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; Joo Hyuk Sohn; Sung Bae Kim; Keun Seok Lee; Joo Seop Chung; Soo Hyeon Lee; Tae You Kim; Kyung Hae Jung; Eun Kyung Cho; Yang Soo Kim; Hong Suk Song; Jae Hong Seo; Hun Mo Ryoo; Sun Ah Lee; So Young Yoon; Chul Soo Kim; Yong Tai Kim; Si Young Kim; Mi Ryung Jin; Jungsil Ro

doi:10.4143/crt.2016.289

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, PhD^1,; 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

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

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract

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) (p_{non-inferiority}=0.021, p_superiority=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.
Key words: Polymeric micelle paclitaxel, Cremophor EL-free, Genexol-PM, Metastatic breast cancer

Introduction

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.

Materials and Methods

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%.

Results

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 p_{non-inferiority}=0.021) and was in fact superior to Genexol with regard to the ORR (p_superiority=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.

Discussion

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.

Conclusion

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.

NOTES

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.

Fig. 2.

Subgroup analysis of overall response rate.

Fig. 3.

Survial analysis according to treatment. (A) Overall survival. (B) Progression-free survival.

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 chemotherapy^a)
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 rate^a)	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
Variable	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)
Adverse event	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 (%).

REFERENCES

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. Article PubMed
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. Article PubMed
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. Article PubMed
4. Zhou HB, Zhu JR. Paclitaxel induces apoptosis in human gastric carcinoma cells. World J Gastroenterol. 2003;9:442–5. Article PubMed PMC
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. Article PubMed
6. Rowinsky EK, Donehower RC. Paclitaxel (taxol). N Engl J Med. 1995;332:1004–14. Article PubMed
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. Article PubMed
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. Article PubMed
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. Article PubMed
12. van Zuylen L, Verweij J, Sparreboom A. Role of formulation vehicles in taxane pharmacology. Invest New Drugs. 2001;19:125–41. Article PubMed
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. Article PubMed
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. Article PubMed
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. Article PubMed
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. Article PubMed
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. Article PubMed
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. Article PubMed PMC
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. Article PubMed
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. Article PubMed
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
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 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

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2016.289

XML Download

Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
NOTES
REFERENCES

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.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 3.

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 chemotherapy^a)
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 rate^a)	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
Variable	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)
Adverse event	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 (%).