OBJECTIVE: To compare the progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) who received Bev after Bev (BAB) vs. those who were not re-treated with Bev (NOTBev) after initially experiencing a complete response (CR) to a Bev-containing regimen (BCR). METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review of patients with EOC that received Bev in either the front-line or recurrent setting. Patients who received additional therapy after achieving a CR to BCR were analyzed. RESULTS: 36 patients who had a CR to a BCR were included, 17 who received Bev at the time of their subsequent recurrence vs. 19 that did not. More patients in the NOTBev group received Bev as primary therapy (21% vs. 6%, p=0.2), but this was not statistically significant. Patients in the BAB group had significantly higher mean PFS compared to the NOTBev group (20 vs. 6 months, p=0.0019). On adjusting for covariates, there was a 78% improvement in their PFS (HR 0.22, p=0.0048). No difference in overall survival was noted between the groups (23 vs. 26 months, p=0.7244). CONCLUSIONS: Re-treatment with Bev after a prior Bev response is associated with a significantly improved PFS. This is the first of such reports in this patient population. The 14-month improvement in PFS strongly supports the re-use of Bev in patients who demonstrate an initial response to Bev. This strategy should be formally tested in future clinical trials and further investigation should include evaluation of predictors of response to Bev therapy.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) who received Bev after Bev (BAB) vs. those who were not re-treated with Bev (NOTBev) after initially experiencing a complete response (CR) to a Bev-containing regimen (BCR). METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review of patients with EOC that received Bev in either the front-line or recurrent setting. Patients who received additional therapy after achieving a CR to BCR were analyzed. RESULTS: 36 patients who had a CR to a BCR were included, 17 who received Bev at the time of their subsequent recurrence vs. 19 that did not. More patients in the NOTBev group received Bev as primary therapy (21% vs. 6%, p=0.2), but this was not statistically significant. Patients in the BAB group had significantly higher mean PFS compared to the NOTBev group (20 vs. 6 months, p=0.0019). On adjusting for covariates, there was a 78% improvement in their PFS (HR 0.22, p=0.0048). No difference in overall survival was noted between the groups (23 vs. 26 months, p=0.7244). CONCLUSIONS: Re-treatment with Bev after a prior Bev response is associated with a significantly improved PFS. This is the first of such reports in this patient population. The 14-month improvement in PFS strongly supports the re-use of Bev in patients who demonstrate an initial response to Bev. This strategy should be formally tested in future clinical trials and further investigation should include evaluation of predictors of response to Bev therapy.
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: Helen X Chen; Margaret Mooney; Matthew Boron; Don Vena; Kimberly Mosby; Louise Grochow; Carl Jaffe; Lawrence Rubinstein; James Zwiebel; Richard S Kaplan Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-07-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Axel Grothey; Mary M Sugrue; David M Purdie; Wei Dong; Daniel Sargent; Eric Hedrick; Mark Kozloff Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-10-14 Impact factor: 44.544
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: David S Alberts; P Y Liu; Sharon P Wilczynski; Mary C Clouser; Ana Maria Lopez; David P Michelin; Victor J Lanzotti; Maurie Markman Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2007-10-18 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Paxton V Dickson; John B Hamner; Thomas L Sims; Charles H Fraga; Catherine Y C Ng; Surender Rajasekeran; Nikolaus L Hagedorn; M Beth McCarville; Clinton F Stewart; Andrew M Davidoff Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2007-07-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Robin A Laskey; Scott D Richard; Ashlee L Smith; Jeff F Lin; Tiffany L Beck; Jamie L Lesnock; Joseph L Kelley; Alexander B Olawaiye; Paniti Sukumvanich; Thomas C Krivak Journal: Onco Targets Ther Date: 2014-03-21 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Dana M Roque; Eric R Siegel; Natalia Buza; Stefania Bellone; Dan-Arin Silasi; Gloria S Huang; Vaagn Andikyan; Mitchell Clark; Masoud Azodi; Peter E Schwartz; Gautam G Rao; Jocelyn C Reader; Pei Hui; Joan R Tymon-Rosario; Justin Harold; Dennis Mauricio; Burak Zeybek; Gulden Menderes; Gary Altwerger; Elena Ratner; Alessandro D Santin Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2022-02-11 Impact factor: 7.640