{"title":"Comparison of Different Maintenance Treatment Options for Newly Diagnosed <i>BRCA</i>wt Advanced Ovarian Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis.","authors":"Xi Chen, Chenyan Fang, Yanglong Guo, Yingli Zhang","doi":"10.1177/15330338261416162","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>IntroductionNiraparib and bevacizumab are two principal maintenance therapies for newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer (AOC) patients with <i>BRCA</i> wild-type (<i>BRCA</i>wt) status, regardless of homologous recombination deficiency (HRD). In China, however, a considerable proportion of <i>BRCA</i>wt patients have unknown or untested HRD status, complicating treatment selection.MethodsTo evaluate and compare the efficacy of niraparib and bevacizumab as maintenance therapy for <i>BRCA</i>wt AOC, we conducted a retrospective cohort study using real-world clinical data. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize clinical and demographic characteristics. Progression-free survival (PFS) was estimated using Kaplan-Meier analysis and compared using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model. A multivariable Cox regression was performed to adjust for potential confounding variables. Exploratory subgroup analyses were conducted, and propensity score matching (PSM) was applied as a sensitivity analysis.ResultsA total of 94 patients were included, with 51 receiving niraparib and 43 receiving bevacizumab. The median PFS was not reached in the niraparib group versus 13.77 months (95% CI, 4.12-23.41) in the bevacizumab group (HR = 0.240, 95% CI, 0.128-0.451; <i>P</i> < .001). After covariate adjustment, the median PFS was 19.55 months (95% CI, 9.40-NA) with niraparib and 8.64 months (95% CI, 4.53-NA) with bevacizumab, with an adjusted HR of 0.282 (95% CI, 0.136-0.587; <i>P</i> = .001). In the PSM sensitivity analysis, the median PFS was not reached (95% CI, 19.55-NR) in the niraparib group and was 18.33 months (95% CI, 8.90-25.26) in the bevacizumab group (HR = 0.360, 95% CI, 0.176-0.736; <i>P</i> = .005).ConclusionThis analysis suggests that niraparib may provide a progression-free survival advantage compared with bevacizumab in <i>BRCA</i>wt AOC patients, with both regimens appearing to be generally well tolerated in the real-world setting. These findings offer preliminary reference value for maintenance treatment selection in patients with newly diagnosed <i>BRCA</i>wt AOC.</p>","PeriodicalId":22203,"journal":{"name":"Technology in Cancer Research & Treatment","volume":"25 ","pages":"15330338261416162"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12873068/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Technology in Cancer Research & Treatment","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15330338261416162","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/2/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
IntroductionNiraparib and bevacizumab are two principal maintenance therapies for newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer (AOC) patients with BRCA wild-type (BRCAwt) status, regardless of homologous recombination deficiency (HRD). In China, however, a considerable proportion of BRCAwt patients have unknown or untested HRD status, complicating treatment selection.MethodsTo evaluate and compare the efficacy of niraparib and bevacizumab as maintenance therapy for BRCAwt AOC, we conducted a retrospective cohort study using real-world clinical data. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize clinical and demographic characteristics. Progression-free survival (PFS) was estimated using Kaplan-Meier analysis and compared using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model. A multivariable Cox regression was performed to adjust for potential confounding variables. Exploratory subgroup analyses were conducted, and propensity score matching (PSM) was applied as a sensitivity analysis.ResultsA total of 94 patients were included, with 51 receiving niraparib and 43 receiving bevacizumab. The median PFS was not reached in the niraparib group versus 13.77 months (95% CI, 4.12-23.41) in the bevacizumab group (HR = 0.240, 95% CI, 0.128-0.451; P < .001). After covariate adjustment, the median PFS was 19.55 months (95% CI, 9.40-NA) with niraparib and 8.64 months (95% CI, 4.53-NA) with bevacizumab, with an adjusted HR of 0.282 (95% CI, 0.136-0.587; P = .001). In the PSM sensitivity analysis, the median PFS was not reached (95% CI, 19.55-NR) in the niraparib group and was 18.33 months (95% CI, 8.90-25.26) in the bevacizumab group (HR = 0.360, 95% CI, 0.176-0.736; P = .005).ConclusionThis analysis suggests that niraparib may provide a progression-free survival advantage compared with bevacizumab in BRCAwt AOC patients, with both regimens appearing to be generally well tolerated in the real-world setting. These findings offer preliminary reference value for maintenance treatment selection in patients with newly diagnosed BRCAwt AOC.
期刊介绍:
Technology in Cancer Research & Treatment (TCRT) is a JCR-ranked, broad-spectrum, open access, peer-reviewed publication whose aim is to provide researchers and clinicians with a platform to share and discuss developments in the prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring of cancer.