Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 325

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Symptom Control and Quality of Life in LUX-Lung 3: A Phase III Study of Afatinib or Cisplatin/Pemetrexed in Patients With Advanced Lung Adenocarcinoma With EGFR Mutations

Yang, James Chih-Hsin, Hirsh, Vera, Schuler, Martin, Yamamoto, Nobuyuki, O'Byrne, Kenneth J., Mok, Tony S.K., Zazulina, Victoria, Shahidi, Mehdi, Lungershausen, Juliane, Massey, Dan, Palmer, Michael, Sequist, Lecia V.·2013·Journal of Clinical Oncology
DOI 10.1200/jco.2012.46.1764
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Purpose: Patient-reported symptoms and health-related quality of life (QoL) benefits were investigated in a randomized, phase III trial of afatinib or cisplatin/pemetrexed. Patients and Methods: Three hundred forty-five patients with advanced epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation–positive lung adenocarcinoma were randomly assigned 2:1 to afatinib 40 mg per day or up to six cycles of cisplatin/pemetrexed. Lung cancer symptoms and health-related QoL were assessed every 21 days until progression using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 and Lung Cancer-13 questionnaires. Analyses of cough, dyspnea, and pain were preplanned, including percentage of patients who improved on therapy, time to deterioration of symptoms, and change in symptoms over time. Results: Questionnaire compliance was high. Compared with chemotherapy, afatinib significantly delayed the time to deterioration for cough (hazard ratio [HR], 0.60; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.87; P = .007) and dyspnea (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.93; P = .015), but not pain (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.10; P = .19). More patients on afatinib (64%) versus chemotherapy (50%) experienced improvements in dyspnea scores (P = .010). Differences in mean scores over time significantly favored afatinib over chemotherapy for cough (P < .001) and dyspnea (P < .001). Afatinib showed significantly better mean scores over time in global health status/QoL (P = .015) and physical (P < .001), role (P = .004), and cognitive (P = .007) functioning compared with chemotherapy. Fatigue and nausea were worse with chemotherapy, whereas diarrhea, dysphagia, and sore mouth were worse with afatinib (all P < .01). Conclusion: In patients with lung adenocarcinoma with EGFR mutations, first-line afatinib was associated with better control of cough and dyspnea compared with chemotherapy, although diarrhea, dysphagia, and sore mouth were worse. Global health status/QoL was also improved over time with afatinib compared with chemotherapy.

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.2012.46.1764

Cites

9 of 9 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 9 references

Research works printed but not linked: 19

  1. 10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70184-X · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1016/j.ctrv.2011.10.003 · DOI
  3. 10.1038/nrclinonc.2011.156 · DOI
  4. 10.1038/onc.2008.109 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Fayers P, 2001, EORTC QLQ-C30 Scoring Manual
  6. 10.1016/0959-8049(94)90535-5 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Earle CC, 2005, Outcomes Assessment in Cancer: Measures, Methods, and Applications
  8. 10.1200/JCO.1998.16.1.139 · DOI · Paper page
  9. 10.1200/JCO.2006.05.8073 · DOI · Paper page
  10. 10.1002/0470023589 · DOI · Paper page
  11. 10.1097/00000421-198212000-00014 · DOI · Paper page
  12. 10.1201/9781420061185 · DOI
  13. 10.1016/S1470-2045(12)70086-4 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Zhou C, 2012, J Clin Oncol, 30, 485s, 10.1200/jco.2012.30.4_suppl.485 · DOI
  15. Mitsudomi T, 2012, J Clin Oncol, 30, 485s, 10.1200/jco.2012.30.15_suppl.7521 · DOI
  16. 10.1200/JCO.2004.08.163 · DOI · Paper page
  17. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19980315/15)17:5/7<653::AID-SIM812>3.0.CO;2-M · DOI
  18. Zhou C, 2011, J Clin Oncol, 29, 480s, 10.1200/jco.2011.29.4_suppl.480 · DOI
  19. 10.1634/theoncologist.2011-0426 · DOI

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Yang, J. C.-H., Hirsh, V., Schuler, M., Yamamoto, N., O'Byrne, K. J., Mok, T. S. K., Zazulina, V., Shahidi, M., Lungershausen, J., Massey, D., Palmer, M., & Sequist, L. V.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Publisher
American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
Published
2013-09-20
Volume
31
Issue
27
Pages
3342-3350
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
DOI
10.1200/jco.2012.46.1764
OpenAlex
W1497402064
Cited by
325
References
9
FWCI
35.08
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.