Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 273

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Gefitinib Versus Vinorelbine Plus Cisplatin as Adjuvant Treatment for Stage II-IIIA (N1-N2) EGFR-Mutant NSCLC: Final Overall Survival Analysis of CTONG1104 Phase III Trial

Open access
Zhong, Wen-Zhao, Wang, Qun, Mao, Wei-Min, Xu, Song-Tao, Wu, Lin, Wei, Yu-Cheng, Liu, Yong-Yu, Chen, Chun, Cheng, Ying, Yin, Rong, Yang, Fan, Ren, Sheng-Xiang, Li, Xiao-Fei, Li, Jian, Huang, Cheng, Liu, Zhi-Dong, Xu, Shun, Chen, Ke-Neng, Xu, Shi-Dong, Liu, Lun-Xu, Yu, Ping, Wang, Bu-Hai, Ma, Hai-Tao, Yang, Jin-Ji, Yan, Hong-Hong, Yang, Xue-Ning, Liu, Si-Yang, Zhou, Qing, Wu, Yi-Long·2021·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

PURPOSE: ADJUVANT-CTONG1104 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01405079 ), a randomized phase III trial, showed that adjuvant gefitinib treatment significantly improved disease-free survival (DFS) versus vinorelbine plus cisplatin (VP) in patients with epidermal growth factor receptor ( EGFR) mutation-positive resected stage II-IIIA (N1-N2) non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Here, we report the final overall survival (OS) results. METHODS: From September 2011 to April 2014, 222 patients from 27 sites were randomly assigned 1:1 to adjuvant gefitinib (n = 111) or VP (n = 111). Patients with resected stage II-IIIA (N1-N2) NSCLC and EGFR-activating mutation were enrolled, receiving gefitinib for 24 months or VP every 3 weeks for four cycles. The primary end point was DFS (intention-to-treat [ITT] population). Secondary end points included OS, 3-, 5-year (y) DFS rates, and 5-year OS rate. Post hoc analysis was conducted for subsequent therapy data. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 80.0 months. Median OS (ITT) was 75.5 and 62.8 months with gefitinib and VP, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.92; 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.36; P = .674); respective 5-year OS rates were 53.2% and 51.2% ( P = .784). Subsequent therapy was administered upon progression in 68.4% and 73.6% of patients receiving gefitinib and VP, respectively. Subsequent targeted therapy contributed most to OS (HR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.14 to 0.38) compared with no subsequent therapy. Updated 3y DFS rates were 39.6% and 32. 5% with gefitinib and VP ( P = .316) and 5y DFS rates were 22. 6% and 23.2% ( P = .928), respectively. CONCLUSION: Adjuvant therapy with gefitinib in patients with early-stage NSCLC and EGFR mutation demonstrated improved DFS over standard of care chemotherapy. Although this DFS advantage did not translate to a significant OS difference, OS with adjuvant gefitinib was one of the longest observed in this patient group compared with historic data.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1200/jco.20.01820

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 273

Metadata

Authors
Zhong, W.-Z., Wang, Q., Mao, W.-M., Xu, S.-T., Wu, L., Wei, Y.-C., Liu, Y.-Y., Chen, C., Cheng, Y., Yin, R., Yang, F., Ren, S.-X., Li, X.-F., Li, J., Huang, C., Liu, Z.-D., Xu, S., Chen, K.-N., Xu, S.-D., Liu, L.-X., Yu, P., Wang, B.-H., Ma, H.-T., Yang, J.-J., Yan, H.-H., Yang, X.-N., Liu, S.-Y., Zhou, Q., & Wu, Y.-L.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2021-03-01
Volume
39
Issue
7
Pages
713-722
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W3111438285
Cited by
273
References
1
FWCI
21.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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: Gefitinib Versus Vinorelbine Plus Cisplatin as Adjuvant Treatment for Stage II-IIIA (N1-N2) EGFR-Mutant NSCLC: Final Overall Survival Analysis of CTONG1104 Phase III Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.20.01820
The paper
Zhong, W.-Z., Wang, Q., Mao, W.-M., Xu, S.-T., Wu, L., Wei, Y.-C., Liu, Y.-Y., Chen, C., Cheng, Y., Yin, R., Yang, F., Ren, S.-X., Li, X.-F., Li, J., Huang, C., Liu, Z.-D., Xu, S., Chen, K.-N., Xu, S.-D., . . . Wu, Y.-L. (2021). Gefitinib Versus Vinorelbine Plus Cisplatin as Adjuvant Treatment for Stage II-IIIA (N1-N2) EGFR-Mutant NSCLC: Final Overall Survival Analysis of CTONG1104 Phase III Trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.20.01820

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.