Richard T Penson1, Helen Q Huang2, Lari B Wenzel3, Bradley J Monk4, Sharon Stockman5, Harry J Long6, Lois M Ramondetta7, Lisa M Landrum8, Ana Oaknin9, Thomas J A Reid10, Mario M Leitao11, Michael Method12, Helen Michael13, Krishnansu S Tewari3. 1. Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. Electronic address: rpenson@partners.org. 2. NRG Oncology/Gynecologic Oncology Group, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, USA. 3. University of California, Irvine Medical Center, Orange, CA, USA. 4. University of Arizona Cancer Center and Creighton University at St Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, Phoenix, AZ, USA. 5. University of Iowa Hospitals, Iowa City, IA, USA. 6. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 7. MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. 8. Oklahoma University Health Science Center, Oklahoma City, OK, USA. 9. Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology, Barcelona, Spain. 10. University of Cincinnati College of Medicine/Women's Cancer Center at Kettering, Kettering, OH, USA. 11. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 12. Michiana Hematology Oncology PC-Mishawaka, Mishawaka, IN, USA. 13. Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: GOG 240 was a practice-changing randomised phase 3 trial that concluded that chemotherapy plus bevacizumab for advanced cervical cancer significantly improves overall and progression-free survival, and the proportion of patients achieving an overall objective response, compared with chemotherapy alone. In this study, we aimed to analyse patient-reported outcomes in GOG 240. METHODS:Eligible adult participants (aged ≥18 years) had primary stage IVB or recurrent or persistent carcinoma of the cervix with measurable disease and GOG performance status of 0-1. Participants were randomly assigned by web-based permuted block randomisation (block size 4) in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to the four treatment groups: cisplatin (50 mg/m(2) intravenously on day 1 or 2 of the treatment cycle) and paclitaxel (135 mg/m(2) intravenously over 24 h or 175 mg/m(2) intravenously over 3 h on day 1), with or without bevacizumab (15 mg/kg intravenously on day 1 or 2), or paclitaxel (175 mg/m(2) over 3 h on day 1) and topotecan (0·75 mg/m(2) for 30 min on days 1-3) with or without bevacizumab (15 mg/kg intravenously on day 1). Treatment assignment was concealed at randomisation (everyone was masked to treatment assignment, achieved by the use of a computer encrypted numbering system at the National Cancer Institute) and became open-label when each patient was registered to the trial. Treatment cycles were repeated every 21 days until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, whichever occurred first. The coprimary endpoints of the trial were overall survival and safety; the primary quality-of-life endpoint was the score on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Cervix Trial Outcome Index (FACT-Cx TOI). For our analysis of patient-reported outcomes, participants were assessed before treatment cycles 1, 2, and 5, and at 6 and 9 months after the start of cycle 1, with the FACT-Cx TOI, items from the FACT-GOG-Neurotoxicity subscale, and a worst pain item from the Brief Pain Inventory. All patients who completed baseline quality-of-life assessments and at least one further follow-up assessment were evaluable for quality-of-life outcomes. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00803062. FINDINGS:Between April 6, 2009, and Jan 3, 2012, a total of 452 patients were enrolled in the trial, of whom 390 completed baseline quality-of-life assessment and at least one further assessment and were therefore evaluable for quality-of-life outcomes. In these patients, patient-reported outcome completion declined from 426 (94%) of 452 (at baseline) to 193 (63%) of 307 (9 months post-cycle 1), but completion rates did not differ significantly between treatment regimens (p=0·78). The baseline FACT-Cx TOI scores did not differ significantly between patients who received bevacizumab versus those who did not (p=0·27). Compared with patients who received chemotherapy alone, patients who received chemotherapy plus bevacizumab reported FACT-Cx TOI scores that were an average of 1·2 points lower (98·75% CI -4·1 to 1·7; p=0·30). INTERPRETATION: Improvements in overall survival and progression-free survival attributed to the incorporation of bevacizumab into the treatment of advanced cervical cancer were not accompanied by any significant deterioration in health-related quality of life. Patients responding to anti-angiogenesis therapy who maintain an acceptable quality of life could be suitable at progression for treatment with other novel therapies that might confer additional benefit. FUNDING: National Institutes of Health.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:GOG 240 was a practice-changing randomised phase 3 trial that concluded that chemotherapy plus bevacizumab for advanced cervical cancer significantly improves overall and progression-free survival, and the proportion of patients achieving an overall objective response, compared with chemotherapy alone. In this study, we aimed to analyse patient-reported outcomes in GOG 240. METHODS: Eligible adult participants (aged ≥18 years) had primary stage IVB or recurrent or persistent carcinoma of the cervix with measurable disease and GOG performance status of 0-1. Participants were randomly assigned by web-based permuted block randomisation (block size 4) in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to the four treatment groups: cisplatin (50 mg/m(2) intravenously on day 1 or 2 of the treatment cycle) and paclitaxel (135 mg/m(2) intravenously over 24 h or 175 mg/m(2) intravenously over 3 h on day 1), with or without bevacizumab (15 mg/kg intravenously on day 1 or 2), or paclitaxel (175 mg/m(2) over 3 h on day 1) and topotecan (0·75 mg/m(2) for 30 min on days 1-3) with or without bevacizumab (15 mg/kg intravenously on day 1). Treatment assignment was concealed at randomisation (everyone was masked to treatment assignment, achieved by the use of a computer encrypted numbering system at the National Cancer Institute) and became open-label when each patient was registered to the trial. Treatment cycles were repeated every 21 days until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, whichever occurred first. The coprimary endpoints of the trial were overall survival and safety; the primary quality-of-life endpoint was the score on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Cervix Trial Outcome Index (FACT-Cx TOI). For our analysis of patient-reported outcomes, participants were assessed before treatment cycles 1, 2, and 5, and at 6 and 9 months after the start of cycle 1, with the FACT-Cx TOI, items from the FACT-GOG-Neurotoxicity subscale, and a worst pain item from the Brief Pain Inventory. All patients who completed baseline quality-of-life assessments and at least one further follow-up assessment were evaluable for quality-of-life outcomes. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00803062. FINDINGS: Between April 6, 2009, and Jan 3, 2012, a total of 452 patients were enrolled in the trial, of whom 390 completed baseline quality-of-life assessment and at least one further assessment and were therefore evaluable for quality-of-life outcomes. In these patients, patient-reported outcome completion declined from 426 (94%) of 452 (at baseline) to 193 (63%) of 307 (9 months post-cycle 1), but completion rates did not differ significantly between treatment regimens (p=0·78). The baseline FACT-Cx TOI scores did not differ significantly between patients who received bevacizumab versus those who did not (p=0·27). Compared with patients who received chemotherapy alone, patients who received chemotherapy plus bevacizumab reported FACT-Cx TOI scores that were an average of 1·2 points lower (98·75% CI -4·1 to 1·7; p=0·30). INTERPRETATION: Improvements in overall survival and progression-free survival attributed to the incorporation of bevacizumab into the treatment of advanced cervical cancer were not accompanied by any significant deterioration in health-related quality of life. Patients responding to anti-angiogenesis therapy who maintain an acceptable quality of life could be suitable at progression for treatment with other novel therapies that might confer additional benefit. FUNDING: National Institutes of Health.
Authors: Dana M Chase; Helen Q Huang; Lari Wenzel; David Cella; Richard McQuellon; Harry J Long; David H Moore; Bradley J Monk Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2012-02-01 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Krishnansu S Tewari; Michael W Sill; Harry J Long; Richard T Penson; Helen Huang; Lois M Ramondetta; Lisa M Landrum; Ana Oaknin; Thomas J Reid; Mario M Leitao; Helen E Michael; Bradley J Monk Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-02-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: A Verheyen; E Peeraer; D Lambrechts; K Poesen; P Carmeliet; M Shibuya; I Pintelon; J-P Timmermans; R Nuydens; T Meert Journal: Neuroscience Date: 2013-04-11 Impact factor: 3.590
Authors: Zeeshan Butt; Sarah K Rosenbloom; Amy P Abernethy; Jennifer L Beaumont; Diane Paul; Debra Hampton; Paul B Jacobsen; Karen L Syrjala; Jamie H Von Roenn; David Cella Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: David H Moore; Chunqiao Tian; Bradley J Monk; Harry J Long; George A Omura; Jeffrey D Bloss Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2009-10-22 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Bradley J Monk; Michael W Sill; D Scott McMeekin; David E Cohn; Lois M Ramondetta; Cecelia H Boardman; Jo Benda; David Cella Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-08-31 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: José Baselga; Nina Bhardwaj; Lewis C Cantley; Ronald DeMatteo; Raymond N DuBois; Margaret Foti; Susan M Gapstur; William C Hahn; Lee J Helman; Roy A Jensen; Electra D Paskett; Theodore S Lawrence; Stuart G Lutzker; Eva Szabo Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2015-10-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: L M Wiltink; M King; F Müller; M S Sousa; M Tang; A Pendlebury; J Pittman; N Roberts; L Mileshkin; R Mercieca-Bebber; M-A Tait; R Campbell; C Rutherford Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2020-06-18 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Bruno Kovic; Xuejing Jin; Sean Alexander Kennedy; Mathieu Hylands; Michal Pedziwiatr; Akira Kuriyama; Huda Gomaa; Yung Lee; Morihiro Katsura; Masafumi Tada; Brian Y Hong; Sung Min Cho; Patrick Jiho Hong; Ashley M Yu; Yasmin Sivji; Augustin Toma; Li Xie; Ludwig Tsoi; Marcin Waligora; Manya Prasad; Neera Bhatnagar; Lehana Thabane; Michael Brundage; Gordon Guyatt; Feng Xie Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2018-12-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Krishnansu S Tewari; Michael W Sill; Richard T Penson; Helen Huang; Lois M Ramondetta; Lisa M Landrum; Ana Oaknin; Thomas J Reid; Mario M Leitao; Helen E Michael; Philip J DiSaia; Larry J Copeland; William T Creasman; Frederick B Stehman; Mark F Brady; Robert A Burger; J Tate Thigpen; Michael J Birrer; Steven E Waggoner; David H Moore; Katherine Y Look; Wui-Jin Koh; Bradley J Monk Journal: Lancet Date: 2017-07-27 Impact factor: 79.321