OBJECTIVE: To compare two methods of determining therapeutic response and disease progression - modified Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup (GCIG) criteria based on CA-125 and Radiographic Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), in a phase II trial of bevacizumab for patients with recurrent or persistent epithelial ovarian and peritoneal carcinoma. METHODS: Patients were treated with bevacizumab 15 mg/kg every 21 days. Modified GCIG definitions of progression and response were retrospectively applied and compared to RECIST-defined progression and response. The prognostic significance of CA-125- and RECIST-defined responses and progressions were explored. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients were evaluable by RECIST, 59 for progression by CA-125, and 45 for response by CA-125. Median progression-free survival (PFS) by RECIST and progression-free interval (PFI) by CA-125 were 4.7 and 5.2 months respectively. However, 12.9% of those with CA-125 defined progression remained progression-free according to RECIST for at least 8 months. Thirteen of 62 patients (21%) had response by RECIST and 14/45 (31%) by CA-125. Time dependent analyses indicated that progression by CA-125 was associated with a 5.2 fold increased risk of progression by RECIST, and response by CA-125 had a 5 fold decrease in risk of progression by RECIST. Landmark and time dependent analyses showed prognostic value of responses by CA-125 and RECIST. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, disease assessment by RECIST and CA-125 appears to correlate in general. However, approximately 10% of patients might demonstrate progression earlier by CA-125.
OBJECTIVE: To compare two methods of determining therapeutic response and disease progression - modified Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup (GCIG) criteria based on CA-125 and Radiographic Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), in a phase II trial of bevacizumab for patients with recurrent or persistent epithelial ovarian and peritoneal carcinoma. METHODS:Patients were treated with bevacizumab 15 mg/kg every 21 days. Modified GCIG definitions of progression and response were retrospectively applied and compared to RECIST-defined progression and response. The prognostic significance of CA-125- and RECIST-defined responses and progressions were explored. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients were evaluable by RECIST, 59 for progression by CA-125, and 45 for response by CA-125. Median progression-free survival (PFS) by RECIST and progression-free interval (PFI) by CA-125 were 4.7 and 5.2 months respectively. However, 12.9% of those with CA-125 defined progression remained progression-free according to RECIST for at least 8 months. Thirteen of 62 patients (21%) had response by RECIST and 14/45 (31%) by CA-125. Time dependent analyses indicated that progression by CA-125 was associated with a 5.2 fold increased risk of progression by RECIST, and response by CA-125 had a 5 fold decrease in risk of progression by RECIST. Landmark and time dependent analyses showed prognostic value of responses by CA-125 and RECIST. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, disease assessment by RECIST and CA-125 appears to correlate in general. However, approximately 10% of patients might demonstrate progression earlier by CA-125.
Authors: P.M. Fayers; G. Rustin; R. Wood; A. Nelstrop; R.C.F. Leonard; P. Wilkinson; D. Cruickshank; E.J. McAllister; C.W.E. Redman; D. Parker; I.V. Scott; M.L. Slevin; J.E. Roulston Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 1993-09 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: I Vergote; G J Rustin; E A Eisenhauer; G B Kristensen; E Pujade-Lauraine; M K Parmar; M Friedlander; A Jakobsen; J B Vermorken Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-09-20 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: P Therasse; S G Arbuck; E A Eisenhauer; J Wanders; R S Kaplan; L Rubinstein; J Verweij; M Van Glabbeke; A T van Oosterom; M C Christian; S G Gwyther Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-02-02 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: J M Riedinger; J Wafflart; G Ricolleau; N Eche; H Larbre; J P Basuyau; I Dalifard; K Hacene; M F Pichon Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2006-06-09 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Robert A Burger; Michael W Sill; Bradley J Monk; Benjamin E Greer; Joel I Sorosky Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-11-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Minh D Dao; Laura M Alwan; Heidi J Gray; Hisham K Tamimi; Barbara A Goff; John B Liao Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2013-04-28 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Charlotte S Marcus; G Larry Maxwell; Kathleen M Darcy; Chad A Hamilton; William P McGuire Journal: J Cancer Date: 2014-01-01 Impact factor: 4.207
Authors: Emma L Barber; Emese Zsiros; John R Lurain; Alfred Rademaker; Julian C Schink; Nikki L Neubauer Journal: J Gynecol Oncol Date: 2013-07-04 Impact factor: 4.401