BACKGROUND: Effective treatments for dogs with advanced stage mast cell tumors (MCT) remain a pressing need. A micellar formulation of paclitaxel (paclitaxel [micellar]) has shown promise in early-phase studies. HYPOTHESIS/ OBJECTIVES: The objective was to demonstrate greater activity for paclitaxel (micellar) compared with lomustine. The null hypothesis was μ(p) = μ(L) (ie, proportion of responders for the paclitaxel [micellar] and lomustine groups, respectively). ANIMALS: Two hundred and fifty-two dogs with advanced stage nonresectable grade 2 or 3 MCT. METHODS: Prospective multicenter randomized double-blind positive-controlled clinical trial. The primary endpoint was confirmed overall response rate (CORR) at 14 weeks. A secondary endpoint, biologic observed response rate (BORR), also was calculated. Safety was assessed by the characterization and grading of adverse events (AE). RESULTS: Overall CORR (7% versus 1%; P = .048) and BORR (23% versus 10%; P = .012) were greater for paclitaxel (micellar) compared with lomustine. Paclitaxel (micellar)-treated dogs were 6.5 times more likely to have a confirmed response and 3.1 times more likely to experience a biologic observed response. The majority of AE with paclitaxel (micellar) were transient and clinically manageable. Twenty-seven dogs (33%) receiving lomustine were discontinued because of hepatopathy compared with 3 dogs (2%) receiving paclitaxel (micellar) (P < .0001; odds ratio 26.7). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: Paclitaxel (micellar)'s activity and safety profile are superior to lomustine. The addition of an active and novel taxane to the veterinary armamentarium could fill a substantial need and, as its mechanism of action and AE profile do not overlap with currently available TKI, its availability could lead to effective combination protocols.
BACKGROUND: Effective treatments for dogs with advanced stage mast cell tumors (MCT) remain a pressing need. A micellar formulation of paclitaxel (paclitaxel [micellar]) has shown promise in early-phase studies. HYPOTHESIS/ OBJECTIVES: The objective was to demonstrate greater activity for paclitaxel (micellar) compared with lomustine. The null hypothesis was μ(p) = μ(L) (ie, proportion of responders for the paclitaxel [micellar] and lomustine groups, respectively). ANIMALS: Two hundred and fifty-two dogs with advanced stage nonresectable grade 2 or 3 MCT. METHODS: Prospective multicenter randomized double-blind positive-controlled clinical trial. The primary endpoint was confirmed overall response rate (CORR) at 14 weeks. A secondary endpoint, biologic observed response rate (BORR), also was calculated. Safety was assessed by the characterization and grading of adverse events (AE). RESULTS: Overall CORR (7% versus 1%; P = .048) and BORR (23% versus 10%; P = .012) were greater for paclitaxel (micellar) compared with lomustine. Paclitaxel (micellar)-treated dogs were 6.5 times more likely to have a confirmed response and 3.1 times more likely to experience a biologic observed response. The majority of AE with paclitaxel (micellar) were transient and clinically manageable. Twenty-seven dogs (33%) receiving lomustine were discontinued because of hepatopathy compared with 3 dogs (2%) receiving paclitaxel (micellar) (P < .0001; odds ratio 26.7). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: Paclitaxel (micellar)'s activity and safety profile are superior to lomustine. The addition of an active and novel taxane to the veterinary armamentarium could fill a substantial need and, as its mechanism of action and AE profile do not overlap with currently available TKI, its availability could lead to effective combination protocols.
Authors: P Therasse; S G Arbuck; E A Eisenhauer; J Wanders; R S Kaplan; L Rubinstein; J Verweij; M Van Glabbeke; A T van Oosterom; M C Christian; S G Gwyther Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-02-02 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: K M Rassnick; A S Moore; L E Williams; C A London; P P Kintzer; S J Engler; S M Cotter Journal: J Vet Intern Med Date: 1999 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 3.333
Authors: K A Skorupski; G M Hammond; A M Irish; M S Kent; T A Guerrero; C O Rodriguez; D W Griffin Journal: J Vet Intern Med Date: 2011-06-20 Impact factor: 3.333
Authors: E A Eisenhauer; P Therasse; J Bogaerts; L H Schwartz; D Sargent; R Ford; J Dancey; S Arbuck; S Gwyther; M Mooney; L Rubinstein; L Shankar; L Dodd; R Kaplan; D Lacombe; J Verweij Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: V J Poirier; A E Hershey; K E Burgess; B Phillips; M M Turek; L J Forrest; L Beaver; D M Vail Journal: J Vet Intern Med Date: 2004 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 3.333
Authors: K M Rassnick; D B Bailey; A B Flory; C E Balkman; M A Kiselow; J L Intile; K Autio Journal: J Vet Intern Med Date: 2008 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 3.333
Authors: A Lejeune; K Skorupski; S Frazier; I Vanhaezebrouck; R B Rebhun; C M Reilly; C O Rodriguez Journal: Vet Comp Oncol Date: 2013-05-31 Impact factor: 2.613
Authors: J H Burton; R O Venable; D M Vail; L E Williams; C A Clifford; S M Axiak-Bechtel; A C Avery; D H Thamm Journal: J Vet Intern Med Date: 2015-06-25 Impact factor: 3.333
Authors: Xóchitl Zambrano-Estrada; Brianda Landaverde-Quiroz; Andrés A Dueñas-Bocanegra; Marco A De Paz-Campos; Gerardo Hernández-Alberto; Benjamín Solorio-Perusquia; Manuel Trejo-Mandujano; Laura Pérez-Guerrero; Evangelina Delgado-González; Brenda Anguiano; Carmen Aceves Journal: BMC Vet Res Date: 2018-03-12 Impact factor: 2.741
Authors: K M Weishaar; E J Ehrhart; A C Avery; J B Charles; R E Elmslie; D M Vail; C A London; C A Clifford; J C Eickhoff; D H Thamm Journal: J Vet Intern Med Date: 2017-11-30 Impact factor: 3.333
Authors: Mousa A Alghuthaymi; Atef A Hassan; Anu Kalia; Rasha M H Sayed El Ahl; Ahmed A M El Hamaky; Patrik Oleksak; Kamil Kuca; Kamel A Abd-Elsalam Journal: J Fungi (Basel) Date: 2021-06-22