New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - what are my options?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

what are my options?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Author
123Donna View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: Aug 24 2009
Location: St. Louis, MO
Status: Offline
Points: 13043
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote 123Donna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jun 19 2019 at 9:00pm
I found this information:

ONS 2018: Peripheral Neuropathy Is More Severe With Paclitaxel Than With Docetaxel in Patients With Breast Cancer

PracticeUpdate Editorial Team

May 17, 2018—Washington, DC—Peripheral neuropathy could be more severe with paclitaxel than with docetaxel in patients with breast cancer.

This finding from a secondary data analysis was reported at the presented at the Oncology Nursing Society 43rd Annual Congress, from May 17 – 20.

Ya-Ning Chan, MS, of National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan, explained that taxanes are among the most common cytotoxic drugs used in breast cancer treatment.

Peripheral neuropathy associated with taxanes may influence patients’ functional status and quality of life. Studies have focused, however, on peripheral neuropathy induced by paclitaxel, which is much more severe than that induced by docetaxel.

Data on comparison of the incidence and severity of peripheral neuropathy between the two drugs are limited.1

https://www.practiceupdate.com/content/ons-2018-peripheral-neuropathy-is-more-severe-with-paclitaxel-than-with-docetaxel-in-patients-with-breast-cancer/67597


Abraxane Offers More Benefits Than Taxol When Given Before Surgery to Treat Early-Stage Disease

Abraxane (chemical name: albumin-bound or nab-paclitaxel) is a different form of paclitaxel than Taxol (chemical name: paclitaxel). Both medicines are taxanes, a powerful type of chemotherapy medicine that can stop cancer cells from repairing themselves and making new cells.

Taxol uses a solvent to dissolve its main ingredients so the medicine can enter the bloodstream. These solvents can make Taxol harder to tolerate while being given. Usually women take medicine before receiving Taxol to minimize any reactions to the solvents. Abraxane doesn’t use a solvent, which can make it easier to tolerate and also means that women don’t need to take medicine before receiving it.

https://www.breastcancer.org/research-news/abraxane-better-than-taxol-before-surgery


Updates of Key Studies Differ on Relative Benefit of (Abraxane) Nab-Paclitaxel in Breast Cancer

TWO IMPORTANT STUDIES, both updates of earlier findings and presented at the 2017 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, provided different findings as to the relative benefit of nanoparticle albumin-bound (nab)-paclitaxel (Abraxane), vs solvent-based paclitaxel in breast cancer. 

C. Kent Osborne, MD, FASCO

C. Kent Osborne, MD, FASCO

“The two studies were somewhat different in their results. In one, GeparSepto, nab-paclitaxel looked better. In the other, CALGB 40502, it did not. Where nab-paclitaxel fits into the current treatment armamentarium, I am not sure,” C. Kent Osborne, MD, FASCO, Director of the Dan L. Duncan Cancer Center at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, told The ASCO Post

GeparSepto Neoadjuvant Trial 

THE PHASE III GeparSepto study was conducted at 69 cancer centers by the German Breast Group. The first survival analysis was presented in San Antonio by Andreas Schneeweiss, MD, of the University of Heidelberg in Germany.1 

GeparSepto evaluated neoadjuvant chemotherapy using weekly nab-paclitaxel vs solvent-based paclitaxel, followed by additional chemotherapy, in 1,204 high-risk early breast cancer patients (stages cT2–cT4a-d and cT1 with additional risk factors). The primary endpoint was achievement of a pathologic complete response. 

Andreas Schneeweiss, MD

Andreas Schneeweiss, MD

Not only were the rates of pathologic complete response higher with nab-paclitaxel, but this correlated with an improvement in disease-free survival, compared to standard paclitaxel, Dr. Schneeweiss reported. 

Patients were randomized to receive either 12 weekly cycles of solvent-based paclitaxel at 80 mg/m2, or 12 weekly cycles of nab-paclitaxel at 150 mg/m2, each followed by 4 cycles of epirubicin/cyclophosphamide (EC). In addition to chemotherapy, all patients received standard adjuvant therapy, and those with HER2-positive disease also received trastuzumab (Herceptin) plus pertuzumab (Perjeta). 

At a preplanned safety interim analysis, after 464 patients were enrolled, the dosage of nab-paclitaxel was reduced to 125 mg/ m2 to ameliorate the occurrence of neuropathy associated with the initial dosing. This resulted in a reduction in grade 3/4 neuropathy from 15% to 8%, Dr. Schneeweiss said. 

Response and Survival Data 

INVESTIGATORS PREVIOUSLY reported that the substitution of nab-paclitaxel for solvent-based paclitaxel significantly increased the rate of pathologic complete response from 29% to 38% (P < .001), but other outcomes had not been determined.

“It had not yet been shown whether this 9% improvement in pathologic complete response would translate into an improvement in survival,” Dr. Schneeweiss said. 

The analysis of disease-free survival occurred after 244 events, at a median follow-up of 49 months, at which time 141 events were noted with standard paclitaxel vs 103 with nab-paclitaxel. This resulted in an absolute improvement in disease-free survival of 6.4% at 3 years (hazard ratio


= 0.69, P = .0044; Table 1). 

Only 16 patients would need to be treated with nab-paclitaxel to prevent one disease-free survival event within 3 years—“a number that is important because, so far, 61% of the disease-free survival events in GeparSepto have been distant relapses,” he commented. 

Nab-paclitaxel’s effect was most “pronounced,” he said, in patients with triple-negative breast cancer, whose 3-year disease-free survival rate was 83.1% with nab-paclitaxel vs 73.4% with standard paclitaxel (HR = 0.66, P = .0694). The benefit was nearly as great for the hormone receptor–positive/HER2-negative subset, of whom 86.3% vs 78.6%, respectively (HR = 0.71, P = .0660), were disease-free at 3 years. 

“Probably due to the low number of events, those differences did not reach formal statistical significance; however, there’s a strong trend,” he observed. 

The greater improvement with nab-paclitaxel was true for all subgroups, and the interaction test for Ki67 was significant. Patients with either high or low baseline Ki67 derived benefit from nab-paclitaxel, he pointed out. 

The overall survival data are not mature, but at 4 years, 89.6% of the nab-paclitaxel arm and 87.0% of the standard paclitaxel arm were alive. 

“GeparSepto confirms the surrogate value of pathologic complete response for disease-free survival,” he said. Patients who achieved a pathologic complete response, regardless of whether they received nab-paclitaxel or solvent-based paclitaxel, had an improved and favorable disease-free and overall survival, but those who did not achieve a pathologic complete response had significantly better outcomes if they had received nab-paclitaxel. 

“This interesting finding, if it is real, argues for an effect of nab-paclitaxel on disease-free survival beyond its effect on improving pathologic complete responses,” Dr. Schneeweiss suggested. 

CALGB 40502/NCCTG N063H 

IN AN UPDATE of the CALGB 40502/NCCTG N063H trial, presented in San Antonio by Hope Rugo, MD, FASCO, Director of the Breast Oncology Clinical Trials Program at the University of California, San Francisco, previously untreated metastatic breast cancer patients fared better with standard paclitaxel than with nab-paclitaxel, though nab-paclitaxel was more effective in triple-negative disease.3 The study also confirmed the efficacy of a weekly taxane regimen. 

Hope Rugo, MD, FASCO

Hope Rugo, MD, FASCO

The phase III trial randomized 799 patients between 2008 and 2011 to receive paclitaxel, nab-paclitaxel, or ixabepilone (Ixempra). Most patients also received concurrent bevacizumab (Avastin), which was approved for breast cancer at the time. Nab-paclitaxel was given at a dose of 150 mg/m2 weekly (per the manufacturer’s request), a high dose that is no longer used. Paclitaxel was administered at 90 mg/ m2 and ixabepilone, at 16 mg/m2 weekly. 

In the previously reported primary analysis, neither experimental arm demonstrated superiority to paclitaxel, and ixabepilone proved to be significantly inferior. At this year’s meeting, Dr. Rugo presented outcomes after a median follow-up of 5.5 years. 

“The two studies were somewhat different in their results…. Where nab-paclitaxel fits into the current treatment armamentarium, I am not sure. The differences by receptor status are interesting but need to be validated.”
— C. Kent Osborne, MD, FASCO

Tweet this quote

In the new post hoc analysis, with 4 additional years of follow-up, some differences according to breast cancer subtype have emerged. Nab-paclitaxel showed promising improvements in overall survival and progression-free survival in triple-negative disease, but standard paclitaxel performed better in patients with hormone receptor–positive disease, Dr. Rugo reported. 

“In this post hoc subset analysis, there was significant interaction with receptor status between nab-paclitaxel and paclitaxel for progression-free and overall survival,” Dr. Rugo said. “Further investigation is required to explain and validate the subtype specificity seen in this exploration.” 

Updated Analysis 

ACROSS THE FULL study population, median progression-free survival was similar for the two taxanes: 10.8 months with standard paclitaxel and 9.2 months with nab-paclitaxel (HR = 1.13, P = .16). Median overall survival was also similar: 27.1 months with paclitaxel and 24.2 months with nab-paclitaxel (HR = 1.10, P = .33). The ixabepilone arm, which was closed early due to futility, was inferior across all efficacy measures. 

“Our updated results show that progression-free survival for nab-paclitaxel and paclitaxel are still similar, and ixabepilone is still inferior to paclitaxel. At the time of the primary analysis, we saw no difference in overall survival in any of the arms, but in this updated analysis, ixabepilone is inferior to paclitaxel, and with the weekly dosing we used in this trial, nab-paclitaxel still results in overall survival similar to that seen with standard paclitaxel,” she said. 

By subset, however, interesting differences have been seen, and the multivariate models for progression-free and overall survival showed significant interactions between treatment and hormone receptor status. In patients with hormone receptor– positive/HER2-negative disease, standard paclitaxel appeared more effective, whereas in triple-negative disease, the opposite was observed (Table 2). Given the limitations of the post hoc assessment, these findings were not powered for statistical significance, Dr. Rugo emphasized. 

“Numerically, nab-paclitaxel is associated with a 1-month longer progression-free survival, with a hazard ratio of 0.79, but we are not powered to see statistically significant differences in this post hoc analysis,” she said. “Interestingly, in the hormone receptor–positive/HER2-negative subgroup, paclitaxel results in numerically longer progression-free survival (12.2 months) and the longest overall survival (33.2 months)…. Nab-paclitaxel and ixabepilone were clearly inferior to [standard] paclitaxel in this subset.” 

By receptor status, in the multivariate model, hazard ratios for the comparison of nab-paclitaxel to paclitaxel were as follows: for hormone receptor– negative patients, 0.71 for progression-free survival (P = .052) and 0.73 for overall survival (P = .078) and for hormone receptor–positive patients, 1.35 for progression-free survival (P = .0047) and 1.30 for overall survival (P = .027). 

Grade ≥ 3 adverse events were experienced by 84% in the nab-paclitaxel arm vs 60% in the paclitaxel group. Grade ≥ 3 sensory neuropathy occurred in 27% of those treated with nab-paclitaxel and grade ≥ 3 motor neuropathy occurred in 10%, compared with 18% and 3%, respectively, for standard paclitaxel. Additionally, 26% of 

patients discontinued treatment with nab-paclitaxel due to toxicity. For 68% of patients in the nab-paclitaxel arm, the drug was dose-reduced, mostly to 125 mg/m2

“Adverse events, discontinuations, and dose reductions were more frequent with weekly nab-paclitaxel dosed at 150 mg/m2. This dose should not be used any further in patients with breast cancer,” Dr. Rugo emphasized. She noted that in GeparSepto, a dose of 125 mg/m2 resulted in less toxicity than the higher dose and similar rates of pathologic complete response. 

In an interview with The ASCO Post, Dr. Rugo said the study “has clearly shown that weekly paclitaxel is better than every- 3-week paclitaxel [based on historical data], and it continues to be a well-tolerated and efficacious treatment for metastatic breast cancer.” 

The other main finding is the “intriguing” benefit seen for nab-paclitaxel in triple-negative breast cancer, especially since it corresponds with GeparSepto data, she commented. “There does appear to be some improvement in efficacy with this drug,” she said. “We showed there may be an advantage to either the dose intensity or the type of chemotherapy in triple-negative breast cancer…. Patients did better with nab-paclitaxel, but it’s hypothesis-generating only.”

https://www.ascopost.com/issues/february-10-2018/updates-of-key-studies-differ-on-relative-benefit-of-nab-paclitaxel-in-breast-cancer/


DX IDC TNBC 6/09 age 49, Stage 1,Grade 3, 1.5cm,0/5Nodes,KI-67 48%,BRCA-,6/09bi-mx, recon, T/C X4(9/09)
11/10 Recur IM node, Gem,Carb,Iniparib 12/10,MRI NED 2/11,IMRT Radsx40,CT NED11/13,MRI NED3/15

Back to Top
sophie View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: May 25 2019
Location: philadelphia
Status: Offline
Points: 20
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote sophie Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jun 19 2019 at 9:55pm
donna,

Thank you for the article. If I understand correctly, does it mean Abraxane has more severe damage in Neology vs taxol? Regarding benefit of treating breast cancer, Abraxane has better Survivor rate than taxol?

Sophie 


Back to Top
sophie View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: May 25 2019
Location: philadelphia
Status: Offline
Points: 20
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote sophie Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jun 19 2019 at 10:09pm
Kelly,

My current oncology doesn’t know I will be switching for the next treatment, so this is my last treatment with him of getting Taxol bi-weekly ... and surprisingly I had the severe Neology impact, hence he recommended of 3 options, and he prefer texoter...

You are right, I need to find a TNBc specialist but apparently it seems impossible to get in touch with Anderson so kind of stuck now...

Sophie 
Back to Top
123Donna View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: Aug 24 2009
Location: St. Louis, MO
Status: Offline
Points: 13043
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote 123Donna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jun 19 2019 at 10:28pm
Sophie,

I need to re-read it, but I think the neuropathy issue for nab-pacitaxel (abraxane) was due to the too high dose in the clinical study.

"The other main finding is the “intriguing” benefit seen for nab-paclitaxel in triple-negative breast cancer, especially since it corresponds with GeparSepto data, she commented. “There does appear to be some improvement in efficacy with this drug,” she said. “We showed there may be an advantage to either the dose intensity or the type of chemotherapy in triple-negative breast cancer…. Patients did better with nab-paclitaxel, but it’s hypothesis-generating only.”
DX IDC TNBC 6/09 age 49, Stage 1,Grade 3, 1.5cm,0/5Nodes,KI-67 48%,BRCA-,6/09bi-mx, recon, T/C X4(9/09)
11/10 Recur IM node, Gem,Carb,Iniparib 12/10,MRI NED 2/11,IMRT Radsx40,CT NED11/13,MRI NED3/15

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.