Zhong-Jun Xia
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Previous Organizations / Institutes
The organizations / institutes from the scholar's other articles in the past ten years
Research Subjects
Zhong-Jun Xia has a total of 26 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Baohui Han
Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
1 shared publication - Cheng-Ping Hu
Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China
1 shared publication - Dong-Shen Zhang
State Key Laboratory of Oncology in Southern China, Department of Medical Oncology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, PRoC
1 shared publication - Feng Wang
State Key Laboratory of Oncology in Southern China, Department of Medical Oncology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, PRoC
1 shared publication - He-Long Zhang
Department of Medical Oncology, Tangdu Hospital of the Fourth Military Medical University, Shanxi, China
1 shared publication - Hui-Qiang Huang
State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P.R. China
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- Open Access
- 9 April 2016
- Published by Springer Nature in BMC Cancer
- Vol. 16 (1) , 1-8
Randomized phase III trial of amrubicin/cisplatin versus etoposide/cisplatin as first-line treatment for extensive small-cell lung cancer
Extensive-disease small-cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC) is characterized by rapid progression and relapse, despite high initial response rates to chemotherapy. The primary objective of this trial was to demonstrate the non-inferiority of amrubicin and cisplatin (AP) combination therapy compared with the standard first-line regimen of etoposide and cisplatin (EP) for previously untreated ED-SCLC in a Chinese population. When non-inferiority was verified, the objective was switched from non-inferiority to superiority. From June 2008 to July 2010, 300 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned at a 1:1 ratio to AP and EP groups. AP-treated patients received cisplatin (60 mg/m2, day 1) and amrubicin (40 mg/m2, days 1–3) once every 21 days. EP-treated patients received cisplatin (80 mg/m2, day 1) and etoposide (100 mg/m2, days 1–3) once every 21 days. Treatment was continued for four to six cycles, except in cases of progressive disease or toxicity, and patient refusal. Median overall survival (OS) for AP vs. EP treatment was 11.8 vs. 10.3 months (p = 0.08), respectively, demonstrating non-inferiority of AP to EP (AP group: 95 % confidence interval for hazard ratio 0.63–1.03 months). Median progression-free survival and overall response rates for AP vs. EP groups were 6.8 vs. 5.7 months (p = 0.35) and 69.8 % vs. 57.3 %, respectively. Drug-related adverse events in both groups were similar, with neutropenia being the most frequent (AP 54.4 %; EP 44.0 %). Leukopenia, pyrexia, and fatigue were more prevalent in the AP group, but all were clinically reversible and manageable. AP therapy demonstrated non-inferiority to EP therapy, prolonging OS for 1.5 months, but this difference was not statistically significant; thus we propose AP as a promising treatment option for ED-SCLC in China. This trial was registered on 10 April 2008 (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00660504 ).
- 9 April 2016
- Published by Springer Nature in BMC Cancer
- Vol. 16 (1) , 1-8
Open AccessRandomized phase III trial of amrubicin/cisplatin versus etoposide/cisplatin as first-line treatment for extensive small-cell lung cancer
Extensive-disease small-cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC) is characterized by rapid progression and relapse, despite high initial response rates to chemotherapy. The primary objective of this trial was to demonstrate the non-inferiority of amrubicin and cisplatin (AP) combination therapy compared with the standard first-line regimen of etoposide and cisplatin (EP) for previously untreated ED-SCLC in a Chinese population. When non-inferiority was verified, the objective was switched from non-inferiority to superiority. From June 2008 to July 2010, 300 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned at a 1:1 ratio to AP and EP groups. AP-treated patients received cisplatin (60 mg/m2, day 1) and amrubicin (40 mg/m2, days 1–3) once every 21 days. EP-treated patients received cisplatin (80 mg/m2, day 1) and etoposide (100 mg/m2, days 1–3) once every 21 days. Treatment was continued for four to six cycles, except in cases of progressive disease or toxicity, and patient refusal. Median overall survival (OS) for AP vs. EP treatment was 11.8 vs. 10.3 months (p = 0.08), respectively, demonstrating non-inferiority of AP to EP (AP group: 95 % confidence interval for hazard ratio 0.63–1.03 months). Median progression-free survival and overall response rates for AP vs. EP groups were 6.8 vs. 5.7 months (p = 0.35) and 69.8 % vs. 57.3 %, respectively. Drug-related adverse events in both groups were similar, with neutropenia being the most frequent (AP 54.4 %; EP 44.0 %). Leukopenia, pyrexia, and fatigue were more prevalent in the AP group, but all were clinically reversible and manageable. AP therapy demonstrated non-inferiority to EP therapy, prolonging OS for 1.5 months, but this difference was not statistically significant; thus we propose AP as a promising treatment option for ED-SCLC in China. This trial was registered on 10 April 2008 (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00660504 ).
- Open Access
- 23 April 2008
- Published by Springer Nature in BMC Cancer
- Vol. 8 (1) , 115
Clinical and prognostic analysis of hepatitis B virus infection in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma
Background: Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients is a common complication in China. However, the clinical relevance of HBV infection with respect to DLBCL disease stages and patient survival remains unclear. The main objective of the current study was to analyze the clinical features and to evaluate the prognostic factors of HBV infection in DLBCL patients. Methods: In this retrospective study, DLBCL patients were divided into two groups as HBsAg-positive (n = 81) and HBsAg-negative (n = 181) patients. The HBsAg-positive patients were further divided into two subgroups based on their hepatic function during chemotherapy. Various statistical analyses were used to determine the significance of the relevant clinical parameters. Results: Compared with the HBsAg-negative group, the HBsAg-positive DLBCL group displayed a younger median onset age (46 year vs 51), more advanced stage at grade III/IV (58% vs 42%, p = 0.016), and more frequent hepatic dysfunction before (21% vs 5.5%, p < 0.001) and during (49.4% vs 16.6%, p < 0.001) chemotherapy. Female DLBCL patients exhibited a higher frequency of HBsAg positivity (p = 0.006). However, in both groups the median overall survival (OS) duration (55.8 vs 66.8 months) and response rates (91% vs 90.4%) were similar. In the HBsAg-positive DLBCL group, the poor prognostic factors were advanced stage (p < 0.001) and hepatic dysfunction during chemotherapy (p = 0.02). The OS of HBsAg-positive patients with hepatic dysfunction during chemotherapy was significantly shorter than those without liver dysfunction (p = 0.016), and the OS rates at 3 years were 48% and 72%, respectively. The use of rituximab did not increase the rates of liver dysfunction in HBsAg-positive DLBCL patients. Conclusion: Compared with HBsAg-negative patients, the HBsAg-positive DLBCL patients had earlier onset and more advanced stage. The disease stage and hepatic dysfunction during chemotherapy and were two significant prognostic factors in the HBsAg-positive DLBCL patients. This study suggests that prophylactic treatment of HBV may be of great importance in the cases of HBsAg-positive patients.
- 23 April 2008
- Published by Springer Nature in BMC Cancer
- Vol. 8 (1) , 115
Open AccessClinical and prognostic analysis of hepatitis B virus infection in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma
Background: Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients is a common complication in China. However, the clinical relevance of HBV infection with respect to DLBCL disease stages and patient survival remains unclear. The main objective of the current study was to analyze the clinical features and to evaluate the prognostic factors of HBV infection in DLBCL patients. Methods: In this retrospective study, DLBCL patients were divided into two groups as HBsAg-positive (n = 81) and HBsAg-negative (n = 181) patients. The HBsAg-positive patients were further divided into two subgroups based on their hepatic function during chemotherapy. Various statistical analyses were used to determine the significance of the relevant clinical parameters. Results: Compared with the HBsAg-negative group, the HBsAg-positive DLBCL group displayed a younger median onset age (46 year vs 51), more advanced stage at grade III/IV (58% vs 42%, p = 0.016), and more frequent hepatic dysfunction before (21% vs 5.5%, p < 0.001) and during (49.4% vs 16.6%, p < 0.001) chemotherapy. Female DLBCL patients exhibited a higher frequency of HBsAg positivity (p = 0.006). However, in both groups the median overall survival (OS) duration (55.8 vs 66.8 months) and response rates (91% vs 90.4%) were similar. In the HBsAg-positive DLBCL group, the poor prognostic factors were advanced stage (p < 0.001) and hepatic dysfunction during chemotherapy (p = 0.02). The OS of HBsAg-positive patients with hepatic dysfunction during chemotherapy was significantly shorter than those without liver dysfunction (p = 0.016), and the OS rates at 3 years were 48% and 72%, respectively. The use of rituximab did not increase the rates of liver dysfunction in HBsAg-positive DLBCL patients. Conclusion: Compared with HBsAg-negative patients, the HBsAg-positive DLBCL patients had earlier onset and more advanced stage. The disease stage and hepatic dysfunction during chemotherapy and were two significant prognostic factors in the HBsAg-positive DLBCL patients. This study suggests that prophylactic treatment of HBV may be of great importance in the cases of HBsAg-positive patients.