PURPOSE:Abraxane (ABI-007) is a 130-nm albumin-bound (nab) particle formulation of paclitaxel, devoid of any additional excipients. We hypothesized that this change in formulation alters the systemic disposition of paclitaxel compared with conventional solvent-based formulations (sb-paclitaxel; Taxol), and leads to improved tolerability of the drug. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with malignant solid tumors were randomized to receive the recommended single-agent dose of nab-paclitaxel (260 mg/m(2) as a 30-minute infusion) or sb-paclitaxel (175 mg/m(2) as a 3-hour infusion). After cycle 1, patients crossed over to the alternate treatment. Pharmacokinetic studies were carried out for the first cycle of sb-paclitaxel and the first two cycles of nab-paclitaxel. RESULTS:Seventeen patients were treated, with 14 receiving at least one cycle each of nab-paclitaxel and sb-paclitaxel. No change in nab-paclitaxel pharmacokinetics was found between the first and second cycles (P = 0.95), suggesting limited intrasubject variability. Total drug exposure was comparable between the two formulations (P = 0.55) despite the dose difference. However, exposure to unbound paclitaxel was significantly higher after nab-paclitaxel administration, due to the increased free fraction (0.063 +/- 0.021 versus 0.024 +/- 0.009; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: This study shows that paclitaxel disposition is subject to considerable variability depending on the formulation used. Because systemic exposure to unbound paclitaxel is likely a driving force behind tumoral uptake, these findings explain, at least in part, previous observations that the administration of nab-paclitaxel is associated with augmented antitumor efficacy compared with solvent-based paclitaxel.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Abraxane (ABI-007) is a 130-nm albumin-bound (nab) particle formulation of paclitaxel, devoid of any additional excipients. We hypothesized that this change in formulation alters the systemic disposition of paclitaxel compared with conventional solvent-based formulations (sb-paclitaxel; Taxol), and leads to improved tolerability of the drug. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with malignant solid tumors were randomized to receive the recommended single-agent dose of nab-paclitaxel (260 mg/m(2) as a 30-minute infusion) or sb-paclitaxel (175 mg/m(2) as a 3-hour infusion). After cycle 1, patients crossed over to the alternate treatment. Pharmacokinetic studies were carried out for the first cycle of sb-paclitaxel and the first two cycles of nab-paclitaxel. RESULTS: Seventeen patients were treated, with 14 receiving at least one cycle each of nab-paclitaxel and sb-paclitaxel. No change in nab-paclitaxel pharmacokinetics was found between the first and second cycles (P = 0.95), suggesting limited intrasubject variability. Total drug exposure was comparable between the two formulations (P = 0.55) despite the dose difference. However, exposure to unbound paclitaxel was significantly higher after nab-paclitaxel administration, due to the increased free fraction (0.063 +/- 0.021 versus 0.024 +/- 0.009; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: This study shows that paclitaxel disposition is subject to considerable variability depending on the formulation used. Because systemic exposure to unbound paclitaxel is likely a driving force behind tumoral uptake, these findings explain, at least in part, previous observations that the administration of nab-paclitaxel is associated with augmented antitumor efficacy compared with solvent-based paclitaxel.
Authors: Nuhad K Ibrahim; Neil Desai; Sewa Legha; Patrick Soon-Shiong; Richard L Theriault; Edgardo Rivera; Bita Esmaeli; Sigrid E Ring; Agop Bedikian; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Julie A Ellerhorst Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Hans Gelderblom; Klaus Mross; Albert J ten Tije; Dirk Behringer; Stephan Mielke; Desirée M van Zomeren; Jaap Verweij; Alex Sparreboom Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-01-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: A Henningsson; A Sparreboom; M Sandström; A Freijs; R Larsson; J Bergh; P Nygren; M O Karlsson Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: H J G Desirée van den Bongard; E Marleen Kemper; Olaf van Tellingen; Hilde Rosing; Ron A A Mathôt; Jan H M Schellens; Jos H Beijnen Journal: Anal Biochem Date: 2004-01-01 Impact factor: 3.365
Authors: Robert L Coleman; William E Brady; D Scott McMeekin; Peter G Rose; John T Soper; Samuel S Lentz; James S Hoffman; Mark S Shahin Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2011-04-15 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Annemieke J M Nieuweboer; Shuiying Hu; Chunshan Gui; Bruno Hagenbuch; Inge M Ghobadi Moghaddam-Helmantel; Alice A Gibson; Peter de Bruijn; Ron H J Mathijssen; Alex Sparreboom Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2014-04-22 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Alexandria Turner; Danielle R Bond; Quan V Vuong; Anita Chalmers; Emma L Beckett; Judith Weidenhofer; Christopher J Scarlett Journal: Mol Biol Rep Date: 2020-02-17 Impact factor: 2.316
Authors: Francesco Di Costanzo; Silvia Gasperoni; Virginia Rotella; Federica Di Costanzo Journal: Onco Targets Ther Date: 2009-02-18 Impact factor: 4.147