Background
Advanced cervical cancer (CC) continues to be an important cause of mortality among women [
1‐
3]. The management of recurrent, persistent, or metastatic CC remains challenging, as evidenced by previous trials [
1,
4,
5]. The majority of these patients receive concurrent cisplatin-based chemotherapy as the primary treatment option [
6]. A newly approved regimen, the addition of bevacizumab (BEV) to combination chemotherapy, has been shown to improve survival in patients with advanced CC [
1,
5]. Findings from a randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial (Gynecologic Oncology Group 240) [
1] indicate that cisplatin-paclitaxel plus BEV markedly improves median overall survival (OS) compared to cisplatin-paclitaxel chemotherapy alone in advanced CC (16.8 months vs. 13.3 months, respectively; hazard ratio [HR] 0.77, 95% CI, 0.62–0.95;
p = 0.007). Furthermore, the survival benefit conferred by the incorporation of BEV into cisplatin-paclitaxel chemotherapy tends to be sustained with extended follow-up as evidenced by the OS curves remaining separated. However, in the phase 3 trial, it was unclear whether the selected cohort of patients had previously received chemotherapy. Moreover, these study participants were not restricted to postmenopausal women.
In 2004, BEV was approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for specific types of cancer, and became the first antiangiogenic agent to be used in several chemotherapy regimens [
1,
7,
8]. BEV is a highly purified recombinant human monoclonal IgG1 antibody, and inhibits angiogenesis by binding and neutralizing circulating vascular endothelial-derived growth factor (VEGF) [
1,
7,
9]. It can inhibit tumour growth and prolong the survival of patients with advanced CC [
10]. Nevertheless, the number of reports on specific groups of female patients is extremely limited [
11]. Whether the previous conclusions also apply to postmenopausal women with previously untreated advanced CC remains unclear.
Herein, we performed a retrospective study to verify whether postmenopausal women with previously untreated advanced CC who received cisplatin-paclitaxel chemotherapy plus BEV (CPB) had a greater survival advantage than those who received cisplatin-paclitaxel chemotherapy alone (CPA).
Discussion
Findings from this retrospective study showed that the incorporation of BEV into cisplatin-paclitaxel chemotherapy led to significantly longer PFS times for postmenopausal women with previously untreated advanced CC, leading to significantly longer OS than those who received cisplatin-paclitaxel chemotherapy alone, with a controllable safety profile. The Kaplan–Meier curve for survival among these cases indicated an early advantage for patients receiving CPB that remained until final follow-up, with a difference in median OS of 4.1 months, which reached statistical significance.
The conclusion of the present study is consistent with the findings from a previous phase III trial [
8], which assessed the effectiveness of BEV and nonplatinum combination chemotherapy in patients with recurrent, persistent, or metastatic CC. In this trial, the bevacizumab-containing regimen markedly improved the median OS compared to chemotherapy alone (17.0 months vs. 13.3 months; HR for death, 0.71; 98% CI, 0.54–0.95). Other clinical trials [
5,
17] investigating the combined use of cisplatin-paclitaxel chemotherapy and the antiangiogenic agent BEV have shown a reduced hazard of disease progression, with median OS times ranging from approximately 16 to 18 months. The combination was effective and well tolerated in patients with advanced CC, which is currently recommended by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network as the standard of care for such patients [
10]. The lack of effective therapies in advanced CC following the development of acquired resistance to conventional chemotherapy is a major clinical problem [
5,
8]. The prognosis of these patients is still not favourable. Previous chemotherapy regimens have demonstrated a positive effect on metastatic CC; nevertheless, cisplatin-paclitaxel chemotherapy is still regarded as the preferred treatment option, which was established by the GOG 204 protocol [
18].
VEGF contributes to the development of new tumour vasculature and is important for the survival and proliferation of cancer cells [
10]. The expression of VEGF tends to be correlated with the biological aggressiveness of CC and is associated with poor survival [
17,
19,
20]. Sequestration of VEGF using BEV when combined with chemotherapy was associated with improved survival among women with advanced CC [
5,
20]. A phase II study (GOG-227C) [
21] showed that BEV prevents tumour angiogenesis by blocking VEGF and was demonstrated to be active in recurrent CC. ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines [
22] indicated that the incorporation of BEV into cisplatin-paclitaxel chemotherapy is the preferred first-line regimen in advanced CC based on the balance between efficacy and toxicity profile.
Consistent with the GOG 240 [
5], the current study showed that marked separations in median OS were observed (16.4 months [95% CI, 15.3–17.1] for CPB vs. 12.3 months [95% CI, 10.2–13.5] for CPA; HR 0.69, 95% CI, 0.49–0.99;
p = 0.001). A retrospective study [
23] of 52 patients with advanced CC who received the cisplatin-paclitaxel-BEV triplet reported a median OS of 15.3 months and a median PFS of 9.8 months. Recently, a retrospective observational study [
24] involving 264 Chinese women with advanced CC who underwent cisplatin-paclitaxel-BEV triplet or cisplatin-paclitaxel chemotherapy alone showed that the cisplatin-paclitaxel-BEV triplet is associated with improved survival compared to cisplatin-paclitaxel chemotherapy alone (median OS: 540 days [95% CI, 483–597] for cisplatin-paclitaxel-BEV triplet vs. 357 days [95% CI, 264–450)] for cisplatin-paclitaxel chemotherapy alone; HR 1.21, 95% CI, 1.14–1.73;
p = 0.002). A phase 3 trial (GOG 240) [
1] showed that the cisplatin-paclitaxel-BEV triplet yields more significant improvement in survival than cisplatin-paclitaxel chemotherapy alone. An NRG Oncology/GOG study [
5] of 390 female patients with advanced CC showed that improvements in survival were associated with BEV.
The efficacy of BEV has been revealed to be involved in the reconstruction of normal vasculature at the tumour site, initiating enhanced nutrient and oxygen supply while also escalating the delivery of cisplatin-paclitaxel drugs to the area occupied by the tumour [
3,
25,
26]. VEGF signalling participates in several important physiologic processes (i.e., angiogenesis and blood pressure regulation) [
3]. While blocking VEGF signalling may inhibit the progression of advanced CC, it can also initiate unintended effects because several other functional adjustments are achieved through VEGF signalling [
27,
28]. BEV is directly related to the development of hypertension, which is a recognized effect of anti-VEGF therapy [
3]. Since VEGF is indispensable and used to sustain vascular homeostasis, blocking the VEGF pathway can initiate endothelial dysfunction and hypertension [
28]. The pathogenesis of this type of BEV-induced hypertension is not fully understood. One possible explanation [
13,
29,
30] is that blocking VEGF results in a decrease in nitric oxide (NO) that dilates blood vessels.
Several important limitations should be recognized. First, this retrospective study had inherent shortcomings. Although this study included only postmenopausal women with previously untreated advanced CC, the relevant regression analysis can only control for measurable confounding factors. Residual confusion remains an important issue and may lead to underestimation of the harm associated with drug intervention. Second, when paclitaxel was administered at the maximum dose of 175 mg/m2/day, toxicity was escalated to a degree, which may result in a shorter medication cycle. Nonetheless, since the specifications of the drugs used by patients are uniform, this can avoid drug differences in the baseline data. Third, the current subjects were limited to postmenopausal women with previously untreated advanced CC, and thus, the results may not be generalizable to patients receiving routine treatment.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.