Advertisement


Benoit You, MD, PhD, on Ovarian Cancer: Who Benefits From Bevacizumab in the First-Line Setting

2022 ASCO Annual Meeting

Advertisement

Benoit You, MD, PhD, of Lyon University hospital (HCL, France) and GINECO group (France), discusses findings from the GOG-0218 trial of patients with ovarian cancer, which appears to confirm earlier data on the link between poor tumor chemosensitivity and benefit from concurrent plus maintenance bevacizumab. In Dr. You’s validation study, patients who derived the most progression-free and overall survival benefit from bevacizumab were those with high-risk disease (stage IV or incompletely resected stage III) associated with an unfavorable KELIM score (CA-125 kinetic elimination rate constant, calculable online) (Abstract 5553).



Transcript

Disclaimer: This video transcript has not been proofread or edited and may contain errors.
I presented the results of a validation study done in collaboration with the U.S. GOG group about the patients with ovarian carcinoma who have the maximum benefit from bevacizumab. Bevacizumab has been approved for patients with ovarian carcinoma stage 3 and stage 4. However, there is still a big debate about what patients should actually be treated with bevacizumab, because two main large phase III trials had inconsistent outcomes about the characteristics of patients who had a maximum overall survival benefit, and there was no real biomarker of bevacizumab efficacy. So we assume that the tumor primary chemosensitivity, meaning the sensitivity of the tumor to the first cycle of chemotherapy assessed by the model CA-125 kinetic parameter KELIM, could be an interesting parameter. In an initial study with ICON7 trial, we found that among patients with high-risk disease, meaning stage 3 incompletely resected and stage 4 disease, only those who had unfavorable KELIM score, meaning poly-chemosensitive disease, had the benefit from bevacizumab. So, a validation was needed, and this is what we did with the U.S. GOG group on the trial, the GOG-0218 trial. KELIM was assessed by our team, and then we sent the KELIM score to the statistic team of the GOG group. We had very consistent outcomes. In patients with high-risk disease, only those who had unfavorable KELIM score, meaning poly-chemosensitive disease, had the benefit in overall survival by about 6 months, 29 to 35 months. And in patients with low-risk disease, those who had favorable KELIM, meaning highly chemosensitive disease, they had deleterious effect of bevacizumab on the overall survival by about 17 months. So, in conclusion, the two studies are now very consistent in terms of outcomes. We reconcile the data of the two trials. The survivor cures are very, very similar, and we consider that the tumor primary chemosensitivity is probably a biomarker of bevacizumab efficacy. So bevacizumab should be encouraged in patients with high-risk disease and poly-chemosensitive disease, but should be discouraged in patients with low-risk disease and highly chemosensitive disease. Just of note, KELIM can be calculated online for your patient. You will be requested to enter the dates of the first three cycles of chemotherapy, the value of CA-125, and the dates of CA-125. You press compute and you will have the KELIM score for your patients.

Related Videos

Prostate Cancer

Alicia K. Morgans, MD, MPH, and Michael S. Hofman, MBBS, on Prostate Cancer: New Data on Lutetium-177–PSMA-617 (LuPSMA) vs Cabazitaxel

Alicia K. Morgans, MD, MPH, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and Michael S. Hofman, MBBS, of Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, University of Melbourne, discuss follow-up results on LuPSMA vs cabazitaxel in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer progressing after docetaxel treatment. The findings suggest that LuPSMA is a suitable option for this population, with fewer adverse events, higher response rates, improved patient-reported outcomes, and similar overall survival compared with cabazitaxel (Abstract 5000).

Lung Cancer

Apar Kishor Ganti, MD, on SCLC: Comparing Quality of Life With Once- and Twice-Daily Thoracic Radiotherapy

Apar Kishor Ganti, MD, of the University of Nebraska Medical Center, discusses results from the CALGB 30610 study, which showed a similar clinical benefit for once- and twice-daily radiotherapy administered to patients with limited-stage small cell lung cancer. While both regimens were well tolerated, patients who received radiotherapy once daily had better quality-of-life scores at week 3 and slightly worse scores at week 12. Patients believed the once-daily regimen was more convenient (Abstract 8504).

Leukemia

Eunice S. Wang, MD, on AML: Long-Term Results With Crenolanib Plus Chemotherapy

Eunice S. Wang, MD, of Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, discusses long-term phase II findings of a trial evaluating crenolanib plus chemotherapy in newly diagnosed adults with FLT3-mutant acute myeloid leukemia. The study showed a composite complete remission rate of 86%. With a median follow-up of 45 months, median overall survival has not been reached. A phase III trial is ongoing (Abstract 7007).

Bladder Cancer

Sumanta K. Pal, MD, on Urothelial Carcinoma: New Results on Cabozantinib Plus Atezolizumab

Sumanta K. Pal, MD, of City of Hope National Medical Center, discusses findings from the COSMIC-021 study, which showed that cabozantinib plus atezolizumab demonstrated encouraging clinical activity with manageable toxicity in patients with inoperable locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. The combination was administered as first-line therapy in cisplatin-based chemotherapy–eligible and –ineligible patients and as second- or later-line treatment in those who received prior immune checkpoint inhibitors (Abstract 4504).

COVID-19

Jenny S. Guadamuz, PhD, on Racial and Socioeconomic Disparities in Telemedicine Use Among U.S. Patients With Cancer During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Jenny S. Guadamuz, PhD, of Flatiron Health, discusses the use of telemedicine services in community oncology clinics for patients initiating treatments for 21 common cancers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Black, uninsured, non-urban, and less affluent patients were less likely to use telemedicine services. Although telemedicine may expand access to specialty care, the proliferation of these services may widen cancer care disparities if equitable access to these services is not ensured, according to Dr. Guadamuz (Abstract 6511).

Advertisement

Advertisement




Advertisement