The DOI matches its Crossref record; 38 of the 38 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Erlotinib Versus Gemcitabine Plus Cisplatin as Neoadjuvant Treatment of Stage IIIA-N2 EGFR-Mutant Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer (EMERGING-CTONG 1103): A Randomized Phase II Study
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the benefits of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors as neoadjuvant/adjuvant therapies in locally advanced EGFR mutation-positive non–small-cell lung cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a multicenter (17 centers in China), open-label, phase II, randomized controlled trial of erlotinib versus gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GC chemotherapy) as neoadjuvant/adjuvant therapy in patients with stage IIIA-N2 non–small-cell lung cancer with EGFR mutations in exon 19 or 21 (EMERGING). Patients received erlotinib 150 mg/d (neoadjuvant therapy, 42 days; adjuvant therapy, up to 12 months) or gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m 2 plus cisplatin 75 mg/m 2 (neoadjuvant therapy, two cycles; adjuvant therapy, up to two cycles). Assessments were performed at 6 weeks and every 3 months postsurgery. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1; secondary end points were pathologic complete response, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival, safety, and tolerability. RESULTS: Of 386 patients screened, 72 were randomly assigned to treatment (intention-to-treat population), and 71 were included in the safety analysis (one patient withdrew before treatment). The ORR for neoadjuvant erlotinib versus GC chemotherapy was 54.1% versus 34.3% (odds ratio, 2.26; 95% CI, 0.87 to 5.84; P = .092). No pathologic complete response was identified in either arm. Three (9.7%) of 31 patients and zero of 23 patients in the erlotinib and GC chemotherapy arms, respectively, had a major pathologic response. Median PFS was significantly longer with erlotinib (21.5 months) versus GC chemotherapy (11.4 months; hazard ratio, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.67; P < .001). Observed adverse events reflected those most commonly seen with the two treatments. CONCLUSION: The primary end point of ORR with 42 days of neoadjuvant erlotinib was not met, but the secondary end point PFS was significantly improved.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1)
Eisenhauer, E. A., Therasse, P., Bogaerts, J., Schwartz, L. H., Sargent, D., Ford, R., Dancey, J., Arbuck, S., Gwyther, S., Mooney, M., et al. (2009) · European Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.026 · Cited by 29,534
Lynch, T. J., Bell, D. W., Sordella, R., Gurubhagavatula, S., Okimoto, R. A., Brannigan, B. W., Harris, P. L., Haserlat, S. M., Supko, J. G., Haluska, F. G., et al. (2004) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa040938 · Cited by 11,486
EGFR Mutations in Lung Cancer: Correlation with Clinical Response to Gefitinib Therapy
Paez, J. G., Jänne, P. A., Lee, J. C., Tracy, S., Greulich, H., Gabriel, S., Herman, P., Kaye, F. J., Lindeman, N., Boggon, T. J., et al. (2004) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1099314 · Cited by 9,368
Pao, W., Miller, V., Zakowski, M., Doherty, J., Politi, K., Sarkaria, I., Singh, B., Heelan, R., Rusch, V., Fulton, L., et al. (2004) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0405220101 · Cited by 4,338
Zhou, C., Wu, Y.-L., Chen, G., Feng, J., Liu, X.-Q., Wang, C., Zhang, S., Wang, J., Zhou, S., Ren, S., et al. (2011) · The Lancet Oncology · doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(11)70184-x · Cited by 4,081
Self-citationNeoadjuvant PD-1 Blockade in Resectable Lung Cancer
Forde, P. M., Chaft, J. E., Smith, K. N., Anagnostou, V., Cottrell, T. R., Hellmann, M. D., Zahurak, M., Yang, S. C., Jones, D. R., Broderick, S., et al. (2018) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1716078 · Cited by 2,099
Wu, Y.-L., Zhou, C., Hu, C.-P., Feng, J., Lu, S., Huang, Y., Li, W., Hou, M., Shi, J. H., Lee, K. Y., et al. (2014) · The Lancet Oncology · doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(13)70604-1 · Cited by 1,978
Self-citationFukuoka, M., Wu, Y.-L., Thongprasert, S., Sunpaweravong, P., Leong, S.-S., Sriuranpong, V., Chao, T.-Y., Nakagawa, K., Chu, D.-T., Saijo, N., et al. (2011) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2010.33.4235 · Cited by 1,581
Self-citationAlbain, K. S., Swann, R. S., Rusch, V. W., Turrisi, A. T., Shepherd, F. A., Smith, C., Chen, Y., Livingston, R. B., Feins, R. H., Gandara, D. R., et al. (2009) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(09)60737-6 · Cited by 1,470
Cited by
Evolution of systemic therapy for stages I–III non-metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer
Chaft, J. E., Rimner, A., Weder, W., Azzoli, C. G., Kris, M. G., & Cascone, T. (2021) · Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1038/s41571-021-00501-4 · Cited by 375
Management of Stage III Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer: ASCO Guideline
Daly, M. E., Singh, N., Ismaila, N., Antonoff, M. B., Arenberg, D. A., Bradley, J., David, E., Detterbeck, F., Früh, M., Gubens, M. A., et al. (2022) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.21.02528 · Cited by 283
Metadata
- Authors
- Zhong, W.-Z., Chen, K.-N., Chen, C., Gu, C.-D., Wang, J., Yang, X.-N., Mao, W.-M., Wang, Q., Qiao, G.-B., Cheng, Y., Xu, L., Wang, C.-L., Chen, M.-W., Kang, X., Yan, W., Yan, H.-H., Liao, R.-Q., Yang, J.-J., Zhang, X.-C., Zhou, Q., & Wu, Y.-L.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Oncology
- Published
- 2019-09-01
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 25
- Pages
- 2235-2245
- ISSN
- 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
- 1527-7755
- OpenAlex
- W2951872058
- Cited by
- 268
- References
- 38
- FWCI
- 21.91
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Erlotinib Versus Gemcitabine Plus Cisplatin as Neoadjuvant Treatment of Stage IIIA-N2 EGFR-Mutant Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer (EMERGING-CTONG 1103): A Randomized Phase II Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.19.00075
- The paper
- Zhong, W.-Z., Chen, K.-N., Chen, C., Gu, C.-D., Wang, J., Yang, X.-N., Mao, W.-M., Wang, Q., Qiao, G.-B., Cheng, Y., Xu, L., Wang, C.-L., Chen, M.-W., Kang, X., Yan, W., Yan, H.-H., Liao, R.-Q., Yang, J.-J., Zhang, X.-C., . . . Wu, Y.-L. (2019). Erlotinib Versus Gemcitabine Plus Cisplatin as Neoadjuvant Treatment of Stage IIIA-N2 EGFR-Mutant Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer (EMERGING-CTONG 1103): A Randomized Phase II Study. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.19.00075
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
