Krishnansu S Tewari1, Michael W Sill2, Robert L Coleman3, Carol Aghajanian4, Robert Mannel5, Paul A DiSilvestro6, Matthew Powell7, Leslie M Randall8, John Farley9, Stephen C Rubin10, Bradley J Monk11. 1. University of California, Irvine, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Orange, CA, United States. Electronic address: ktewari@uci.edu. 2. NRG Oncology, Clinical Trial Development Division, Biostatistics & Bioinformatics, Roswell Park, Buffalo, NY 14263, United States. Electronic address: sillm@nrgoncology.org. 3. MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States. 4. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, United States. Electronic address: aghajanc@MSKCC.org. 5. The Peggy and Charles Stephenson Cancer Center, The University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, 800 NE 10(th) St., SOCC 6043, Oklahoma City, OK 73104, United States. Electronic address: robert-mannel@ouhsc.edu. 6. Women and Infants Hospital of Rhode Island, 101 Dudley St., Providence, RI 02905, United States. Electronic address: PDiSilvestro@WIHRI.org. 7. Washington University School of Medicine, 4911 Barnes Jewish Hospital Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63110, United States. Electronic address: mpowell@wustl.edu. 8. University of California, Irvine, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Orange, CA, United States. Electronic address: Leslie.Randall@vcuhealth.org. 9. Creighton University School of Medicine at St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, Pheonix, AZ 85013, United States. Electronic address: John.farley@chw.edu. 10. Fox Chase Cancer Center, 333 Cottman Ave., Philadelphia, PA 19111, United States. Electronic address: stephen.rubin@fccc.edu. 11. Arizona Oncology (US Oncology Network), University of Arizona College of Medicine-Phoenix, Creighton University School of Medicine, St. Joseph's Hospital, Phoenix, AZ, United States. Electronic address: Bradley.Monk@usoncology.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore the relationship between tumor size and response to combined anti-vascular targeted therapy using the anti-angiogenesis inhibitor, bevacizumab, and the tubulin-binding vascular disrupting agent, fosbretabulin. METHODS: An exploratory, post-hoc analysis of the randomized phase II trial, Gynecologic Oncology Group-0186I, was performed. One hundred and seven patients with recurrent ovarian carcinoma, treated with up to 3 prior regimens, were randomized to bevacizumab 15 mg/kg body weight with or without intravenous fosbretabulin 60 mg/m2 body surface area every 21 days until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary analysis favored the combination (HR 0.69; 95% CI, 0.47-1.00; p = .049) [Monk BJ, et al. J Clin Oncol 2016;34:2279-86]. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the treatment effect in various subpopulations. RESULTS: With extended follow-up, the median PFS for bevacizumab plus fosbretabulin was 7.6 months as compared to 4.8 months with bevacizumab alone (HR 0.74; 90% CI, 0.54-1.02). Overall survival was similar in the experimental and control arms (25.2 vs 24.4 mos, respectively, HR 0.85; 90% CI, 0.59-1.22; p = .461). Eighty-one patients had measurable disease and median tumor size was 5.7 cm. In the ≤5.7 cm subgroup, the HR for progression or death was 0.77 (90% CI 0.45-1.31). Patients with tumors >5.7 cm (n = 40) had a HR for progression or death of 0.55; 90% CI, 0.32-0.96; p = .075). CONCLUSIONS: Although no significant survival benefit was observed, the trend showing a reduced HR for progression or death with increasing tumor size when fosbretabulin is added to bevacizumab compared to bevacizumab alone warrants further study.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To explore the relationship between tumor size and response to combined anti-vascular targeted therapy using the anti-angiogenesis inhibitor, bevacizumab, and the tubulin-binding vascular disrupting agent, fosbretabulin. METHODS: An exploratory, post-hoc analysis of the randomized phase II trial, Gynecologic Oncology Group-0186I, was performed. One hundred and seven patients with recurrent ovarian carcinoma, treated with up to 3 prior regimens, were randomized to bevacizumab 15 mg/kg body weight with or without intravenous fosbretabulin 60 mg/m2 body surface area every 21 days until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary analysis favored the combination (HR 0.69; 95% CI, 0.47-1.00; p = .049) [Monk BJ, et al. J Clin Oncol 2016;34:2279-86]. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the treatment effect in various subpopulations. RESULTS: With extended follow-up, the median PFS for bevacizumab plus fosbretabulin was 7.6 months as compared to 4.8 months with bevacizumab alone (HR 0.74; 90% CI, 0.54-1.02). Overall survival was similar in the experimental and control arms (25.2 vs 24.4 mos, respectively, HR 0.85; 90% CI, 0.59-1.22; p = .461). Eighty-one patients had measurable disease and median tumor size was 5.7 cm. In the ≤5.7 cm subgroup, the HR for progression or death was 0.77 (90% CI 0.45-1.31). Patients with tumors >5.7 cm (n = 40) had a HR for progression or death of 0.55; 90% CI, 0.32-0.96; p = .075). CONCLUSIONS: Although no significant survival benefit was observed, the trend showing a reduced HR for progression or death with increasing tumor size when fosbretabulin is added to bevacizumab compared to bevacizumab alone warrants further study.
Authors: Bella Kaufman; Ronnie Shapira-Frommer; Rita K Schmutzler; M William Audeh; Michael Friedlander; Judith Balmaña; Gillian Mitchell; Georgeta Fried; Salomon M Stemmer; Ayala Hubert; Ora Rosengarten; Mariana Steiner; Niklas Loman; Karin Bowen; Anitra Fielding; Susan M Domchek Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-11-03 Impact factor: 44.544
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: Carol Aghajanian; Stephanie V Blank; Barbara A Goff; Patricia L Judson; Michael G Teneriello; Amreen Husain; Mika A Sovak; Jing Yi; Lawrence R Nycum Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-04-23 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Dietmar W Siemann; Michael C Bibby; Graham G Dark; Adam P Dicker; Ferry A L M Eskens; Michael R Horsman; Dieter Marmé; Patricia M Lorusso Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2005-01-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Mansoor R Mirza; Bradley J Monk; Jørn Herrstedt; Amit M Oza; Sven Mahner; Andrés Redondo; Michel Fabbro; Jonathan A Ledermann; Domenica Lorusso; Ignace Vergote; Noa E Ben-Baruch; Christian Marth; Radosław Mądry; René D Christensen; Jonathan S Berek; Anne Dørum; Anna V Tinker; Andreas du Bois; Antonio González-Martín; Philippe Follana; Benedict Benigno; Per Rosenberg; Lucy Gilbert; Bobbie J Rimel; Joseph Buscema; John P Balser; Shefali Agarwal; Ursula A Matulonis Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-10-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Paul Nathan; Martin Zweifel; Anwar R Padhani; Dow-Mu Koh; Matthew Ng; David J Collins; Adrian Harris; Craig Carden; Jon Smythe; Nita Fisher; N Jane Taylor; J James Stirling; Shiao-Ping Lu; Martin O Leach; Gordon J S Rustin; Ian Judson Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2012-05-29 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Daniel J Inglis; Tina C Lavranos; Donna M Beaumont; Annabell F Leske; Chloe K Brown; Allison J Hall; Gabriel Kremmidiotis Journal: Cancer Biol Ther Date: 2014 Impact factor: 4.742
Authors: Li Liu; Devin O'Kelly; Regan Schuetze; Graham Carlson; Heling Zhou; Mary Lynn Trawick; Kevin G Pinney; Ralph P Mason Journal: Molecules Date: 2021-04-27 Impact factor: 4.411