William J. Gradishar

Phase III Trial of Nanoparticle Albumin-Bound Paclitaxel Compared With Polyethylated Castor Oil–Based Paclitaxel in Women With Breast Cancer

PURPOSE ABI-007, the first biologically interactive albumin-bound paclitaxel in a nanameter particle, free of solvents, was compared with polyethylated castor oil-based standard paclitaxel in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). This phase III study was performed to confirm preclinical studies demonstrating superior efficacy and reduced toxicity of ABI-007 compared with standard paclitaxel. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients were randomly assigned to 3-week cycles of either ABI-007 260 mg/m(2) intravenously without premedication (n = 229) or standard paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2) intravenously with premedication (n = 225). RESULTS ABI-007 demonstrated significantly higher response rates compared with standard paclitaxel (33% v 19%, respectively; P = .001) and significantly longer time to tumor progression (23.0 v 16.9 weeks, respectively; hazard ratio = 0.75; P = .006). The incidence of grade 4 neutropenia was significantly lower for ABI-007 compared with standard paclitaxel (9% v 22%, respectively; P < .001) despite a 49% higher paclitaxel dose. Febrile neutropenia was uncommon (< 2%), and the incidence did not differ between the two study arms. Grade 3 sensory neuropathy was more common in the ABI-007 arm than in the standard paclitaxel arm (10% v 2%, respectively; P < .001) but was easily managed and improved rapidly (median, 22 days). No hypersensitivity reactions occurred with ABI-007 despite the absence of premedication and shorter administration time. CONCLUSION ABI-007 demonstrated greater efficacy and a favorable safety profile compared with standard paclitaxel in this patient population. The improved therapeutic index and elimination of corticosteroid premedication required for solvent-based taxanes make the novel albumin-bound paclitaxel ABI-007 an important advance in the treatment of MBC.

Randomized Trial of Dose-Dense Versus Conventionally Scheduled and Sequential Versus Concurrent Combination Chemotherapy as Postoperative Adjuvant Treatment of Node-Positive Primary Breast Cancer: First Report of Intergroup Trial C9741/Cancer and Leukemia Group B Trial 9741

PURPOSE Using a 2 x 2 factorial design, we studied the adjuvant chemotherapy of women with axillary node-positive breast cancer to compare sequential doxorubicin (A), paclitaxel (T), and cyclophosphamide (C) with concurrent doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC) followed by paclitaxel (T) for disease-free (DFS) and overall survival (OS); to determine whether the dose density of the agents improves DFS and OS; and to compare toxicities. PATIENTS AND METHODS A total of 2,005 female patients were randomly assigned to receive one of the following regimens: (I) sequential A x 4 (doses) --> T x 4 --> C x 4 with doses every 3 weeks, (II) sequential A x 4 --> T x 4 --> C x 4 every 2 weeks with filgrastim, (III) concurrent AC x 4 --> T x 4 every 3 weeks, or (IV) concurrent AC x 4 --> T x 4 every 2 weeks with filgrastim. RESULTS A protocol-specified analysis was performed at a median follow-up of 36 months: 315 patients had experienced relapse or died, compared with 515 expected treatment failures. Dose-dense treatment improved the primary end point, DFS (risk ratio [RR] = 0.74; P =.010), and OS (RR = 0.69; P =.013). Four-year DFS was 82% for the dose-dense regimens and 75% for the others. There was no difference in either DFS or OS between the concurrent and sequential schedules. There was no interaction between density and sequence. Severe neutropenia was less frequent in patients who received the dose-dense regimens. CONCLUSION Dose density improves clinical outcomes significantly, despite the lower than expected number of events at this time. Sequential chemotherapy is as effective as concurrent chemotherapy.

Double-Blind, Randomized Placebo Controlled Trial of Fulvestrant Compared With Exemestane After Prior Nonsteroidal Aromatase Inhibitor Therapy in Postmenopausal Women With Hormone Receptor–Positive, Advanced Breast Cancer: Results From EFECT

PURPOSE The third-generation nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitors (AIs) are increasingly used as adjuvant and first-line advanced therapy for postmenopausal, hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer. Because many patients subsequently experience progression or relapse, it is important to identify agents with efficacy after AI failure. MATERIALS AND METHODS Evaluation of Faslodex versus Exemestane Clinical Trial (EFECT) is a randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled, multicenter phase III trial of fulvestrant versus exemestane in postmenopausal women with HR+ advanced breast cancer (ABC) progressing or recurring after nonsteroidal AI. The primary end point was time to progression (TTP). A fulvestrant loading-dose (LD) regimen was used: 500 mg intramuscularly on day 0, 250 mg on days 14, 28, and 250 mg every 28 days thereafter. Exemestane 25 mg orally was administered once daily. RESULTS A total of 693 women were randomly assigned to fulvestrant (n = 351) or exemestane (n = 342). Approximately 60% of patients had received at least two prior endocrine therapies. Median TTP was 3.7 months in both groups (hazard ratio = 0.963; 95% CI, 0.819 to 1.133; P = .6531). The overall response rate (7.4% v 6.7%; P = .736) and clinical benefit rate (32.2% v 31.5%; P = .853) were similar between fulvestrant and exemestane respectively. Median duration of clinical benefit was 9.3 and 8.3 months, respectively. Both treatments were well tolerated, with no significant differences in the incidence of adverse events or quality of life. Pharmacokinetic data confirm that steady-state was reached within 1 month with the LD schedule of fulvestrant. CONCLUSION Fulvestrant LD and exemestane are equally active and well-tolerated in a meaningful proportion of postmenopausal women with ABC who have experienced progression or recurrence during treatment with a nonsteroidal AI.

Albumin-bound paclitaxel: a next-generation taxane

Taxanes are standard treatment for metastatic breast cancer; however, the solvents used as vehicles in these formulations cause severe toxicities. The FDA recently approved a solvent-free formulation of paclitaxel for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer that utilises 130-nanometer albumin-bound (nab™) technology (Abraxane®; nab-paclitaxel) to circumvent the requirement for solvents. nab-Paclitaxel utilises the natural properties of albumin to reversibly bind paclitaxel, transport it across the endothelial cell and concentrate it in areas of tumour. The proposed mechanism of drug delivery involves, in part, glycoprotein 60-mediated endothelial cell transcytosis of paclitaxel-bound albumin and accumulation in the area of tumour by albumin binding to SPARC (secreted protein, acidic and rich in cysteine). Clinical studies have shown that nab-paclitaxel is significantly more effective than paclitaxel formulated as Cremophor® EL (CrEL, Taxol®, CrEL-paclitaxel), with almost double the response rate, increased time to disease progression and increased survival in second-line patients. The absence of CrEL from the formulation is associated with decreased neutropenia and rapid improvement of peripheral neuropathy with nab-paclitaxel, compared with CrEL-paclitaxel. For these reasons, nab-paclitaxel can be administered using higher doses of paclitaxel than that achievable with CrEL-paclitaxel, with shorter infusion duration and without the requirement for corticosteroid and antihistamine premedication to reduce the risk of solvent-mediated hypersensitivity reactions. Taken together, these studies have demonstrated that nab technology has increased the therapeutic index of paclitaxel compared with the conventional, solvent-based formulation.

American Society of Clinical Oncology 2008 Clinical Practice Guideline Update: Use of Chemotherapy and Radiation Therapy Protectants

PURPOSE To update a clinical practice guideline on the use of chemotherapy and radiation therapy protectants for patients with cancer. METHODS An update committee reviewed literature published since the last guideline update in 2002. RESULTS Thirty-nine reports met the inclusion criteria: palifermin and dexrazoxane, three reports (two studies) each; amifostine, 33 reports (31 studies); and mesna, no published randomized trials identified since 2002. RECOMMENDATIONS Dexrazoxane is not recommended for routine use in breast cancer (BC) in adjuvant setting, or metastatic setting with initial doxorubicin-based chemotherapy. Consider use with metastatic BC and other malignancies, for patients who have received more than 300 mg/m(2) doxorubicin who may benefit from continued doxorubicin-containing therapy. Cardiac monitoring should continue in patients receiving doxorubicin. Amifostine may be considered for prevention of cisplatin-associated nephrotoxicity, reduction of grade 3 to 4 neutropenia (alternative strategies are reasonable), and to decrease acute and late xerostomia with fractionated radiation therapy alone for head and neck cancer. It is not recommended for protection against thrombocytopenia, prevention of platinum-associated neurotoxicity or ototoxicity or paclitaxel-associated neuropathy, prevention of radiation therapy-associated mucositis in head and neck cancer, or prevention of esophagitis during concurrent chemoradiotherapy for non-small-cell lung cancer. Palifermin is recommended to decrease severe mucositis in autologous stem-cell transplantation (SCT) for hematologic malignancies with total-body irradiation (TBI) conditioning regimens, and considered for patients undergoing myeloablative allogeneic SCT with TBI-based conditioning regimens. Data are insufficient to recommend use in the non-SCT setting.

American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Use of Chemotherapy and Radiotherapy Protectants

PURPOSE Because toxicities associated with chemotherapy and radiotherapy can adversely affect short- and long-term patient quality of life, can limit the dose and duration of treatment, and may be life-threatening, specific agents designed to ameliorate or eliminate certain chemotherapy and radiotherapy toxicities have been developed. Variability in interpretation of the available data pertaining to the efficacy of the three United States Food and Drug Administration-approved agents that have potential chemotherapy- and radiotherapy-protectant activity-dexrazoxane, mesna, and amifostine-and questions about the role of these protectant agents in cancer care led to concern about the appropriate use of these agents. The American Society of Clinical Oncology sought to establish evidence-based, clinical practice guidelines for the use of dexrazoxane, mesna, and amifostine in patients who are not enrolled on clinical treatment trials. METHODS A multidisciplinary Expert Panel reviewed the clinical data regarding the activity of dexrazoxane, mesna, and amifostine. A computerized literature search was performed using MEDLINE. In addition to reports collected by individual Panel members, all articles published in the English-speaking literature from June 1997 through December 1998 were collected for review by the Panel chairpersons, and appropriate articles were distributed to the entire Panel for review. Guidelines for use, levels of evidence, and grades of recommendation were reviewed and approved by the Panel. Outcomes considered in evaluating the benefit of a chemotherapy- or radiotherapy-protectant agent included amelioration of short- and long-term chemotherapy- or radiotherapy-related toxicities, risk of tumor protection by the agent, toxicity of the protectant agent itself, quality of life, and economic impact. To the extent that these data were available, the Panel placed the greatest value on lesser toxicity that did not carry a concomitant risk of tumor protection. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION Mesna: (1) Mesna, dosed as detailed in these guidelines, is recommended to decrease the incidence of standard-dose ifosfamide-associated urothelial toxicity. (2) There is insufficient evidence on which to base a guideline for the use of mesna to prevent urothelial toxicity with ifosfamide doses that exceed 2.5 g/m(2)/d. (3) Either mesna or forced saline diuresis is recommended to decrease the incidence of urothelial toxicity associated with high-dose cyclophosphamide use in the stem-cell transplantation setting. Dexrazoxane: (1) The use of dexrazoxane is not routinely recommended for patients with metastatic breast cancer who receive initial doxorubicin-based chemotherapy. (2) The use of dexrazoxane may be considered for patients with metastatic breast cancer who have received a cumulative dosage of 300 mg/m(2) or greater of doxorubicin in the metastatic setting and who may benefit from continued doxorubicin-containing therapy. (3) The use of dexrazoxane in the adjuvant setting is not recommended outside of a clinical trial. (4) The use of dexrazoxane can be considered in adult patients who have received more than 300 mg/m(2) of doxorubicin-based therapy for tumors other than breast cancer, although caution should be used in settings in which doxorubicin-based therapy has been shown to improve survival because of concerns of tumor protection by dexrazoxane. (5) There is insufficient evidence to make a guideline for the use of dexrazoxane in the treatment of pediatric malignancies, with epirubicin-based regimens, or with high-dose anthracycline-containing regimens. Similarly, there is insufficient evidence on which to base a guideline for the use of dexrazoxane in patients with cardiac risk factors or underlying cardiac disease. (6) Patients receiving dexrazoxane should continue to be monitored for cardiac toxicity. Amifostine: (1) Amifostine may be considered for the reduction of nephrotoxicity in patients receiving cisplatin-based chemoth

Significantly Longer Progression-Free Survival With nab-Paclitaxel Compared With Docetaxel As First-Line Therapy for Metastatic Breast Cancer

PURPOSE In patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC), nab-paclitaxel produced significantly higher antitumor activity compared with patients who received solvent-based paclitaxel. This phase II study examined the antitumor activity and safety of weekly and every 3 week (q3w) nab-paclitaxel compared with docetaxel as first-line treatment in patients with MBC. PATIENTS AND METHODS In this randomized, multicenter study, patients (N = 302) with previously untreated MBC received nab-paclitaxel 300 mg/m(2) q3w, 100 mg/m(2) weekly, or 150 mg/m(2) weekly or docetaxel 100 mg/m(2) q3w. RESULTS nab-Paclitaxel 150 mg/m(2) weekly demonstrated significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) than docetaxel by both independent radiologist assessment (12.9 v 7.5 months, respectively; P = .0065) and investigator assessment (14.6 v 7.8 months, respectively; P = .012). On the basis of independent radiologist review, both 150 mg/m(2) (49%) and 100 mg/m(2) (45%) weekly of nab-paclitaxel demonstrated a higher overall response rate (ORR) than docetaxel (35%), but this did not reach statistical significance. This trend was supported by statistically significant investigator ORR for both weekly nab-paclitaxel doses versus docetaxel. nab-Paclitaxel q3w versus docetaxel was not different for PFS or ORR. On the basis of both the independent radiologist and investigator review, disease control rate was significantly higher for patients receiving either dose of weekly nab-paclitaxel compared with docetaxel. Grade 3 or 4 fatigue, neutropenia, and febrile neutropenia were less frequent in all nab-paclitaxel arms. The frequency and grade of peripheral neuropathy were similar in all arms. CONCLUSION This randomized study in first-line MBC demonstrated superior efficacy and safety of weekly nab-paclitaxel compared with docetaxel, with a statistically and clinically significant prolongation of PFS (> 5 months) in patients receiving nab-paclitaxel 150 mg/m(2) weekly compared with docetaxel 100 mg/m(2) q3w.

Randomized Phase III Trial of Marimastat Versus Placebo in Patients With Metastatic Breast Cancer Who Have Responding or Stable Disease After First-Line Chemotherapy: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Trial E2196

PURPOSE To determine whether a matrix metalloproteinase inhibitor improves progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with metastatic breast cancer who have responding or stable disease after first-line chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS One hundred seventy-nine eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive oral marimastat (10 mg bid; n = 114) or a placebo (n = 65) within 3 to 6 weeks of completing six to eight cycles of first-line doxorubicin- and/or taxane-containing chemotherapy for metastatic disease. Patients were evaluated every 3 months until disease progression. RESULTS When comparing placebo with marimastat, there was no significant difference in PFS (median, 3.1 months v 4.7 months, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.91 to 1.74; P = .16) or overall survival (median, 26.6 months v 24.7 months, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.46; P = .86). Patients treated with marimastat were more likely to develop grade 2 or 3 musculoskeletal toxicity (MST), a known complication of the drug indicative of achieving a biologic effect, compared with patients administered placebo (63% v 22%, respectively; P < .0001). Patients with grade 2 or 3 MST had significantly inferior survival compared with patients who had grade 0 or 1 MST (median, 22.5 months v 28.2 months; P = .04). In addition, patients who had a marimastat plasma concentration of at least 10 ng/mL at month 1 and/or 3 were significantly more likely to have grade 2 to 3 MST (P < .0001). CONCLUSION Marimastat does not prolong PFS when used after first-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer. Patients with higher marimastat levels exhibited MST, and MST was associated with inferior survival.

Improved effectiveness of nanoparticle albumin-bound (nab) paclitaxel versus polysorbate-based docetaxel in multiple xenografts as a function of HER2 and SPARC status.

Nanoparticle albumin-bound (nab)-paclitaxel (Abraxane) is an albumin-bound 130-nm particle form of paclitaxel that demonstrated higher efficacy and was well tolerated compared with solvent-based paclitaxel (Taxol) and docetaxel (Taxotere) in clinical trials for metastatic breast cancer. Nab-paclitaxel enhances tumor targeting through gp60 and caveolae-mediated endothelial transcytosis and the association with the albumin-binding protein SPARC (secreted protein, acidic and rich in cysteine) in the tumor microenvironment. The overexpression of human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2) in breast cancer has been shown to correlate with resistance to paclitaxel. To evaluate the importance of HER2 and SPARC status in determining the relative efficacy of nab-paclitaxel compared with polysorbate-based docetaxel, nude mice bearing six different human tumor xenografts were treated with nab-paclitaxel (MX-1: 15 mg/kg, once a week for 3 weeks; LX-1, MDA-MB-231/HER2+, PC3, and HT29: 50 and 120 mg/kg, every 4 days three times ; MDA-MB-231: 120 and 180 mg/kg, every 4 days three times) and polysorbate-based docetaxel (15 mg/kg). HER2 and SPARC status were analyzed by RT-PCR and immunohistochemical staining. MDA-MB-231 and MX-1 breast and LX-1 lung cancers were HER2 negative and low in SPARC expression. Nab-paclitaxel at submaximum-tolerated dosage was significantly more effective than polysorbate-based docetaxel at its maximum-tolerated dosage in these three HER2-negative tumors. The HER2-positive tumors had variable SPARC expression, with MDA-MB-231/HER2+ <PC3 <HT29. In these HER2-positive tumors, nab-paclitaxel was equal to or better than polysorbate-based docetaxel in tumors with medium to high SPARC levels (PC3 and HT29), but not in MDA-MB-231/HER2+ tumors with low SPARC expression. These results demonstrated that the relative efficacy of nab-paclitaxel was significantly higher compared with polysorbate-based docetaxel in HER2-negative tumors (three of three) and in HER2-positive tumors with high levels of SPARC. HER2 and SPARC expression may be useful biomarkers in determining antitumor effectiveness for taxanes.

Clinical potential of new antiestrogens.

PURPOSE Based on the data and clinical experience derived from tamoxifen usage, the properties of an ideal antiestrogen is described that could have applications as a breast cancer preventative agent, long-term adjuvant therdpy, or as a treatment for osteoporosis. Each of the new antiestrogens currently being tested is discussed in terms of laboratory development, toxicology, pharmacology, endocrinology, and clinical evaluation. And each new compound is assessed according to the properties of an ideal antiestrogen. METHODS A review of all published reports was facilitated by the use of Medline computer searches. RESULTS Numerous compounds are being evaluated in clinical trials and can be categorized as triphenylethylenes or tamoxifen analogs, pure antiestrogens, and targeted antiestrogens. Several of these compounds may have fewer uterotropic properties and greater effects on maintaining bone density compared with tamoxifen; however, the clinical experience (ie, patient-years of treatment) with any of these compounds is minimal. CONCLUSION Although many of these compounds appear promising, further evaluation will be necessary to determine the role these compounds may serve as preventive agents, adjuvant therapies, treatments for advanced disease, or other medical indications such as osteoporosis.