四项中国研究入选JCO 引用TOP 50！

5月16日，JCO在线发布了《Top 50 Most-Cited Journal of Clinical Oncology Articles From 2013》，收集了自2013年以来该刊物上发表过的引用率最高的前50篇文章。本次我们也很欣喜的看到，本次入选的50篇文章内也有不少中国学者的身影！

复旦大学中山肿瘤医院的许剑民教授2013年在JCO发表的：Randomized controlled trial of cetuximab plus chemotherapy for patients with KRAS wild-type unresectable colorectal liver-limited metastases. ，至今一共被引用145次，入选了本次的Top50.（数据来自Google学术）

许剑民教授

Abstract：Purpose To assess the effects of cetuximab plus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for unresectable colorectal liver metastases (CLMs).

Patients and Methods After resection of their primary tumors, patients with KRAS wild-type synchronous nonresectable liver-limited metastases from colorectal cancer were randomly assigned to receive chemotherapy (FOLFIRI [fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan] or mFOLFOX6 [modified fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin]) plus cetuximab (arm A) or chemotherapy alone (arm B). The primary end point was the rate of patients converted to resection for liver metastases. Secondary end points included tumor response and survival.

Results The intent-to-treat population comprised 138 patients; 70 patients were randomly assigned to arm A and 68 to arm B. After a median of 25.0 months of follow-up, the 3-year overall survival (OS) rate and median survival time (MST) for all patients were 30% and 24.4 months, respectively. The R0 resection rates for liver metastases were 25.7% (18 of 70 patients) in arm A and 7.4% (five of 68 patients) in arm B, which were significantly different (P < .01). Patients in arm A had improved objective response rates (57.1% v 29.4%; P < .01), increased 3-year OS rate (41% v 18%; P = .013) and prolonged MST (30.9 v 21.0 months; P = .013) compared with those in arm B. In addition, in arm A, patients who had resection of liver metastases had a significantly improved MST (46.4 v 25.7 months; P < .01) compared with those who did not undergo surgery.

Conclusion For patients with initially unresectable KRAS wild-type CLMs, cetuximab combined with chemotherapy improved the resectability of liver metastases and improved response rates and survival compared with chemotherapy alone.

来自中山大学肿瘤医院的陈敏山教授的文章，Radiofrequency ablation with or without transcatheter arterial chemoembolization in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: A prospective randomized trial。本文一共被引用了153次（数据来自Google学术）

陈敏山教授

Abstract：Purpose To compare radiofrequency ablation (RFA) with or without transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

Patients and Methods A randomized controlled trial was conducted on 189 patients with HCC less than 7 cm at a single tertiary referral center between October 2006 and June 2009. Patients were randomly asssigned to receive TACE combined with RFA (TACE-RFA; n = 94) or RFA alone (n = 95). The primary end point was overall survival. The secondary end point was recurrence-free survival, and the tertiary end point was adverse effects.

Results At a follow-up of 7 to 62 months, 34 patients in the TACE-RFA group and 48 patients in the RFA group had died. Thirty-three patients and 52 patients had developed recurrence in the TACE-RFA group and RFA group, respectively. The 1-, 3-, and 4-year overall survivals for the TACE-RFA group and the RFA group were 92.6%, 66.6%, and 61.8% and 85.3%, 59%, and 45.0%, respectively. The corresponding recurrence-free survivals were 79.4%, 60.6%, and 54.8% and 66.7%, 44.2%, and 38.9%, respectively. Patients in the TACE-RFA group had better overall survival and recurrence-free survival than patients in the RFA group (hazard ratio, 0.525; 95% CI, 0.335 to 0.822; P = .002; hazard ratio, 0.575; 95% CI, 0.374 to 0.897; P = .009, respectively). There were no treatment-related deaths. On logistic regression analyses, treatment allocation, tumor size, and tumor number were significant prognostic factors for overall survival, whereas treatment allocation and tumor number were significant prognostic factors for recurrence-free survival.

Conclusion TACE-RFA was superior to RFA alone in improving survival for patients with HCC less than 7 cm.

由台湾国立医院的Ann-Lii Cheng教授带来的，并在第47届ASCO上进行口头报告的研究。Sunitinib versus sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular cancer: Results of a randomized phase III trial. 晚期肝癌中舒尼替尼对索拉非尼：一项随机Ⅲ期临床试验结果。本文一共被引用了175次（数据来自Google学术）。以下是本文摘要。

Ann-Lii Cheng

Abstract：Purpose Open-label, phase III trial evaluating whether sunitinib was superior or equivalent to sorafenib in hepatocellular cancer.

Patients and Methods Patients were stratified and randomly assigned to receive sunitinib 37.5 mg once per day or sorafenib 400 mg twice per day. Primary end point was overall survival (OS).

Results Early trial termination occurred for futility and safety reasons. A total of 1,074 patients were randomly assigned to the study (sunitinib arm, n = 530; sorafenib arm, n = 544). For sunitinib and sorafenib, respectively, median OS was 7.9 versus 10.2 months (hazard ratio [HR], 1.30; one-sided P = .9990; two-sided P = .0014); median progression-free survival (PFS; 3.6 v 3.0 months; HR, 1.13; one-sided P = .8785; two-sided P = .2286) and time to progression (TTP; 4.1 v 3.8 months; HR, 1.13; one-sided P = .8312; two-sided P = .3082) were comparable. Median OS was similar among Asian (7.7 v 8.8 months; HR, 1.21; one-sided P = .9829) and hepatitis B–infected patients (7.6 v 8.0 months; HR, 1.10; one-sided P = .8286), but was shorter with sunitinib in hepatitis C–infected patients (9.2 v 17.6 months; HR, 1.52; one-sided P = .9835). Sunitinib was associated with more frequent and severe adverse events (AEs) than sorafenib. Common grade 3/4 AEs were thrombocytopenia (29.7%) and neutropenia (25.7%) for sunitinib; hand-foot syndrome (21.2%) for sorafenib. Discontinuations owing to AEs were similar (sunitinib, 13.3%; sorafenib, 12.7%).

Conclusion OS with sunitinib was not superior or equivalent but was significantly inferior to sorafenib. OS was comparable in Asian and hepatitis B–infected patients. OS was superior in hepatitis C–infected patients who received sorafenib. Sunitinib-treated patients reported more frequent and severe toxicity.

来自台湾大学，肿瘤研究院的杨立新教授文章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. 31:3342-3350,2013本文一共被引用了171次（数据来自Google学术）

杨立新教授

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.