Research Article| Volume 136, ISSUE 1, P37-42, January 2015

Download started.


Progression-free survival by local investigator versus independent central review: Comparative analysis of the AGO-OVAR16 Trial

Published:November 27, 2014DOI:


      • Pazopanib maintenance therapy extended PFS in patients with AEOC.
      • HR estimates for PFS by investigator were consistent with those of central review.
      • There was no evidence of investigator bias in estimates of disease progression.



      Analysis of progression-free survival (PFS) as the primary endpoint in advanced epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancer (AEOC) trials may be confounded by the difficulty of radiologic evaluation of disease progression and the potential for discrepancy between investigator and blinded independent central assessments. PFS as assessed by local investigator (INV) was the primary endpoint of AGO-OVAR16, a randomized, double-blind trial of pazopanib maintenance therapy in AEOC. To confirm the robustness of the primary analysis, PFS was also evaluated by blinded independent central review (BICR).


      Patients with histologically confirmed AEOC (N = 940) were randomized 1:1 to receive pazopanib 800 mg/day or placebo for up to 24 months. Tumor response in the intent-to-treat population was evaluated by CT/MRI every 6 months and analyzed per RECIST 1.0.


      Pazopanib prolonged PFS versus placebo by INV (median 17.9 vs 12.3 months; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.766, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.643–0.911; P = 0.0021). Results for PFS by BICR were similar (median 15.4 vs 11.8 months; HR = 0.802, 95% CI: 0.678–0.949; P = 0.0084). Progression events were recorded later by INV in 23% of pazopanib-treated patients and 17% of placebo-treated patients. The overall concordance between INV and BICR assessments was 84% and 86% in the pazopanib and placebo arms, respectively.


      By INV and BICR assessments, maintenance therapy with pazopanib in AEOC provided a significantly longer PFS than placebo. The good overall concordance between INV and BICR assessments, as well as HR and P value consistency, supports the reliability of investigator-assessed PFS as the primary endpoint in AGO-OVAR16.


      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Gynecologic Oncology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Herzog T.J.
        Recurrent ovarian cancer: how important is it to treat to disease progression?.
        Clin Cancer Res. 2004; 10: 7439-7449
        • Thigpen T.
        • duBois A.
        • McAlpine J.
        • DiSaia P.
        • Fujiwara K.
        • Hoskins W.
        • et al.
        First-line therapy in ovarian cancer trials.
        Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2011; 21: 756-762
        • Cannistra S.A.
        Cancer of the ovary.
        N Engl J Med. 2004; 351: 2519-2529
        • Burger R.A.
        • Brady M.F.
        • Bookman M.A.
        • Fleming G.F.
        • Monk B.J.
        • Huang H.
        • et al.
        Incorporation of bevacizumab in the primary treatment of ovarian cancer.
        N Engl J Med. 2011; 365: 2473-2483
        • Aghajanian C.
        • Blank S.V.
        • Goff B.A.
        • Judson P.L.
        • Teneriello M.G.
        • Husain A.
        • et al.
        OCEANS: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trial of chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab in patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer.
        J Clin Oncol. 2012; 30: 2039-2045
        • Friedlander M.
        • Hancock K.C.
        • Rischin D.
        • Messing M.J.
        • Stringer C.A.
        • Matthys G.M.
        • et al.
        A Phase II, open-label study evaluating pazopanib in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer.
        Gynecol Oncol. 2010; 119: 32-37
        • du Bois A.
        • Vergote I.
        • Wimberger P.
        • Ray-Coquard I.
        • Harter P.
        • Curtis L.B.
        • et al.
        Open-label feasibility study of pazopanib, carboplatin, and paclitaxel in women with newly diagnosed, untreated, gynaecologic tumours: a phase I/II trial of the AGO study group.
        Br J Cancer. 2012; 106: 629-632
        • du Bois A.
        • Floquet A.
        • Kim J.W.
        • Rau J.
        • Del Campo J.M.
        • Friedlander M.
        • et al.
        Incorporation of pazopanib in maintenance therapy of ovarian cancer.
        J Clin Oncol. 2014; 32: 3374-3382
        • Bast R.C.
        • Thigpen J.T.
        • Arbuck S.G.
        • Basen-Engquist K.
        • Burke L.B.
        • Freedman R.
        • et al.
        Clinical trial endpoints in ovarian cancer: report of an FDA/ASCO/AACR Public Workshop.
        Gynecol Oncol. 2007; 107: 173-176
        • Le T.
        • Hopkins L.
        • Fung Kee Fung M.
        Quality of life assessments in epithelial ovarian cancer patients during and after chemotherapy.
        Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2005; 15: 811-816
        • Zhang J.J.
        • Zhang L.
        • Chen H.
        • Murgo A.J.
        • Dodd L.E.
        • Pazdur R.
        • et al.
        Assessment of audit methodologies for bias evaluation of tumor progression in oncology clinical trials.
        Clin Cancer Res. 2013; 19: 2637-2645
        • Amit O.
        • Mannino F.
        • Stone A.M.
        • Bushnell W.
        • Denne J.
        • Helterbrand J.
        • et al.
        Blinded independent central review of progression in cancer clinical trials: results from a meta-analysis.
        Eur J Cancer. 2011; 47: 1772-1778
        • US Food and Drug Administration
        Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee Meeting July 24, 2012: evaluation of radiologic review of progression-free survival in non-hematologic malignancies.
        • Therasse P.
        • Arbuck S.G.
        • Eisenhauer E.A.
        • Wanders J.
        • Kaplan R.S.
        • Rubinstein L.
        • et al.
        New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada.
        J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000; 92: 205-216
        • Perren T.J.
        • Swart A.M.
        • Pfisterer J.
        • Ledermann J.A.
        • Pujade-Lauraine E.
        • Kristensen G.
        • et al.
        A phase 3 trial of bevacizumab in ovarian cancer.
        N Engl J Med. 2011; 365: 2484-2496
        • Shaw D.
        • Clamp A.
        • Jayson G.C.
        Angiogenesis as a target for the treatment of ovarian cancer.
        Curr Opin Oncol. 2013; 25: 558-565
        • Burger R.A.
        • Brady M.F.
        • Rhee J.
        • Sovak M.A.
        • Kong G.
        • Nguyen H.P.
        • et al.
        Independent radiologic review of the Gynecologic Oncology Group Study 0218, a phase III trial of bevacizumab in the primary treatment of advanced epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer.
        Gynecol Oncol. 2013; 131: 21-26