Bevacizumab for Newly Diagnosed Ovarian Cancers: Best Candidates Among High-Risk Disease Patients (ICON-7).
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Colomban O
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7306189 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jun
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Bevacizumab for Newly Diagnosed Ovarian Cancers: Best Candidates Among High-Risk Disease Patients (ICON-7).
Colomban Olivier O Tod Michel M Peron Julien J Perren Timothy J TJ Leary Alexandra A Cook Adrian D AD Sajous Christophe C Freyer Gilles G You Benoit B
JNCI cancer spectrum 20200404 3
Bevacizumab is approved as a maintenance treatment in first-line setting in advanced-stage III-IV ovarian cancers, because GOG-0218 and ICON-7 phase III trials demonstrated progression-free survival benefits. However, only the subgroup of patients with high-risk diseases (stage IV, and incompletely resected stage III) derived an overall survival (OS) gain in the ICON-7 trial (4.8 months). The modeled CA-125 elimination rate constant K (KELIM) parameter, based on the longitudinal CA-125 kinetics ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundFront-line maintenance therapy with bevacizumab demonstrates high efficacy and safety in epithelial ovarian cancer, as already shown in large phase III trials; however, the corresponding study populations are often not fully representative of patients in clinical routine. In this Austria-based multicenter study, we aimed to explore the real-world outcomes of bevacizumab use in front-line treatment of ovarian cancer, including patients with comorbidities and poor performance status.PatientsThis study is an open label single arm multicenter noninterventional trial and included patients with newly diagnosed advanced epithelial ovarian cancer, who were treated with platinum-based chemotherapy and were candidates for receiving bevacizumab according to the product label. Data collection started in the third quarter of 2012 and ended in the third quarter of 2018.ResultsIn this study 50 patients were included and 575 adverse events were reported for 90% of the patients. The majority of the adverse events were mild (47%) or moderate (37%). The most common adverse events were hypertension (60%), anemia (48%), leukopenia (42%), thrombocytopenia (36%), neutropenia (36%) and proteinuria (26%). A relation to bevacizumab was documented only for 10.3% of all adverse events. In almost 50% of all adverse events, no intervention was needed and bevacizumab treatment had to be interrupted only in 3.3% of all adverse events. The median progression-free survival was 1.3 years (95% CI 1.1-1.8).ConclusionThe routine use of front-line bevacizumab for advanced ovarian cancer is associated with high efficacy comparable with that obtained in randomized phase III clinical trials; however, hypertension and proteinuria were reported significantly more often in our Austria-based real-world population.
| S-EPMC9606045 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn women with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer, bevacizumab and poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) exhibit improved progression-free survival (PFS) when administered concurrent with chemotherapy and/or maintenance therapy, but no study has directly compared their effects. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab and PARPi in women with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer using a network meta-analysis.MethodsPubMed, Medline, and Embase databases were searched, and five randomized trials assessing PFS in women with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer treated with either bevacizumab, PARPi, or placebo or no additional agent (controls) were identified. PFS was compared in the overall population with ovarian cancer, women with a BRCA1/2 mutation (BRCAm) and women with homologous-recombination deficiency (HRD). Adverse events (grade ≥ 3) were compared in all populations of the included studies.ResultsPARPi improved PFS significantly more than bevacizumab in women with a BRCAm (HR 0.47; 95% CI 0.36-0.60) and with HRD (HR 0.66; 95% CI 0.50-0.87). However, in the overall population with ovarian cancer, no significant difference in PFS was observed between women treated with PARPi and those treated with bevacizumab. PARPi exhibited the highest surface under the cumulative ranking probabilities value as the most effective treatment for PFS (PARPi vs. bevacizumab: 98% vs. 52% in the overall population with ovarian cancer; 100% vs. 50% in women with BRCAm; 100% vs. 50% in women with HRD). For adverse events, the risk of all treatments was similar. However, PARPi had a higher adverse risk than the control group (relative risk 2.14; 95% CI 1.40-3.26).ConclusionsIn women with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer, PARPi might be more effective in terms of PFS compared to bevacizumab. The risk of serious adverse events was similar for PARPi and bevacizumab.
| S-EPMC8969379 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundConcurrent treatment with temozolomide and radiotherapy followed by maintenance temozolomide is the standard of care for patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma. Bevacizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody against vascular endothelial growth factor A, is currently approved for recurrent glioblastoma. Whether the addition of bevacizumab would improve survival among patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma is not known.MethodsIn this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we treated adults who had centrally confirmed glioblastoma with radiotherapy (60 Gy) and daily temozolomide. Treatment with bevacizumab or placebo began during week 4 of radiotherapy and was continued for up to 12 cycles of maintenance chemotherapy. At disease progression, the assigned treatment was revealed, and bevacizumab therapy could be initiated or continued. The trial was designed to detect a 25% reduction in the risk of death and a 30% reduction in the risk of progression or death, the two coprimary end points, with the addition of bevacizumab.ResultsA total of 978 patients were registered, and 637 underwent randomization. There was no significant difference in the duration of overall survival between the bevacizumab group and the placebo group (median, 15.7 and 16.1 months, respectively; hazard ratio for death in the bevacizumab group, 1.13). Progression-free survival was longer in the bevacizumab group (10.7 months vs. 7.3 months; hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.79). There were modest increases in rates of hypertension, thromboembolic events, intestinal perforation, and neutropenia in the bevacizumab group. Over time, an increased symptom burden, a worse quality of life, and a decline in neurocognitive function were more frequent in the bevacizumab group.ConclusionsFirst-line use of bevacizumab did not improve overall survival in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma. Progression-free survival was prolonged but did not reach the prespecified improvement target. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00884741.).
| S-EPMC4201043 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Although there have been many definitions for high-risk (HR) myeloma, most recent consensus for classifying risk in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NMM) comes from the International Myeloma Working Group. This recently published revised International Staging System includes del(17p) or t(4;14) by fluorescence in situ hybridization, ?-2 microglobulin, albumin, and lactate dehydrogenase. These elements should be captured in all NMM patients. The optimal treatments for HR myeloma have not been fully worked out; therefore, these patients should be considered for clinical trials. Outside of the trial setting for those patients who are not eligible for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT), a regimen with bortezomib, but not thalidomide, should be considered, with a duration of therapy of at least 1 year. The regimen with the best results to date is bortezomib, melphalan, and predisone. A nonthalidomide maintenance could also be considered. In patients who are eligible for ASCT, an induction regimen with bortezomib and an immunomodulatory drug should be administered for 3 to 6 months followed by 2 ASCTs. Finally, a consolidation/maintenance regimen containing at least 1 year of bortezomib should be administered followed by maintenance thereafter. For patient convenience, an oral agent that is not thalidomide could be prescribed as maintenance. Finally, in patients with HR myeloma, allogeneic SCT may be associated with reasonable outcomes, but this too will require further research.
| S-EPMC6142458 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of extending bevacizumab therapy beyond 15 months in nonprogressive ovarian cancer.Patients and methodsIn this multinational prospective single-arm study (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01239732), eligible patients had International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage IIB to IV or grade 3 stage I to IIA ovarian cancer without clinical signs or symptoms of gastrointestinal obstruction or history of abdominal fistula, gastrointestinal perforation, or intra-abdominal abscess within the preceding 6 months. Prior neoadjuvant chemotherapy was permitted. After debulking surgery, patients received bevacizumab 15 (or 7.5) mg/kg every 3 weeks (q3w) with 4 to 8 cycles of paclitaxel (investigator's choice of 175 mg/m q3w or 80 mg/m weekly) plus carboplatin AUC 5 to 6 q3w. Single-agent bevacizumab was continued until progression or for up to 24 months. The primary end point was safety.ResultsBetween December 2010 and May 2012, 1021 patients from 35 countries began study treatment. Bevacizumab was administered at 15 mg/kg in 89% of patients and for more than 15 months in 53%. Median follow-up duration was 32 months (range, 1-50 months). The most common all-grade adverse events were hypertension (55% of patients), neutropenia (49%), and alopecia (43%). The most common grade 3 or higher-grade adverse events were neutropenia (27%) and hypertension (25%). Bevacizumab was discontinued because of proteinuria in 5% of patients and hypertension in 3%. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 25.5 months (95% confidence interval, 23.7-27.6 months).ConclusionExtended bevacizumab demonstrated increased incidences of proteinuria and hypertension compared with 12 or 15 months of bevacizumab in previous trials, but these rarely led to bevacizumab discontinuation. Median PFS is the longest reported for frontline bevacizumab-containing therapy. The longer bevacizumab duration beyond 15 months in this study may improve PFS without substantially compromising safety.
| S-EPMC5181120 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveWe assessed the safety and maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of the poly ADP-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitor olaparib with intravenous (IV)/intraperitoneal (IP) cisplatin/paclitaxel and IV bevacizumab, followed by olaparib and bevacizumab maintenance, in patients with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer who had undergone primary debulking surgery.MethodsTreatment included: (Cycles 1-6) Day 1, IV paclitaxel 135 mg/m2/3 h + (from Cycle 2 onward) bevacizumab 15 mg/kg; Day 2, IP cisplatin 75 mg/m2; Days 2-8, olaparib (50/100/200 mg BID); Day 8, IP paclitaxel 60 mg/m2 of a 21-day cycle. Maintenance (Cycles 7-22) included: olaparib 300 mg BID and bevacizumab 15 mg/kg Day 1. The primary endpoint was MTD of olaparib, chemotherapy, and bevacizumab.ResultsSeventeen women were treated (Cohort 1 [50 mg olaparib], 8 patients; Cohort 2 [100 mg], 3 patients; and Cohort 3 [200 mg], 6 patients). Median age was 57 years (47-73); 94% had stage III disease; 29% had a germline BRCA mutation. Two of 6 patients in Cohort 3 experienced a dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). Grade 3/4 toxicities included: neutropenia (56%), lymphopenia (31%), anemia (25%), and fatigue (19%). Most patients started (88%, 81%) and completed (75%, 50%) maintenance olaparib and bevacizumab, respectively; 36% of patients on olaparib maintenance required a dose reduction. Median PFS was 33 months (26.2-NA).ConclusionsThe MTD of intermittently dosed olaparib with concurrent IV/IP cisplatin/paclitaxel and bevacizumab is 100 mg BID. Non-hematologic toxicities were predominantly low grade. One-third of patients on olaparib maintenance required dose reduction.
| S-EPMC7127949 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn patients with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer, bevacizumab and poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors, alone or in combination, have shown benefit as maintenance treatment following platinum-based chemotherapy. However, no trials have compared a PARP inhibitor plus bevacizumab versus a PARP inhibitor, or a PARP inhibitor versus bevacizumab. We performed an unanchored population-adjusted indirect treatment comparison to estimate the relative efficacy and safety of maintenance treatments for newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer.MethodsAnalyses were performed using aggregate data from the PRIMA trial and patient-level data from a subset of patients from the PAOLA-1 trial that met surgery and staging eligibility criteria of PRIMA. Propensity weights were used to match baseline characteristics of the PAOLA-1 subset to those of the PRIMA population. Analysis was performed in overall (biomarker-unselected) and homologous recombination repair deficiency (HRD)-positive populations.ResultsA total of 595/806 (266/387 HRD-positive) PAOLA-1 patients were included. After matching, the effective sample size for PAOLA-1 was 532 (242 HRD-positive). Maintenance olaparib plus bevacizumab reduced the risk of disease progression or death by 43% [hazard ratio (HR) 0.57; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.47-0.69] versus niraparib and by 40% (HR 0.60; 95% CI: 0.49-0.74) versus bevacizumab in the biomarker-unselected population and by 43% (HR 0.57; 95% CI: 0.41-0.79) and 60% (HR 0.40; 95% CI: 0.29-0.55), respectively, in the HRD-positive population. Progression-free survival (PFS) benefits of maintenance niraparib and bevacizumab arms were comparable in the biomarker-unselected population (HR 1.07; 95% CI: 0.87-1.32); however, niraparib showed a 30% reduced risk compared with bevacizumab (HR 0.70; 95% CI: 0.51-0.97) in the HRD-positive population.ConclusionsIn biomarker-unselected and HRD-positive patients, combination treatment with olaparib plus bevacizumab as maintenance treatment improves PFS for women with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer compared with either bevacizumab or niraparib alone. Results are hypothesis generating and could guide randomised trial design.
| S-EPMC8488507 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is an aggressive malignancy characterized by clonal proliferation of neoplastic immature precursor cells. AML impacts older adults and has a poor prognosis. Despite recent advances in treatment, AML is complex, with both genetic and epigenetic aberrations in the malignant clone and elaborate interactions with its microenvironment. We are now able to stratify patients on the basis of specific clinical and molecular features in order to optimize individual treatment strategies. However, our understanding of the complex nature of these molecular abnormalities continues to expand the defining characteristics of high-risk mutations. In this review, we focus on genetic and microenvironmental factors in adverse risk AML that play critical roles in leukemogenesis, including those not described in an European LeukemiaNet adverse risk group, and describe therapies that are currently in the clinical arena, either approved or under development.
| S-EPMC8111550 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeWe sought to determine the most cost-effective treatment for patients with newly diagnosed neovascular macular degeneration: monthly or as-needed bevacizumab injections, or monthly or as-needed ranibizumab injections.DesignCost-effectiveness analysis.ParticipantsHypothetical cohort of 80-year-old patients with newly diagnosed neovascular macular degeneration.MethodsUsing a mathematical model with a 20-year time horizon, we compared the incremental cost-effectiveness of treating a hypothetical cohort of 80-year-old patients with newly diagnosed neovascular macular degeneration using monthly bevacizumab, as-needed bevacizumab, monthly ranibizumab, or as-needed ranibizumab. Data came from the Comparison of Age-related macular degeneration Treatment Trial (CATT), the Medicare Fee Schedule, and the medical literature.Main outcome measuresCosts, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental costs per QALY gained.ResultsCompared with as-needed bevacizumab, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of monthly bevacizumab is $24,2 357/QALY. Monthly ranibizumab gains an additional 0.02 QALYs versus monthly bevacizumab at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of >$10 million/QALY. As-needed ranibizumab was dominated by monthly bevacizumab, meaning it was more costly and less effective. In sensitivity analyses assuming a willingness to pay of $100,000/QALY, the annual risk of serious vascular events would have to be ≥2.5 times higher with bevacizumab than that observed in the CATT trial for as-needed ranibizumab to have an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of <$100,000/QALY. In another sensitivity analysis, even if every patient receiving bevacizumab experienced declining vision by 1 category (e.g., from 20/25-20/40 to 20/50-20/80) after 2 years but every patient receiving ranibizumab retained their vision level, as-needed ranibizumab would have an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $97,340/QALY.ConclusionsEven after considering the potential for differences in risks of serious adverse events and therapeutic effectiveness, bevacizumab confers considerably greater value than ranibizumab for the treatment of neovascular macular degeneration.
| S-EPMC4109727 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Extramedullary relapse of multiple myeloma (MM) is often resistant to existing treatments, and has an extremely poor prognosis, but our understanding of extramedullary relapse is still limited. The incidence, clinical characteristics, impact on the prognosis of extramedullary relapse, and the risk factors for extramedullary relapse in NDMM patients were analyzed. Among the 471 NDMM patients, a total of 267 patients had disease relapse during follow-up, including 64 (24.0%) patients with extramedullary relapse. Extramedullary relapse was more common in patients with younger age, IgD subtype, elevated LDH, extensive osteolytic lesions, extramedullary involvement, and spleen enlargement at the time of MM diagnosis. Survival analysis showed that extramedullary relapse patients had significantly worse median OS than patients with relapse but without extramedullary involvement (30.8 months vs. 53.6 months, p = 0.012). Multivariate analysis confirmed that elevated LDH (OR = 2.09, p = 0.023), >2 osteolytic lesions (OR = 3.70, p < 0.001), extramedullary involvement (OR = 3.48, p < 0.001) and spleen enlargement (OR = 2.27, p = 0.011) at the time of MM diagnosis were independent risk factors for extramedullary relapse in NDMM patients. Each of the above four factors was assigned a value of 1 to form the extramedullary relapse prediction score, and the 3-year extramedullary relapse rates of patients in the 0-2 and 3-4 score groups were 9.0 % and 76.7 %, respectively. This study suggested that extramedullary relapse was associated with poor clinical characteristics and poor prognosis in NDMM patients. The extramedullary relapse prediction score model composed of LDH, osteolytic lesions, extramedullary involvement and spleen enlargement has a better ability to predict extramedullary relapse than the existing ISS and R-ISS stages.
| S-EPMC9776506 | biostudies-literature