zhang, H. L., Chen, G. Y., Han, X. H., Wu, N., Yao, C., Song, Y., Zhang, S. C., Song, W., Liu, X. Q., Zhao, S. J., Lin, Y. C., Ye, X. Q., Li, K., Shu, Y. Q., Ding, L. M., Tan, F. L., & Sun, Y.
Venue
Annals of Oncology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-10
Volume
28
Issue
10
Pages
2443-2450
ISSN
0923-7534
Cited by
287
References
8
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review