A phase II trial of bevacizumab and rucaparib in recurrent carcinoma of the cervix or endometrium

C. G. Jackson, K. N. Moore, L. Cantrell, B. K. Erickson, L. R. Duska, D. L. Richardson, L. M. Landrum, L. L. Holman, J. L. Walker, R. S. Mannel, K. M. Moxley, L. Queimado, A. Cohoon, K. Ding, L. E. Dockery

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

6 Scopus citations

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to examine the tolerability and efficacy of combination bevacizumab rucaparib therapy in patients with recurrent cervical or endometrial cancer. Patients & methods: Thirty-three patients with recurrent cervical or endometrial cancer were enrolled. Patients were required to have tumor progression after first line treatment for metastatic, or recurrent disease. Rucaparib was given at 600 mg BID twice daily for each 21-day cycle. Bevacizumab was given at 15 mg/kg on day 1 of each 21-day cycle. The primary endpoint was efficacy as determined by objective response rate or 6-month progression free survival. Results: Of the 33 patients enrolled, 28 were evaluable. Patients with endometrial cancer had a response rate of 17% while patients with cervical cancer had a response rate of 14%. Median progression free survival was 3.8 months (95% C·I 2.5 to 5.7 months), and median overall survival was 10.1 months (95% C·I 7.0 to 15.1 months). Patients with ARID1A mutations displayed a better response rate (33%) and 6-month progression free survival (PFS6) rate (67%) than the entire study population. Observed toxicity was similar to that of previous studies with bevacizumab and rucaparib. Conclusions: The combination of bevacizumab with rucaparib did not show significantly increased anti-tumor activity in all patients with recurrent cervical or endometrial cancer. However, patients with ARID1A mutations had a higher response rate and PFS6 suggesting this subgroup may benefit from the combination of bevacizumab and rucaparib. Further study is needed to confirm this observation. No new safety signals were seen.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)44-49
Number of pages6
JournalGynecologic oncology
Volume166
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 2022

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
This research was supported by Clovis Oncology, Inc . Medical writing & editorial support were provided by Emilie Morrell of the Stephenson Cancer Center, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center in accordance with Good Publication Practice (GPP3) guidelines.

Funding Information:
This work was supported by the National Cancer Institute Cancer Center Support Grant [P30CA225520] awarded to the University of Oklahoma Stephenson Cancer Center. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.Research reported in this publication was supported in part by the Oklahoma Tobacco Settlement Endowment Trust awarded to the University of Oklahoma/Stephenson Cancer Center. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Oklahoma Tobacco Settlement Endowment Trust.This research was supported by Clovis Oncology, Inc. Medical writing & editorial support were provided by Emilie Morrell of the Stephenson Cancer Center, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center in accordance with Good Publication Practice (GPP3) guidelines.

Funding Information:
Research reported in this publication was supported in part by the Oklahoma Tobacco Settlement Endowment Trust awarded to the University of Oklahoma/Stephenson Cancer Center. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Oklahoma Tobacco Settlement Endowment Trust.

Funding Information:
This work was supported by the National Cancer Institute Cancer Center Support Grant [ P30CA225520 ] awarded to the University of Oklahoma Stephenson Cancer Center . The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 Elsevier Inc.

Keywords

  • ARID1A
  • Bevacizumab
  • Cervical cancer
  • Endometrial cancer
  • Rucaparib

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'A phase II trial of bevacizumab and rucaparib in recurrent carcinoma of the cervix or endometrium'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this