Randomized Phase II Evaluation of Bevacizumab Versus Bevacizumab Plus Fosbretabulin in Recurrent Ovarian, Tubal, or Peritoneal Carcinoma: An NRG Oncology/Gynecologic Oncology Group Study.
Journal: J Clin Oncol
Date: 2016 Jul 1
Major Program(s) or Research Group(s): NCORP
PubMed ID: 27217446
PMC ID: PMC4962710
Abstract: PURPOSE: The vascular disrupting agent fosbretabulin tromethamine selectively targets pre-existing tumor vasculature, which causes vascular shutdown and leads to cancer cell death and necrosis. Antiangiogenesis agents such as bevacizumab, a humanized antivascular endothelial growth factor monoclonal antibody, might prevent revascularization during and after treatment with a vascular disrupting agent. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with recurrent or persistent epithelial ovarian, tubal, or peritoneal carcinoma, measurable or detectable disease, and three or fewer prior regimens were randomly assigned to bevacizumab (15 mg/kg intravenously once every 3 weeks) or the combination of bevacizumab (15 mg/kg) plus fosbretabulin (60 mg/m(2)) intravenously once every 3 weeks until disease progression or toxicity. Randomization was stratified by disease status (measurable v nonmeasurable), prior bevacizumab, and platinum-free interval. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). The study was designed with 80% power for a one-sided alternative at a 10% level of significance to detect a reduction in the hazard by 37.5%. RESULTS: The study enrolled 107 patients. Median PFS was 4.8 months for bevacizumab and 7.3 months for bevacizumab plus fosbretabulin (hazard ratio, 0.69; 90% two-sided CI, 0.47 to 1.00; one-sided P = .05). The proportion responding (overall response rate) to bevacizumab was 28.2% among 39 patients with measurable disease and 35.7% among 42 patients treated with the combination. The relative probability of responding was 1.27 (90% CI, 0.74 to 2.17; one-sided P = .24). Adverse events greater than grade 3 were more common in the combination regimen than in bevacizumab only for hypertension (35% v 20%). There was one grade 3 thromboembolic event in the combination arm and one intestinal fistula in the bevacizumab only arm. CONCLUSION: On the basis of the PFS, overall response rate, and tolerability of these two antivascular therapies, further evaluation is warranted for this chemotherapy-free regimen. Fosbretabulin in combination with bevacizumab increases the risk of hypertension.