Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35491267›Full record

Trial reportGynecologic oncology2022

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 and 5 more

Open access · greenAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase II
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Gynecologic oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. PARP inhibitors in non-ovarian gynecologic cancers.Therapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2024
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

C G JacksonStephenson Cancer Center Section of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center; Oklahoma City, OK, USA.
K N MooreStephenson Cancer Center Section of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center; Oklahoma City, OK, USA.
L CantrellDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Virginia, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology; Charlottesville, VA, USA.
B K EricksonDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Minnesota; Minneapolis, MN, USA.
L R DuskaDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Virginia, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology; Charlottesville, VA, USA.
D L RichardsonStephenson Cancer Center Section of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center; Oklahoma City, OK, USA.
L M LandrumStephenson Cancer Center Section of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center; Oklahoma City, OK, USA.
L L HolmanStephenson Cancer Center Section of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center; Oklahoma City, OK, USA.
J L WalkerStephenson Cancer Center Section of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center; Oklahoma City, OK, USA.
R S MannelStephenson Cancer Center Section of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center; Oklahoma City, OK, USA.
K M MoxleyStephenson Cancer Center Section of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center; Oklahoma City, OK, USA.
L QueimadoDepartment of Otolaryngology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center; Oklahoma City, OK, USA.
A CohoonDepartment of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center; Oklahoma City, OK, USA.
K DingDepartment of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center; Oklahoma City, OK, USA.
L E DockeryDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University of North Carolina; Chapel Hill, NC, USA. Electronic address: lauren_dockery@med.unc.edu.
University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center · USCharlottesville Medical Research · USCommunities In Schools of Orange County · USMinneapolis Institute of Arts · USUniversity of Virginia · US

Funding

Tissue Pathology Shared ResourceP30CA225520 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA HLTH SCIENCES CTR · PI James F Papin · 2018 to 2026
$27.1M
Biological impact of exclusive and dual e-cigarette use on oral cancer riskR01CA242168 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA HLTH SCIENCES CTR · PI QUEIMADO, LURDES · 2020 to 2024
$2.2M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA225520NCI NIH HHS R01 CA242168
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe 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 &

methodsThirty-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.

resultsOf 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.

conclusionsThe 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.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsEndometrial NeoplasmsNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalUterine Cervical NeoplasmsBevacizumabCervix UteriEndometriumFemaleHumansIndolesBevacizumabIndolesrucaparibARID1ABevacizumabCervical cancerEndometrial cancerRucaparib

Identifiers

PMID35491267
PMCPMC10428664
OpenAlexW4225307064

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.