OBJECTIVES: Gynecologic Oncology Group Study 0218 (GOG-0218), a phase III, placebo-controlled trial in newly diagnosed stage III/IV ovarian cancer (OC), demonstrated a benefit in investigator (INV)-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) with bevacizumab (BEV) administered with and following carboplatin/paclitaxel (CP) for up to 15 months vs. CP alone. To determine the reliability of Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) in assessing disease progression (PD) in GOG-0218, an independent review of radiologic and clinical data (IRC) was conducted. METHODS: Blinded reviews followed RECIST 1.0 in accordance with the study protocol; PFS was analyzed in the intent-to-treat population. RESULTS: CP+BEV→BEV achieved a significant PFS improvement in both assessments. Hazard ratios for PFS (IRC: 0.623; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.503-0.772; p<0.0001 vs. INV: 0.624; 95% CI: 0.520-0.749; p<0.0001) and the improvement in median PFS (IRC: 19.1 and 13.1 months vs. INV: 18.2 and 12 months) were similar between IRC and INV assessments. There was high concordance between IRC- and INV-determined PD status (77%) and date (73%). Subgroup analyses were consistent with the primary IRC findings. Early and late discontinuation discordance measures showed no evidence of INV bias. CONCLUSION:IRC analysis confirmed a significant PFS improvement with CP+BEV→BEV vs. CP alone. Concordance was not influenced by extent of residual disease after cytoreductive surgery or initial stage. The IRC size, high participation rate, and strong concordance between IRC and INV assessments suggest that RECIST can be applied objectively in OC studies.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: Gynecologic Oncology Group Study 0218 (GOG-0218), a phase III, placebo-controlled trial in newly diagnosed stage III/IV ovarian cancer (OC), demonstrated a benefit in investigator (INV)-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) with bevacizumab (BEV) administered with and following carboplatin/paclitaxel (CP) for up to 15 months vs. CP alone. To determine the reliability of Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) in assessing disease progression (PD) in GOG-0218, an independent review of radiologic and clinical data (IRC) was conducted. METHODS: Blinded reviews followed RECIST 1.0 in accordance with the study protocol; PFS was analyzed in the intent-to-treat population. RESULTS: CP+BEV→BEV achieved a significant PFS improvement in both assessments. Hazard ratios for PFS (IRC: 0.623; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.503-0.772; p<0.0001 vs. INV: 0.624; 95% CI: 0.520-0.749; p<0.0001) and the improvement in median PFS (IRC: 19.1 and 13.1 months vs. INV: 18.2 and 12 months) were similar between IRC and INV assessments. There was high concordance between IRC- and INV-determined PD status (77%) and date (73%). Subgroup analyses were consistent with the primary IRC findings. Early and late discontinuation discordance measures showed no evidence of INV bias. CONCLUSION: IRC analysis confirmed a significant PFS improvement with CP+BEV→BEV vs. CP alone. Concordance was not influenced by extent of residual disease after cytoreductive surgery or initial stage. The IRC size, high participation rate, and strong concordance between IRC and INV assessments suggest that RECIST can be applied objectively in OC studies.
Authors: George D Demetri; Allan T van Oosterom; Christopher R Garrett; Martin E Blackstein; Manisha H Shah; Jaap Verweij; Grant McArthur; Ian R Judson; Michael C Heinrich; Jeffrey A Morgan; Jayesh Desai; Christopher D Fletcher; Suzanne George; Carlo L Bello; Xin Huang; Charles M Baum; Paolo G Casali Journal: Lancet Date: 2006-10-14 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Gavin C E Stuart; Henry Kitchener; Monica Bacon; Andreas duBois; Michael Friedlander; Jonathan Ledermann; Christian Marth; Tate Thigpen; Edward Trimble Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: Charles E Geyer; John Forster; Deborah Lindquist; Stephen Chan; C Gilles Romieu; Tadeusz Pienkowski; Agnieszka Jagiello-Gruszfeld; John Crown; Arlene Chan; Bella Kaufman; Dimosthenis Skarlos; Mario Campone; Neville Davidson; Mark Berger; Cristina Oliva; Stephen D Rubin; Steven Stein; David Cameron Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-12-28 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Robert A Burger; Mark F Brady; Michael A Bookman; Gini F Fleming; Bradley J Monk; Helen Huang; Robert S Mannel; Howard D Homesley; Jeffrey Fowler; Benjamin E Greer; Matthew Boente; Michael J Birrer; Sharon X Liang Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-12-29 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Robert C Kane; Ann T Farrell; Haleh Saber; Shenghui Tang; Gene Williams; Josephine M Jee; Chengyi Liang; Brian Booth; Nallaperumal Chidambaram; David Morse; Rajeshwari Sridhara; Patricia Garvey; Robert Justice; Richard Pazdur Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2006-12-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Lisa M Hess; Nan Rong; Patrick O Monahan; Paridha Gupta; Champ Thomaskutty; Daniela Matei Journal: Cancer Date: 2010-11-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Yunzhi Wang; Theresa Thai; Kathleen Moore; Kai Ding; Scott McMeekin; Hong Liu; Bin Zheng Journal: Oncol Lett Date: 2016-05-31 Impact factor: 2.967
Authors: Ramez N Eskander; James Kauderer; Krishnansu S Tewari; Robert S Mannel; Robert E Bristow; David M O'Malley; Stephen C Rubin; Gretchen E Glaser; Chad A Hamilton; Keiichi Fujiwara; Warner K Huh; Frederick Ueland; Jean-Marie Stephan; Robert A Burger Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2018-03-15 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Edward L Trimble; Michael J Birrer; William J Hoskins; Christian Marth; Ray Petryshyn; Michael Quinn; Gillian M Thomas; Henry C Kitchener; Carol Aghajanian; David S Alberts; Deborah Armstrong; Jubilee Brown; Robert L Coleman; Nicoletta Colombo; Elizabeth Eisenhauer; Michael Friedlander; Keiichi Fujiwara; Sally Hunsberger; Stan Kaye; Jonathan A Ledermann; Susanna Lee; Katherine Look; Robert Mannel; Iain A McNeish; Lori Minasian; Amit Oza; Jim Paul; Andres Poveda; Eric Pujade-Lauraine; Mason Schoenfeldt; Ann Marie Swart; Vivian von Gruenigen; Lari Wenzel Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 3.437