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

Lung Cancer

Maxwell Oluwole Akanbi, MD, PhD, on Lung Cancer: The Effect of Screening on the Incidence of Advanced Disease

Maxwell Oluwole Akanbi, MD, PhD, of McLaren Regional Medical Center, discusses the study he conducted, using the SEER database, to evaluate the impact of lung cancer screening recommendations on low-dose CT scanning. The data suggest that guidelines from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force led to a more rapid decline in the incidence of advanced disease in the United States, especially among minority populations (Abstract 10506).

Leukemia

Courtney D. DiNardo, MD, MSCE, and Jorge E. Cortes, MD, on CML: New Efficacy and Safety Results for Asciminib

Courtney D. DiNardo, MD, MSCE, of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, and Jorge E. Cortes, MD, of Georgia Cancer Center at Augusta University, discuss phase III results from the ASCEMBL trial, which showed that after more than 2 years of follow-up, asciminib continued to yield superior efficacy and better safety and tolerability vs bosutinib in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) in chronic phase. These results continue to support the use of this kinase inhibitor as a new CML therapy, says Dr. Cortes, with the potential to transform the standard of care (Abstract 7004).

Sarcoma

Martin McCabe, PhD, on Ewing Sarcoma: Assessment of Topotecan, Cyclophosphamide, and High-Dose Ifosfamide

Martin McCabe, PhD, of the University of Manchester, discusses a phase III assessment of chemotherapy for patients with recurrent and primary refractory Ewing sarcoma. The trial, called rEECur, is the first study to provide comparative toxicity and survival data for the four most commonly used chemotherapy regimens in this disease. The analysis showed that high-dose ifosfamide is more effective in prolonging survival than topotecan plus cyclophosphamide (Abstract LBA2).

Michael J. Overman, MD, and Takayuki Yoshino, PhD, MD, on Colorectal Cancer: Phase III Data on Panitumumab or Bevacizumab Plus mFOLFOX6

Michael J. Overman, MD, of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, and Takayuki Yoshino, PhD, MD, of the National Cancer Center Hospital East, Japan, discuss results from the PARADIGM trial, the first prospective study to test the superiority of panitumumab vs bevacizumab in combination with standard doublet first-line chemotherapy for patients with RAS wild-type and left-sided metastatic colorectal cancer. The study showed that panitumumab improved overall survival in combination with mFOLFOX6, which may establish a standard first-line combination regimen for this population (Abstract LBA1).

Prostate Cancer
Genomics/Genetics

Neal D. Shore, MD, on Germline Genetic Testing and Its Impact on Prostate Cancer Clinical Decision-Making

Neal D. Shore, MD, of the Carolina Urologic Research Center, discusses his study findings, showing that germline genetic testing influenced care for patients with prostate cancer. Men whose genetic test was positive for a pathogenic germline variant received more recommendations for changes to follow-up and treatment, and for testing and counseling of relatives, than did patients with negative or uncertain test results (Abstract 10500).

 

Advertisement

Advertisement




Advertisement