کد مقاله کد نشریه سال انتشار مقاله انگلیسی نسخه تمام متن
6183211 1254095 2015 6 صفحه PDF دانلود رایگان
عنوان انگلیسی مقاله ISI
Progression-free survival by local investigator versus independent central review: Comparative analysis of the AGO-OVAR16 Trial
موضوعات مرتبط
علوم پزشکی و سلامت پزشکی و دندانپزشکی زنان، زایمان و بهداشت زنان
پیش نمایش صفحه اول مقاله
Progression-free survival by local investigator versus independent central review: Comparative analysis of the AGO-OVAR16 Trial
چکیده انگلیسی


- Pazopanib maintenance therapy extended PFS in patients with AEOC.
- HR estimates for PFS by investigator were consistent with those of central review.
- There was no evidence of investigator bias in estimates of disease progression.

BackgroundAnalysis of progression-free survival (PFS) as the primary endpoint in advanced epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancer (AEOC) trials may be confounded by the difficulty of radiologic evaluation of disease progression and the potential for discrepancy between investigator and blinded independent central assessments. PFS as assessed by local investigator (INV) was the primary endpoint of AGO-OVAR16, a randomized, double-blind trial of pazopanib maintenance therapy in AEOC. To confirm the robustness of the primary analysis, PFS was also evaluated by blinded independent central review (BICR).MethodsPatients with histologically confirmed AEOC (N = 940) were randomized 1:1 to receive pazopanib 800 mg/day or placebo for up to 24 months. Tumor response in the intent-to-treat population was evaluated by CT/MRI every 6 months and analyzed per RECIST 1.0.ResultsPazopanib prolonged PFS versus placebo by INV (median 17.9 vs 12.3 months; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.766, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.643-0.911; P = 0.0021). Results for PFS by BICR were similar (median 15.4 vs 11.8 months; HR = 0.802, 95% CI: 0.678-0.949; P = 0.0084). Progression events were recorded later by INV in 23% of pazopanib-treated patients and 17% of placebo-treated patients. The overall concordance between INV and BICR assessments was 84% and 86% in the pazopanib and placebo arms, respectively.ConclusionsBy INV and BICR assessments, maintenance therapy with pazopanib in AEOC provided a significantly longer PFS than placebo. The good overall concordance between INV and BICR assessments, as well as HR and P value consistency, supports the reliability of investigator-assessed PFS as the primary endpoint in AGO-OVAR16.

ناشر
Database: Elsevier - ScienceDirect (ساینس دایرکت)
Journal: Gynecologic Oncology - Volume 136, Issue 1, January 2015, Pages 37-42
نویسندگان
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,