ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Anti-angiogenic rechallenge with bevacizumab plus chemotherapy is effective in recurrent ovarian cancer (rOC); however, data are limited on tyrosine kinase inhibitors after progression on maintenance bevacizumab. METHODS: In the randomized phase II TAPAZ trial, patients with rOC during the first year of bevacizumab maintenance therapy were assigned 2:1 to either weekly paclitaxel 65 mg/m2 plus pazopanib 600-800 mg daily or standard weekly paclitaxel 80 mg/m2. The primary endpoint was 4-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate. RESULTS: Overall, 116 patients were randomized and treated: 79 with combination therapy and 37 with single-agent paclitaxel. Median follow-up was 13.1 months. There was no difference between treatment arms in 4-month PFS rate (61% [95% CI, 51-73%] with the combination versus 68% [95% CI, 54-85%] with paclitaxel alone), median PFS (4.9 [95% CI, 4.1-6.1] versus 5.8 [95% CI, 4.8-7.4] months, respectively) or median overall survival (13.6 versus 12.9 months, respectively). The combination was associated with more grade 3/4 toxicities (87% versus 70%, respectively) and toxicity-related paclitaxel discontinuations (22% versus 11%). Pazopanib was discontinued for toxicity in 44% of patients, most commonly for gastrointestinal and vascular events. There were two treatment-related deaths, both in the combination arm (pulmonary embolism and gastrointestinal perforation). At month 4, patient-reported outcomes deteriorated from baseline in the combination arm, particularly for abdominal/gastrointestinal symptoms, which showed a clinically important difference versus paclitaxel alone. CONCLUSIONS: In rOC progressing during maintenance bevacizumab, adding pazopanib to paclitaxel did not improve efficacy, increased toxicity, and compromised chemotherapy delivery. CLINICALTRIALS: govregistration:NCT02383251.
Subject(s)
Ovarian Neoplasms , Paclitaxel , Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols/adverse effects , Bevacizumab , Carcinoma, Ovarian Epithelial/drug therapy , Carcinoma, Ovarian Epithelial/etiology , Female , Humans , Indazoles , Neoplasm Recurrence, Local/drug therapy , Neoplasm Recurrence, Local/etiology , Ovarian Neoplasms/etiology , Pyrimidines , SulfonamidesABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Expression IV survey evaluated the patients' expectations to a maintenance therapy. METHODS: From January 2015 to March 2016, 401 French patients, in first line or recurrent disease, answered a 24-items anonymous questionnaire. The results were specifically analyzed according to the demographic characteristics and treatment lines. RESULTS: Among the patients, 62% had already been informed about maintenance therapy. Thirty-seven percent of patients received a maintenance treatment: 111 patients during first line and 39 patients in relapse. Expectations of patients were: 1) the chance of cure (73%), 2) the tumor shrinkage (36%), 3) quality of life improvement (35%) and 4) tumor growth reduction (27%). Among the responders, 42% were willing to take the treatment for 6-24 months, 20% for 24-60 months and 38% until tumor progression. 64% of patients expected more than a 6 months progression-free survival. Patients older than 70 years were less informed than their younger counterparts (48% vs 66%) and had lesser hope for cure with maintenance treatment (60% vs 77%). Patients in relapse had more expectation than patients in remission (tumor shrinkage: 47% vs 22%, slowing of tumor growth: 37% vs 15%, improving the progression-free survival of more than 6 months: 71% vs 53%, respectively). Among patients, 48% in relapse consented to take a treatment until progression vs 24% of patients in remission. CONCLUSION: This sub-analysis in French patients demonstrate a gap between the efficacy of maintenance therapy and the patients' expectations in ovarian cancer, particularly in relapsing disease justifying better information and explanations.
