Objective Cisplatin-paclitaxel and bevacizumab is a frequently used treatment regimen for metastatic or recurrent cervical cancer, and carboplatin-paclitaxel and bevacizumab are also among the recommended regimens. In this study we aimed to evaluate the efficacy of these two regimens for the treatment of metastatic or recurrent cervical cancer.
Methods Patients with metastatic or recurrent cervical cancer treated with cisplatin-paclitaxel and bevacizumab or carboplatin-paclitaxel and bevacizumab were retrospectively evaluated in this study. The clinical and demographic characteristics of patients in each group were evaluated. Median overall survival, progression-free survival, and response rates between the two groups were compared.
Results A total of 250 patients were included. Overall, the numbers of patients with recurrent disease and metastatic disease were 159 and 91, respectively. The most common histologic subtype was squamous cell carcinoma (83.2%). The median duration of follow-up was 13.6 (range 0.5–86) months. The median progression-free survival was 10.5 (95% CI 9.0 to 11.8) months in the cisplatin-paclitaxel and bevacizumab group (group 1), and 10.8 (95% CI 8.6 to 13.0) months in the carboplatin-paclitaxel and bevacizumab group (group 2) (HR 1.20; 95% CI 0.88 to 1.63; p=0.25). The median overall survival was 19.1 (95% CI 13.0 to 25.1) months in group 1 and 18.3 (95% CI 15.3 to 21.3) months in group 2 (HR 1.28; 95% CI 0.91 to 1.80; p=0.15).
Conclusions There is no survival difference between cisplatin or carboplatin combined with paclitaxel and bevacizumab in metastatic or recurrent cervical cancer.
- cervical cancer
Data availability statement
Data are available upon reasonable request. The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Contributors The project was managed by YI. Clinical data were collected by YI, FT, AHO, FK, CG, MK, MAK, MI, SGA, AK, HA, BO, AAB, OS, MK, ZO, OB, AB, SB, SAD, and MO. The final manuscript was approved by all authors. The study concept was developed by AMT, HSC, and SSG. Manuscript drafting was done by YI and was reviewed and edited by AMT. YI is the guarantor and accepts full responsibility for the work and/or the conduct of the study, had access to the data, and controlled the decision to publish.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.