Secondary efficacy endpoints
EVENTS, SECONDARY, EVENT
Similar results were found in the ITT and PP populations for all secondary efficacy endpoints; data reported here are for the ITT population.PFS was similar between the two treatment arms (185 [56.9%] events in the BAT1706 arm vs 176 [54.0%] event in the EU‐bevacizumab arm), with a median PFS of 8.1 (95% CI: 7.1–8.3) months for BAT1706 and 7.7 (95% CI: 6.2–8.3) months for EU‐bevacizumab, with no difference in the time to median PFS between treatment arms (stratified HR: 0.915; 95% CI: 0.741–1.132; Kaplan–Meier curve of (A) PFS—ITT population and (B) overall survival—ITT population. An HR <1.0 favored the BAT1706 arm. OS was also comparable between the treatment arms (99 [30.5%] events in the BAT1706 arm vs 102 [31.3%] events in the EU‐bevacizumab arm); median OS was 16.4 (95% CI: 13.9, not reached) months for BAT1706 and 18.5 (95% CI: 14.0, not reached) months for EU‐bevacizumab, with no difference in the time to median OS between treatment arms (stratified HR: 0.916; 95% CI: 0.693–1.210; BAT1706 and EU‐bevacizumab had comparable DoR (95 [46.6%] events in the BAT1706 arm vs. 77 [44.3%] events in the EU‐bevacizumab arm), with median DoR being 6.9 (95% CI: 5.7–7.6) months and 7.1 (95% CI: 5.5–9.0) months, respectively, with no difference in the time to DoR between treatment arms (stratified HR: 1.094; 95% CI: 0.803–1.491; Kaplan–Meier curve of DoR—ITT population. An HR <1.0 favored the BAT1706 arm. In addition, ORR