4.6 Article

Activity of bevacizumab-containing regimens in recurrent low-grade serous ovarian or peritoneal cancer: A single institution experience

Journal

GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY
Volume 145, Issue 1, Pages 37-40

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2017.01.027

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Sara Brown Musselman Fund
  2. National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health [NIH/NCI P30 CA016672]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective. The aim of this study was to evaluate the activity of bevacizumab in a cohort of women with recurrent low-grade serous carcinoma of the ovary or peritoneum. Methods. This single-institution retrospective study assessed all patients at MD Anderson Cancer Center with recurrent low-grade serous ovarian or peritoneal cancer who received bevacizumab from 2007 to 2016. Study endpoints included best response, median progression-free survival, median overall survival, and toxicity. Results. Forty patients received 45 separate patient-regimens. Most received bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy. Complete response (CR) was seen in 7.5%, while 40% had partial responses (PR) and 30% achieved stable disease (SD). Disease progression occurred in nine patients (22.5%). Overall response rate (CR + PR) to bevacizumab-containing regimens was 47.5%. Clinical benefit (CR + PR + SD) was seen in 77.5% of patients. Median progression free survival was 10.2 months (95% CI 7.9, 12.4). Median overall survival was 34.6 months (95% CI 29.5, 39.7). Fifteen patients discontinued bevacizumab related to toxicity. Conclusions. Bevacizumab, most often in combination with chemotherapy, has activity in recurrent low-grade ovarian cancer and should be considered a treatment option for these patients. Further investigation into the most effective chemotherapeutic agent in combination with bevacizumab is warranted. (C) 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available