Table 1.
Association between bevacizumab efficacy and clinicopathological features.
| Bevacizumab Sensitive Group (SG; n = 43) | Bevacizumab Resistant Group (RG; n = 35) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| No. (%) | No. (%) | p Value | |
| Age, M(SD) | 58.2(9.6) | 60.1(8.6) | 0.510 |
| BMI, M(SD) | 22.8(3.7) | 24.5(4.1) | 0.051 |
| Number of BEV used times, M(SD) | 13.4(9.1) | 10.9(7.6) | 0.189 |
| Origin | 0.456 | ||
| Ovary | 40(57.1) | 30(42.9) | |
| PSPC | 3(37.5) | 5(62.5) | |
| Tumor marker | 0.499 | ||
| CA-125 > 35 U/mL | 41(53.9) | 35(46.1) | |
| CA-125 > 70 U/mL | 40(53.3) | 35(46.7) | |
| CA-125 > 105 U/mL | 38(52.1) | 35(47.9) | |
| FIGO stage | 0.088 | ||
| I | 6(85.7) | 1(14.3) | |
| II | 3(60) | 2(40) | |
| III | 29(58) | 21(42) | |
| IV | 5(31.2) | 11(68.8) | |
| Histology | 0.455 | ||
| other adenocarcinoma | 4(57.1) | 3(42.9) | |
| serous | 30(51.7) | 28(48.3) | |
| endometrioid | 4 (100) | 0(0) | |
| clear cell | 4(57.1) | 3(42.9) | |
| mucinous | 1(50) | 1(50) | |
| Surgery | |||
| Complete cytoreduction (CC 0/1) | 24(75) | 8(25) | 0.007 |
| Suboptimal | 9(39.1) | 14(60.9) | 0.112 |
| CRS + HIPEC | 10(43.5) | 13(56.5) | 0.277 |
| BEV therapy | |||
| Maintenance | |||
| Concurrent (Maintenance | 10(90.9) | 1(9.1) | 0.019 |
| Second-line(Maintenance | 5(62.5) | 3(37.5) | 0.724 |
| Concurrent | 15(60) | 10(40) | 0.726 |
| Second-line | 13(38.2) | 21(61.8) | 0.016 |
| AIM2 score, M(SD) | 297.1(27.7) | 355.5(43.3) | <0.001 |
| ≤310 | 38(88.4) | 9(25.7) | <0.001 |
| >310 | 5(11.6) | 26(74.3) | |
| C3 score, M(SD) | 285.4(36.5) | 306.9(65.7) | 0.077 |
| C5 score, M(SD) | 229.3(31.6) | 243.6(57.2) | 0.326 |
M(SD), Mean (standard deviation); BMI, body mass index; PSPC, peritoneal serous papillary carcinoma; FIGO, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics; CRS + HIPEC, cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy; BEV, bevacizumab; AIM2, absent in melanoma 2; C3, complement component 3; C5, complement component 5.