BACKGROUND: This study was performed to compare efficacy and toxicity profiles of paclitaxel using 3-hour versus 96-hour infusion schedules. METHODS:Patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) were randomly assigned to receive paclitaxel starting at a dose of 250 mg/m(2) intravenously (iv) over 3 hours every 21 days or paclitaxel starting at a dose of 140 mg/m(2) iv over 96 hours every 21 days. Stratification variables included number of prior chemotherapy regimens and previous response to anthracyclines. Response was assessed every 2 cycles using bidimensional measurements. Patients were allowed to cross over at disease progression or therapy intolerance. RESULTS: A total of 214 patients received therapy (107 patients per arm). Response rates were similar: 23.4% in the 3-hour arm and 29.9% in the 96-hour arm (P = .28). The median duration of response (8.9 months vs 5.7 months; P = .75) and progression-free survival (5.0 months vs 3.8 months; P = .17) slightly favored the 96-hour arm. Overall survival was slightly longer in the 3-hour arm (14.2 months vs 12.7 months; P = .57). One patient who crossed over to the 96-hour arm (N = 18) developed a partial response; no response was noted with crossover to the 3-hour arm (N = 10). Myalgia/arthralgia and neuropathy were more frequent in the 3-hour arm, whereas mucositis, neutropenic fever/infection, and diarrhea were more common in the 96-hour arm. CONCLUSIONS:Paclitaxel given by 3-hour or 96-hour infusion was active in MBC. The 96-hour paclitaxel regimen did not significantly improve response or time to disease progression, was more cumbersome to administer, and was associated with greater myelosuppression (but less neuropathy and myalgia) compared with the 3-hour schedule.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: This study was performed to compare efficacy and toxicity profiles of paclitaxel using 3-hour versus 96-hour infusion schedules. METHODS:Patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) were randomly assigned to receive paclitaxel starting at a dose of 250 mg/m(2) intravenously (iv) over 3 hours every 21 days or paclitaxel starting at a dose of 140 mg/m(2) iv over 96 hours every 21 days. Stratification variables included number of prior chemotherapy regimens and previous response to anthracyclines. Response was assessed every 2 cycles using bidimensional measurements. Patients were allowed to cross over at disease progression or therapy intolerance. RESULTS: A total of 214 patients received therapy (107 patients per arm). Response rates were similar: 23.4% in the 3-hour arm and 29.9% in the 96-hour arm (P = .28). The median duration of response (8.9 months vs 5.7 months; P = .75) and progression-free survival (5.0 months vs 3.8 months; P = .17) slightly favored the 96-hour arm. Overall survival was slightly longer in the 3-hour arm (14.2 months vs 12.7 months; P = .57). One patient who crossed over to the 96-hour arm (N = 18) developed a partial response; no response was noted with crossover to the 3-hour arm (N = 10). Myalgia/arthralgia and neuropathy were more frequent in the 3-hour arm, whereas mucositis, neutropenic fever/infection, and diarrhea were more common in the 96-hour arm. CONCLUSIONS:Paclitaxel given by 3-hour or 96-hour infusion was active in MBC. The 96-hour paclitaxel regimen did not significantly improve response or time to disease progression, was more cumbersome to administer, and was associated with greater myelosuppression (but less neuropathy and myalgia) compared with the 3-hour schedule.
Authors: J M Nabholtz; K Gelmon; M Bontenbal; M Spielmann; G Catimel; P Conte; U Klaassen; M Namer; J Bonneterre; P Fumoleau; B Winograd Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1996-06 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: R E Smith; A M Brown; E P Mamounas; S J Anderson; B C Lembersky; J H Atkins; H R Shibata; L Baez; P A DeFusco; E Davila; S J Tipping; J D Bearden; M P Thirlwell Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1999-11 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: W H Wilson; S L Berg; G Bryant; R E Wittes; S Bates; A Fojo; S M Steinberg; B R Goldspiel; J Herdt; J O'Shaughnessy Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1994-08 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Andrew D Seidman; Donald Berry; Constance Cirrincione; Lyndsay Harris; Hyman Muss; P Kelly Marcom; Grandella Gipson; Harold Burstein; Diana Lake; Charles L Shapiro; Peter Ungaro; Larry Norton; Eric Winer; Clifford Hudis Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-04-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Eric P Winer; Donald A Berry; Susan Woolf; David Duggan; Alice Kornblith; Lyndsay N Harris; Richard A Michaelson; Jeffrey A Kirshner; Gini F Fleming; Michael C Perry; Mark L Graham; Stewart A Sharp; Roger Keresztes; I Craig Henderson; Clifford Hudis; Hyman Muss; Larry Norton Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-06-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Stefania Gori; Anna Maria Mosconi; Carlo Basurtol; Roberta Cherubinil; Verena De Angelis; Maurizio Tonato; Mariantonietta Colozza Journal: Tumori Date: 2002 Nov-Dec
Authors: Brandi N Reeves; Shaker R Dakhil; Jeff A Sloan; Sherry L Wolf; Kelli N Burger; Arif Kamal; Nguyet A Le-Lindqwister; Gamini S Soori; Anthony J Jaslowski; Joseph Kelaghan; Paul J Novotny; Daniel H Lachance; Charles L Loprinzi Journal: Cancer Date: 2012-03-13 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Charles L Loprinzi; Brandi N Reeves; Shaker R Dakhil; Jeff A Sloan; Sherry L Wolf; Kelli N Burger; Arif Kamal; Nguyet A Le-Lindqwister; Gamini S Soori; Anthony J Jaslowski; Paul J Novotny; Daniel H Lachance Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-03-07 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ricardo Fernandes; Sasha Mazzarello; Brian Hutton; Risa Shorr; Habeeb Majeed; Mohammed Fk Ibrahim; Carmel Jacobs; Michael Ong; Mark Clemons Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2016-05-05 Impact factor: 3.603