Recurrent ovarian cancer: Is there a role for re-treatment with bevacizumab after an initial complete response to a bevacizumab-containing regimen?

Recurrent ovarian cancer: Is there a role for re-treatment with bevacizumab after an initial complete response to a bevacizumab-containing regimen?

Publication year: 2012
Source:Gynecologic Oncology
Georgia A. McCann, Blair Smith, Floor J. Backes, Kellie Rath, Simi Chacko, Ritu Salani, Eric Eisenhauer, Jeffrey Fowler, David Cohn, David O'Malley
Objective To compare the progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) who received Bev after Bev (BAB) versus those who were not re-treated with Bev (NOTBev) after initially experiencing a complete response (CR) to a Bev-containing regimen (BCR). Methods We performed a retrospective chart review of patients with EOC that received Bev in either the front-line or recurrent setting. Patients who received additional therapy after achieving a CR to BCR were analyzed. Results 36 patients who had a CR to a BCR were included, 17 who received Bev at the time of their subsequent recurrence versus 19 that did not. More patients in the NOTBev group received Bev as primary therapy (21% vs. 6%, p=0.2), but this was not statistically significant. Patients in the BAB group had significantly higher mean PFS compared to the NOTBev group (20 vs. 6months, p=0.0019). On adjusting for covariates, there was a 78% improvement in their PFS (HR 0.22, p=0.0048). No difference in overall survival was noted between the groups (23 vs. 26months, p=0.7244). Conclusions Re-treatment with Bev after a prior Bev response is associated with a significantly improved PFS. This is the first of such reports in this patient population. The 14-month improvement in PFS strongly supports the re-use of Bev in patients who demonstrate an initial response to Bev. This strategy should be formally tested in future clinical trials and further investigation should include evaluation of predictors of response to Bev therapy.

Highlights

► Comparison of patients who were treated with Bev versus not after CR on Bev. ► The use of Bev after CR on Bev increased the PFS versus no subsequent Bev. ► The use of Bev after CR on Bev did not impact OS versus no subsequent Bev.