4.6 Article

Patient reported outcomes of a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of bevacizumab in the front-line treatment of ovarian cancer: A Gynecologic Oncology Group Study

期刊

GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY
卷 128, 期 3, 页码 573-578

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.11.038

关键词

Ovarian cancer; Bevacizumab; Phase III randomized clinical trial; Quality of life

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute [CA 27469, CA 37517]
  2. Genentech

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose. To analyze quality of life (QOL) in a randomized, placebo-controlled phase III trial concluding that the addition of concurrent and maintenance bevacizumab (Arm 3) to carboplatin and paclitaxel prolongs progression-free survival in front-line treatment of advanced ovarian cancer compared to chemotherapy alone (Arm 1) or chemotherapy with bevacizumab in cycles 2-6 only (Arm 2). Patients and methods. The Trial Outcome Index of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Ovary (FACT-O TOI) was used to assess QOL before cycles 1, 4, 7, 13, and 21; and 6 months after completing study therapy. Differences in QOL scores were assessed using a linear mixed model, adjusting for baseline score, and age. The significance level was set at 0.0167 to account for multiple comparisons. Results. 1693 patients were queried. Arm 2 (p<0.001) and Arm 3 (p<0.001) reported lower QOL scores than those in Arm 1. The treatment differences were observed mainly at cycle 4, when the patients receiving bevacizumab (Arm 2 and Arm 3) reported 2.72 points (98.3% CI: 0.88-4.57; effect size = 0.18) and 2.96 points (98.3% CI: 1.13-4.78; effect size = 0.20) lower QOL respectively, than those in Arm 1. The difference in QOL scores between Arm 1 and Arm 3 remained statistically significant up to cycle 7. The percentage of patients who reported abdominal discomfort dropped over time, without significant differences among study arms. Conclusion. The small QOL difference observed during chemotherapy did not persist during maintenance bevacizumab. (C) 2012 Published by Elsevier Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据