Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 296

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Symptom Improvement in Lung Cancer Patients Treated With Erlotinib: Quality of Life Analysis of the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group Study BR.21

Bezjak, Andrea, Tu, Dongsheng, Seymour, Lesley, Clark, Gary, Trajkovic, Aleksandra, Zukin, Mauro, Ayoub, Joseph, Lago, Sergio, de Albuquerque Ribeiro, Ronaldo, Gerogianni, Alexandra, Cyjon, Arnold, Noble, Jonathan, Laberge, Francis, Chan, Raymond Tsz-Tong, Fenton, David, von Pawel, Joachim, Reck, Martin, Shepherd, Frances A.·2006·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: This report describes the quality of life (QOL) findings of a randomized placebo controlled study of erlotinib, an epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor, in patients with non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients and Methods: This double-blind phase III trial randomly assigned 731 patients with NSCLC who had progressed after prior chemotherapy to erlotinib 150 mg daily or placebo, with survival as the primary study outcome. QOL was assessed by European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 and the lung cancer module QLQ-LC13. The primary end points for QOL analysis were time to deterioration of three common lung cancer symptoms: cough, dyspnea, and pain. Results: Survival was significantly longer (hazard ratio, 0.70; P < .0001) in the erlotinib arm. Compliance with QOL was 87% at baseline and more than 70% during treatment. Patients receiving erlotinib had significantly longer median time to deterioration for all three symptoms (4.9 v 3.7 months for cough [P = .04]; 4.7 v 2.9 months for dyspnea [P = .04], and 2.8 v 1.9 months for pain [P = .03]). QOL response analyses showed that 44%, 34%, and 42% of patients receiving erlotinib had improvement in these three symptoms, respectively. This was accompanied by a significant improvement in the physical function (31% erlotinib v 19% placebo, P = .01), and global QOL (35% v 26%, P < .0001). Patients with complete or partial response were more likely to have improvement in the QOL response than patients with stable or progressive disease (P < .01). Conclusion: Erlotinib not only improves survival in previously treated patients with NSCLC, but also improves tumor-related symptoms and important aspects of QOL.

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.2006.05.8073

Cites

4 of 4 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 4 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Bezjak, A., Tu, D., Seymour, L., Clark, G., Trajkovic, A., Zukin, M., Ayoub, J., Lago, S., de Albuquerque Ribeiro, R., Gerogianni, A., Cyjon, A., Noble, J., Laberge, F., Chan, R. T.-T., Fenton, D., von Pawel, J., Reck, M., & Shepherd, F. A.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2006-08-20
Volume
24
Issue
24
Pages
3831-3837
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2169331014
Cited by
296
References
4
FWCI
23.88
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

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.