scholarly journals Randomized Phase III Trial of Paclitaxel Once Per Week Compared With Nanoparticle Albumin-Bound Nab-Paclitaxel Once Per Week or Ixabepilone With Bevacizumab As First-Line Chemotherapy for Locally Recurrent or Metastatic Breast Cancer: CALGB 40502/NCCTG N063H (Alliance)

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (21) ◽  
pp. 2361-2369 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hope S. Rugo ◽  
William T. Barry ◽  
Alvaro Moreno-Aspitia ◽  
Alan P. Lyss ◽  
Constance Cirrincione ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Interim Analysis ◽  
Metastatic Breast ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Hazard Ratio ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
First Line ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Nonhematologic Toxicity

Purpose We compared nab-paclitaxel or ixabepilone once per week to paclitaxel with bevacizumab as first-line therapy for patients with advanced breast cancer (BC) to evaluate progression-free survival (PFS) for nab-paclitaxel or ixabepilone versus paclitaxel. Patients and Methods Eligible patients were age ≥ 18 years with chemotherapy-naive advanced BC. Patients were randomly assigned to bevacizumab with paclitaxel 90 mg/m2 (arm A), nab-paclitaxel 150 mg/m2 (arm B), or ixabepilone 16 mg/m2 (arm C), once per week for 3 of 4 weeks. Planned enrollment was 900 patients, which would give 88% power to detect a hazard ratio of 0.73. Results In all, 799 patients were enrolled, and 783 received treatment (97% received bevacizumab). Arm C was closed for futility at the first interim analysis (n = 241), and arm A (n = 267) and arm B (n = 275) were closed for futility at the second interim analysis. Median PFS for paclitaxel was 11 months, ixabepilone was inferior to paclitaxel (PFS, 7.4 months; hazard ratio, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.31 to 1.93; P < .001), and nab-paclitaxel was not superior to paclitaxel (PFS, 9.3 months; hazard ratio, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.45; P = .054). Results were concordant with overall survival; time to treatment failure was significantly shorter in both experimental arms v paclitaxel. Hematologic and nonhematologic toxicity, including peripheral neuropathy, was increased with nab-paclitaxel, with more frequent and earlier dose reductions. Conclusion In patients with chemotherapy-naive advanced BC, ixabepilone once per week was inferior to paclitaxel, and nab-paclitaxel was not superior with a trend toward inferiority. Toxicity was increased in the experimental arms, particularly for nab-paclitaxel. Paclitaxel once per week remains the preferred palliative chemotherapy in this setting.

CALGB 40502/NCCTG N063H: Randomized phase III trial of weekly paclitaxel (P) compared to weekly nanoparticle albumin bound nab-paclitaxel (NP) or ixabepilone (Ix) with or without bevacizumab (B) as first-line therapy for locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer (MBC).

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. CRA1002-CRA1002 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hope S. Rugo ◽  
William Thomas Barry ◽  
Alvaro Moreno-Aspitia ◽  
Alan P. Lyss ◽  
Constance Cirrincione ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interim Analysis ◽  
Metastatic Breast ◽  
Sensory Neuropathy ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Hematologic Toxicity ◽  
First Line ◽  
Microtubule Inhibitor ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
First Line Therapy

CRA1002 Background: Weekly P is superior to q 3 week (wk) dosing, and adding B improves progression free survival (PFS) (E2100). Ix is a potent epothilone that can be effective after microtubule inhibitor resistance. NP is a novel albumin-bound formulation of P with promising activity in the first-line MBC setting. In this phase III trial, the efficacy of weekly Ix or NP is compared to P, in combination with B in patients (pts) with chemotherapy (CTX) naïve MBC. Toxicity including >Grade 2 sensory neuropathy (SN) is compared to P. Methods: Pts were randomized 1:1:1 to receive P (90 mg/m2), Ix (16 mg/m2) or NP (150 mg/m2) on a 3 wk on, 1 wk off schedule, stratified by prior adjuvant taxane use and hormone receptor status. B was initially given to all pts, but became optional in 3/2011 and was added to stratification. The primary end point of PFS is defined as time from randomization to progression or all-cause death. With a target N=900 pts, the study was powered to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.36 (median PFS 10 vs 13.6 mos). Eligibility included no prior CTX for MBC, >12 mos from adjuvant P and measurable disease. Results: 799 pts were enrolled between 11/08-11/11 (283 to P, 271 to NP, 245 to Ix); 98% received B. 72% had ER+ disease, 44% received adjuvant P. At the 1st interim analysis (165 events) the comparison of Ix to P crossed the futility boundary (FB) and accrual to Ix was closed. At the 2nd interim analysis (236 events), NP to P crossed the FB and the study was closed on 11/30/11. Median PFS was 10.4, 9.6 and 7.6 mos for P, NP and Ix, with HRs (95% CIs) of 0.94 (0.73-1.22) and 0.66 (0.51-0.84) for P to NP and Ix respectively. Grade 2+ SN was 48% for NP, 44% for Ix and 37% for P; Grade 3+ hematologic toxicity was 49% for NP, 20% for Ix, and 12% for P. Conclusions: In pts with CTX naive MBC, both NP and Ix are highly unlikely to be superior to P for PFS (when all are combined with B), and in combination with B, weekly P is the better tolerated drug. Toxicity including SN was greater in each experimental arm compared to P. Updated data will be presented, and correlative studies will be reported at a future date.

Gemcitabine, Epirubicin, and Paclitaxel Versus Fluorouracil, Epirubicin, and Cyclophosphamide As First-Line Chemotherapy in Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Central European Cooperative Oncology Group International, Multicenter, Prospective, Randomized Phase III Trial

2005 ◽  
Vol 23 (7) ◽  
pp. 1401-1408 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christoph Zielinski ◽  
Semir Beslija ◽  
Zrinka Mrsic-Krmpotic ◽  
Marzena Welnicka-Jaskiewicz ◽  
Christoph Wiltschke ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Breast Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Breast ◽  
Stage Iv ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
First Line ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Grade 3

Background The objectives of this phase III trial were to compare the time to progressive disease (TtPD), overall response rate (ORR), overall survival, and toxicity of gemcitabine, epirubicin, and paclitaxel (GET) versus fluorouracil (FU), epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide (FEC) as first-line therapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Patients and Methods Female patients aged 18 to 75 years with stage IV and measurable MBC were enrolled and randomly assigned to either gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m2, days 1 and 4), epirubicin (90 mg/m2, day 1), and paclitaxel (175 mg/m2, day 1) or FU (500 mg/m2, day 1), epirubicin (90 mg/m2, day 1), and cyclophosphamide (500 mg/m2, day 1). Both regimens were administered every 21 days for a maximum of eight cycles. Results Between October 1999 and November 2002, 259 patients (GET, n = 124; FEC, n = 135) were enrolled. Baseline characteristics were well balanced across treatment arms. After a median of 20.4 months of follow-up, median TtPD was 9.1 months and 9.0 months in the GET and FEC arms, respectively (P = .557). The ORR was 62.3% in the GET arm (n = 114) and 51.2% in the FEC arm (n = 129; P = .093). Grade 3 and 4 toxicities, including neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, anemia, stomatitis, neurosensory toxicity, and allergy, occurred significantly more often in the GET arm. Conclusion No significant differences in terms of TtPD and ORR were observed between the two treatment arms. Treatment-related toxicity was higher in the GET arm.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document