ArticleThe Lancet regional health. Western Pacific2024
Patient-reported outcomes for the phase 3 FURLONG study of furmonertinib versus gefitinib as first-line therapy for Chinese patients with locally advanced or metastatic
Article in The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer in the past 30 years (1997-2026).Chinese medical journal · 2026Review
- Double-dose furmonertinib for patients with osimertinib-resistant advanced NSCLC: therapeutic efficacy and safety.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Advancing patient-centered care: progress and prospects of patient-reported outcomes in oncology clinical trials in China.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2025Article
- FURLONG study: reply on the patient reported outcome measures and thresholds.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2025Article
- Efficacy and safety of EGFR-TKI for EGFR-mutated NSCLC: systematic review and network meta-analysis.International journal of clinical and experimental pathology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
23 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Furmonertinib showed superior efficacy compared with gefitinib as first-line therapy in patients with epidermal growth factor receptor ( Methods: In this multicentre, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised phase 3 study, patients were 1:1 randomly assigned to receive furmonertinib 80 mg once daily or gefitinib 250 mg once daily. PROs assessed by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life Questionnaire Core 30 and Quality-of-Life Questionnaire Lung Cancer 13 were analysed using a mixed model for repeated measures and time-to-event analyses. A difference in score of 10 points or more was deemed clinically relevant. Findings: Three hundred and fifty-seven patients (furmonertinib group, n = 178; gefitinib group, n = 179) received at least one dose of the study drug, all of whom completed at least one PRO assessment. Statistically significant difference of overall score changes from baseline favoured furmonertinib in physical functioning (between-group difference 2.14 [95% CI 0.25-4.04], p = 0.027), nausea/vomiting (-1.56 [95% CI -2.62 to -0.49], p = 0.004), appetite loss (-2.24 [95% CI -4.26 to -0.23], p = 0.029), diarrhoea (-3.36 [95% CI -5.19 to -1.54], p < 0.001), alopecia (-2.62 [95% CI -4.54 to -0.71], p = 0.007), and pain in other parts (-4.55 [95% CI -7.37 to -1.74], p = 0.002), but not reached clinical relevance. Time to deterioration in physical functioning (hazard ratio 0.63 [95% CI 0.42-0.94], p = 0.021), cognitive functioning (0.73 [95% CI 0.54-0.98], p = 0.034), nausea/vomiting (0.64 [95% CI 0.41-0.99], p = 0.042), appetite loss (0.63 [95% CI 0.43-0.92], p = 0.016), diarrhoea (0.63 [95% CI 0.46-0.85], p = 0.002), dyspnoea (0.72 [95% CI 0.53-0.98], p = 0.034), cough (0.67 [95% CI 0.44-1.00], p = 0.049), dysphagia (0.54 [95% CI 0.35-0.83], p = 0.004), and alopecia (0.62 [95% CI 0.42-0.90], p = 0.012) was longer with furmonertinib versus gefitinib. Interpretation: In patients with locally advanced or metastatic Funding: Shanghai Allist Pharmaceutical Technology Co., Ltd and the National Science and Technology Major Project for Key New Drug Development (2017ZX09304015).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.