ArticleGynecologic oncology2025
Bevacizumab beyond progression: Impact of subsequent bevacizumab re-treatment in patients with ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal cancer after progression.
Article in Gynecologic oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study evaluated whether patients with epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal carcinoma (OC) who are immediately re-treated with bevacizumab derive benefit after disease progression on a bevacizumab-containing regimen.
methodsThis multi-institutional, retrospective study compared patients with high grade non-mucinous epithelial OC who received bevacizumab followed directly by another bevacizumab-containing treatment regimen to patients who received bevacizumab followed by a regimen that did not contain bevacizumab (or received no further treatment). Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using Kaplan Meier product-limit estimator and modeled via Cox proportional hazards regression.
resultsAmong 226 patients with OC who received bevacizumab as part of a treatment regimen,103 received sequential treatment with bevacizumab and 123 received a bevacizumab-containing regimen followed by a non-bevacizumab-containing regimen at the time of progression. Median follow-up for all subjects was 17.3 months (range, 1.2-138.2 months). Median PFS was 17.2 months (95 % CI, 14.3-21.2) for patients who received sequential bevacizumab re-treatment and 5.1 months (95 % CI, 4.3-6.3) for patients who received bevacizumab without bevacizumab-containing re-treatment (p < 0.001). Median OS was 29.9 months (95 % CI, 26.1-35.4) for patients who received sequential bevacizumab re-treatment (p < 0.001) and 12.4 months (95 % CI, 9.2-16.7) for patients who did not receive bevacizumab-containing re-treatment.
conclusionPatients with OC treated with bevacizumab-containing regimens sequentially at the time of progression have prolonged survival compared to patients who received no re-treatment with bevacizumab.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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 OpenQuestion graph.