Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 230

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

Vandetanib Versus Placebo in Patients With Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer After Prior Therapy With an Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor: A Randomized, Double-Blind Phase III Trial (ZEPHYR)

Lee, Jin Soo, Hirsh, Vera, Park, Keunchil, Qin, Shukui, Blajman, Cesar R., Perng, Reury-Perng, Chen, Yuh-Min, Emerson, Laura, Langmuir, Peter, Manegold, Christian·2012·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: Vandetanib is a once-daily oral inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), and RET signaling. This placebo-controlled trial assessed whether vandetanib conferred an overall survival benefit in patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after prior treatment with an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor and one or two chemotherapy regimens. Patients and Methods: Eligible patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive vandetanib 300 mg/d or placebo until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary objective was to compare the outcomes between the two arms with respect to overall survival. Results: Overall, 924 patients received vandetanib (n = 617) or placebo (n = 307). No significant increase in overall survival was detected in the vandetanib cohort compared with placebo (hazard ratio = 0.95; 95.2% CI, 0.81 to 1.11; P = .527); median overall survival was 8.5 months versus 7.8 months for vandetanib and placebo patients, respectively. Statistically significant advantages favoring vandetanib were observed for progression-free survival (hazard ratio = 0.63; P < .001) and objective response rate (2.6% v 0.7%; P = .028). Postprogression therapy was balanced across the cohorts in both number and type. Adverse events were generally consistent with previous NSCLC studies of vandetanib 300 mg; common events occurring with a greater frequency in the vandetanib arm versus placebo included diarrhea (46% v 11%), rash (42% v 11%), and hypertension (26% v 3%). Conclusion: The study did not demonstrate an overall survival benefit for vandetanib versus placebo. There was a higher incidence of some adverse events with vandetanib.

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.2011.36.1709

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

See all 230

Metadata

Authors
Lee, J. S., Hirsh, V., Park, K., Qin, S., Blajman, C. R., Perng, R.-P., Chen, Y.-M., Emerson, L., Langmuir, P., & Manegold, C.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2012-04-01
Volume
30
Issue
10
Pages
1114-1121
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W1978111504
Cited by
230
References
4
FWCI
32.96
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: Vandetanib Versus Placebo in Patients With Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer After Prior Therapy With an Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor: A Randomized, Double-Blind Phase III Trial (ZEPHYR). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2011.36.1709
The paper
Lee, J. S., Hirsh, V., Park, K., Qin, S., Blajman, C. R., Perng, R.-P., Chen, Y.-M., Emerson, L., Langmuir, P., & Manegold, C. (2012). Vandetanib Versus Placebo in Patients With Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer After Prior Therapy With an Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor: A Randomized, Double-Blind Phase III Trial (ZEPHYR). Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2011.36.1709

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.