The Lancet Oncology (LANCET ONCOL )
The Lancet Oncology is a monthly, review journal, with articles, viewpoints, news and reviews in oncology.
- Impact factor25.12Show impact factor historyHide impact factor history
- 5-year impact21.86
- Cited half-life3.70
- Immediacy index6.54
- Article influence8.54
- WebsiteLancet Oncology, The website
- Other titlesThe lancet oncology, Oncology
- Material typePeriodical, Internet resource
- Document typeJournal / Magazine / Newspaper, Internet Resource
- Author can archive a pre-print version
- Author can archive a post-print version
- Voluntary deposit by author of pre-print allowed on Institutions open scholarly website and pre-print servers
- Voluntary deposit by author of authors post-print allowed on institutions open scholarly website including Institutional Repository
- Deposit due to Funding Body, Institutional and Governmental mandate only allowed where separate agreement between repository and publisher exists
- Set statement to accompany deposit
- Published source must be acknowledged
- Must link to journal home page or articles' DOI
- Publisher's version/PDF cannot be used
- Articles in some journals can be made Open Access on payment of additional charge
- NIH Authors articles will be submitted to PMC after 12 months
- Authors who are required to deposit in subject repositories may also use Sponsorship Option
- Pre-print can not be deposited for The Lancet
- Classification green
Publications in this journal
- The Lancet Oncology 01/2014; 15(2):143 - 155.
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Background Cancer survival is a key measure of the effectiveness of health-care systems. EUROCARE—the largest cooperative study of population-based cancer survival in Europe—has shown persistent differences between countries for cancer survival, although in general, cancer survival is improving. Major changes in cancer diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation occurred in the early 2000s. EUROCARE-5 assesses their effect on cancer survival in 29 European countries. Methods In this retrospective observational study, we analysed data from 107 cancer registries for more than 10 million patients with cancer diagnosed up to 2007 and followed up to 2008. Uniform quality control procedures were applied to all datasets. For patients diagnosed 2000–07, we calculated 5-year relative survival for 46 cancers weighted by age and country. We also calculated country-specific and age-specific survival for ten common cancers, together with survival differences between time periods (for 1999–2001, 2002–04, and 2005–07). Findings 5-year relative survival generally increased steadily over time for all European regions. The largest increases from 1999–2001 to 2005–07 were for prostate cancer (73·4% [95% CI 72·9–73·9] vs 81·7% [81·3–82·1]), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (53·8% [53·3–54·4] vs 60·4% [60·0–60·9]), and rectal cancer (52·1% [51·6–52·6] vs 57·6% [57·1–58·1]). Survival in eastern Europe was generally low and below the European mean, particularly for cancers with good or intermediate prognosis. Survival was highest for northern, central, and southern Europe. Survival in the UK and Ireland was intermediate for rectal cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer, skin melanoma, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, but low for kidney, stomach, ovarian, colon, and lung cancers. Survival for lung cancer in the UK and Ireland was much lower than for other regions for all periods, although results for lung cancer in some regions (central and eastern Europe) might be affected by overestimation. Survival usually decreased with age, although to different degrees depending on region and cancer type. Interpretation The major advances in cancer management that occurred up to 2007 seem to have resulted in improved survival in Europe. Likely explanations of differences in survival between countries include: differences in stage at diagnosis and accessibility to good care, different diagnostic intensity and screening approaches, and differences in cancer biology. Variations in socioeconomic, lifestyle, and general health between populations might also have a role. Further studies are needed to fully interpret these findings and how to remedy disparities. Funding Italian Ministry of Health, European Commission, Compagnia di San Paolo Foundation, Cariplo Foundation.The Lancet Oncology 12/2013;
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Summary Background Survival and cure rates for childhood cancers in Europe have greatly improved over the past 40 years and are mostly good, although not in all European countries. The EUROCARE-5 survival study estimates survival of children diagnosed with cancer between 2000 and 2007, assesses whether survival differences among European countries have changed, and investigates changes from 1999 to 2007. Methods We analysed survival data for 157 499 children (age 0—14 years) diagnosed between Jan 1, 1978 and Dec 31, 2007. They came from 74 population-based cancer registries in 29 countries. We calculated observed, country-weighted 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year survival for major cancers and all cancers combined. For comparison between countries, we used the corrected group prognosis method to provide survival probabilities adjusted for multiple confounders (sex, age, period of diagnosis, and, for all cancers combined without CNS cancers, casemix). Age-adjusted survival differences by area and calendar period were calculated with period analysis and were given for all cancers combined and the major cancers. Findings We analysed 59 579 cases. For all cancers combined for children diagnosed in 2000—07, 1-year survival was 90·6% (95% CI 90·2—90·9), 3-year survival was 81·0 % (95% CI 80·5—81·4), and 5-year survival was 77·9% (95% CI 77·4—78·3). For all cancers combined, 5-year survival rose from 76·1% (74·4—77·7) for 1999—2001, to 79·1% (77·3—80·7) for 2005—07 (hazard ratio 0·973, 95% CI 0·965—0·982, p<0·0001). The greatest improvements were in eastern Europe, where 5-year survival rose from 65·2% (95% CI 63·1—67·3) in 1999—2001, to 70·2% (67·9—72·3) in 2005—07. Europe-wide average yearly change in mortality (hazard ratio) was 0·939 (95% CI 0·919—0·960) for acute lymphoid leukaemia, 0·959 (0·933—0·986) for acute myeloid leukaemia, and 0·940 (0·897—0·984) for non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Mortality for all of Europe did not change significantly for Hodgkin's lymphoma, Burkitt's lymphoma, CNS tumours, neuroblastoma, Wilms' tumour, Ewing's sarcoma, osteosarcoma, and rhabdomyosarcoma. Disparities for 5-year survival persisted between countries and regions, ranging from 70% to 82% (for 2005—07). Interpretation Several reasons might explain persisting inequalities. The lack of health-care resources is probably most important, especially in some eastern European countries with limited drug supply, lack of specialised centres with multidisciplinary teams, delayed diagnosis and treatment, poor management of treatment, and drug toxicity. In the short term, cross-border care and collaborative programmes could help to narrow the survival gaps in Europe. Funding Italian Ministry of Health, European Commission, Compagnia di San Paolo Foundation.The Lancet Oncology 12/2013;
- The Lancet Oncology 11/2013;
- The Lancet Oncology 09/2013; 14(10):407-416.
- The Lancet Oncology 09/2013; 14(10):396-406.
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Docetaxel plus prednisone is standard first-line chemotherapy for men with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer. Aflibercept is a recombinant human fusion protein that binds A and B isoforms of VEGF and placental growth factor, thereby inhibiting angiogenesis. We assessed whether the addition of aflibercept to docetaxel and prednisone would improve overall survival in men with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer compared with the addition of placebo to docetaxel and prednisone. METHODS: VENICE was a phase 3, multicentre, randomised double-blind placebo-controlled parallel group study done in 31 countries (187 sites). Men with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer, adequate organ function, and no prior chemotherapy were treated with docetaxel (75 mg/m(2) intravenously every 3 weeks) and oral prednisone (5 mg twice daily) and randomly allocated (1:1) to receive aflibercept (6 mg/kg) or placebo, intravenously, every 3 weeks. Treatment allocation was done centrally via an interactive voice response system, using a computer-generated sequence with a permuted-block size of four and stratified according Eastern Co-operative Group performance status (0-1 vs 2). Patients, investigators, and other individuals responsible for study conduct and data analysis were masked to treatment assignment. Aflibercept or placebo vials were supplied in identical boxes. The primary endpoint was overall survival using intention-to-treat analysis. This is the primary analysis of the completed trial. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00519285 FINDINGS: Between Aug 17, 2007, and Feb 11, 2010, 1224 men were randomly allocated to treatment: 612 to each group. At final analysis, median follow-up was 35 months (IQR 29-41) and 873 men had died. Median overall survival was 22·1 months (95·6% CI 20·3-24·1) in the aflibercept group and 21·2 months (19·6-23·8) in the placebo group (stratified hazard ratio 0·94, 95·6% CI 0·82-1·08; p=0·38). We recorded a higher incidence of grade 3-4 gastrointestinal disorders (182 [30%] vs 48 [8·0%]), haemorrhagic events (32 [5·2%] vs ten [1·7%]), hypertension (81 [13%] vs 20 [3·3%]), fatigue (97 [16%] vs 46 [7·7%]), infections (123 [20%] vs 60 [10%]) and treatment-related fatal adverse events (21 [3·4%] vs nine [1·5%]) in the aflibercept group than in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: Aflibercept in combination with docetaxel and prednisone given as first-line chemotherapy for men with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer resulted in no improvement in overall survival and added toxicity compared with placebo. Docetaxel plus prednisone remains the standard treatment for such men who need first-line chemotherapy.The Lancet Oncology 07/2013; 14(8):760-8.
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Background Maximum tolerated dose (MTD) chemotherapy followed by metronomic chemotherapy (low doses given on a frequent schedule) acts on tumour vascular endothelial cells by increasing the anti-tumour effect of anti-angiogenic agents. This multicentre, phase 2 study investigated the effectiveness of MTD gemcitabine combined with metronomic capecitabine plus the multikinase inhibitor sorafenib for the treatment of metastatic renal-cell carcinoma (RCC).Methods Patients were enrolled at eight centres across Spain between Dec 13, 2006, and April 17, 2008. Patients were aged 18 years or older, had confirmed metastatic RCC with clear-cell histology, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, had not undergone previous therapy, and were unsuitable for, or intolerant to, immunotherapy. Treatment consisted of intravenous gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 (days 1 and 8), oral capecitabine 500 mg/m2 twice a day (final dose after adjustment, days 1–14), and oral sorafenib 400 mg twice a day (days 1–21), for six cycles, followed by sorafenib monotherapy (at the investigator's discretion if clinical benefit was maintained). The primary endpoint was median progression-free survival (PFS) analysed in a population of all patients who received treatment. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00496301.Findings44 patients enrolled in the study, 40 of whom received treatment. Median PFS for these patients was 11·1 months (95% CI 7·9–17·1). A partial response was achieved in 20 patients, and stable disease in 17 patients. Most adverse events were grade 1 or 2. Grade 3 adverse events were fatigue or asthenia (n=9), hand–foot skin reaction (n=11), mucositis (n=3), diarrhoea (n=2), infection (n=2), and allergic reaction, hypertension, and rash (all n=1). Grade 3 haematological toxicity was noted in nine patients. One death due to pulmonary embolism was reported as grade 5 dyspnoea possibly related to study drug.InterpretationPFS and response rates were greater than those previously observed with gemcitabine and capecitabine or sorafenib monotherapy in patients with metastatic RCC. Adverse events were manageable in most patients. These findings provide preliminary confirmation of the synergistic activity of the chemo-switch concept seen in preclinical studies, and merit further exploration.FundingSpanish Oncology Genitourinary Group (SOGUG).The Lancet Oncology 05/2013; 11(4):350-357.
- The Lancet Oncology 05/2013; 14:619.
Article: Access to cancer medicine in IranThe Lancet Oncology 01/2013;
Article: Continuation of bevacizumab after first progression in metastatic colorectal cancer (ML18147): a randomised phase 3 trial. Bennouna J, Sastre J, Arnold D, Osterlund P, Greil R, Van Cutsem E, von Moos R, Viéitez JM, Bouché O, Borg C, Steffens CC, Alonso-Orduña V, Schlichting C, Reyes-Rivera I, Bendahmane B, André T, Kubicka S; on behalf of the ML18147 Study Investigators.The Lancet Oncology 11/2012;
- The Lancet Oncology 10/2012; Volume 13(Issue):Page e409.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.
Public Library of Science, Public...
ISSN: 1932-6203, Impact factor: 3.73
ISSN: 1873-6815, Impact factor: 3.34
ISSN: 1873-4847, Impact factor: 4.29
International Institute of...
ISSN: 1791-7530, Impact factor: 1.71
Ethnikon Hidryma Ereunōn (Greece)
ISSN: 1791-2431, Impact factor: 2.3
International Center for Cancer...
ISSN: 1791-2423, Impact factor: 2.66
ISSN: 1744-7666, Impact factor: 2.86
BioMed Central Ltd
ISSN: 1743-8977, Impact factor: 9.18