Shubham Pant1, Ludmila K Martin, Susan Geyer, Lai Wei, Katherine Van Loon, Nili Sommovilla, Mark Zalupski, Renuka Iyer, David Fogelman, Andrew H Ko, Tanios Bekaii-Saab. 1. *Department of Oncology, Oklahoma University, Oklahoma City, OK †Department of Internal Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH ‡Department of Internal Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, CA §Mount Sinai School of Medicine, One Gustave Levy Place, New York ¶Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY ∥1500 E Medical Center Dr, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI #MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Phase III studies of bevacizumab in advanced pancreas cancer (APCA) demonstrated no improvement in outcome. No validated biomarkers for bevacizumab efficacy exist. We evaluated bevacizumab-related hypertension (B-HTN) as a biomarker in APCA patients in a pooled analysis from 4 prospective clinical trials of gemcitabine-based therapy combined with bevacizumab. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were collected from individual databases from 4 prospective, single-arm phase II trials. Patients were grouped according to B-HTN or no hypertension (HTN), and patients with HTN were further grouped according to highest Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade of HTN: grade 1-2 or grade 3-4. Clinical outcomes of overall survival, time to progression, overall response rate (ORR), and disease control rate (ORR+SD>16 wk) were compared. RESULTS: A total of 163 patients with stage IV APCA and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group 0-1 were included. Median age was 59 years (range, 33 to 85 y). Thirty-four patients had B-HTN, and 129 patients had no HTN. Prognostic factors were balanced between groups. Patients with any grade B-HTN had a significantly improved median overall survival (13.1 vs. 8.1 mo, P=0.0006), median time to tumor progression (7.6 vs. 5.5 mo, P=0.0074), ORR (47% vs. 16%, P=0.0001), and disease control rate (85% vs. 59%, P=0.004). There were no differences in outcomes according to HTN grade (1-2 [N=16] vs. 3-4 [N=18]). CONCLUSIONS: APCA patients who develop any grade of B-HTN appear to derive benefit from bevacizumab. Additional investigation is needed to identify subgroups of patients who develop B-HTN and are more likely to benefit from bevacizumab.
PURPOSE: Phase III studies of bevacizumab in advanced pancreas cancer (APCA) demonstrated no improvement in outcome. No validated biomarkers for bevacizumab efficacy exist. We evaluated bevacizumab-related hypertension (B-HTN) as a biomarker in APCApatients in a pooled analysis from 4 prospective clinical trials of gemcitabine-based therapy combined with bevacizumab. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were collected from individual databases from 4 prospective, single-arm phase II trials. Patients were grouped according to B-HTN or no hypertension (HTN), and patients with HTN were further grouped according to highest Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade of HTN: grade 1-2 or grade 3-4. Clinical outcomes of overall survival, time to progression, overall response rate (ORR), and disease control rate (ORR+SD>16 wk) were compared. RESULTS: A total of 163 patients with stage IV APCA and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group 0-1 were included. Median age was 59 years (range, 33 to 85 y). Thirty-four patients had B-HTN, and 129 patients had no HTN. Prognostic factors were balanced between groups. Patients with any grade B-HTN had a significantly improved median overall survival (13.1 vs. 8.1 mo, P=0.0006), median time to tumor progression (7.6 vs. 5.5 mo, P=0.0074), ORR (47% vs. 16%, P=0.0001), and disease control rate (85% vs. 59%, P=0.004). There were no differences in outcomes according to HTN grade (1-2 [N=16] vs. 3-4 [N=18]). CONCLUSIONS:APCApatients who develop any grade of B-HTN appear to derive benefit from bevacizumab. Additional investigation is needed to identify subgroups of patients who develop B-HTN and are more likely to benefit from bevacizumab.
Authors: Thierry Conroy; Françoise Desseigne; Marc Ychou; Olivier Bouché; Rosine Guimbaud; Yves Bécouarn; Antoine Adenis; Jean-Luc Raoul; Sophie Gourgou-Bourgade; Christelle de la Fouchardière; Jaafar Bennouna; Jean-Baptiste Bachet; Faiza Khemissa-Akouz; Denis Péré-Vergé; Catherine Delbaldo; Eric Assenat; Bruno Chauffert; Pierre Michel; Christine Montoto-Grillot; Michel Ducreux Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-05-12 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Suzanne E Dahlberg; Alan B Sandler; Julie R Brahmer; Joan H Schiller; David H Johnson Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-01-19 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Andrew H Ko; Elizabeth Dito; Brian Schillinger; Alan P Venook; Zhidong Xu; Emily K Bergsland; Derrick Wong; Janet Scott; Jimmy Hwang; Margaret A Tempero Journal: Invest New Drugs Date: 2008-04-01 Impact factor: 3.850
Authors: Daniel D Von Hoff; Thomas Ervin; Francis P Arena; E Gabriela Chiorean; Jeffrey Infante; Malcolm Moore; Thomas Seay; Sergei A Tjulandin; Wen Wee Ma; Mansoor N Saleh; Marion Harris; Michele Reni; Scot Dowden; Daniel Laheru; Nathan Bahary; Ramesh K Ramanathan; Josep Tabernero; Manuel Hidalgo; David Goldstein; Eric Van Cutsem; Xinyu Wei; Jose Iglesias; Markus F Renschler Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-10-16 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Brian I Rini; Darrel P Cohen; Dongrui R Lu; Isan Chen; Subramanian Hariharan; Martin E Gore; Robert A Figlin; Michael S Baum; Robert J Motzer Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2011-04-28 Impact factor: 13.506