An Open-Label, Randomized, Parallel, Phase II Trial to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of a Cremophor-Free Polymeric Micelle Formulation of Paclitaxel as First-Line Treatment for Ovarian Cancer: A Korean Gynecologic Oncology Group Study (KGOG-3021)

Shin-Wha Lee; Yong-Man Kim; Chi Heum Cho; Young Tae Kim; Seok Mo Kim; Soo Young Hur; Jae-Hoon Kim; Byoung-Gie Kim; Seung-Cheol Kim; Hee-Sug Ryu; Soon Beom Kang

doi:10.4143/crt.2016.376

Articles

Page Path: HOME > Cancer Res Treat > Volume 50(1); 2018 > Article

Original Article An Open-Label, Randomized, Parallel, Phase II Trial to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of a Cremophor-Free Polymeric Micelle Formulation of Paclitaxel as First-Line Treatment for Ovarian Cancer: A Korean Gynecologic Oncology Group Study (KGOG-3021): Shin-Wha Lee, MD, PhD¹, Yong-Man Kim, MD, PhD^1,, Chi Heum Cho, MD, PhD², Young Tae Kim, MD, PhD³, Seok Mo Kim, MD, PhD⁴, Soo Young Hur, MD, PhD⁵, Jae-Hoon Kim, MD, PhD⁶, Byoung-Gie Kim, MD, PhD⁷, Seung-Cheol Kim, MD, PhD⁸, Hee-Sug Ryu, MD, PhD⁹, Soon Beom Kang, MD, PhD¹⁰; Cancer Research and Treatment : Official Journal of Korean Cancer Association 2018;50(1):195-203.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2016.376
Published online: March 21, 2017

¹Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

²Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Keimyung University School of Medicine, Daegu, Korea

³Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

⁴Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Chonnam National University Medical School, Gwangju, Korea

⁵Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea

⁶Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

⁷Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, Korea

⁸Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ewha Womans University Mokdong Hospital, Ewha Womans University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

⁹Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon, Korea

¹⁰Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Konkuk University Medical Center, Seoul, Korea

Correspondence: Yong-Man Kim, MD, PhD Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul 05505, Korea
Tel: 82-2-3010-3640 Fax: 82-2-476-7331 E-mail: ymkim@amc.seoul.kr

*The results of this study were presented in part at the 2013 ASCO Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL, USA (poster presentation, Citation: J Clin Oncol 2013;31 Suppl:Abstr 5568).

• Received: August 13, 2016 • Accepted: March 16, 2017

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

13,589 Views
360 Download
59 Web of Science
56 Crossref
69 Scopus

prev next

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract

Purpose
Genexol-PM is a biodegradable cremophor EL–free polymeric micelle formulation of paclitaxel. Here,we compared efficacy and safety of Genexol-PM plus carboplatin versus Genexol plus carboplatin for ovarian cancer treatment.
Materials and Methods
In this multicenter, randomized, phase II study, patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics IC-IV epithelial ovarian cancer were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive Genexol-PM 260 mg/m² or Genexol 175 mg/m² with 5 area under the curve carboplatin every 3weeks (6 cycles). The primary endpointwas the carbohydrate antigen 125 and Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumor composite overall response rate (ORR).
Results
Of 131 enrolled patients, 98 were included in intention-to-treat analysis. Mean dosages were 260.00±0.00 mg/m² Genexol-PM or 174.24±3.81 mg/m² Genexol. Median followup was 18.0 months (range, 6.1 to 33.8 months). ORR was 88.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 80.4 to 95.6) with Genexol-PM, and 77.1% (95% CI, 67.1 to 87.1) with Genexol (noninferiority threshold, 16.3%). Median time to progression was 14.8 months (95% CI, 11.3 to 20.2) with Genexol-PM and 15.4 months (95% CI, 13.2 to 29.6) with Genexol (p=0.550). Overall, six patients died. Neutropenia was the most common toxicity (incidences of 86.0% vs. 77.1%, p=0.120). Peripheral neuropathy incidences were 84.0% versus 64.6% (p= 0.148). Peripheral neuropathy of ≥ grade 3 occurred in one patient receiving Genexol. All toxicities were manageable.
Conclusion
Genexol-PM plus carboplatin as first-line treatment in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer demonstrated non-inferior efficacy and well-tolerated toxicities compared with the standard paclitaxel regimen. Further studies are warranted to optimize the dose and schedule, and to investigate long-term outcomes.
Key words: Genexol-PM, Genexol, Carboplatin, Phase II trial, Ovarian neoplasms

Introduction

Ovarian cancer is the most lethal gynecologic malignancy, being responsible for approximately 14,000 deaths in the United States annually [1]. It constitutes 2.1% of cancers among Korean women [2], and over 70% of patients present with advanced stage disease. The primary treatment involves cytoreductive surgery followed by chemotherapy. Standard chemotherapy for ovarian cancer patients includes 5-7.5 area under the curve (AUC) of carboplatin combined with 175 mg/m² of paclitaxel administered for six cycles at 3-week intervals in accordance with. Several studies demonstrate that 175 mg/m² of paclitaxel combined with 5 AUC of carboplatin induces a Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumor (RECIST) response rate of 59.5%-66% and a carbohydrate antigen 125 (CA-125) response rate of 72%-76.8% [3]. Recent reports also show that addition of bevacizumab (a monoclonal antibody against vascular endothelial growth factor) to the standard treatment prolongs progression-free survival but not overall survival (OS) [4]. Despite recent exploration of targeted therapies and immunotherapies, paclitaxel remains the most important drug in ovarian cancer treatment. Thus, many researchers are focusing on variations in the schedule and dosage with the aim of enhancing paclitaxel’s effect. The current trend is to use dose-dense weekly paclitaxel therapy; however, the effects are controversial and such treatment is associated with a higher rate of severe sensory neuropathy [5,6].

To enhance the solubility of the hydrophobic paclitaxel compound, it is prepared using polyoxyl-35-castor oil (Cremophor EL; CrEL). However, CrEL causes hypersensitivity reactions [7]. Even with premedication, paclitaxel-CrEL treatment causes minor hypersensitivity reactions in 10%-44% of patients, and potentially life-threatening reactions in 1%-3% of patients [8,9].

Genexol-PM (Samyang Co., Seoul, Korea) is a novel biodegradable polymeric micellar formulation of paclitaxel. In vivo, Genexol-PM shows greater antitumor activity and higher concentrations in tumor tissues compared to conventional paclitaxel [10]. Dose-limiting toxicities of Genexol-PM include neuropathy, myalgia, and neutropenia. Two phase I trials have tested Genexol-PM in advanced cancers; the trial performed in the United States reported a maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of 435 mg/m², and the trial in Korea showed an MTD of 390 mg/m². Accordingly, a Genexol-PM dose of 300 mg/m² was recommended for phase II studies, which is higher than the recommended dose of CrEL-based paclitaxel (175 mg/m²) [11]. A phase I clinical trial was performed in Korea to investigate combination therapy with Genexol-PM plus carboplatin as a first-line treatment for ovarian cancer [12]. Although the MTD of Genexol-PM was not determined, a dosage of 260 mg/m² was recommended for phase II trials.

Our present open-label, randomized, phase II study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of first-line treatment with Genexol-PM plus carboplatin administered every 3 weeks in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer, compared to treatment with conventional CrEL-based paclitaxel (Genexol, Samyang Co.) plus carboplatin. Our results revealed that Genexol-PM was non-inferior to Genexol, and that Genexol-PM showed well-tolerated toxicities compared with the standard paclitaxel regimen. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01276548.

Materials and Methods

1. Patient population

We performed a multicenter randomized, open-label, confirmatory phase II clinical trial in patients diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics [FIGO] IC-IV at diagnosis) at 10 institutions in Korea. This trial was designed to compare efficacy and safety between carboplatin combined with Genexol-PM and carboplatin combined with Genexol. The included patients had undergone debulking surgery without previous chemotherapy for treatment of epithelial ovarian cancer that was measurable on imaging according to the RECIST ver. 1.0 [13], or that showed CA-125 levels of over twice the upper limit of normal within 7 days or at two tests before starting study treatment. Additional inclusion criteria were an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-2, adequate organ function, and being deemed appropriate receive paclitaxel and carboplatin for ovarian cancer treatment. Exclusion criteria were medical history of central nervous system disorder, current uncontrolled medical conditions that could interfere with the patient’s ability to undergo study treatment, preexisting sensory or motor neuropathy over grade 1 according to National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria (NCI CTCAE), and history of chemotherapy for the ovarian cancer.

All participants gave their written informed consent. The study protocol was approved by the appropriate institutional review boards and independent ethics committees, and was in compliance with Good Clinical Practice, Guidelines of the International Conference on Harmonization, and the Declaration of Helsinki.

2. Treatment

The enrolled patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to a treatment group, with stratification according to disease status after debulking surgery in the primary setting. Either Genexol-PM and carboplatin or Genexol and carboplatin were administered on day 1 of each 3-week cycle. Drug administration began within 4 days after randomization, and was continued for a maximum of six cycles or until the investigator detected disease progression, the subject rejected the administration, or dose-limiting toxicity occurred. On day 1 of each cycle, Genexol-PM or Genexol was intravenously administered over 3 hours, followed by carboplatin administration for 30-60 minutes. Genexol-PM administration began at a dose of 260 mg/m², Genexol was administered at a dose of 175 mg/m², and the carboplatin dosage was 5 AUC. The Genexol-PM dosage could be increased to 300 mg/m² starting in cycle 2 if the patient did not experience a non-hematologic adverse drug reaction of > grade 2 from the first cycle. To minimize hypersensitivity, Genexol-PM or Genexol administration was preceded by premedications, including dexamethasone and H2-blockers.

3. Assessments

The primary efficacy outcome was the estimated composite CA-125 and RECIST response rate for each treatment group. The RECIST response rate is defined as the proportion of subjects with a measurable disease who show complete or partial response. The overall response was determined based on tumor response evaluation of target and non-target lesions after every two cycles. Tumor response and overall response were evaluated according to RECIST criteria [13]. CA-125 response rate was defined as the proportion of subjects with CA-125 response [14], which was evaluated based on responses from the initial administration to the last cycle. Each cycle included laboratory testing and assessment of ECOG performance status. Adverse events were graded following the National Cancer Institute’s CTCAE ver. 3.0.

4. Statistical analysis

The primary efficacy outcome was the CA-125 and RECIST composite response rate defined as the fraction of patients who showed complete responseor partial responsebased on RECIST ver. 1.0 and/or a CA-125 response. The predefined non-inferiority margin was an absolute difference of 16.3% in the primary endpoint. A one-sided 95% upper confidence limit of the difference in the objective response rate between the Genexol-PM group and the Genexol group that was below the threshold of non-inferiority was considered to indicate that the Genexol-PM group not inferior to the Genexol group. Secondary efficacy outcomes included time to progression (TTP) and OS. Categorical variables were analyzed using the chi-square test, and non-parametric variables with the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Survival curve analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method, and between-group differences were evaluated with the log-rank method. We also analyzed safety and efficacy endpoints among patients in each group who received at least one dose of study treatment. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS ver. 21 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY), and applying a two-sided significance level of 5%.

Results

1. Patient characteristics

From August 2009 to May 2012, this study enrolled 131 patients with epithelial ovarian cancer, 29 patients dropped out of the screening because most of them did not meet the inclusion criteria, especially for CA-125 level more than twice the upper limit of normal after debulking surgery. Except for four patients who withdrew their consent after randomization, 98 patients were included in the analyses of clinical efficacies and safety (Fig. 1). Mean patient age was 56.4 years (±10.8 years) in the Genexol-PM group, and 55.2 years (±8.9 years) in the Genexol group (p=0.554) (Table 1). The two groups did not significantly differ with regards to histopathologic grade or FIGO stage. Over 80% of the overall subjects had a histopathological grade of G3 (poorly differentiated) or G2 (moderately differentiated). FIGO stages at diagnosis were IIIC for 38 patients (76.0%) in the study group and 31 patients (64.6%) in the control group, and IV for nine patients (18.0%) in the study group and 15 patients (31.3%) in the control group (Table 1). The mean number of cycles was 5.62±1.12 in the Genexol-PM group and 5.35±1.60 in the Genexol group. In the Genexol group, two subjects had their dose reduced once. The mean doses administered were 260.00±0.00 mg/m² of Genexol-PM and 5.00±0.00 AUC of carboplatin in the study group, and 174.24±3.81 mg/m² of Genexol and 5.00±0.00 AUC of carboplatin in the control group.

2. Efficacy

The study group (Genexol-PM+carboplatin) showed a CA-125 and RECIST composite overall response rate (ORR) of 88.0%, with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 80.4-95.6. The control group (Genexol+carboplatin) showed a CA-125 and RECIST composite ORR of 77.1% (95% CI, 67.1 to 87.1). The between-groups difference in ORR was −10.9%, which was not statistically significant (p=0.701), and was lower than the non-inferiority threshold (16.3%), indicating that the Genexol-PM was not inferior to Genexol (Table 2).

The median follow-up period was 18.0 months (range, 6.1 to 33.8 months). Tumor progression was detected in 20 patients in the Genexol-PM group, and 18 patients in the Genexol group. One patient in each group died from tumor progression. Median TTP was 14.8 months (95% CI, 11.3 to 20.2) in the Genexol-PM group and 15.4 months (95% CI, 13.2 to 29.6) in the Genexol group (p=0.550) (Fig. 2A). Deaths occurred among five subjects in the study group and one subject in the control group; however, OS with 50% mortality was not calculated. We found no significant between-groups difference in survival (p=0.100) (Fig. 2B). We analyzed the concordance between the two response rates among subjects evaluated for both CA-125 and RECIST responses. In the Genexol-PM group, 38 patients met the definition of CA-125 response, while a RECIST response was achieved by 35 subjects. In the Genexol group, 33 patients met the definition of CA-125 response, while the RECIST response was met by 29 patients.

3. Safety

During the study period, 441 adverse events occurred in 50 subjects (100.0%) in the Genexol-PM group, including 49 serious events (11.1%, 49/441). In the Genexol group, 376 adverse events occurred in 44 subjects (91.7%), including 40 serious events (10.6%, 40/376). Except for alopecia, the rates of hematologic and nonhematologic adverse events did not significantly differ between the two groups. Neutropenia occurred in 43 patients (86.0%) in the Genexol-PM group and 37 patients (77.1%) in the Genexol group (p=0.120), even though a higher paclitaxel dose was administered in the Genexol-PM group. In the Genexol-PM group, there were 104 confirmed instances of hematologic toxicities (23.6%, 104/441) compared to 77 instances in the Genexol group (20.5%, 77/376). Hypersensitivity reactions occurred in seven patients (14.0%) in the Genexol-PM group, and three patients (6.3%) in the Genexol group (p > 0.99). Incidences of peripheral neuropathy and myalgia did not significantly differ according to study treatment. Peripheral neuropathy occurred in 42 patients (84.0%) in the Genexol-PM group with no serious cases, and in 31 patients (64.6%) in the Genexol group with one case (2.1%) considered serious (p=0.148) (Table 3). All reported toxicities were successfully managed with conservative care, and no treatment-related deaths occurred in either group. In the Genexol-PM group, ECOG performance from screening/baseline to last observation carried forward changed by 0.02±0.68, which was not statistically significant (p=0.837).

Discussion

Paclitaxel is an important drug in ovarian cancer treatment. However, the commonly used paclitaxel solubilizer CrEL contributes to severe toxicities, including hypersensitivity reactions and peripheral neuropathies [7,15-18]. To overcome these toxicities and to potentially improve efficacy, solvent-free paclitaxel formulations have been developed. Genexol-PM is a freeze-dried macromolecule micelle of paclitaxel that was approved in Korea in 2006 with the indications of first-line therapy for recurrent and metastatic breast cancer (MBC) and non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC). The copolymer mPEG-PDLLA that is used in Genexol-PM is not listed in the U.S. Pharmacopoeia; however, the individual polymers mPEG and polylactide are used in multiple pharmaceutical products and are on the Food and Drug Administration's Inactive Ingredient List. The mPEG-PDLLA copolymer has been confirmed to be nontoxic. Several phase II clinical trials demonstrate that Genexol-PM is generally well tolerated and shows sufficient antitumor activity in patients with MBC, NSCLC, and urothelial carcinoma [19-21]. Phase II clinical trials have been performed in the United States to examine Genexol-PM monotherapy for the treatment of progressive pancreatic cancer [22]. In Korea, a phase I clinical trial investigated the combination of Genexol-PM with carboplatin in ovarian cancer patients (featured poster presentation, abstract 0071) [12].

Our present study evaluated the anti-tumor effects of firstline treatment with Genexol-PM+carboplatin or with Genexol+carboplatin among epithelial ovarian cancer patients, and demonstrated that the efficacy outcome in the study group was not inferior to that in the control group. Genexol-PM plus carboplatin was associated with a CA-125 and RECIST composite response rate of 88.0% in intentionto-treat (ITT) analysis (the primary efficacy outcome), and 93.2% in per-protocol analysis. The primary efficacy outcome differed between the groups by −10.92%, with a one-sided 95% upper confidence limit of 1.60%, which was below the non-inferiority threshold (16.3%)—indicating that outcome with Genexol-PM was not inferior to outcome with Genexol. As a secondary efficacy outcome, the RECIST response rate from ITT analysis of subjects with measurable lesions was 85.4% in the Genexol-PM group and 75.0% in the Genexol group. Among the subjects without measurable lesions, the CA-125 response rate was 100% in both groups. With regard to OS rate in the ITT population, five subjects died and 47 subjects were censored in the Genexol-PM group, and one subject died and 46 subjects were censored in Genexol group. OS with 50% mortality was not calculated. The betweengroup difference in survival was not statistically significant (p=0.100).

Higher doses of conventional paclitaxel do not improve response rates or survival among patients with MBC, predominantly due to greater toxicities [23]. On the other hand, compared to conventional paclitaxel, nanoparticle albuminbound (nab) paclitaxel produces higher response rates with similar safety profiles in cases of MBC, NSCLC, and pancreatic cancer [24-26]. However, controversial results are reported by several randomized trials investigating the roles of higher paclitaxel doses in breast cancer treatment [27,28]. No comparative clinical trials have evaluated the efficacy of high-dose paclitaxel in epithelial ovarian cancer. Our present phase II trial in ovarian cancer demonstrated the non-inferiority of Genexol-PM but did not show that higher paclitaxel doses improved efficacy with regards to ORR, TTP, or OS. Thus, there remains a need for additional clinical trials, particularly phase III/IV studies in a large number of patients with ovarian cancer to test the superiority of high-dose Genexol-PM compared to the conventional dose of paclitaxel. This may be a great help in selecting chemotherapeutic agents as first-line treatment for patients with ovarian cancer.

In terms of safety, as expected, the Genexol-PM group showed higher incidence of neutropenia and lower incidence of peripheral neuropathy, but in this study, Genexol-PM and conventional paclitaxel showed similar safety profiles, including neutropenia and peripheral neuropathy. Some researchers have reported that peripheral neuropathy due to paclitaxel itself is inevitable, although the solvent-free paclitaxel formulation has the advantages of inducing less severe peripheral neuropathy and more rapid recovery compared with conventional paclitaxel [24,29]. A randomized trial of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine versus gemcitabine alone for treatment of pancreatic cancer found the most notable difference in adverse events to be the rate of peripheral neuropathy (17% with nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine versus 1% with gemcitabine) [26]. Notably, peripheral neuropathy in that study was rapidly reversible in most patients, with neuropathy of ≥ grade 3 improved to ≤ grade 1 in a median of 29 days. In our present study, no patients in the Genexol-PM group showed peripheral neuropathy of grade 3 or higher.

In conclusion, our present phase II study demonstrated a non-inferior ORR and manageable toxicities with Genexol-PM plus carboplatin compared to with standard Genexol and carboplatin. Genexol-PM allows administration of a greater paclitaxel dose without compromising patient safety. Overall, Genexol-PM with carboplatin seems to be efficacious and safe as first-line therapy in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer. Further studies of Genexol-PM are warranted, particularly to examine the use of different schedules, including weekly doses, and to study long-term outcomes, including the reversibility of peripheral neuropathy.

NOTES

This study was sponsored by Samyang, and Genexol-PM and Genexol were provided by Samyang.

Acknowledgements

We thank all of the patients and their families who participated in this phase II study, the study-site staff who assisted with coordination and medical monitoring, and Dr. Paul Kretchmer (English Editor, San Francisco Edit) for medical writing assistance.

Fig. 1.

Analyzed patient populations. ITT, intention-to-treat; PP, per-protocol.

Fig. 2.

Time to progression (A) and overall survival (OS) (B) in intention-to-treat analysis.

Table 1.

Patient characteristics

Characteristic	Genexol-PM+carboplatin (n=50)	Genexol+carboplatin (n=48)	p-value
Age (yr)	56.4±10.8	55.2±8.9	0.554
Histopathological grade
GX	1 (2.0)	0	0.129
G1	2 (4.0)	0
G2	17 (34.0)	10 (20.8)
G3	25 (50.0)	35 (72.9)
G4	1 (2.0)	0
Unknown	4 (8.0)	3 (6.3)
FIGO stage
IC	1 (2.0)	0	0.508
IIIA	1 (2.0)	1 (2.1)
IIIB	1 (2.0)	1 (2.1)
IIIC	38 (76.0)	31 (64.6)
IV	9 (18.0)	15 (31.3)
Disease after surgery
Measurable disease	41 (82.0)	40 (83.3)	0.701
Non-measurable disease	9 (18.0)	8 (16.7)
Overall administration cycles	5.62±1.12	5.35±1.60	0.347

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation or number (%). GX, differentiation cannot be assessed; G1, well differentiated; G2, moderately differentiated; G3, poorly differentiated; G4, undifferentiated; FIGO, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics.

Table 2.

Responses and survival rates

Response rate	Genexol-PM+carboplatin (n=50)		Genexol+carboplatin (n=48)		p-value
Response rate	No. (%) or median	95% CI	No. (%) or median	95% CI	p-value
Overall response^a)	44 (88.0)	80.4-95.6	37 (77.1)	67.1-87.1	0.701
CR	24 (48.0)		16 (33.3)
PR	20 (40.0)		21 (43.8)
SD	3 (6.0)		5 (10.4)
PD	0		1 (2.1)
NE	3 (6.0)		4 (8.3)
Survival rate
Time to progression^b)	14.8	11.3-20.2	15.4	13.2-29.6	0.546
Overall survival^c)	(–)		(–)		0.100

CI, confidence interval; CR, complete response; PR, partial response; SD, stable disease; PD, progrssive disease; NE, not evaluated.

^a) Threshold of non-inferiority: 16.3%,

^b) Genexol-PM+carboplatin censored: 30, Genexol+carboplatin censored: 30,

^c) Genexol-PM+carboplatin censored: 45, Genexol+carboplatin censored: 47.

Table 3.

Overview of adverse events

Adverse event	Genexol-PM+carboplatin (n=50)				Genexol+carboplatin (n=48)				p-value
Adverse event	G1	G2	≥ G3	Total	G1	G2	≥ G3	Total	p-value
Neutropenia	1 (2.0)	0	42 (84.0)	43 (86.0)	1 (2.1)	3 (6.3)	33 (68.8)	37 (77.1)	0.120
Leukopenia	0	2 (4.0)	8 (16.0)	10 (20.0)	0	1 (2.1)	2 (4.2)	3 (6.3)	> 0.99
Platelet count decreased	1 (2.0)	3 (6.0)	2 (4.0)	6 (12.0)	0	4 (8.3)	2 (4.2)	6 (12.5)	> 0.99
Hemoglobin decreased	0	19 (38.0)	6 (12.0)	25 (50.0)	0	13 (27.1)	7 (14.6)	20 (41.7)	0.320
Hypersensitivity	3 (6.0)	4 (8.0)	0	7 (14.0)	2 (4.2)	1 (2.1)	0	3 (6.3)	> 0.99
Neuropathy peripheral	22 (44.0)	20 (40.0)	0	42 (84.0)	21 (43.8)	9 (18.8)	1 (2.1)	31 (64.6)	0.148
Myalgia	1 (2.0)	1 (2.0)	0	2 (4.0)	0	1 (2.1)	0	1 (2.1)	> 0.99
Arthralgia	3 (6.0)	1 (2.0)	0	4 (8.0)	2 (4.2)	0	0	2 (4.2)	> 0.99
Nausea	12 (24.0)	8 (16.0)	0	20 (40.0)	7 (14.6)	5 (10.4)	0	12 (25.0)	> 0.99
Vomiting	5 (10.0)	3 (6.0)	1 (2.0)	9 (18.0)	2 (4.2)	7 (14.6)	0	9 (18.8)	0.153
Diarrhea	2 (4.0)	0	1 (2.0)	3 (6.0)	5 (10.4)	3 (6.3)	2 (4.2)	10 (20.8)	> 0.99
Constipation	5 (10.0)	5 (10.0)	1 (2.0)	11 (22.0)	8 (16.7)	4 (8.3)	0	12 (25.0)	0.520
Alopecia	13 (26.0)	11 (22.0)	0	24 (48.0)	20 (41.7)	4 (8.3)	0	24 (50.0)	0.029
ALT increased	2 (4.0)	4 (8.0)	0	6 (12.0)	7 (14.6)	1 (2.1)	0	8 (16.7)	0.091
AST increased	6 (12.0)	4 (8.0)	0	10 (20.0)	5 (10.4)	1 (2.1)	0	6 (12.5)	0.588

Values are presented as number (%). G1, well differentiated; G2, moderately differentiated; G3, poorly differentiated; ALT, alanine transaminase; AST, aspartate aminotransferase.

REFERENCES

1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2016. CA Cancer J Clin. 2016;66:7–30. Article PubMed
2. Korea Central Cancer Registry, National Cancer Center. Annual report of cancer statistics in Korea in 2012. Goyang: National Cancer Center; 2014.
3. Ozols RF, Bundy BN, Greer BE, Fowler JM, Clarke-Pearson D, Burger RA, et al. Phase III trial of carboplatin and paclitaxel compared with cisplatin and paclitaxel in patients with optimally resected stage III ovarian cancer: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:3194–200. Article PubMed
4. Burger RA, Brady MF, Bookman MA, Fleming GF, Monk BJ, Huang H, et al. Incorporation of bevacizumab in the primary treatment of ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:2473–83. Article PubMed
5. Katsumata N, Yasuda M, Isonishi S, Takahashi F, Michimae H, Kimura E, et al. Long-term results of dose-dense paclitaxel and carboplatin versus conventional paclitaxel and carboplatin for treatment of advanced epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer (JGOG 3016): a randomised, controlled, open-label trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:1020–6. Article PubMed
6. Chan JK, Brady MF, Penson RT, Huang H, Birrer MJ, Walker JL, et al. Weekly vs. every-3-week paclitaxel and carboplatin for ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;374:738–48. Article PubMed PMC
7. Gelderblom H, Verweij J, Nooter K, Sparreboom A. Cremophor EL: the drawbacks and advantages of vehicle selection for drug formulation. Eur J Cancer. 2001;37:1590–8. Article PubMed
8. Kintzel PE. Prophylaxis for paclitaxel hypersensitivity reactions. Ann Pharmacother. 2001;35:1114–7. Article PubMed
9. Kloover JS, den Bakker MA, Gelderblom H, van Meerbeeck JP. Fatal outcome of a hypersensitivity reaction to paclitaxel: a critical review of premedication regimens. Br J Cancer. 2004;90:304–5. Article PubMed PMC
10. Kim SC, Kim DW, Shim YH, Bang JS, Oh HS, Kim SW, et al. In vivo evaluation of polymeric micellar paclitaxel formulation: toxicity and efficacy. J Control Release. 2001;72:191–202. Article PubMed
11. Kim TY, Kim DW, Chung JY, Shin SG, Kim SC, Heo DS, et al. Phase I and pharmacokinetic study of Genexol-PM, a cremophor-free, polymeric micelle-formulated paclitaxel, in patients with advanced malignancies. Clin Cancer Res. 2004;10:3708–16. Article PubMed
12. Abstracts of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology. March 24-27, 2012. Austin, Texas, USA. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;125 Suppl 1:S2–188. PubMed
13. Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, Wanders J, Kaplan RS, 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;92:205–16. Article PubMed
14. Rustin GJ. Use of CA-125 to assess response to new agents in ovarian cancer trials. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21(10 Suppl):187s–93s. Article PubMed
15. Crown J, O’Leary M. The taxanes: an update. Lancet. 2000;355:1176–8. Article PubMed
16. Rowinsky EK, Donehower RC. Paclitaxel (taxol). N Engl J Med. 1995;332:1004–14. Article PubMed
17. Sparreboom A, van Zuylen L, Brouwer E, Loos WJ, de Bruijn P, Gelderblom H, et al. Cremophor EL-mediated alteration of paclitaxel distribution in human blood: clinical pharmacokinetic implications. Cancer Res. 1999;59:1454–7. PubMed
18. van Zuylen L, Karlsson MO, Verweij J, Brouwer E, de Bruijn P, Nooter K, et al. Pharmacokinetic modeling of paclitaxel encapsulation in Cremophor EL micelles. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2001;47:309–18. Article PubMed
19. Lee KS, Chung HC, Im SA, Park YH, Kim CS, Kim SB, et al. Multicenter phase II trial of Genexol-PM, a Cremophor-free, polymeric micelle formulation of paclitaxel, in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008;108:241–50. Article PubMed
20. Kim DW, Kim SY, Kim HK, Kim SW, Shin SW, Kim JS, et al. Multicenter phase II trial of Genexol-PM, a novel Cremophorfree, polymeric micelle formulation of paclitaxel, with cisplatin in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Ann Oncol. 2007;18:2009–14. Article PubMed
21. Lee JL, Ahn JH, Park SH, Lim HY, Kwon JH, Ahn S, et al. Phase II study of a cremophor-free, polymeric micelle formulation of paclitaxel for patients with advanced urothelial cancer previously treated with gemcitabine and platinum. Invest New Drugs. 2012;30:1984–90. Article PubMed
22. Saif MW, Podoltsev NA, Rubin MS, Figueroa JA, Lee MY, Kwon J, et al. Phase II clinical trial of paclitaxel loaded polymeric micelle in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. Cancer Invest. 2010;28:186–94. Article PubMed
23. Winer EP, Berry DA, Woolf S, Duggan D, Kornblith A, Harris LN, et al. Failure of higher-dose paclitaxel to improve outcome in patients with metastatic breast cancer: cancer and leukemia group B trial 9342. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:2061–8. Article PubMed
24. Gradishar WJ, Tjulandin S, Davidson N, Shaw H, Desai N, Bhar P, et al. Phase III trial of nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel compared with polyethylated castor oil-based paclitaxel in women with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:7794–803. Article PubMed
25. Socinski MA, Bondarenko I, Karaseva NA, Makhson AM, Vynnychenko I, Okamoto I, et al. Weekly nab-paclitaxel in combination with carboplatin versus solvent-based paclitaxel plus carboplatin as first-line therapy in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: final results of a phase III trial. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:2055–62. Article PubMed
26. Von Hoff DD, Ervin T, Arena FP, Chiorean EG, Infante J, Moore M, et al. Increased survival in pancreatic cancer with nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:1691–703. Article PubMed PMC
27. Rugo HS, Barry WT, Moreno-Aspitia A, Lyss AP, Cirrincione C, Leung E, et al. Randomized phase III trial of paclitaxel once per week compared with nanoparticle albumin-bound Nabpaclitaxel once per week or ixabepilone with bevacizumab as first-line chemotherapy for locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer: CALGB 40502/NCCTG N063H (Alliance). J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:2361–9. Article PubMed PMC
28. Untch M, Jackisch C, Schneeweiss A, Conrad B, Aktas B, Denkert C, et al. Nab-paclitaxel versus solvent-based paclitaxel in neoadjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer (GeparSepto-GBG 69): a randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17:345–56. Article PubMed
29. Scripture CD, Figg WD, Sparreboom A. Peripheral neuropathy induced by paclitaxel: recent insights and future perspectives. Curr Neuropharmacol. 2006;4:165–72. Article PubMed PMC

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Medical nanoscale materials for virus-induced cervical cancer therapeutic modalities: For targeting delivery
Adane Adugna, Mamaru Getinet, Gashaw Azanaw Amare, Mohammed Jemal
OpenNano.2025; 21: 100221. CrossRef
From Pioneering Discoveries to Innovative Therapies: A Journey Through the History and Advancements of Nanoparticles in Breast Cancer Treatment
Fatemah Basingab, Omniah Alshahrani, Ibtehal Alansari, Nada Almarghalani, Nada Alshelali, Abeer Alsaiary, Najwa Alharbi, Kawther Zaher
Breast Cancer: Targets and Therapy.2025; Volume 17: 27. CrossRef
Nano-drug delivery systems based on biodegradable polymers for the therapy of gynecological malignancies
Keer Jin, Hanxue Zhang, Yuwei Yang, Yan Gao
International Journal of Polymeric Materials and Polymeric Biomaterials.2024; 73(14): 1262. CrossRef
Dual stimuli-responsive polymeric prodrug consisting of reversible covalent bonded celastrol for tumor targeted delivery
Jiangtao Su, Meng Rao, Heshuang Dai, Le Cai, Fan Ye, Lu Ye, Yuchen Hu, Ban Chen, Xiaoxia Guo
Macromolecular Research.2024; 32(2): 173. CrossRef
Designing nanodiscs as versatile platforms for on-demand therapy
Qianwen Mu, Haolan Deng, Xiaoyu An, Gang Liu, Chao Liu
Nanoscale.2024; 16(5): 2220. CrossRef
Innovative strategies for effective paclitaxel delivery: Recent developments and prospects
Sławomir Wileński, Agnieszka Koper, Paulina Śledzińska, Marek Bebyn, Krzysztof Koper
Journal of Oncology Pharmacy Practice.2024; 30(2): 367. CrossRef
Platelet-derived drug delivery systems: Pioneering treatment for cancer, cardiovascular diseases, infectious diseases, and beyond
Yalan Zhu, Lingling Xu, Yong Kang, Qinzhen Cheng, Yiling He, Xiaoyuan Ji
Biomaterials.2024; 306: 122478. CrossRef
Nanoparticle-Based Immunotherapy for Reversing T-Cell Exhaustion
Fei Li, Yahong Wang, Dandan Chen, Yunjie Du
International Journal of Molecular Sciences.2024; 25(3): 1396. CrossRef
Delivery of Nucleic Acid Drugs for Tumor Therapy: Opportunities and Challenges
Dandan Sun, Wenjia Tan, Jianan Zhao, Yafei Tian, Siqi Li, Zhiqi Zhang, Xinzhe Dong, Xiaonan Liu, Na Liu, Ping Jiao, Jie Ma
Fundamental Research.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Effect of high-dose polymeric nanoparticle micellar paclitaxel on improved progression-free survival in patients with optimally resected stage III or IV high-grade carcinoma of the ovary: a prospective cohort study with historical controls
Soo Jin Park, Joo-Hyuk Son, Tae-Wook Kong, Suk-Joon Chang, Hee Seung Kim
Frontiers in Oncology.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Co-Assembly of Cancer Drugs with Cyclo-HH Peptides: Insights from Simulations and Experiments
Anastasia Vlachou, Vijay Bhooshan Kumar, Om Shanker Tiwari, Sigal Rencus-Lazar, Yu Chen, Busra Ozguney, Ehud Gazit, Phanourios Tamamis
ACS Applied Bio Materials.2024; 7(4): 2309. CrossRef
Biomarkers in Ovarian Cancer: Towards Personalized Medicine
Carlos López-Portugués, María Montes-Bayón, Paula Díez
Proteomes.2024; 12(1): 8. CrossRef
Internalization of transferrin-tagged Myxococcus xanthus encapsulins into mesenchymal stem cells
Anna N. Gabashvili, Natalya A. Alexandrushkina, Elizaveta N. Mochalova, Daria V. Goliusova, Ekaterina N. Sapozhnikova, Pavel I. Makarevich, Petr I. Nikitin
Experimental Biology and Medicine.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Functionalized Polymeric Micelles for Targeted Cancer Therapy: Steps from Conceptualization to Clinical Trials
Ana Serras, Célia Faustino, Lídia Pinheiro
Pharmaceutics.2024; 16(8): 1047. CrossRef
Polyesters and Polyester Nano- and Microcarriers for Drug Delivery
Stanislaw Slomkowski, Teresa Basinska, Mariusz Gadzinowski, Damian Mickiewicz
Polymers.2024; 16(17): 2503. CrossRef
Nanotheranostics for gynecological cancers: a path forward for Africa
Mutia Kehwalla Aza, Anavami Suberu, Mahmood Balogun, Goodness Adegbola, Mohamed Alie Sankoh, Thomas Oyediran, Nicholas Aderinto, Gbolahan Olatunji, Emmanuel Kokori, Chinonyelum Emmanuel Agbo
Medical Oncology.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Pharmacokinetic behaviors of soft nanoparticulate formulations of chemotherapeutics
Mahua Sarkar, Yang Wang, Oscar Ekpenyong, Dong Liang, Huan Xie
WIREs Nanomedicine and Nanobiotechnology.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
Cancer treatment and toxicity outlook of nanoparticles
Neetika, Mamta Sharma, Pankaj Thakur, Paras Gaur, Gokana Mohana Rani, Sarvesh Rustagi, Rishi Kumar Talreja, Vishal Chaudhary
Environmental Research.2023; 237: 116870. CrossRef
Efficacy and Safety of Nanopaclitaxel Formulation for Cancer Treatment: Evidence From Randomized Clinical Trials
Xiangmin Deng, Xiaoqin Huang, Xiaoyan Dong, Genxiang Mao, Wenmin Xing
Nanomedicine.2023; 18(10): 833. CrossRef
Development and Perspectives: Multifunctional Nucleic Acid Nanomedicines for Treatment of Gynecological Cancers
Tetiana Korzun, Abraham S. Moses, Parham Diba, Ariana L. Sattler, Brennan Olson, Olena R. Taratula, Tanja Pejovic, Daniel L. Marks, Oleh Taratula
Small.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
Nanoprobe-based molecular imaging for tumor stratification
Xianbin Ma, Mingchuan Mao, Jiaqi He, Chao Liang, Hai-Yan Xie
Chemical Society Reviews.2023; 52(18): 6447. CrossRef
Magic shotgun over magic bullet for treatment of ovarian cancer via polymeric nanoparticles
Bakr Ahmed, Anuradha Sharma, Zakiya Usmani, Garima Sharma, Joga Singh, Radhika Yadav, Indu Sharma, Indu Pal Kaur
Journal of Drug Delivery Science and Technology.2023; 88: 104945. CrossRef
Safety and Tolerability of Weekly Genexol-PM, a Cremophor-Free Polymeric Micelle Formulation of Paclitaxel, with Carboplatin in Gynecologic Cancer: A Phase I Study
So Hyun Nam, Shin-Wha Lee, Young-Jae Lee, Yong Man Kim
Cancer Research and Treatment.2023; 55(4): 1346. CrossRef
Effective Cancer Management: Inimitable Role of Phytochemical Based Nano- Formulations
Aman Upaganlawar, Satish Polshettiwar, Sushil Raut, Amol Tagalpallewar, Vishal Pande
Current Drug Metabolism.2022; 23(11): 869. CrossRef
Comparison of triblock copolymeric micelles based on α- and ε-poly(L-lysine): a Cornelian choice
Franck Marquet, Viorica Patrulea, Gerrit Borchard
Polymer Journal.2022; 54(2): 199. CrossRef
Neurosurgery at the crossroads of immunology and nanotechnology. New reality in the COVID-19 pandemic
Vladimir A. Ljubimov, Arshia Ramesh, Saya Davani, Moise Danielpour, Joshua J. Breunig, Keith L. Black
Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews.2022; 181: 114033. CrossRef
Nanocarriers targeting the diseases of the pancreas
Nurbanu Demirtürk, Erem Bilensoy
European Journal of Pharmaceutics and Biopharmaceutics.2022; 170: 10. CrossRef
The development and progress of nanomedicine for esophageal cancer diagnosis and treatment
Xiaokun Li, Lingmin Chen, Siyuan Luan, Jianfeng Zhou, Xin Xiao, Yushang Yang, Chengyi Mao, Pinhao Fang, Longqi Chen, Xiaoxi Zeng, Huile Gao, Yong Yuan
Seminars in Cancer Biology.2022; 86: 873. CrossRef
Beyond separation: Membranes towards medicine
Ying Xie, Zhenyu Chu, Wanqin Jin
Journal of Membrane Science Letters.2022; 2(1): 100020. CrossRef
Modulation of TLR/NF-κB/NLRP Signaling by Bioactive Phytocompounds: A Promising Strategy to Augment Cancer Chemotherapy and Immunotherapy
Sajad Fakhri, Seyed Zachariah Moradi, Akram Yarmohammadi, Fatemeh Narimani, Carly E. Wallace, Anupam Bishayee
Frontiers in Oncology.2022;[Epub] CrossRef
Gold Nanorods for Drug and Gene Delivery: An Overview of Recent Advancements
Atieh Jahangiri-Manesh, Marziyeh Mousazadeh, Shirinsadat Taji, Abbas Bahmani, Atefeh Zarepour, Ali Zarrabi, Esmaeel Sharifi, Mostafa Azimzadeh
Pharmaceutics.2022; 14(3): 664. CrossRef
Gene Therapy for Malignant and Benign Gynaecological Disorders: A Systematic Review of an Emerging Success Story
Ekati Drakopoulou, Nicholas P. Anagnou, Kalliopi I. Pappa
Cancers.2022; 14(13): 3238. CrossRef
Engineering nanosystems to overcome barriers to cancer diagnosis and treatment
Suhaila O. Alhaj-Suliman, Emad I. Wafa, Aliasger K. Salem
Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews.2022; 189: 114482. CrossRef
Metabolic Signatures of Surface-Modified Poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) Nanoparticles in Differentiated THP-1 Cells Derived with Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry-based Metabolomics
Mohammad A. Al-natour, Salah Abdelrazig, Amir M. Ghaemmaghami, Cameron Alexander, Dong-Hyun Kim
ACS Omega.2022; 7(33): 28806. CrossRef
Pathogen-derived peptides in drug targeting and its therapeutic approach
Seok-Jun Mun, Euni Cho, Jae-Sung Kim, Chul-Su Yang
Journal of Controlled Release.2022; 350: 716. CrossRef
Application of single and cooperative different delivery systems for the treatment of intervertebral disc degeneration
Zongtai Liu, Changfeng Fu
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology.2022;[Epub] CrossRef
Engineering the Tumor Immune Microenvironment through Minimally Invasive Interventions
Koustav Pal, Rahul A. Sheth
Cancers.2022; 15(1): 196. CrossRef
Nanoparticle delivery systems to combat drug resistance in ovarian cancer
Emily M. Miller, Timothy M. Samec, Angela A. Alexander-Bryant
Nanomedicine: Nanotechnology, Biology and Medicine.2021; 31: 102309. CrossRef
Engineering precision nanoparticles for drug delivery
Michael J. Mitchell, Margaret M. Billingsley, Rebecca M. Haley, Marissa E. Wechsler, Nicholas A. Peppas, Robert Langer
Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.2021; 20(2): 101. CrossRef
Clinical applications of nanomedicines in lung cancer treatment
Mohammad Norouzi, Pierre Hardy
Acta Biomaterialia.2021; 121: 134. CrossRef
Lyophilization stabilizes clinical‐stage core‐crosslinked polymeric micelles to overcome cold chain supply challenges
Tarun Ojha, Qizhi Hu, Claudio Colombo, Jan Wit, Michiel van Geijn, Mies J. van Steenbergen, Mahsa Bagheri, Hiltrud Königs‐Werner, Eva Miriam Buhl, Ruchi Bansal, Yang Shi, Wim E. Hennink, Gert Storm, Cristianne J. F. Rijcken, Twan Lammers
Biotechnology Journal.2021;[Epub] CrossRef
Development of next generation nanomedicine-based approaches for the treatment of cancer: we've barely scratched the surface
Shannon R. Tracey, Peter Smyth, Caroline J. Barelle, Christopher J. Scott
Biochemical Society Transactions.2021; 49(5): 2253. CrossRef
Impact of Value Frameworks on the Magnitude of Clinical Benefit: Evaluating a Decade of Randomized Trials for Systemic Therapy in Solid Malignancies
Ellen Cusano, Chelsea Wong, Eddy Taguedong, Marcus Vaska, Tasnima Abedin, Nancy Nixon, Safiya Karim, Patricia Tang, Daniel Y. C. Heng, Doreen Ezeife
Current Oncology.2021; 28(6): 4894. CrossRef
Engineering Considerations to Produce Bioactive Compounds from Plant Cell Suspension Culture in Bioreactors
Elizabeth Alejandra Motolinía-Alcántara, Carlos Omar Castillo-Araiza, Mario Rodríguez-Monroy, Angélica Román-Guerrero, Francisco Cruz-Sosa
Plants.2021; 10(12): 2762. CrossRef
Clinical applications of nanomedicine in cancer therapy
Mohammad Norouzi, Mehrnaz Amerian, Mahshid Amerian, Fatemeh Atyabi
Drug Discovery Today.2020; 25(1): 107. CrossRef
Targeting and extending the eukaryotic druggable genome with natural products: cytoskeletal targets of natural products
April L. Risinger, Lin Du
Natural Product Reports.2020; 37(5): 634. CrossRef
Improvement of Paclitaxel-Associated Adverse Reactions (ADRs) via the Use of Nano-Based Drug Delivery Systems: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Pi-Ling Chou, Ya-Ping Huang, Meng-Hsuan Cheng, Kun-Ming Rau, Yi-Ping Fang
International Journal of Nanomedicine.2020; Volume 15: 1731. CrossRef
Polymeric micelles for the delivery of poorly soluble drugs: From nanoformulation to clinical approval
Duhyeong Hwang, Jacob D. Ramsey, Alexander V. Kabanov
Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews.2020; 156: 80. CrossRef
Nanoparticles in precision medicine for ovarian cancer: From chemotherapy to immunotherapy
Yuan Li, Yan Gao, Xi Zhang, Hongyan Guo, Huile Gao
International Journal of Pharmaceutics.2020; 591: 119986. CrossRef
Synthesis of PCL–PEG–PCL Triblock Copolymer via Organocatalytic Ring-Opening Polymerization and Its Application as an Injectable Hydrogel—An Interdisciplinary Learning Trial
Kaiting Wu, Lin Yu, Jiandong Ding
Journal of Chemical Education.2020; 97(11): 4158. CrossRef
Phytochemical-Based Nanomedicine for Advanced Cancer Theranostics: Perspectives on Clinical Trials to Clinical Use

Madhusmita Dhupal, Devasish Chowdhury
International Journal of Nanomedicine.2020; Volume 15: 9125. CrossRef
Synthesis and anti-cancer evaluation of folic acid-peptide- paclitaxel conjugates for addressing drug resistance
Yuxuan Dai, Xingguang Cai, Xinzhou Bi, Chunxia Liu, Na Yue, Ying Zhu, Jiaqi Zhou, Mian Fu, Wenlong Huang, Hai Qian
European Journal of Medicinal Chemistry.2019; 171: 104. CrossRef
A Phase II Study of Genexol-PM and Cisplatin as Induction Chemotherapy in Locally Advanced Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma
Bhumsuk Keam, Keun-Wook Lee, Se-Hoon Lee, Jin-Soo Kim, Jin Ho Kim, Hong-Gyun Wu, Keun-Yong Eom, Suzy Kim, Soon-Hyun Ahn, Eun-Jae Chung, Seong Keun Kwon, Woo-Jin Jeong, Young Ho Jung, Ji-Won Kim, Dae Seog Heo
The Oncologist.2019; 24(6): 751. CrossRef
Polymeric Hybrid Nanomicelles for Cancer Theranostics: An Efficient and Precise Anticancer Strategy for the Codelivery of Doxorubicin/miR-34a and Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Xiaoxue Xie, Yu Chen, Zhongyuan Chen, Yi Feng, Jing Wang, Tingting Li, Shun Li, Xiang Qin, Chunhui Wu, Chuan Zheng, Jie Zhu, Fengming You, Yiyao Liu, Hong Yang
ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces.2019; 11(47): 43865. CrossRef
Micellar paclitaxel in the treatment of patients with tumors of the female reproductive system
A. G. Kedrova, S. E. Krasilnikov, D. A. Astakhov, V. V. Kosyy
Tumors of female reproductive system.2019; 15(3): 37. CrossRef
Improving Drug Delivery of Micellar Paclitaxel against Non‐Small Cell Lung Cancer by Coloading Itraconazole as a Micelle Stabilizer and a Tumor Vascular Manipulator
Ling Zhang, Zhengsheng Liu, Chao Kong, Chun Liu, Kuan Yang, Huijun Chen, Jinfeng Huang, Feng Qian
Small.2018;[Epub] CrossRef

PubReader
ePub Link

Cite

CITE: export Copy Download Format; Close

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software

Include:

Citation for the content below
Citation and abstract for the content below

An Open-Label, Randomized, Parallel, Phase II Trial to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of a Cremophor-Free Polymeric Micelle Formulation of Paclitaxel as First-Line Treatment for Ovarian Cancer: A Korean Gynecologic Oncology Group Study (KGOG-3021)

Cancer Res Treat. 2018;50(1):195-203. Published online March 21, 2017

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2016.376

XML Download

Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
NOTES
REFERENCES

Fig. 1. Analyzed patient populations. ITT, intention-to-treat; PP, per-protocol.

Fig. 2. Time to progression (A) and overall survival (OS) (B) in intention-to-treat analysis.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

Characteristic	Genexol-PM+carboplatin (n=50)	Genexol+carboplatin (n=48)	p-value
Age (yr)	56.4±10.8	55.2±8.9	0.554
Histopathological grade
GX	1 (2.0)	0	0.129
G1	2 (4.0)	0
G2	17 (34.0)	10 (20.8)
G3	25 (50.0)	35 (72.9)
G4	1 (2.0)	0
Unknown	4 (8.0)	3 (6.3)
FIGO stage
IC	1 (2.0)	0	0.508
IIIA	1 (2.0)	1 (2.1)
IIIB	1 (2.0)	1 (2.1)
IIIC	38 (76.0)	31 (64.6)
IV	9 (18.0)	15 (31.3)
Disease after surgery
Measurable disease	41 (82.0)	40 (83.3)	0.701
Non-measurable disease	9 (18.0)	8 (16.7)
Overall administration cycles	5.62±1.12	5.35±1.60	0.347

Response rate	Genexol-PM+carboplatin (n=50)		Genexol+carboplatin (n=48)		p-value
Response rate	No. (%) or median	95% CI	No. (%) or median	95% CI	p-value
Overall response^a)	44 (88.0)	80.4-95.6	37 (77.1)	67.1-87.1	0.701
CR	24 (48.0)		16 (33.3)
PR	20 (40.0)		21 (43.8)
SD	3 (6.0)		5 (10.4)
PD	0		1 (2.1)
NE	3 (6.0)		4 (8.3)
Survival rate
Time to progression^b)	14.8	11.3-20.2	15.4	13.2-29.6	0.546
Overall survival^c)	(–)		(–)		0.100

Adverse event	Genexol-PM+carboplatin (n=50)				Genexol+carboplatin (n=48)				p-value
Adverse event	G1	G2	≥ G3	Total	G1	G2	≥ G3	Total	p-value
Neutropenia	1 (2.0)	0	42 (84.0)	43 (86.0)	1 (2.1)	3 (6.3)	33 (68.8)	37 (77.1)	0.120
Leukopenia	0	2 (4.0)	8 (16.0)	10 (20.0)	0	1 (2.1)	2 (4.2)	3 (6.3)	> 0.99
Platelet count decreased	1 (2.0)	3 (6.0)	2 (4.0)	6 (12.0)	0	4 (8.3)	2 (4.2)	6 (12.5)	> 0.99
Hemoglobin decreased	0	19 (38.0)	6 (12.0)	25 (50.0)	0	13 (27.1)	7 (14.6)	20 (41.7)	0.320
Hypersensitivity	3 (6.0)	4 (8.0)	0	7 (14.0)	2 (4.2)	1 (2.1)	0	3 (6.3)	> 0.99
Neuropathy peripheral	22 (44.0)	20 (40.0)	0	42 (84.0)	21 (43.8)	9 (18.8)	1 (2.1)	31 (64.6)	0.148
Myalgia	1 (2.0)	1 (2.0)	0	2 (4.0)	0	1 (2.1)	0	1 (2.1)	> 0.99
Arthralgia	3 (6.0)	1 (2.0)	0	4 (8.0)	2 (4.2)	0	0	2 (4.2)	> 0.99
Nausea	12 (24.0)	8 (16.0)	0	20 (40.0)	7 (14.6)	5 (10.4)	0	12 (25.0)	> 0.99
Vomiting	5 (10.0)	3 (6.0)	1 (2.0)	9 (18.0)	2 (4.2)	7 (14.6)	0	9 (18.8)	0.153
Diarrhea	2 (4.0)	0	1 (2.0)	3 (6.0)	5 (10.4)	3 (6.3)	2 (4.2)	10 (20.8)	> 0.99
Constipation	5 (10.0)	5 (10.0)	1 (2.0)	11 (22.0)	8 (16.7)	4 (8.3)	0	12 (25.0)	0.520
Alopecia	13 (26.0)	11 (22.0)	0	24 (48.0)	20 (41.7)	4 (8.3)	0	24 (50.0)	0.029
ALT increased	2 (4.0)	4 (8.0)	0	6 (12.0)	7 (14.6)	1 (2.1)	0	8 (16.7)	0.091
AST increased	6 (12.0)	4 (8.0)	0	10 (20.0)	5 (10.4)	1 (2.1)	0	6 (12.5)	0.588

Table 1. Patient characteristics

Table 2. Responses and survival rates

CI, confidence interval; CR, complete response; PR, partial response; SD, stable disease; PD, progrssive disease; NE, not evaluated.

Threshold of non-inferiority: 16.3%,

Genexol-PM+carboplatin censored: 30, Genexol+carboplatin censored: 30,

Genexol-PM+carboplatin censored: 45, Genexol+carboplatin censored: 47.

Table 3. Overview of adverse events

Values are presented as number (%). G1, well differentiated; G2, moderately differentiated; G3, poorly differentiated; ALT, alanine transaminase; AST, aspartate aminotransferase.