Determines the importance of a journal by taking a measure of frequency with which the average article in a journal has been cited in a particular year.
A measure of average citations received per peer-reviewed paper published in the journal.
33.752
5% from 2018
Impact factor for The Lancet Oncology from 2016 - 2019
Year
Value
2019
33.752
2018
35.386
2017
36.418
2016
33.9
Graph view
Table view
53.0
7% from 2019
CiteRatio for The Lancet Oncology from 2016 - 2020
Year
Value
2020
53.0
2019
49.4
2018
54.0
2017
54.0
2016
48.4
Graph view
Table view
Insights
Impact factor of this journal has decreased by 5% in last year.
This journal’s impact factor is in the top 10 percentile category.
Insights
CiteRatio of this journal has increased by 7% in last years.
This journal’s CiteRatio is in the top 10 percentile category.
SCImago Journal Rank (SJR)
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP)
Measures weighted citations received by the journal. Citation weighting depends on the categories and prestige of the citing journal.
Measures actual citations received relative to citations expected for the journal's category.
13.53
14% from 2019
SJR for The Lancet Oncology from 2016 - 2020
Year
Value
2020
13.53
2019
15.65
2018
18.073
2017
16.085
2016
14.07
Graph view
Table view
9.914
5% from 2019
SNIP for The Lancet Oncology from 2016 - 2020
Year
Value
2020
9.914
2019
9.486
2018
9.575
2017
9.922
2016
9.862
Graph view
Table view
Insights
SJR of this journal has decreased by 14% in last years.
This journal’s SJR is in the top 10 percentile category.
Insights
SNIP of this journal has increased by 5% in last years.
This journal’s SNIP is in the top 10 percentile category.
All company, product and service names used in this website are for identification purposes only. All product names, trademarks and registered trademarks are property of their respective owners.
Use of these names, trademarks and brands does not imply endorsement or affiliation. Disclaimer Notice
Elsevier
The Lancet Oncology
The Lancet Oncology is a monthly journal, with original research articles, reviews, commentaries, editorials, viewpoints, and news in clinical oncology. The Lancet Oncology publishes interesting and informative reviews on any topic connected with oncology, and considers any original research contribution that advocates change in, or illuminates, oncological clinical practice. Manuscripts must be solely the work of the author(s) stated, must not have been previously published elsewhere, and must not be under consideration by another journal. All papers should be written to be clearly understandable to the journal’s readers in a wide range of specialties and countries. The journal publishes a range of article types that encompass all aspects of oncological medicine: Comment, Correspondence, News, Cancer and Society, Article, Review, Historical Review, Health-care Development, and Personal View.
Read Less
The Lancet Oncology is a monthly journal, with original research articles, reviews, commentaries, editorials, viewpoints, and news in clinical oncology. The Lancet Oncology publishes interesting and informative reviews on any topic connected with oncology, and considers any or......
Read More
Oncology
Medicine
Last updated on
18 Jul 2020
ISSN
1470-2045
Impact Factor
Maximum - 8.294
Open Access
Yes
Sherpa RoMEO Archiving Policy
Green
Plagiarism Check
Available via Turnitin
Endnote Style
Download Available
Bibliography Name
elsarticle-num
Citation Type
Numbered
[25]
Bibliography Example
Yamakage A, Sato M, Yada K, Kashiwaya S, Tanaka Y. Anomalous Josephson current in superconducting topological insulator. Phys Rev B. 2013;87(10):100510.
BACKGROUND: In 2004, a randomised phase III trial by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) and National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group (NCIC) reported improved median and 2-year survival for patients with glioblastoma treated with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide and rad...BACKGROUND: In 2004, a randomised phase III trial by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) and National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group (NCIC) reported improved median and 2-year survival for patients with glioblastoma treated with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide and radiotherapy. We report the final results with a median follow-up of more than 5 years. METHODS: Adult patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma were randomly assigned to receive either standard radiotherapy or identical radiotherapy with concomitant temozolomide followed by up to six cycles of adjuvant temozolomide. The methylation status of the methyl-guanine methyl transferase gene, MGMT, was determined retrospectively from the tumour tissue of 206 patients. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, number NCT00006353. FINDINGS: Between Aug 17, 2000, and March 22, 2002, 573 patients were assigned to treatment. 278 (97%) of 286 patients in the radiotherapy alone group and 254 (89%) of 287 in the combined-treatment group died during 5 years of follow-up. Overall survival was 27.2% (95% CI 22.2-32.5) at 2 years, 16.0% (12.0-20.6) at 3 years, 12.1% (8.5-16.4) at 4 years, and 9.8% (6.4-14.0) at 5 years with temozolomide, versus 10.9% (7.6-14.8), 4.4% (2.4-7.2), 3.0% (1.4-5.7), and 1.9% (0.6-4.4) with radiotherapy alone (hazard ratio 0.6, 95% CI 0.5-0.7; p<0.0001). A benefit of combined therapy was recorded in all clinical prognostic subgroups, including patients aged 60-70 years. Methylation of the MGMT promoter was the strongest predictor for outcome and benefit from temozolomide chemotherapy. INTERPRETATION: Benefits of adjuvant temozolomide with radiotherapy lasted throughout 5 years of follow-up. A few patients in favourable prognostic categories survive longer than 5 years. MGMT methylation status identifies patients most likely to benefit from the addition of temozolomide. FUNDING: EORTC, NCIC, Nelia and Amadeo Barletta Foundation, Schering-Plough.read moreread less
Summary Background Most cases of hepatocellular carcinoma occur in the Asia-Pacific region, where chronic hepatitis B infection is an important aetiological factor. Assessing the efficacy and safety of new therapeutic options in an Asia-Pacific population is thus important. We did a multinational phase III, randomised, double...Summary Background Most cases of hepatocellular carcinoma occur in the Asia-Pacific region, where chronic hepatitis B infection is an important aetiological factor. Assessing the efficacy and safety of new therapeutic options in an Asia-Pacific population is thus important. We did a multinational phase III, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to assess the efficacy and safety of sorafenib in patients from the Asia-Pacific region with advanced (unresectable or metastatic) hepatocellular carcinoma. Methods Between Sept 20, 2005, and Jan 31, 2007, patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who had not received previous systemic therapy and had Child-Pugh liver function class A, were randomly assigned to receive either oral sorafenib (400 mg) or placebo twice daily in 6-week cycles, with efficacy measured at the end of each 6-week period. Eligible patients were stratified by the presence or absence of macroscopic vascular invasion or extrahepatic spread (or both), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, and geographical region. Randomisation was done centrally and in a 2:1 ratio by means of an interactive voice-response system. There was no predefined primary endpoint; overall survival, time to progression (TTP), time to symptomatic progression (TTSP), disease control rate (DCR), and safety were assessed. Efficacy analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00492752. Findings 271 patients from 23 centres in China, South Korea, and Taiwan were enrolled in the study. Of these, 226 patients were randomly assigned to the experimental group (n=150) or to the placebo group (n=76). Median overall survival was 6·5 months (95% CI 5·56–7·56) in patients treated with sorafenib, compared with 4·2 months (3·75–5·46) in those who received placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0·68 [95% CI 0·50–0·93]; p=0·014). Median TTP was 2·8 months (2·63–3·58) in the sorafenib group compared with 1·4 months (1·35–1·55) in the placebo group (HR 0·57 [0·42–0·79]; p=0·0005). The most frequently reported grade 3/4 drug-related adverse events in the 149 assessable patients treated with sorafenib were hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR; 16 patients [10·7%]), diarrhoea (nine patients [6·0%]), and fatigue (five patients [3·4%]). The most common adverse events resulting in dose reductions were HFSR (17 patients [11·4%]) and diarrhoea (11 patients [7·4%]); these adverse events rarely led to discontinuation. Interpretation Sorafenib is effective for the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in patients from the Asia-Pacific region, and is well tolerated. Taken together with data from the Sorafenib Hepatocellular Carcinoma Assessment Randomised Protocol (SHARP) trial, sorafenib seems to be an appropriate option for the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Funding Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals and Onyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc.read moreread less
Summary Background Erlotinib has been shown to improve progression-free survival compared with chemotherapy when given as first-line treatment for Asian patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with activating EGFR mutations. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of erlotinib compared with standard chemotherapy f...Summary Background Erlotinib has been shown to improve progression-free survival compared with chemotherapy when given as first-line treatment for Asian patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with activating EGFR mutations. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of erlotinib compared with standard chemotherapy for first-line treatment of European patients with advanced EGFR-mutation positive NSCLC. Methods We undertook the open-label, randomised phase 3 EURTAC trial at 42 hospitals in France, Italy, and Spain. Eligible participants were adults (>18 years) with NSCLC and EGFR mutations (exon 19 deletion or L858R mutation in exon 21) with no history of chemotherapy for metastatic disease (neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy ending ≥6 months before study entry was allowed). We randomly allocated participants (1:1) according to a computer-generated allocation schedule to receive oral erlotinib 150 mg per day or 3 week cycles of standard intravenous chemotherapy of cisplatin 75 mg/m 2 on day 1 plus docetaxel (75 mg/m 2 on day 1) or gemcitabine (1250 mg/m 2 on days 1 and 8). Carboplatin (AUC 6 with docetaxel 75 mg/m 2 or AUC 5 with gemcitabine 1000 mg/m 2 ) was allowed in patients unable to have cisplatin. Patients were stratified by EGFR mutation type and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (0 vs 1 vs 2). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) in the intention-to-treat population. We assessed safety in all patients who received study drug (≥1 dose). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00446225. Findings Between Feb 15, 2007, and Jan 4, 2011, 174 patients with EGFR mutations were enrolled. One patient received treatment before randomisation and was thus withdrawn from the study; of the remaining patients, 86 were randomly assigned to receive erlotinib and 87 to receive standard chemotherapy. The preplanned interim analysis showed that the study met its primary endpoint; enrolment was halted, and full evaluation of the results was recommended. At data cutoff (Jan 26, 2011), median PFS was 9·7 months (95% CI 8·4-12·3) in the erlotinib group, compared with 5·2 months (4·5–5·8) in the standard chemotherapy group (hazard ratio 0·37, 95% CI 0·25–0·54; p vs none of 82 patients in the chemotherapy group), neutropenia (none vs 18 [22%]), anaemia (one [1%] vs three [4%]), and increased amino-transferase concentrations (two [2%] vs 0). Five (6%) patients on erlotinib had treatment-related severe adverse events compared with 16 patients (20%) on chemotherapy. One patient in the erlotinib group and two in the standard chemotherapy group died from treatment-related causes. Interpretation Our findings strengthen the rationale for routine baseline tissue-based assessment of EGFR mutations in patients with NSCLC and for treatment of mutation-positive patients with EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitors. Funding Spanish Lung Cancer Group, Roche Farma, Hoffmann-La Roche, and Red Tematica de Investigacion Cooperativa en Cancer.read moreread less
Summary Background Patients with non-small-cell lung cancer harbouring mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor ( EGFR ) gene respond well to the EGFR-specific tyrosine kinase inhibitor gefitinib. However, whether gefitinib is better than standard platinum doublet chemotherapy in patients selected by EGFR mutation is...Summary Background Patients with non-small-cell lung cancer harbouring mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor ( EGFR ) gene respond well to the EGFR-specific tyrosine kinase inhibitor gefitinib. However, whether gefitinib is better than standard platinum doublet chemotherapy in patients selected by EGFR mutation is uncertain. Methods We did an open label, phase 3 study (WJTOG3405) with recruitment between March 31, 2006, and June 22, 2009, at 36 centres in Japan. 177 chemotherapy-naive patients aged 75 years or younger and diagnosed with stage IIIB/IV non-small-cell lung cancer or postoperative recurrence harbouring EGFR mutations (either the exon 19 deletion or L858R point mutation) were randomly assigned, using a minimisation technique, to receive either gefitinib (250 mg/day orally; n=88) or cisplatin (80 mg/m 2 , intravenously) plus docetaxel (60 mg/m 2 , intravenously; n=89), administered every 21 days for three to six cycles. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. Survival analysis was done with the modified intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with UMIN (University Hospital Medical Information Network in Japan), number 000000539. Findings Five patients were excluded (two patients were found to have thyroid and colon cancer after randomisation, one patient had an exon 18 mutation, one patient had insufficient consent, and one patient showed acute allergic reaction to docetaxel). Thus, 172 patients (86 in each group) were included in the survival analyses. The gefitinib group had significantly longer progression-free survival compared with the cisplatin plus docetaxel goup, with a median progression-free survival time of 9·2 months (95% CI 8·0–13·9) versus 6·3 months (5·8–7·8; HR 0·489, 95% CI 0·336–0·710, log-rank p Interpretation Patients with lung cancer who are selected by EGFR mutations have longer progression-free survival if they are treated with gefitinib than if they are treated with cisplatin plus docetaxel. Funding West Japan Oncology Group (WJOG): a non-profit organisation supported by unrestricted donations from several pharmaceutical companies.read moreread less
Topics:
Gefitinib (61%)61% related to the paper,Docetaxel (60%)60% related to the paper,Icotinib (57%)57% related to the paper,Afatinib (57%)57% related to the paper,Erlotinib (56%)56% related to the paper
Summary Background Activating mutations in EGFR are important markers of response to tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The OPTIMAL study compared efficacy and tolerability of the TKI erlotinib versus standard chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of patients with advanced EGFR m...Summary Background Activating mutations in EGFR are important markers of response to tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The OPTIMAL study compared efficacy and tolerability of the TKI erlotinib versus standard chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC. Methods We undertook an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial at 22 centres in China. Patients older than 18 years with histologically confirmed stage IIIB or IV NSCLC and a confirmed activating mutation of EGFR (exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R point mutation) received either oral erlotinib (150 mg/day) until disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects, or up to four cycles of gemcitabine plus carboplatin. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) with a minimisation procedure and were stratified according to EGFR mutation type, histological subtype (adenocarcinoma vs non-adenocarcinoma), and smoking status. The primary outcome was progression-free survival, analysed in patients with confirmed disease who received at least one dose of study treatment. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00874419, and has completed enrolment; patients are still in follow-up. Findings 83 patients were randomly assigned to receive erlotinib and 82 to receive gemcitabine plus carboplatin; 82 in the erlotinib group and 72 in the chemotherapy group were included in analysis of the primary endpoint. Median progression-free survival was significantly longer in erlotinib-treated patients than in those on chemotherapy (13.1 [95% CI 10.58–16.53] vs 4.6 [4.21–5.42] months; hazard ratio 0.16, 95% CI 0.10–0.26; p vs no patients with either event on erlotinib); the most common grade 3 or 4 toxic effects with erlotinib were increased alanine aminotransferase concentrations (three [4%] of 83 patients) and skin rash (two [2%] patients). Chemotherapy was also associated with increased treatment-related serious adverse events (ten [14%] of 72 patients [decreased platelet count, n=8; decreased neutrophil count, n=1; hepatic dysfunction, n=1] vs two [2%] of 83 patients [both hepatic dysfunction]). Interpretation Compared with standard chemotherapy, erlotinib conferred a significant progression-free survival benefit in patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC and was associated with more favourable tolerability. These findings suggest that erlotinib is important for first-line treatment of patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC. Funding F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd (China); Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality.read moreread less
SciSpace is a very innovative solution to the formatting problem and existing providers, such as Mendeley or Word did not really evolve in recent years.
- Andreas Frutiger, Researcher, ETH Zurich, Institute for Biomedical Engineering
Get MS-Word and LaTeX output to any Journal within seconds
1
Choose a template
Select a template from a library of 40,000+ templates
2
Import a MS-Word file or start fresh
It takes only few seconds to import
3
View and edit your final output
SciSpace will automatically format your output to meet journal guidelines
4
Submit directly or Download
Submit to journal directly or Download in PDF, MS Word or LaTeX
With SciSpace, you do not need a word template for The Lancet Oncology.
It automatically formats your research paper to Elsevier formatting guidelines and citation
style.
You can download a submission ready research paper in pdf, LaTeX and docx formats.
Time taken to format a paper and Compliance with guidelines
Plagiarism Reports via Turnitin
SciSpace has partnered with Turnitin, the leading provider of Plagiarism Check software.
Using this service, researchers can compare submissions against more than 170 million scholarly articles,
a database of 70+ billion current and archived web pages. How Turnitin Integration works?
Freedom from formatting guidelines
One editor, 100K journal formats – world's largest collection of journal templates
With such a huge verified library, what you need is already there.
Easy support from all your favorite tools
The Lancet Oncology format uses elsarticle-num citation style.
Automatically format and order your citations and bibliography in a click.
SciSpace allows imports from all reference managers like Mendeley, Zotero, Endnote, Google Scholar etc.
Absolutely not! Our tool has been designed to help you focus on writing. You can write your entire paper as per the The Lancet Oncology guidelines and auto format it.
Yes, the template is compliant with the The Lancet Oncology guidelines. Our experts at SciSpace ensure that. If there are any changes to the journal's guidelines, we'll change our algorithm accordingly.
Of course! We support all the top citation styles, such as APA style, MLA style, Vancouver style, Harvard style, and Chicago style. For example, when you write your paper and hit autoformat, our system will automatically update your article as per the The Lancet Oncology citation style.
Sign up for our free trial, and you'll be able to use all our features for seven days. You'll see how helpful they are and how inexpensive they are compared to other options, Especially for The Lancet Oncology.
Yes. You can choose the right template, copy-paste the contents from the word document, and click on auto-format. Once you're done, you'll have a publish-ready paper The Lancet Oncology that you can download at the end.
It only takes a matter of seconds to edit your manuscript. Besides that, our intuitive editor saves you from writing and formatting it in The Lancet Oncology.
It is possible to find the Word template for any journal on Google. However, why use a template when you can write your entire manuscript on SciSpace , auto format it as per The Lancet Oncology's guidelines and download the same in Word, PDF and LaTeX formats? Give us a try!.
SciSpace's The Lancet Oncology is currently available as an online tool. We're developing a desktop version, too. You can request (or upvote) any features that you think would be helpful for you and other researchers in the "feature request" section of your account once you've signed up with us.
Sure. You can request any template and we'll have it setup within a few days. You can find the request box in Journal Gallery on the right side bar under the heading, "Couldn't find the format you were looking for like The Lancet Oncology?”
To be honest, the answer is no. The impact factor is one of the many elements that determine the quality of a journal. Few of these factors include review board, rejection rates, frequency of inclusion in indexes, and Eigenfactor. You need to assess all these factors before you make your final call.
We extracted this data from Sherpa Romeo to help researchers understand the access level of this journal in accordance with the Sherpa Romeo Archiving Policy for The Lancet Oncology. The table below indicates the level of access a journal has as per Sherpa Romeo's archiving policy.
RoMEO Colour
Archiving policy
Green
Can archive pre-print and post-print or publisher's version/PDF
Blue
Can archive post-print (ie final draft post-refereeing) or publisher's version/PDF
Yellow
Can archive pre-print (ie pre-refereeing)
White
Archiving not formally supported
FYI:
Pre-prints as being the version of the paper before peer review and
Post-prints as being the version of the paper after peer-review, with revisions having been made.
It is possible to find the Word template for any journal on Google. However, why use a template when you can write your entire manuscript on SciSpace , auto format it as per The Lancet Oncology's guidelines and download the same in Word, PDF and LaTeX formats? Give us a try!.
Yes, SciSpace provides this functionality. After signing up, you would need to import your existing references from Word or Bib file to SciSpace. Then SciSpace would allow you to download your references in The Lancet Oncology Endnote style according to Elsevier guidelines.
Instant formatting to 100% publisher guidelines on - SciSpace.
Available only on desktops 🖥
No word template required
Typset automatically formats your research paper to The Lancet Oncology formatting guidelines and
citation style.
Verifed journal formats
One editor, 100K journal formats.
With the largest collection of verified journal formats, what you need is already there.
Trusted by academicians
“
I spent hours with MS word for reformatting. It was frustrating - plain and simple. With SciSpace, I can draft my
manuscripts and once it is finished I can just submit. In case, I have to submit to another journal it is really
just a button click instead of an afternoon of reformatting.