Open-Label, Randomized, Multicenter, Phase III Study Comparing Oral Paclitaxel Plus Encequidar Versus Intravenous Paclitaxel in Patients With Metastatic Breast Cancer

Hope S Rugo, Gerardo A Umanzor, Francisco J Barrios, Rosa H Vasallo, Marco A Chivalan, Suyapa Bejarano, Julio R Ramírez, Luis Fein, Ruben D Kowalyszyn, E Douglas Kramer, Hui Wang, Min-Fun R Kwan, David L Cutler, Oraxol Study Consortium Investigators, Hope S Rugo, Gerardo A Umanzor, Francisco J Barrios, Rosa H Vasallo, Marco A Chivalan, Suyapa Bejarano, Julio R Ramírez, Luis Fein, Ruben D Kowalyszyn, E Douglas Kramer, Hui Wang, Min-Fun R Kwan, David L Cutler, Oraxol Study Consortium Investigators

Abstract

Purpose: Intravenous paclitaxel (IVpac) is complicated by neuropathy and requires premedication to prevent hypersensitivity-type reactions. Paclitaxel is poorly absorbed orally; encequidar (E), a novel P-glycoprotein pump inhibitor, allows oral absorption.

Methods: A phase III open-label study comparing oral paclitaxel plus E (oPac + E) 205 mg/m2 paclitaxel plus 15 mg E methanesulfonate monohydrate 3 consecutive days per week versus IVpac 175 mg/m2 once every 3 weeks was performed. Women with metastatic breast cancer and adequate organ function, at least 1 year from last taxane, were randomly assigned 2:1 to oPac + E versus IVpac. The primary end point was confirmed radiographic response using RECIST 1.1, assessed by blinded independent central review. Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).

Results: Four hundred two patients from Latin America were enrolled (265 oPac + E, 137 IVpac); demographics and prior therapies were balanced. The confirmed response (intent-to-treat) was 36% for oPac + E versus 23% for IVpac (P = .01). The PFS was 8.4 versus 7.4 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.768; 95.5% CI, 0.584 to 1.01; P = .046), and the OS was 22.7 versus 16.5 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.794; 95.5% CI, 0.607 to 1.037; P = .08). Grade 3-4 adverse reactions were 55% with oPac + E and 53% with IVpac. oPac + E had lower incidence and severity of neuropathy (2% v 15% > grade 2) and alopecia (49% v 62% all grades) than IVpac but more nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and neutropenic complications, particularly in patients with elevated liver enzymes. On-study deaths (8% oPac + E v 9% IVpac) were treatment-related in 3% and 0%, respectively.

Conclusion: oPac + E increased the confirmed tumor response versus IVpac, with trends in PFS and OS. Neuropathy was less frequent and severe with oPac + E; neutropenic serious infections were increased. Elevated liver enzymes at baseline predispose oPac + E patients to early neutropenia and serious infections (funded by Athenex, Inc; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02594371).

Conflict of interest statement

David L. Cutler

Employment: Athenex

Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Merck Sharp & Dohme, Athenex

No other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Figures

FIG 1.
FIG 1.
Oraxol study CONSORT diagram. IV, intravenous; oPac + E, oral paclitaxel plus encequidar.
FIG 2.
FIG 2.
Confirmed tumor response in clinically relevant subgroups. Others category includes patients with receptor status unknown for one or more receptors.
FIG 3.
FIG 3.
Kaplan-Meier curve for (A) PFS and (B) OS. (A) oPac + E: median estimate 8.4, range 0-35.7, censored summary 125 of 265 (47%); IVpac: median estimate 7.4, range 0-33.1, censored summary 49 of 137 (36%); HR (95.5% CI) 0.768 (0.584 to 1.01), P = .046. (B) oPac + E: median estimate 22.7, range 0.3-49.4, event summary 154 of 265 (58%), censored summary 111 of 265 (42%), alive 107 of 265 (40%), and discontinued 4 of 265 (2%); IVpac: median estimate 16.5, range 0.3-45.3, event summary 89 of 137 (65%), censored summary 48 of 137 (35%), alive 46 of 137 (34%), and discontinued 2 of 137 (1%); HR (95.5% CI) 0.794 (0.607 to 1.037). + = censored; HR estimated with the Cox proportional hazards model at a significance level of 0.045. HR, hazard ratio; IV, intravenous; IVpac, intravenous paclitaxel; oPac + E, oral paclitaxel plus encequidar; OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival.

References

    1. Gradishar WJ: Taxanes for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer. Breast Cancer (Auckl) 6:159-171, 2012
    1. Rivera E, Cianfrocca M: Overview of neuropathy associated with taxanes for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 75:659-670, 2015
    1. Panday VRN, Huizing MT, Ten Bokkel Huinink WW, et al. : Hypersensitivity reactions to the taxanes paclitaxel and docetaxel. Clin Drug Invest 14:418-427, 1997
    1. Seidman AD, Berry D, Cirrincione C, 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 26:1642-1649, 2008
    1. Sparano JA, Wang M, Martino S, et al. : Weekly paclitaxel in the adjuvant treatment of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 358:1663-1671, 2008
    1. Loprinzi CL, Reeves BN, Dakhil SR, et al. : Natural history of paclitaxel-associated acute pain syndrome: Prospective cohort study NCCTG N08C1. J Clin Oncol 29:1472-1478, 2011
    1. Bandos H, Melnikow J, Rivera DR, et al. : Long-term peripheral neuropathy in breast cancer patients treated with adjuvant chemotherapy: NRG Oncology/NSABP B-30. J Natl Cancer Inst 110:djx162, 2018
    1. Fujiwara Y, Mukai H, Saeki T, et al. : A multi-national, randomised, open-label, parallel, phase III non-inferiority study comparing NK105 and paclitaxel in metastatic or recurrent breast cancer patients. Br J Cancer 120:475-480, 2019
    1. Dodd MJ, Miaskowski C, Paul SM: Symptom clusters and their effect on the functional status of patients with cancer. Oncol Nurs Forum 28:465-470, 2001
    1. Pachman DR, Barton DL, Swetz KM, et al. : Troublesome symptoms in cancer survivors: Fatigue, insomnia, neuropathy, and pain. J Clin Oncol 30:3687-3696, 2012
    1. Eek D, Krohe M, Mazar I, et al. : Patient-reported preferences for oral versus intravenous administration for the treatment of cancer: A review of the literature. Patient Prefer Adherence 10:1609-1621, 2016
    1. Sparreboom A, van Asperen J, van Asperen J, et al. : Limited oral bioavailability and active epithelial excretion of paclitaxel (Taxol) caused by P-glycoprotein in the intestine. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94:2031-2035, 1997
    1. Jackson C, Deva S, Bayston K, et al. : An international randomized cross-over bio-equivalence study of oral paclitaxel + HM30181 compared with weekly intravenous (IV) paclitaxel in patients with advanced solid tumours. Ann Oncol 30:v180-v181, 2019
    1. Dai M-S, Chao T-C, Chiu C-F, et al. : Oral paclitaxel in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients. J Clin Oncol 37:1084-1084, 2019
    1. Gradishar WJ, Tjulandin S, Davidson N, 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 23:7794-7803, 2005

Source: PubMed

3
Subscribe