Prognostic and predictive effects of primary versus secondary platinum resistance for bevacizumab treatment for platinum-resistant ovarian cancer in the AURELIA trial

BACKGROUND

Progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were significantly improved by adding bevacizumab to chemotherapy for platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (PROC) in the phase III AURELIA trial. We explored treatment outcomes according to primary platinum resistance (PPR) versus secondary platinum resistance (SPR).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients were categorized as PPR (disease progression <6 months after completing first-line platinum therapy) or SPR (progression ≥6 months after first platinum but <6 months after second). The exploratory Cox and logistic regression analyses correlated PFS, ORR, overall survival (OS), and PROs with the time to development of platinum resistance.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were similar in patients with PPR (n = 262; 73%) and SPR (n = 99; 27%), although ascites were more common in the PPR subgroup. In bevacizumab-treated patients (n = 179), SPR was associated with improved PFS (median 10.2 versus 5.6 months in PPR patients; P < 0.001) and OS (median 22.2 versus 13.7 months, respectively; P < 0.001) but not PROs (22% versus 22% with improved abdominal/gastrointestinal symptoms at week 8/9). In multivariate analyses, SPR remained an independent prognostic factor for better PFS [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25-0.67; P < 0.001] and OS (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30-0.80; P = 0.005) in bevacizumab-treated patients, but was not statistically significant for either end point in the chemotherapy-alone subgroup. The magnitude of PFS benefit from bevacizumab appeared greater in SPR than PPR patients (HR 0.30 versus 0.55, respectively; interaction P = 0.07) with a similar direction of effect for OS (interaction P = 0.18).

CONCLUSIONS

In bevacizumab-treated patients, PFS and OS were more favorable in SPR than PPR patients with equally improved PROs. The PFS and OS benefit from combining bevacizumab with chemotherapy was more pronounced in SPR than PPR PROC. PPR versus SPR should be a stratification factor in future trials evaluating anti-angiogenic therapy for PROC.

Statistical controversies in clinical research: the importance of importance

We define the notion of 'importance' of prognostic factors in studies of survival and suggest quantifying it by the Schemper-Henderson measure of explained variation. Conceptual differences to the standard approach for the statistical analysis of oncologic studies of survival are discussed and exemplified by means of a study of ovarian cancer. Explained variation permits to establish a ranking of the importance of factors, also if measured on different scales, or of different types (dichotomous, qualitative or continuous), and permits to compare groups of related factors. In practice, the importance of prognostic factors often is disappointingly low. From this, it follows that even strong and highly significant prognostic factors often do not translate into close determination of individual survival of patients.

Surgical staging and prognosis in serous borderline ovarian tumours (BOT): a subanalysis of the AGO ROBOT study

BACKGROUND

Incomplete surgical staging is a negative prognostic factor for patients with borderline ovarian tumours (BOT). However, little is known about the prognostic impact of each individual staging procedure.

METHODS

Clinical parameters of 950 patients with BOT (confirmed by central reference pathology) treated between 1998 and 2008 at 24 German AGO centres were analysed. In 559 patients with serous BOT and adequate ovarian surgery, further recommended staging procedures (omentectomy, peritoneal biopsies, cytology) were evaluated applying Cox regression models with respect to progression-free survival (PFS).

RESULTS

For patients with one missing staging procedure, the hazard ratio (HR) for recurrence was 1.25 (95%-CI 0.66-2.39; P=0.497). This risk increased with each additional procedure skipped reaching statistical significance in case of two (HR 1.95; 95%-CI 1.06-3.58; P=0.031) and three missing steps (HR 2.37; 95%-CI 1.22-4.64; P=0.011). The most crucial procedure was omentectomy which retained a statistically significant impact on PFS in multiple analysis (HR 1.91; 95%-CI 1.15-3.19; P=0.013) adjusting for previously established prognostic factors as FIGO stage, tumour residuals, and fertility preservation.

CONCLUSION

Individual surgical staging procedures contribute to the prognosis for patients with serous BOT. In this analysis, recurrence risk increased with each skipped surgical step. This should be considered when re-staging procedures following incomplete primary surgery are discussed.