Efficacy and safety results from GEICO 1205, a randomized phase II trial of neoadjuvant chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (6) ◽  
pp. 1050-1056 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yolanda Garcia Garcia ◽  
Ana de Juan Ferré ◽  
Cesar Mendiola ◽  
Maria-Pilar Barretina-Ginesta ◽  
Lydia Gaba Garcia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Phase Ii Trial ◽  
Debulking Surgery ◽  
Randomized Phase Ii ◽  
Interval Debulking Surgery ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Macroscopic Response

BackgroundBevacizumab is an approved treatment after primary debulking surgery for ovarian cancer. However, there is limited information on bevacizumab added to neoadjuvant chemotherapy before interval debulking surgery.ObjectiveTo evaluate neoadjuvant bevacizumab in a randomized phase II trial.MethodsPatients with newly diagnosed stage III/IV high-grade serous/endometrioid ovarian cancer were randomized to receive four cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy with or without ≥3 cycles of bevacizumab 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks. After interval debulking surgery, all patients received post-operative chemotherapy (three cycles) and bevacizumab for 15 months. The primary end point was complete macroscopic response rate at interval debulking surgery.ResultsOf 68 patients randomized, 64 completed four neoadjuvant cycles; 22 of 33 (67%) in the chemotherapy-alone arm and 31 of 35 (89%) in the bevacizumab arm (p=0.029) underwent surgery. The complete macroscopic response rate did not differ between treatment arms in either the intention-to-treat population of 68 patients (6.1% vs 5.7%, respectively; p=0.25) or the 55 patients who underwent surgery (8.3% vs 6.5%; p=1.00). There was no difference in complete cytoreduction rate or progression-free survival between the treatment arms. During neoadjuvant therapy, grade ≥3 adverse events were more common with chemotherapy alone than with bevacizumab (61% vs 29%, respectively; p=0.008). Intestinal (sub)occlusion, fatigue/asthenia, abdominal infection, and thrombocytopenia were less frequent with bevacizumab. The incidence of grade ≥3 adverse events was 9% in the control arm versus 16% in the experimental arm in the month after surgery.ConclusionsAdding three to four pre-operative cycles of bevacizumab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for unresectable disease did not improve the complete macroscopic response rate or surgical outcome, but improved surgical operability without increasing toxicity. These results support the early integration of bevacizumab in carefully selected high-risk patients requiring neoadjuvant chemotherapy for initially unresectable ovarian cancer.

Phase II study for the suboptimally debulked advanced ovarian cancer: Intravenous platinum followed by interval debulking surgery and intravenous paclitaxel + intraperitoneal cisplatin (KCOG9812 study)

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 5576-5576
Author(s):  
H. Tsubamoto ◽  
K. Ito ◽  
Y. Itani ◽  
K. Ito ◽  
T. Iijima ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Phase Ii Study ◽  
Stage Iiib ◽  
Hematologic Toxicity ◽  
Treatment Schedule ◽  
Debulking Surgery ◽  
Interval Debulking Surgery ◽  
Grade 3

5576 Background: Intraperitoneral administration (IP) of cisplatin is recommended by National Cancer Institute for the patients with optimally debulked epitherial ovarian cancer (EOC). However, the advantage is not determined for the suboptimally debulked EOC after the initial surgery. We conducted a phase II study of cisplatin IP after the interval debulking surgery (IDS) following 3 cycles of intravenous platinum. Methods: The initial planned sample size was 30. Eligible patients had previously untreated, histologically confirmed EOC or primary peritoneal carcinoma (PPC) of FIGO stage IIIB-IV with suboptimal (> 1 cm) residual disease. Carboplatin AUC 4 iv d1 and cisplatin 50 mg/sqm iv d3 q21d for 3 cycles. After IDS, paclitaxel 175 mg/sqm iv d1 (or paclitaxel 60 mg/sqm iv d1,d8,d15) and cisplatin 75mg/m2 IP q21d for 4 cycles. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) and secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and toxicity. Results: 33 patients were enrolled since 1998 till 2005. The median age was 55 (range 19–77). ECOG PS 0/1/2 = 33%/36%/31%; stage IIIB/IIIC/IV = 6%/64%/30%; 91% serous papillary histology. Optimal interval debulking surgery was possible in 85%: none (61%), < 1 cm (24%). Grade 3 or 4 (CTCAE ver.3) non-hematologic toxicity was seen in one patient of neurotoxicity. Grade 3 or 4 hematologic toxicities include: neutropenia (37%), infection (4%), thrombocytopenia (11%). 55% were completed the treatment schedule. The reasons for discontinuing were drug resistance (12%), subileus (4%), elevation of serum creatinine (12%), G3 neurotoxicity (4%), IP catheter block (12%) and infection (4%). Primary recurrent sites of total 20 patients before the second line chemotherapy or surgery were peritoneal cavity (30%), distant metastasis (45%), retroperitoneal lymph nodes (15%), and elevation of serum CA125 (10%). Median PFS was 24 months; median overall survival was 48 months; median follow-up was 36 months (range 15–100). Conclusions: This treatment including cisplatin IP after IDS for the patients with the initially suboptimally debulked EOC was feasible, and showed good prognosis with the small number of the intraperitoneal recurrence. [Table: see text]

A randomized phase II trial comparing pulsed erlotinib before or after carboplatin and paclitaxel in patients with stage IIIB or IV non-small cell lung cancer

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 7619-7619 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. J. Riely ◽  
C. M. Rudin ◽  
M. G. Kris ◽  
E. Senturk ◽  
C. G. Azzoli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Advanced Nsclc ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Phase Ii Trial ◽  
Stage Iiib ◽  
Preclinical Models ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Randomized Phase Ii ◽  
Pulsatile Administration ◽  
Common Grade ◽  
Grade 3

7619 Background: A randomized phase 3 trial failed to show any improvement in response rate (RR) or overall survival (OS) when erlotinib was added to carboplatin and paclitaxel (TRIBUTE). However, preclinical data suggested that administration of erlotinib before or after chemotherapy may improve efficacy of chemotherapy [Gumerlock et al ASCO 2003, Solit et al Clin Can Res 2005]. We designed this trial to test the hypothesis that administration of pulsed erlotinib prior to or following chemotherapy would improve the response rate in patients with advanced NSCLC. Methods: All patients had chemotherapy naive, stage IIIB or IV NSCLC and were former or current smokers. All patients received carboplatin (AUC 6) and paclitaxel (200 mg/m2). Patients were randomly assigned to one of three arms: erlotinib 150 mg days 1,2, and chemotherapy on day 3; erlotinib 1500 mg days 1, 2 and chemotherapy on day 3; or chemotherapy on day 1 and erlotinib 1500 mg on days 2,3. Patients received up to six 21-day cycles of treatment. The primary endpoint was overall RR (CR+PR) using RECIST. We planned to enroll 29 patients to each arm in a “pick the winner” design comparing arms to the chemotherapy alone arm of TRIBUTE (RR 19%) with a desirable RR of 50%. Results: Eighty-seven patients were randomized to 3 arms. Accrual is complete. The most common grade 3/4 toxicities were neutropenia (39%), fatigue (15%), and anemia (12%). Grade 3/4 rash or diarrhea were uncommon. Conclusions: Treatment with erlotinib before (150 mg on days 1 and 2 or 1500 mg on days 1 and 2) or after (1500 mg on days 2 and 3) administration of carboplatin and paclitaxel failed to improve response rates compared to TRIBUTE. The benefit of pulsatile administration of erlotinib predicted by preclinical models was not evident in this clinical trial. Supported by Genentech, Inc. [Table: see text] [Table: see text]

Combretastatin A-4 phosphate (CA4P) carboplatin and paclitaxel in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer: Final phase II trial results

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 5502-5502 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Zweifel ◽  
G. Jayson ◽  
N. Reed ◽  
R. Osborne ◽  
B. Hassan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Phase Ii Trial ◽  
Randomised Trial ◽  
Full Data ◽  
Vascular Disrupting Agent ◽  
Platinum Resistant ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Start Trial

5502 Background: CA4P is a vascular disrupting agent that in pre-clinical models can increase the efficacy of a variety of therapies. A dose escalation trial of CA4P given prior to carboplatin, paclitaxel or both showed the combination was well tolerated and responses were seen in several tumor types including 6/17 with relapsed ovarian cancer. The trial was therefore extended into a phase II trial in patients with platinum resistant ovarian cancer. Methods: Patients with ovarian cancer that had relapsed and could start trial therapy within 6 months of their last platinum chemotherapy were given CA4P 63mg/m2 18–20 hours prior to paclitaxel 175mg/m2 and carboplatin AUC 5 repeated 3 weekly. If > 2 responses were seen in first 18 patients 43 patients were to be treated to confirm response rate>19%. Results: Five of the first 18 patients responded so the study was extended and closed after 44 patients were recruited, with full data available to date on 34. Weekly blood counts have demonstrated grade 3/4 neutropenia in 11 and thrombocytopenia in only 1 patient. Other grade > 2 toxicity seen in > 1 patient was fatigue, nausea / vomiting, pain, alopecia, rapidly reversible ataxia, diarrhoea, neuropathy and was little different to what would be expected with paclitaxel and carboplatin. Hypertension is the commonest CA4P related toxicity and was easily controlled by GTN, then prophylactic amlodipine. Responses according to GCIG criteria, have been seen in 11/34 (32%) patients with an additional unconfirmed PR. Conclusions: The addition of CA4P to paclitaxel and carboplatin is well tolerated and appears to produce a higher response rate in this patient population than if the chemotherapy was given without CA4P. A planned randomised trial will hopefully confirm this. [Table: see text]

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document