PURPOSE: To compare a cohort of patients with platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer (PROC) treated with bevacizumab and gemcitabine (Bev-Gem) to that of patients treated only with gemcitabine (Gem). METHODS: Between 2011 and 2017, we identified the Bev-Gem and Gem PROC groups. The regimen included 1000 mg/m2 of Gem on days 1, 8, and 15, and 15 mg/m2 of Bev on day 1, every 4 weeks. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated from the date of the administration of Bev-Gem or Gem until disease progression or death. RESULTS: The Bev-Gem and Gem groups included 18 and 29 patients, respectively. More patients had advanced stage disease in the Bev-Gem group (p = 0.048); no other characteristics differed between the groups. The response rates [ratio of complete remission (CR) to partial remission (PR)] of Bev-Gem and Gem were 38.9 and 3.4%, respectively (p < 0.01). The clinical benefit rates [combined percentages of CR, PR, and stable disease] of the Bev-Gem and Gem groups were 88.9 and 41.4%, respectively (p = 0.04). PFS and OS of the Bev-Gem group were superior (p < 0.01, p = 0.03, respectively). Bev-Gem was the better prognostic factor of both PFS [hazard ratio (HR) 0.17, p < 0.01] and OS (HR 0.31, p = 0.01). The frequency of hematologic and non-hematologic adverse effects was similar in each group. CONCLUSION: Bev-Gem regimens improved PFS and OS for PROC. Furthermore, the adverse effects of Bev-Gem were tolerable. Thus, Bev-Gem could be a candidate treatment strategy for PROC.
PURPOSE: To compare a cohort of patients with platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer (PROC) treated with bevacizumab and gemcitabine (Bev-Gem) to that of patients treated only with gemcitabine (Gem). METHODS: Between 2011 and 2017, we identified the Bev-Gem and Gem PROC groups. The regimen included 1000 mg/m2 of Gem on days 1, 8, and 15, and 15 mg/m2 of Bev on day 1, every 4 weeks. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated from the date of the administration of Bev-Gem or Gem until disease progression or death. RESULTS: The Bev-Gem and Gem groups included 18 and 29 patients, respectively. More patients had advanced stage disease in the Bev-Gem group (p = 0.048); no other characteristics differed between the groups. The response rates [ratio of complete remission (CR) to partial remission (PR)] of Bev-Gem and Gem were 38.9 and 3.4%, respectively (p < 0.01). The clinical benefit rates [combined percentages of CR, PR, and stable disease] of the Bev-Gem and Gem groups were 88.9 and 41.4%, respectively (p = 0.04). PFS and OS of the Bev-Gem group were superior (p < 0.01, p = 0.03, respectively). Bev-Gem was the better prognostic factor of both PFS [hazard ratio (HR) 0.17, p < 0.01] and OS (HR 0.31, p = 0.01). The frequency of hematologic and non-hematologic adverse effects was similar in each group. CONCLUSION:Bev-Gem regimens improved PFS and OS for PROC. Furthermore, the adverse effects of Bev-Gem were tolerable. Thus, Bev-Gem could be a candidate treatment strategy for PROC.