Table 3 Summary of efficacy data from phase II/III trials of emerging anti-angiogenic agents in recurrent ovarian cancer
Study (n) | Regimen | ORR (CR + PR), % | Median PFS, months | Median OS, months |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Matulonis et al. [42] | Cediranib 45Â mg/day | 17 | 5.2 | Not reached |
(n = 46) | ||||
Ledermann et al. [43] | Cediranib 20 mg/day → cedarinib maintenance vs. placebo | – | Restricted mean survival time, months | Restricted mean survival time, months |
(n = 456) | 11.4 vs. 9.4 | 20.3 vs. 17.6 | ||
Du Bois et al. [44] | Pazopanib 800 mg/day vs. placebo | – | 17.9 vs. 12.3 | Not reached |
(n = 940) | ||||
Campos et al. [45] | Sunitinib 37.5 mg/day | 8.3 | 9.9b | – |
(n = 35) | ||||
Biagi et al. [46] | Sunitinib 50 mg/day (int.) | 13.3 | 4.1 | – |
(n = 30) | ||||
Baumann et al. [47] | Sunitinib 50Â mg/day (int.) vs. 37.5Â mg/day (cont.) | 16.7 vs. 5.4 | 4.8 vs. 2.9 | 13.6 vs. 13.7 |
(n = 73) | ||||
Matei et al. [48] | Sorafenib 400 mg b.i.d. | 3.4 | 6-month PFS rate: 24% | – |
(n = 71) | ||||
Herzog et al. [49] | Sorafenib 400 mg b.i.d. vs. placebo | – | 386 vs. 478a | – |
(n = 249) | ||||
Ledermann et al. [50] | Nintedanib 250 mg b.i.d. vs. placebo | – | 36-week PFS rate: | – |
(n = 83) | 16.3% vs. 5.0% | |||
Du Bois et al. [51] | Nintedanib 200 mg b.i.d. + CP vs. nintedanib + placebo | – | 17.3 vs. 16.6 | – |
(n = 1,366) | ||||
Coleman et al. [52] | Aflibercept 6 mg/kg + D | 54 | 6.2 | 24.3 |
(n = 46) | ||||
Gotlieb et al. [53] | Aflibercept 4 mg/kg vs. placebo | – | 6.3 vs. 7.3b | 12.9 vs. 16.0b |
(n = 55) | ||||
Colombo et al. [54] | Aflibercept 4 mg/kg | – | 8.5b | – |
(n = 16) | ||||
Karlan et al. [55] | Trebananib 10 mg/kg + P vs. trebananib 3 mg/kg + P vs. placebo + P | 37 vs. 19 vs. 27 | 7.2 vs. 5.7 vs. 4.6 | 22.5 vs. 20.4 vs. 20.9 |
(n = 161) | ||||
Monk et al. [56] | Trebananib 15 mg/kg + P vs. placebo + P | 38 vs. 30 | 7.2 vs. 5.4 | 19.0c vs. 17.3c |
(n = 919) |  |  |  |  |