Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

Cancer Res Treat : Cancer Research and Treatment

OPEN ACCESS

Articles

Page Path
HOME > Cancer Res Treat > Volume 49(3); 2017 > Article
Original Article An Open-Label, Randomized, Parallel, Phase III Trial Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of Polymeric Micelle-Formulated Paclitaxel Compared to Conventional Cremophor EL-Based Paclitaxel for Recurrent or Metastatic HER2-Negative Breast Cancer
In Hae Park, MD, PhD1, Joo Hyuk Sohn, MD, PhD2, Sung Bae Kim, MD, PhD3, Keun Seok Lee, MD, PhD1, Joo Seop Chung, MD, PhD4, Soo Hyeon Lee, MD, PhD2, Tae You Kim, MD, PhD5, Kyung Hae Jung, MD, PhD3, Eun Kyung Cho, MD, PhD6, Yang Soo Kim, MD, PhD7, Hong Suk Song, MD, PhD8, Jae Hong Seo, MD, PhD9, Hun Mo Ryoo, MD, PhD10, Sun Ah Lee, MD11, So Young Yoon, MD, PhD12, Chul Soo Kim, MD, PhD13, Yong Tai Kim, MD, PhD14, Si Young Kim, MD, PhD15, Mi Ryung Jin, MS16, Jungsil Ro, MD, PhD1,
Cancer Research and Treatment : Official Journal of Korean Cancer Association 2017;49(3):569-577.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2016.289
Published online: September 12, 2016

1Center for Breast Cancer, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea

2Department of Oncology, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

3Department of Oncology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

4Division of Hematology-Oncology, Pusan National University Hospital, Busan, Korea

5Medical Oncology Center, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea

6Division of Hematology-Oncology, Gachon University Gil Medical Center, Incheon, Korea

7Division of Hematology-Oncology, Kosin University Gospel Hospital, Busan, Korea

8Division of HematologyOncology, Keimyung University Dongsan Medical Center, Daegu, Korea

9Department of Hematology-Oncology, Korea University Guro Hospital, Seoul, Korea

10Division of HematologyOncology, Daegu Catholic University Medical Center, Daegu, Korea

11Division of Hematology-Oncology, Daegu Fatima Hospital, Daegu, Korea

12Konkuk University Medical Center, Konkuk University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

13Division of Hematology-Oncology, Inha University Hospital, Incheon, Korea

14Division of Hematology-Oncology, National Health Insurance Service Ilsan Hospital, Goyang, Korea

15Division of Hematology-Oncology, Kyung Hee University Medical Center, Seoul, Korea

16Samyang Biopharmaceuticals Corporation, Seoul, Korea

Correspondence: Jungsil Ro, MD, PhD  Center for Breast Cancer, National Cancer Center, 323 Ilsan-ro, Ilsandong-gu, Goyang 10408, Korea 
Tel: 82-31-920-1680 Fax: 82-31-740-7269 E-mail: jungsilro@hotmail.com
*In Hae Park and Joo Hyuk Sohn contributed equally to this work.
*The results of this study were presented in part at the 37th San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium 2014, San Antonio, TX (poster presentation, program number: P3-10-04).
• Received: July 5, 2016   • Accepted: August 26, 2016

Copyright © 2017 by the Korean Cancer Association

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.

  • 17,860 Views
  • 642 Download
  • 75 Web of Science
  • 71 Crossref
  • 82 Scopus
prev next
  • Purpose
    Genexol-PM is a Cremophor EL–free formulation of low-molecular-weight, non-toxic, and biodegradable polymeric micelle-bound paclitaxel. We conducted a phase III study comparing the clinical efficacy and toxicity of Genexol-PM with conventional paclitaxel (Genexol).
  • Materials and Methods
    Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive Genexol-PM 260 mg/m2 or Genexol 175 mg/m2 intravenously every 3 weeks. The primary outcome was the objective response rate (ORR).
  • Results
    The study enrolled 212 patients, of whom 105 were allocated to receive Genexol-PM. The mean received dose intensity of Genexol-PM was 246.8±21.3 mg/m2 (95.0%), and that of Genexol was 168.3±10.6 mg/m2 (96.2%). After a median follow-up of 24.5 months (range, 0.0 to 48.7 months), the ORR of Genexol-PM was 39.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 31.2 to 46.9) and the ORR of Genexol was 24.3% (95% CI, 17.5 to 31.1) (pnon-inferiority=0.021, psuperiority=0.016). The two groups did not differ significantly in overall survival (28.8 months for Genexol-PM vs. 23.8 months for Genexol; p=0.52) or progression-free survival (8.0 months for Genexol-PM vs. 6.7 months for Genexol; p=0.26). In both groups, the most common toxicities were neutropenia, with 68.6% occurrence in the Genexol-PM group versus 40.2% in the Genexol group (p < 0.01). The incidences of peripheral neuropathy of greater than grade 2 did not differ significantly between study treatments.
  • Conclusion
    Compared with standard paclitaxel, Genexol-PM demonstrated non-inferior and even superior clinical efficacy with a manageable safety profile in patients with metastatic breast cancer.
Paclitaxel, a chemotherapeutic agent that interferes with microtubule function, is among the most effective treatments for metastatic breast cancer (MBC) [1,2]. Because of its poor solubility in conventional solvent [3], paclitaxel is prepared using polyoxyl-35-castor oil (Cremophor EL; CrEL) as a solubilizer [4,5]. Unfortunately, CrEL contributes to hypersensitivity reactions in a substantial number of patients, necessitating premedication prior to paclitaxel administration [6-12].
Genexol-PM is a lyophilized polymeric micellar formulation of paclitaxel that delivers a higher paclitaxel dose to the tumor tissue with lower vehicle-related toxicities than conventional paclitaxel formulations. Unlike CrEL, Genexol-PM is prepared using the low-molecular-weight, biodegradable amphiphilic diblock copolymer mPEG-PDLLA [methoxy- (polyethylene glycol)-block-poly (D,L-lactide)] as a solubilizer [13].
Dose-limiting toxicities of Genexol-PM include neuropathy, myalgia, and neutropenia. Two phase I trials investigated the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of Genexol-PM: one in the United States that reported an MTD of 435 mg/m2, and one trial in Korea that showed an MTD of 390 mg/m2. For safety, a dose of 300 mg/m2 was recommended [14]. A phase II trial used this dose of Genexol-PM in patients with MBC and reported a high response rate of 58.5%, including complete responses (CRs) in five patients and partial responses in 19 patients [1]. This trial also showed a relatively low rate of myelosuppression even though the dose applied was higher than the conventionally used dose of CrEL-based paclitaxel [1].
In the present multicenter, open-label, randomized, phase III study, we evaluated the non-inferiority of Genexol-PM in terms of clinical efficacy compared to conventional CrEL-based paclitaxel (Genexol, Samyang Biopharmaceuticals Corp.). This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00876486.
1. Patient population
We performed a multicenter joint clinical trial in patients with HER2-negative advanced or metastatic invasive breast cancer at 20 institutions in Korea. Patients were eligible if they had not been treated with taxane for recurrent or metastatic disease, and had not relapsed within 1 year of receiving adjuvant paclitaxel or docetaxel treatment. Additional inclusion criteria were an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-2 with adequate organ function, and disease measurable using the Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) ver. 1.0 [15]. Exclusion criteria were central nervous system metastases, current uncontrolled medical conditions that could limit the patient’s ability to undergo study treatment, preexisting peripheral neuropathy above grade 1 according to the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria, and history of allergic or hypersensitivity reactions to the study drug or any of its excipients.
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
Patients enrolled in the study were randomly assigned (1:1) to a treatment group, with stratification by prior chemotherapy in the recurrent or metastatic setting. On the first day of each cycle, Genexol-PM (Samyang Biopharmaceuticals Corp., Seoul, Korea) was intravenously administered over 3 hours without premedication, which was repeated every 3 weeks. For safety, Genexol-PM administration began at a dose of 260 mg/m2, while Genexol was administered at a dose of 175 mg/m2. At the discretion of the physician, Genexol-PM dosage could be increased to 300 mg/m2 after the first cycle. To minimize hypersensitivity, Genexol administration was preceded by premedications, including dexamethasone and H2-blockers. In the Genexol-PM group, premedications were allowed in cases showing hypersensitivity or when deemed necessary by the investigator.
3. Assessments
Every 6 weeks, routine tumor assessments were performed based on RECIST ver. 1.0 criteria. All partial response (PR) and CR were confirmed with repeat imaging at least 4 weeks later. Such assessments were repeated until the time of disease progression or death.
Every cycle included laboratory testing and assessment of ECOG performance status. Adverse events were graded according to the National Cancer Institute’s Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), ver. 3.0.
4. Statistical analysis
The primary objective of this study was to determine the objective response rate (ORR), defined as the fraction of patients whose maximum response was CR or PR based on RECIST ver. 1.0. Secondary objectives included progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). This study had 80% power, with a one-sided type I error of 0.025. The predefined non-inferiority margin was an absolute difference of 7% in the primary endpoint. After confirming non-inferiority of treatment with Genexol-PM, we tested the superiority hypothesis with the null hypothesis that ORR did not differ between the two groups.
Categorical variables were analyzed using the chi-square test, while non-parametric variables were evaluated with the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. The survival curve was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method, and between-group differences were evaluated using the log-rank method. Cox proportional hazard analysis was applied to identify variables that significantly influenced the objective response to the study drug. We also analyzed safety and efficacy endpoints within the per protocol population who received at least one dose of study treatments. All statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS ver. 21 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY) while applying a two-sided significance level of 5%.
1. Patient population
This study enrolled 230 MBC patients from December 2008 to February 2013 (CONSORT diagram) (Fig. 1), 212 of whom were included in the analyses of clinical efficacies and safety. Median patient age was 49 years (range, 28 to 72 years) in the Genexol-PM group, and 52 years (range, 25 to 78 years) in the Genexol group (p=0.02) (Table 1). The two groups did not significantly differ with regards to hormone receptor status or visceral metastasis. Over 80% of patients received Genexol-PM or Genexol as first-line cytotoxic chemotherapy for advanced MBC (Table 1). The median number of previous chemotherapy treatments was one (range, 0 to 4). Patients in the Genexol-PM group underwent a median of six treatment cycles (range, 1 to 50 cycles), with a relative dose intensity of 246.8±21.3 mg/m2 (95.0%). Five patients in the Genexol-PM group received an escalated dose of 300 mg/m2 starting in cycle 2. Patients in the Genexol group received a median of six treatment cycles (range, 1 to 34 cycles), with a relative dose intensity of 168.3±10.6 mg/m2 (96.2%).
2. Efficacy
The Genexol-PM group showed an ORR of 39.1%, with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 31.2 to 46.9. The Genexol treatment group showed a lower ORR of 24.3% (95% CI, 17.5 to 31.1), demonstrating that Genexol-PM was non-inferior pnon-inferiority=0.021) and was in fact superior to Genexol with regard to the ORR (psuperiority=0.016) (Table 2). Clinical variables that influenced ORR included previous chemotherapy for metastatic disease (hazard ratio [HR], 2.41; 95% CI, 0.92 to 6.35; p=0.07) and treatment with Genexol-PM (HR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.20 to 4.06; p=0.01) (Table 3).
Subgroup analysis revealed a significantly higher response rate to Genexol-PM compared to Genexol among patients with visceral metastasis (HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.16 to 0.77; p=0.01) and among patients who were chemotherapy naïve for metastatic disease (HR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.24 to 0.87; p=0.02) (Fig. 2). We also observed a greater response rate to Genexol-PM among patients over 45 years of age (HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.80; p=0.01) and those with hormone receptor–positive disease (HR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.83; p=0.01) (Fig. 2).
The median follow-up period was 24.5 months (range, 0.0 to 48.7 months). The median OS during this time was 28.8 months (95% CI, 22.8 to 34.8) for the Genexol-PM group and 23.8 months (95% CI, 18.7 to 28.9) for the Genexol group. The between-group difference in OS did not reach statistical significance (p=0.52) (Fig. 3A). We found a longer median PFS in the Genexol-PM group (8.0 months; 95% CI, 6.1 to 9.9) than the Genexol group (6.7 months; 95% CI, 5.6 to 7.8), but this difference did not reach statistical significance (p=0.26) (Fig. 3B).
3. Safety
According to CTCAE ver. 3.0, grade 1 or 2 toxicities comprised over 85% of the adverse events reported in both groups (Table 4). Neutropenia of grade 3 or higher was more common in the Genexol-PM group (68.6%) than in the Genexol group (40.2%) (p < 0.01), which was expected due to the higher paclitaxel dose administered with Genexol-PM. However, the frequency of febrile neutropenia was similar between the two groups (Table 4). The incidences of ≥ grade 3 peripheral neuropathy and myalgia did not differ significantly according to study treatment (Table 4). Hypersensitivity to the study drugs (of any grade) was more frequent in the Genexol-PM group; therefore, the study protocol was amended to allow premedication in the Genexol-PM arm at the physician’s discretion. Finally, 87 patients (82.9%) received premedications before Genexol-PM administration. One patient dropped out of the study because of severe hypersensitivity to Genexol. All reported toxicities were manageable with conservative care. Similar numbers of patients discontinued study treatment because of adverse events in each group: 16 subjects (15.2%) in the Genexol-PM group and 18 subjects (16.8%) in the Genexol group. No treatment-related deaths occurred in either group.
Paclitaxel currently plays a central role in breast cancer treatment. However, the paclitaxel solubilizer CrEL contributes to severe toxicities, including hypersensitivity reactions and peripheral neuropathies [6-12]. The CALGB 9342 trial previously demonstrated that higher doses of conventional paclitaxel did not improve response rates or survival among patients with MBC, primarily due to greater toxicities [16]. Conversely, nanoparticle albumin-bound (nab) paclitaxel at 260 mg/m2 resulted in much higher response rates with similar safety profiles compared to conventional paclitaxel at 175 mg/m2 in cases of MBC (33% vs. 19%, respectively) [17].
Several randomized trials have investigated the roles of higher paclitaxel doses for breast cancer treatment, with controversial results. The large randomized trial CALGB 40502 reported superior PFS with conventional weekly paclitaxel administration compared to weekly nab-paclitaxel in PFS as the first-line therapy for MBC (11 months vs. 9.3 months; p=0.054), even though conventional paclitaxel was administered at a lower dose [18]. In contrast, in the neoadjuvant setting for early breast cancer, nab-paclitaxel, achieved significantly higher pathological CR compared with conventional paclitaxel (38% vs. 29%, p=0.00065) [19].
Based on the promising results of a phase II clinical trial [1], we compared the clinical efficacy of CrEL-free GenexolPM with that of conventional solvent-based paclitaxel Genexol-PM. In this context, using a different solubilizer enhanced the efficacy of drug delivery while limiting toxicities, making it possible to safely administer higher doses of paclitaxel. Consistent with previous results, we found a higher response rate for Genexol-PM than Genexol. We further found that the response rate with Genexol-PM was significantly higher among patients of more than 45 years of age, with visceral metastasis, with hormone receptor-positive disease, and in the first-line treatment setting. Although the higher response rate with Genexol-PM was not associated with improved PFS, there was a trend of longer PFS in the Genexol-PM group. It is possible that our study design targeting ORR within a relatively small population may have produced results with underpowered subgroup analysis.
Another important issue was dosing schedule. As a matter of fact, toward the end of patients accrual in the trial, weekly palictaxel or nab-paclitaxel has become recognized as a preferred schedule in view of its superiority to every three weeks schedule in CALGB 9840, NCT00274456 [20,21]. Current study demonstrated comparable clinical efficacies of Genexol-PM over standard paclitaxel in the same dosing every 3 weeks schedule, although this schedule is not widely preferred one in common practice.
Genexol-PM and conventional paclitaxel showed similar safety profiles. As expected, the Genexol-PM arm of the study showed a higher incidence of neutropenia, but similar rates of peripheral neuropathy were observed in the two groups. Hypersensitivity observed during the study period led to a requirement for premedications in the Genexol-PM group, although the majority of hypersensitivity events were easily manageable in both arms.
Considering potentially higher clinical efficacies and similar toxicity profiles, nab-paclitaxel could replace conventional paclitaxel as the first line therapy of MBC; however, its cost-effectiveness has been issued consistently. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) stated that using nab-paclitaxel (Abraxane) is not cost effective in view of its much higher cost and limited benefits compared to current treatment in the management of pancreatic cancer, although no such data are available in breast cancer [22]. On the other hand, Genexol-PM costs same as a generic version of the older medicine, Taxol, that it would not result in any added burden for the breast cancer patients. In this respect, Genexol-PM would be an easily accessible alternative for MBC treatment.
In conclusion, our present phase III study documented an improved overall response rate to Genexol-PM compared to standard Genexol treatment, with manageable toxicities with both drugs. Genexol-PM allows administration of an increased dose of paclitaxel, offering significantly improved efficacy without compromising patient safety. Further studies of Genexol-PM are warranted, particularly with the use of different schedules, including weekly doses, and in different settings in breast cancer treatment.

Co-author Mi Ryung Jin is an employee of Samyang Biopharmaceuticals Corporation. All remaining authors have declared that they have no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgements
We thank the patients who participated in this study and the study-site staff for their support. This study was sponsored by Samyang Biopharmaceuticals Corporation.
Fig. 1.
CONSORT diagram.
crt-2016-289f1.gif
Fig. 2.
Subgroup analysis of overall response rate.
crt-2016-289f2.gif
Fig. 3.
Survial analysis according to treatment. (A) Overall survival. (B) Progression-free survival.
crt-2016-289f3.gif
Table 1.
Demographic and other baseline characteristics
Variable Genexol-PM (n=105) Genexol (n=107) p-value
Age (yr) 49.0 (28.0-72.0) 52.0 (25.0-78.0) 0.02
Menstruation status
 Premenopausal 61 (58.1) 49 (45.8) 0.10
 Postmenopausal 44 (41.9) 58 (54.2)
ECOG status
 0 47 (44.8) 31 (29.0) 0.02
 1 53 (50.5) 68 (63.6)
 2 5 (4.8) 8 (7.5)
DFI (yr) 2.2 (0.2-8.7) 3.0 (0.2-9.1) 0.34
No. target lesions
 < 3 90 (85.7) 94 (87.9) 0.65
 ≥ 3 15 (14.3) 13 (12.2)
Visceral metastasis
 Yes 71 (67.6) 65 (60.8) 0.30
 No 34 (32.4) 42 (39.3)
ER or PgR status
 Positive 75 (71.4) 82 (76.6) 0.63
 Negative 28 (26.7) 24 (22.4)
 Unknown 2 (1.9) 1 (0.9)
De novo stage IV breast cancer
 Yes 71 (67.6) 74 (69.2) 0.81
 No 34 (32.4) 33 (30.8)
Previous chemotherapya)
 Yes 16 (15.2) 14 (13.1) 0.70
 No 89 (84.8) 93 (86.9)

Values are presented as median (range) or number (%). ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; DFI, disease-free interval; ER, estrogen receptor; PgR, progesterone receptor.

a) Systemic cytotoxic chemotherapy for metastatic disease.

Table 2.
Response rate of study treatment
Variable Genexol-PM (n=105) Genexol (n=107) p-value
Objective response ratea) 41 (39.1) 26 (24.3) 0.021
Complete response 0 0
Partial response 41 (39.1) 26 (24.3)
Stable disease 46 (43.8) 56 (52.3)
Progressive disease 7 (6.7) 16 (15.0)
Not evaluated 11 (10.5) 9 (9.4)

Values are presented as number (%).

a) Objective response rate=complete response+partial response.

Table 3.
Clinical variables associated with better response to treatment
Variable Univariate
Multivariate
HR (95% CI) p-value HR (95% CI) p-value
Age (≥ 45 yr vs. < 45 yr) 0.99 (0.52-1.89) 0.97
Genexol-PM vs. Genexol 2.14 (1.17-3.93) 0.01 2.20 (1.20-4.06) 0.01
Premenopausal vs. postmenopausal 0.98 (0.54-1.77) 0.94
Visceral involvement (yes vs. no) 1.11 (0.60-2.07) 0.73
Previous treatment (no vs. yes) 2.29 (0.88-5.95) 0.09 2.41 (0.92-6.35) 0.07
Hormone receptor (positive vs. negative) 0.97 (0.51-1.85) 0.92

HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval.

Table 4.
Adverse events
Adverse event Genexol-PM (n=105)
Genexol (n=107)
Grade 1 Grade 2 ≥ Grade 3 Grade 1 Grade 2 ≥ Grade 3
Neutropenia 0 3 (2.9) 72 (68.6) 0 8 (7.5) 43 (40.2)
Febrile neutropenia 0 1 (1.0) 3 (2.9) 0 0 3 (2.8)
Myalgia 26 (24.8) 28 (26.7) 9 (8.6) 32 (29.9) 26 (24.3) 8 (7.5)
Nausea 25 (23.8) 14 (13.3) 3 (2.9) 42 (39.3) 6 (5.6) 1 (0.9)
Neuropathy peripheral 13 (12.4) 16 (15.2) 8 (7.6) 27 (25.2) 14 (13.1) 8 (7.5)
Constipation 17 (16.2) 22 (21.0) 0 23 (21.5) 17 (15.9) 0
Arthralgia 11 (10.5) 12 (11.4) 1 (1.0) 9 (8.4) 14 (13.1) 3 (2.8)
Asthenia 8 (7.6) 4 (3.8) 4 (3.8) 14 (13.1) 11 (10.3) 1 (0.9)
Rash 16 (15.2) 11 (10.5) 2 (1.9) 12 (11.2) 9 (8.4) 4 (3.8)
Pruritus 13 (12.4) 9 (8.6) 0 17 (15.9) 8 (7.5) 0
Insomnia 13 (12.4) 7 (6.7) 1 (1.0) 10 (9.3) 7 (6.5) 0
Hypersensitivity 5 (4.8) 8 (7.6) 3 (2.9) 2 (1.9) 1 (0.9) 1 (0.9)

Values are presented as number (%).

  • 1. 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. ArticlePubMed
  • 2. Bernard-Marty C, Cardoso F, Piccart MJ. Use and abuse of taxanes in the management of metastatic breast cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2003;39:1978–89. ArticlePubMed
  • 3. Mathew AE, Mejillano MR, Nath JP, Himes RH, Stella VJ. Synthesis and evaluation of some water-soluble prodrugs and derivatives of taxol with antitumor activity. J Med Chem. 1992;35:145–51. ArticlePubMed
  • 4. Zhou HB, Zhu JR. Paclitaxel induces apoptosis in human gastric carcinoma cells. World J Gastroenterol. 2003;9:442–5. ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 5. Nonaka M, Ikeda H, Fujisawa A, Uehara M, Inokuchi T. Induction of apoptosis by paclitaxel in human oral carcinoma cells. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2006;35:649–52. ArticlePubMed
  • 6. Rowinsky EK, Donehower RC. Paclitaxel (taxol). N Engl J Med. 1995;332:1004–14. ArticlePubMed
  • 7. Sparreboom A, van Tellingen O, Nooijen WJ, Beijnen JH. Nonlinear pharmacokinetics of paclitaxel in mice results from the pharmaceutical vehicle Cremophor EL. Cancer Res. 1996;56:2112–5. PubMed
  • 8. 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
  • 9. Crown J, O'Leary M. The taxanes: an update. Lancet. 2000;355:1176–8. ArticlePubMed
  • 10. 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. ArticlePubMed
  • 11. 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. ArticlePubMed
  • 12. van Zuylen L, Verweij J, Sparreboom A. Role of formulation vehicles in taxane pharmacology. Invest New Drugs. 2001;19:125–41. ArticlePubMed
  • 13. 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. ArticlePubMed
  • 14. 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. ArticlePubMed
  • 15. 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. ArticlePubMed
  • 16. 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. ArticlePubMed
  • 17. 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. ArticlePubMed
  • 18. 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. ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 19. 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. ArticlePubMed
  • 20. Seidman AD, Berry D, Cirrincione C, Harris L, Muss H, Marcom PK, et al. Randomized phase III trial of weekly compared with every-3-weeks paclitaxel for metastatic breast cancer, with trastuzumab for all HER-2 overexpressors and random assignment to trastuzumab or not in HER-2 nonoverexpressors: final results of Cancer and Leukemia Group B protocol 9840. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:1642–9. ArticlePubMed
  • 21. Gradishar W, Krasnojon D, Cheporov S, Makhson A, Manikhas G, Clawson A, et al. Randomized comparison of nab-paclitaxel weekly or every 3 weeks compared to docetaxel every 3 weeks as first-line therapy in patients (pts) with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Eur J Cancer. 2008;6 Supple:172.Article
  • 22. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. NICE publishes final drug recommendations for the treatment of 3 separate medical conditions [Internet]. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2015. [cited 2015 Oct 28]. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/news/press-and-media/nice-publishes-final-drug-recommendations-for-the-treatment-of-3-separate-medical-conditions

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

    Citations

    Citations to this article as recorded by  
    • Revolutionizing cancer treatment: ROS-induced apoptosis via nanoformulated alkaloids
      Swathi Putta, Santhosh Kumar Chinnaiyan, Ramadevi Korni, Venkata Radha Gadela
      Journal of Drug Delivery Science and Technology.2025; 104: 106556.     CrossRef
    • A drug-eluting balloon catheter coated with chitosan and paclitaxel-loaded poloxamer-stabilized PLA microparticles for the effective treatment of cholangiocarcinoma
      Jin Sil Lee, Jaehee Jang, Hyeryeon Oh, Eunhye Lee, Don Haeng Lee, Panmo Son, Daekyung Sung, Won Il Choi
      Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry.2025;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Nanomicellar Prodrug Delivery of Glucose-Paclitaxel: A Strategy to Mitigate Paclitaxel Toxicity
      Didi Yan, Xinyue Ma, Yixin Hu, Guogang Zhang, Beibei Hu, Bo Xiang, Xiaokun Cheng, Yongshuai Jing, Xi Chen
      International Journal of Nanomedicine.2025; Volume 20: 2087.     CrossRef
    • Emerging phytochemical-based nanocarriers: redefining the perspectives of breast cancer therapy
      Gulshan Sharma, Rohil Panwar, Sanskriti Saini, Hardeep Singh Tuli, Karan Wadhwa, Rakesh Pahwa
      Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's Archives of Pharmacology.2025;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Administration of Inhibitory Molecules through Nanoparticles in Breast Cancer Therapy
      Christian Rafael Quijia, Andreina Quevedo Enríquez, Carlos Daniel Zappia, Roxana Noemí Peroni, Marlus Chorilli
      Current Medicinal Chemistry.2024; 31(6): 726.     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
    • Effect of zwitterionic sulfobetaine incorporation on blood behaviours, phagocytosis, and in vivo biodistribution of pH-responsive micelles with positive charges
      Chengwei Wang, Hao Liu, Hu Lin, Rui Zhong, Hao Li, Jiaxin Liu, Xianglin Luo, Meng Tian
      Journal of Materials Chemistry B.2024; 12(6): 1652.     CrossRef
    • Reexamining in vivo fate of paclitaxel-loaded polymeric micelles
      Shiqi Lin, Yifei Yu, Ercan Wu, Tianhao Ding, Yuxiu Chu, Feng Pan, Yang Yang, Changyou Zhan
      Nano Today.2024; 56: 102255.     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
    • Polyester nanoparticles delivering chemotherapeutics: Learning from the past and looking to the future to enhance their clinical impact in tumor therapy
      Giuseppe Longobardi, Thomas Lee Moore, Claudia Conte, Francesca Ungaro, Ronit Satchi‐Fainaro, Fabiana Quaglia
      WIREs Nanomedicine and Nanobiotechnology.2024;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Research progress of paclitaxel nanodrug delivery system in the treatment of triple-negative breast cancer
      Jia-xin Qiao, Dong-yan Guo, Huan Tian, Zhan-peng Wang, Qiang-qiang Fan, Yuan Tian, Jing Sun, Xiao-fei Zhang, Jun-bo Zou, Jiang-xue Cheng, Fei Luan, Bing-tao Zhai
      Materials Today Bio.2024; 29: 101358.     CrossRef
    • Nanotechnology in cancer therapeutics, diagnosis, and management
      Disha Hazarika, Sumit Sarma, Priyanka Shankarishan
      BioTechnologia.2024; 105(3): 287.     CrossRef
    • Microwave‐Assisted Synthesis of Porous Biomolecule‐Incorporated Metal‐Organic Frameworks as Efficient Nanocarriers for Anti‐Cancer Drugs
      Trang Thi Thu Nguyen, Bao Quang Gia Le, Vy Tran Hanh Nguyen, Jae‐Hyoung Lee, Ngoc Xuan Dat Mai, Linh Ho Thuy Nguyen, Tan Le Hoang Doan
      ChemistrySelect.2023;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Innovative nanotheranostics: Smart nanoparticles based approach to overcome breast cancer stem cells mediated chemo‐ and radioresistances
      Prithwish Kola, Prasanth Kumar Bhusetty Nagesh, Pritam Kumar Roy, K. Deepak, Rui Luis Reis, Subhas C. Kundu, Mahitosh Mandal
      WIREs Nanomedicine and Nanobiotechnology.2023;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Nanoparticles in the diagnosis and treatment of cancer metastases: Current and future perspectives
      Mangala Hegde, Nikunj Naliyadhara, Jyothsna Unnikrishnan, Mohammed S. Alqahtani, Mohamed Abbas, Sosmitha Girisa, Gautam Sethi, Ajaikumar B. Kunnumakkara
      Cancer Letters.2023; 556: 216066.     CrossRef
    • Influence of lung cancer model characteristics on tumor targeting behavior of nanodrugs
      Weixia Xu, Shengmin Yang, Linwei Lu, Qianzhu Xu, Sunyi Wu, Jianfen Zhou, Jiashen Lu, Xingyan Fan, Nana Meng, Yuan Ding, Xudong Zheng, Weiyue Lu
      Journal of Controlled Release.2023; 354: 538.     CrossRef
    • Metastatic Breast Cancer: Review of Emerging Nanotherapeutics
      Ranga Dissanayake, Rheal Towner, Marya Ahmed
      Cancers.2023; 15(11): 2906.     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
    • Combination Therapy as a Promising Way to Fight Oral Cancer
      João P. N. Silva, Bárbara Pinto, Luís Monteiro, Patrícia M. A. Silva, Hassan Bousbaa
      Pharmaceutics.2023; 15(6): 1653.     CrossRef
    • Nano delivery system for paclitaxel: Recent advances in cancer theranostics
      Na Ying, Sisi Liu, Mengmeng Zhang, Jing Cheng, Linghuan Luo, Jiayi Jiang, Gaofan Shi, Shu Wu, Jun Ji, Haoyuan Su, Hongzhi Pan, Dongdong Zeng
      Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces.2023; 228: 113419.     CrossRef
    • Current Perspectives on Paclitaxel: Focus on Its Production, Delivery and Combination Therapy
      Yibin Liu, Fenglan Zhao, Qibao Wang, Qingjie Zhao, Guige Hou, Qingguo Meng
      Mini-Reviews in Medicinal Chemistry.2023; 23(18): 1780.     CrossRef
    • Current perspectives and trends in nanoparticle drug delivery systems in breast cancer: bibliometric analysis and review
      Sheng Sun, Ye-hui Wang, Xiang Gao, He-yong Wang, Lu Zhang, Na Wang, Chun-mei Li, Shao-quan Xiong
      Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology.2023;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Paclitaxel prodrug-encapsulated polypeptide micelles with redox/pH dual responsiveness for cancer chemotherapy
      Jinyu Liu, Yanhao Zhang, Chao Liu, Yuhao Jiang, Zihao Wang, Xinsong Li
      International Journal of Pharmaceutics.2023; 645: 123398.     CrossRef
    • Biodegradable polyester-based nano drug delivery system in cancer chemotherapy: a review of recent progress (2021–2023)
      Zongheng Wang, Miaomiao Xiao, Fangliang Guo, Yue Yan, Hong Tian, Qianshi Zhang, Shuangyi Ren, Liqun Yang
      Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology.2023;[Epub]     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
    • Current understandings and clinical translation of nanomedicines for breast cancer therapy
      Yike Jiang, Ziyi Jiang, Mingzhe Wang, Lan Ma
      Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews.2022; 180: 114034.     CrossRef
    • Poly(ϵ-Caprolactone)-Methoxypolyethylene Glycol (PCL-MPEG)-Based Micelles for Drug-Delivery: The Effect of PCL Chain Length on Blood Components, Phagocytosis, and Biodistribution
      Zemin Hou, Wencheng Zhou, Xi Guo, Rui Zhong, Ao Wang, Jiehua Li, Ying Cen, Chao You, Hong Tan, Meng Tian
      International Journal of Nanomedicine.2022; Volume 17: 1613.     CrossRef
    • Engineered nanomaterials as an effective tool for HER2+ breast cancer therapy
      Prashant Pandey, Dilip Kumar Arya, Mohan Kumar Ramar, Kumarappan Chidambaram, P.S. Rajinikanth
      Drug Discovery Today.2022; 27(9): 2526.     CrossRef
    • Biophysical Characterization of Interactions between Serum Albumin and Block Copolymer Micelles
      Catherine F. Dial, Richard A. Gemeinhart
      ACS Biomaterials Science & Engineering.2022; 8(7): 2899.     CrossRef
    • Micelles in Cancer Therapy: An Update on Preclinical and Clinical Status
      Rabia Aqeel, Nidhi Srivastava, Poonam Kushwaha
      Recent Patents on Nanotechnology.2022; 16(4): 283.     CrossRef
    • Challenging the fundamental conjectures in nanoparticle drug delivery for chemotherapy treatment of solid cancers
      Juanjuan Yang, Xiaojin Wang, Bingshun Wang, Kinam Park, Karen Wooley, Shiyi Zhang
      Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews.2022; 190: 114525.     CrossRef
    • In Vivo Sustained Release of the Retrograde Transport Inhibitor Retro-2.1 Formulated in a Thermosensitive Hydrogel
      Robin Vinck, Laetitia Anvi Nguyen, Mathilde Munier, Lucie Caramelle, Diana Karpman, Julien Barbier, Alain Pruvost, Jean-Christophe Cintrat, Daniel Gillet
      International Journal of Molecular Sciences.2022; 23(23): 14611.     CrossRef
    • Clinical Translation of Self‐Assembled Cancer Nanomedicines
      Peng Mi, Kanjiro Miyata, Kazunori Kataoka, Horacio Cabral
      Advanced Therapeutics.2021;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • From Conventional to Precision Therapy in Canine Mammary Cancer: A Comprehensive Review
      Guillermo Valdivia, Ángela Alonso-Diez, Dolores Pérez-Alenza, Laura Peña
      Frontiers in Veterinary Science.2021;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Advanced Biotechnologies: Collections of Plant Cell Cultures As a Basis for Development and Production of Medicinal Preparations
      E. V. Popova, A. V. Nosov, M. V. Titova, D. V. Kochkin, A. A. Fomenkov, I. E. Kulichenko, A. M. Nosov
      Russian Journal of Plant Physiology.2021; 68(3): 385.     CrossRef
    • Reappraisal of anticancer nanomedicine design criteria in three types of preclinical cancer models for better clinical translation
      Xin Luan, Hebao Yuan, Yudong Song, Hongxiang Hu, Bo Wen, Miao He, Huixia Zhang, Yan Li, Feng Li, Pan Shu, Joseph P. Burnett, Nathan Truchan, Maria Palmisano, Manjunath P. Pai, Simon Zhou, Wei Gao, Duxin Sun
      Biomaterials.2021; 275: 120910.     CrossRef
    • Breast cancer: Muscarinic receptors as new targets for tumor therapy
      Alejandro Español, Agustina Salem, Yamila Sanchez, María Elena Sales
      World Journal of Clinical Oncology.2021; 12(6): 404.     CrossRef
    • Direct Comparison of Analogous Amphiphilic Gradient and Block Polyoxazolines
      Lenka Loukotová, Pavel Švec, Ondřej Groborz, Tomáš Heizer, Hynek Beneš, Helena Raabová, Tereza Bělinová, Vít Herynek, Martin Hrubý
      Macromolecules.2021; 54(17): 8182.     CrossRef
    • Challenges towards Targeted Drug Delivery in Cancer Nanomedicines
      Muhammad Nadeem Hafeez, Christian Celia, Vilma Petrikaite
      Processes.2021; 9(9): 1527.     CrossRef
    • Drug Delivery of Natural Products Through Nanocarriers for Effective Breast Cancer Therapy: A Comprehensive Review of Literature
      Kah Min Yap, Mahendran Sekar, Shivkanya Fuloria, Yuan Seng Wu, Siew Hua Gan, Nur Najihah Izzati Mat Rani, Vetriselvan Subramaniyan, Chandrakant Kokare, Pei Teng Lum, M Yasmin Begum, Shankar Mani, Dhanalekshmi Unnikrishnan Meenakshi, Kathiresan V Sathasiva
      International Journal of Nanomedicine.2021; Volume 16: 7891.     CrossRef
    • Phase II study of DHP107 (oral paclitaxel) in the first-line treatment of HER2-negative recurrent or metastatic breast cancer (OPTIMAL study)
      Sung-Bae Kim, Jae Hong Seo, Jin-Hee Ahn, Tae-Yong Kim, Seok Yun Kang, Joohyuk Sohn, Yaewon Yang, Kyong Hwa Park, Yong Wha Moon, Seungtaek Lim, Myoung Joo Kang, Koung Eun Yoon, Hyun Ju Cho, Keun Seok Lee
      Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology.2021;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Self-assembly of oxidation-responsive polyethylene glycol-paclitaxel prodrug for cancer chemotherapy
      Chengyuan Dong, Quan Zhou, Jiajia Xiang, Fusheng Liu, Zhuxian Zhou, Youqing Shen
      Journal of Controlled Release.2020; 321: 529.     CrossRef
    • Clinical applications of nanomedicine in cancer therapy
      Mohammad Norouzi, Mehrnaz Amerian, Mahshid Amerian, Fatemeh Atyabi
      Drug Discovery Today.2020; 25(1): 107.     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
    • Quality of adverse event reporting in phase III randomized controlled trials of breast and colorectal cancer: A systematic review
      Adam S. Komorowski, Helen J. MacKay, Rossanna C. Pezo
      Cancer Medicine.2020; 9(14): 5035.     CrossRef
    • Nanotechnology for angiogenesis: opportunities and challenges
      Saeid Kargozar, Francesco Baino, Sepideh Hamzehlou, Michael R. Hamblin, Masoud Mozafari
      Chemical Society Reviews.2020; 49(14): 5008.     CrossRef
    • Furry nanoparticles: synthesis and characterization of nanoemulsion-mediated core crosslinked nanoparticles and their robust stability in vivo
      Rena Tanaka, Koichi Arai, Jun Matsuno, Miyo Soejima, Ji Ha Lee, Rintaro Takahashi, Kazuo Sakurai, Shota Fujii
      Polymer Chemistry.2020; 11(27): 4408.     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
    • What Went Wrong with Anticancer Nanomedicine Design and How to Make It Right
      Duxin Sun, Simon Zhou, Wei Gao
      ACS Nano.2020; 14(10): 12281.     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
    • A Compressive Review about Taxol®: History and Future Challenges
      Julia Gallego-Jara, Gema Lozano-Terol, Rosa Alba Sola-Martínez, Manuel Cánovas-Díaz, Teresa de Diego Puente
      Molecules.2020; 25(24): 5986.     CrossRef
    • Recent Clinical Developments of Nanomediated Drug Delivery Systems of Taxanes for the Treatment of Cancer
      Ruben AG van Eerden, Ron HJ Mathijssen, Stijn LW Koolen
      International Journal of Nanomedicine.2020; Volume 15: 8151.     CrossRef
    • Basic principles of drug delivery systems – the case of paclitaxel
      S. Ezrahi, A. Aserin, N. Garti
      Advances in Colloid and Interface Science.2019; 263: 95.     CrossRef
    • Biomolecules Turn Self-Assembling Amphiphilic Block Co-polymer Platforms Into Biomimetic Interfaces
      Saziye Yorulmaz Avsar, Myrto Kyropoulou, Stefano Di Leone, Cora-Ann Schoenenberger, Wolfgang P. Meier, Cornelia G. Palivan
      Frontiers in Chemistry.2019;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Polyester Nanoparticle Encapsulation Mitigates Paclitaxel-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy
      R. Ganugula, M. Deng, M. Arora, H.-L. Pan, M. N. V. Ravi Kumar
      ACS Chemical Neuroscience.2019; 10(3): 1801.     CrossRef
    • PEGylation of Ginsenoside Rg3-Entrapped Bovine Serum Albumin Nanoparticles: Preparation, Characterization, and In Vitro Biological Studies
      Lijun Zhang, Junfeng Hui, Pei Ma, Yu Mi, Daidi Fan, Chenhui Zhu, Lei Chi, Yanan Dong
      Journal of Nanomaterials.2019; 2019: 1.     CrossRef
    • Prevention of paclitaxel-induced neuropathy by formulation approach
      Xiaowei Zang, Jong Bong Lee, Kiran Deshpande, Olga B. Garbuzenko, Tamara Minko, Leonid Kagan
      Journal of Controlled Release.2019; 303: 109.     CrossRef
    • Current status of nanomedicine in the chemotherapy of breast cancer
      A. I. Fraguas-Sánchez, C. Martín-Sabroso, A. Fernández-Carballido, A. I. Torres-Suárez
      Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology.2019; 84(4): 689.     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
    • Advances in thermosensitive polymer-grafted platforms for biomedical applications
      Phung Ngan Le, Chan Khon Huynh, Ngoc Quyen Tran
      Materials Science and Engineering: C.2018; 92: 1016.     CrossRef
    • Supramolecular polymeric chemotherapy based on cucurbit[7]uril-PEG copolymer
      Hao Chen, Yueyue Chen, Han Wu, Jiang-Fei Xu, Zhiwei Sun, Xi Zhang
      Biomaterials.2018; 178: 697.     CrossRef
    • pH/NIR-Responsive Polypyrrole-Functionalized Fibrous Localized Drug-Delivery Platform for Synergistic Cancer Therapy
      Arjun Prasad Tiwari, Tae In Hwang, Jung-Mi Oh, Bikendra Maharjan, Sungkun Chun, Beom Su Kim, Mahesh Kumar Joshi, Chan Hee Park, Cheol Sang Kim
      ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces.2018; 10(24): 20256.     CrossRef
    • The Blood Clearance Kinetics and Pathway of Polymeric Micelles in Cancer Drug Delivery
      Xuanrong Sun, Guowei Wang, Hao Zhang, Shiqi Hu, Xin Liu, Jianbin Tang, Youqing Shen
      ACS Nano.2018; 12(6): 6179.     CrossRef
    • Different Nanoformulations Alter the Tissue Distribution of Paclitaxel, Which Aligns with Reported Distinct Efficacy and Safety Profiles
      Feng Li, Huixia Zhang, Miao He, Jinhui Liao, Nianhang Chen, Yan Li, Simon Zhou, Maria Palmisano, Alex Yu, Manjunath P. Pai, Hebao Yuan, Duxin Sun
      Molecular Pharmaceutics.2018; 15(10): 4505.     CrossRef
    • Emerging advances in P-glycoprotein inhibitory nanomaterials for drug delivery
      Longfa Kou, Rui Sun, Yangzom D. Bhutia, Qing Yao, Ruijie Chen
      Expert Opinion on Drug Delivery.2018; 15(9): 869.     CrossRef
    • The battle of “nano” paclitaxel
      Alexandros Marios Sofias, Michael Dunne, Gert Storm, Christine Allen
      Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews.2017;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Overcoming the Road Blocks: Advancement of Block Copolymer Micelles for Cancer Therapy in the Clinic
      Loujin Houdaihed, James C. Evans, Christine Allen
      Molecular Pharmaceutics.2017; 14(8): 2503.     CrossRef
    • PEG-PCL-based nanomedicines: A biodegradable drug delivery system and its application
      Philip Grossen, Dominik Witzigmann, Sandro Sieber, Jörg Huwyler
      Journal of Controlled Release.2017; 260: 46.     CrossRef
    • Effect of Thermoresponsive Poly(L-lactic acid)–poly(ethylene glycol) Gel Injection on Left Ventricular Remodeling in a Rat Myocardial Infarction Model
      Shota Somekawa, Atsushi Mahara, Kazunari Masutani, Yoshiharu Kimura, Hiroshi Urakawa, Tetsuji Yamaoka
      Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine.2017; 14(5): 507.     CrossRef
    • A versatile nanoplatform for synergistic combination therapy to treat human esophageal cancer
      Xin-shuai Wang, De-jiu Kong, Tzu-yin Lin, Xiao-cen Li, Yoshihiro Izumiya, Xue-zhen Ding, Li Zhang, Xiao-chen Hu, Jun-qiang Yang, She-gan Gao, Kit S Lam, Yuan-pei Li
      Acta Pharmacologica Sinica.2017; 38(6): 931.     CrossRef

    • PubReader PubReader
    • ePub LinkePub Link
    • Cite
      CITE
      export Copy Download
      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
      An Open-Label, Randomized, Parallel, Phase III Trial Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of Polymeric Micelle-Formulated Paclitaxel Compared to Conventional Cremophor EL-Based Paclitaxel for Recurrent or Metastatic HER2-Negative Breast Cancer
      Cancer Res Treat. 2017;49(3):569-577.   Published online September 12, 2016
      Close
    • XML DownloadXML Download
    An Open-Label, Randomized, Parallel, Phase III Trial Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of Polymeric Micelle-Formulated Paclitaxel Compared to Conventional Cremophor EL-Based Paclitaxel for Recurrent or Metastatic HER2-Negative Breast Cancer
    Image Image Image
    Fig. 1. CONSORT diagram.
    Fig. 2. Subgroup analysis of overall response rate.
    Fig. 3. Survial analysis according to treatment. (A) Overall survival. (B) Progression-free survival.
    An Open-Label, Randomized, Parallel, Phase III Trial Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of Polymeric Micelle-Formulated Paclitaxel Compared to Conventional Cremophor EL-Based Paclitaxel for Recurrent or Metastatic HER2-Negative Breast Cancer
    Variable Genexol-PM (n=105) Genexol (n=107) p-value
    Age (yr) 49.0 (28.0-72.0) 52.0 (25.0-78.0) 0.02
    Menstruation status
     Premenopausal 61 (58.1) 49 (45.8) 0.10
     Postmenopausal 44 (41.9) 58 (54.2)
    ECOG status
     0 47 (44.8) 31 (29.0) 0.02
     1 53 (50.5) 68 (63.6)
     2 5 (4.8) 8 (7.5)
    DFI (yr) 2.2 (0.2-8.7) 3.0 (0.2-9.1) 0.34
    No. target lesions
     < 3 90 (85.7) 94 (87.9) 0.65
     ≥ 3 15 (14.3) 13 (12.2)
    Visceral metastasis
     Yes 71 (67.6) 65 (60.8) 0.30
     No 34 (32.4) 42 (39.3)
    ER or PgR status
     Positive 75 (71.4) 82 (76.6) 0.63
     Negative 28 (26.7) 24 (22.4)
     Unknown 2 (1.9) 1 (0.9)
    De novo stage IV breast cancer
     Yes 71 (67.6) 74 (69.2) 0.81
     No 34 (32.4) 33 (30.8)
    Previous chemotherapya)
     Yes 16 (15.2) 14 (13.1) 0.70
     No 89 (84.8) 93 (86.9)
    Variable Genexol-PM (n=105) Genexol (n=107) p-value
    Objective response ratea) 41 (39.1) 26 (24.3) 0.021
    Complete response 0 0
    Partial response 41 (39.1) 26 (24.3)
    Stable disease 46 (43.8) 56 (52.3)
    Progressive disease 7 (6.7) 16 (15.0)
    Not evaluated 11 (10.5) 9 (9.4)
    Variable Univariate
    Multivariate
    HR (95% CI) p-value HR (95% CI) p-value
    Age (≥ 45 yr vs. < 45 yr) 0.99 (0.52-1.89) 0.97
    Genexol-PM vs. Genexol 2.14 (1.17-3.93) 0.01 2.20 (1.20-4.06) 0.01
    Premenopausal vs. postmenopausal 0.98 (0.54-1.77) 0.94
    Visceral involvement (yes vs. no) 1.11 (0.60-2.07) 0.73
    Previous treatment (no vs. yes) 2.29 (0.88-5.95) 0.09 2.41 (0.92-6.35) 0.07
    Hormone receptor (positive vs. negative) 0.97 (0.51-1.85) 0.92
    Adverse event Genexol-PM (n=105)
    Genexol (n=107)
    Grade 1 Grade 2 ≥ Grade 3 Grade 1 Grade 2 ≥ Grade 3
    Neutropenia 0 3 (2.9) 72 (68.6) 0 8 (7.5) 43 (40.2)
    Febrile neutropenia 0 1 (1.0) 3 (2.9) 0 0 3 (2.8)
    Myalgia 26 (24.8) 28 (26.7) 9 (8.6) 32 (29.9) 26 (24.3) 8 (7.5)
    Nausea 25 (23.8) 14 (13.3) 3 (2.9) 42 (39.3) 6 (5.6) 1 (0.9)
    Neuropathy peripheral 13 (12.4) 16 (15.2) 8 (7.6) 27 (25.2) 14 (13.1) 8 (7.5)
    Constipation 17 (16.2) 22 (21.0) 0 23 (21.5) 17 (15.9) 0
    Arthralgia 11 (10.5) 12 (11.4) 1 (1.0) 9 (8.4) 14 (13.1) 3 (2.8)
    Asthenia 8 (7.6) 4 (3.8) 4 (3.8) 14 (13.1) 11 (10.3) 1 (0.9)
    Rash 16 (15.2) 11 (10.5) 2 (1.9) 12 (11.2) 9 (8.4) 4 (3.8)
    Pruritus 13 (12.4) 9 (8.6) 0 17 (15.9) 8 (7.5) 0
    Insomnia 13 (12.4) 7 (6.7) 1 (1.0) 10 (9.3) 7 (6.5) 0
    Hypersensitivity 5 (4.8) 8 (7.6) 3 (2.9) 2 (1.9) 1 (0.9) 1 (0.9)
    Table 1. Demographic and other baseline characteristics

    Values are presented as median (range) or number (%). ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; DFI, disease-free interval; ER, estrogen receptor; PgR, progesterone receptor.

    Systemic cytotoxic chemotherapy for metastatic disease.

    Table 2. Response rate of study treatment

    Values are presented as number (%).

    Objective response rate=complete response+partial response.

    Table 3. Clinical variables associated with better response to treatment

    HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval.

    Table 4. Adverse events

    Values are presented as number (%).


    Cancer Res Treat : Cancer Research and Treatment
    Close layer
    TOP