Luca Gianni1, Mauro Mansutti2, Antonio Anton3, Lourdes Calvo4, Giancarlo Bisagni5, Begoña Bermejo6, Vladimir Semiglazov7, Marc Thill8, Jose Ignacio Chacon9, Arlene Chan10, Serafin Morales11, Isabel Alvarez12, Arrate Plazaola13, Milvia Zambetti1, Andrew D Redfern14, Christian Dittrich15, Rebecca Alexandra Dent16, Domenico Magazzù17, Raffaella De Fato17, Pinuccia Valagussa17, Ignacio Tusquets18. 1. Department of Medical Oncology, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milano, Italy. 2. Department of Oncology, Azienda Sanitaria Universitaria Integrata, Udine, Italy. 3. Department of Medical Oncology, Miguel Servet University Hospital, Aragón Health Research Institute, Zaragoza, Spain. 4. Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de A Coruña, A Coruña, Spain. 5. IRCCS Arcispedale Santa Maria Nuova Azienda Ospedaliera di Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy. 6. Department of Medical Oncology, Hospital Clinico Universitario Valencia, Valencia, Spain. 7. NN Petrov Research Institute of Oncology, St Petersburg, Russia. 8. Agaplesion Markus Krankenhaus, Klinik für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe, Frankfurt am Main, Germany. 9. Department of Medical Oncology, Hospital Virgen de la Salud, Toledo, Spain. 10. Breast Cancer Research Centre, Western Australia & Curtin University, Perth, Australia. 11. Department of Medical Oncology, Hospital Universitario Arnau de Vilanova de Lleida, Lleida, Spain. 12. Department of Oncology, Hospital Universitario Donostia, San Sebastian, Spain. 13. Onkologikoa, Hospital Donostia, San Sebastián, Spain. 14. Department of Medical Oncology, Royal Perth Hospital, Perth, Australia. 15. Applied Cancer Research-Institution for Translational Research Vienna (ACR-ITR VIEnna) & Kaiser Franz Josef-Spital, Vienna, Austria. 16. Department of Medical Oncology, National Cancer Center Singapore, Singapore. 17. Fondazione Michelangelo, Milano, Italy. 18. Department of Medical Oncology, Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, Spain.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Studies of neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimens using anthracyclines followed by taxanes have reported a doubling of pathological complete remission (pCR) rates compared with anthracycline-based regimens alone. A reverse sequence did not reduce activity. Nab-paclitaxel is an albumin-bound nanoparticle of paclitaxel that allows for safe infusion without premedication, and its use led to a significantly higher rate of pCR in the GeparSepto trial. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether nab-paclitaxel improves the outcomes of early and locally advanced human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (ERBB2/HER2)-negative breast cancer compared with paclitaxel when delivered in a neoadjuvant setting. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this multicenter, open-label study, in collaboration with Grupo Español de Investigación en Cáncer de Mama (GEICAM) and Breast Cancer Research Center-Western Australia (BCRC-WA), patients with newly diagnosed and centrally confirmed ERBB2/HER2-negative breast cancer were recruited. Participants were randomly allocated to paclitaxel, 90 mg/m2 (349 patients), or nab-paclitaxel, 125 mg/m2 (346 patients). The 2 drugs were given on weeks 1, 2, and 3 followed by 1 week of rest for 4 cycles before 4 cycles of an anthracycline regimen per investigator choice. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was the rate of pCR, defined as absence of invasive cells in the breast and axillary nodes (ie, ypT0/is ypN0) at the time of surgery. A secondary end point was to assess tolerability and safety of the 2 regimens. RESULTS: From May 2013 to March 2015, 814 patients were registered to the study; 695 patients met central confirmation eligibility and were randomly allocated to receive either paclitaxel (349), or nab-paclitaxel (346) (median age, 50 years; range, 25-79 years). The intention-to-treat analysis of the primary end point pCR revealed that the improved pCR rate after nab-paclitaxel (22.5%) was not statistically significant compared with paclitaxel (18.6%; odds ratio [OR], 0.77; 95% CI, 0.52-1.13; P = .19). Overall, 38 of 335 patients (11.3%) 11.3% of patients had at least 1 serious adverse event in the paclitaxel arm and 54 of 337 patient (16.0%) in the nab-paclitaxel arm. Peripheral neuropathy of grade 3 or higher occurred in 6 of 335 patients (1.8%) and in 15 of 337 (4.5%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The improved rate of pCR after nab-paclitaxel was not statistically significant. The multivariate analysis revealed that tumor subtype (triple-negative vs luminal B-like) was the most significant factor (OR, 4.85; 95% CI, 3.28-7.18) influencing treatment outcome. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01822314.
IMPORTANCE: Studies of neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimens using anthracyclines followed by taxanes have reported a doubling of pathological complete remission (pCR) rates compared with anthracycline-based regimens alone. A reverse sequence did not reduce activity. Nab-paclitaxel is an albumin-bound nanoparticle of paclitaxel that allows for safe infusion without premedication, and its use led to a significantly higher rate of pCR in the GeparSepto trial. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether nab-paclitaxel improves the outcomes of early and locally advanced human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (ERBB2/HER2)-negative breast cancer compared with paclitaxel when delivered in a neoadjuvant setting. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this multicenter, open-label study, in collaboration with Grupo Español de Investigación en Cáncer de Mama (GEICAM) and Breast Cancer Research Center-Western Australia (BCRC-WA), patients with newly diagnosed and centrally confirmed ERBB2/HER2-negative breast cancer were recruited. Participants were randomly allocated to paclitaxel, 90 mg/m2 (349 patients), or nab-paclitaxel, 125 mg/m2 (346 patients). The 2 drugs were given on weeks 1, 2, and 3 followed by 1 week of rest for 4 cycles before 4 cycles of an anthracycline regimen per investigator choice. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was the rate of pCR, defined as absence of invasive cells in the breast and axillary nodes (ie, ypT0/is ypN0) at the time of surgery. A secondary end point was to assess tolerability and safety of the 2 regimens. RESULTS: From May 2013 to March 2015, 814 patients were registered to the study; 695 patients met central confirmation eligibility and were randomly allocated to receive either paclitaxel (349), or nab-paclitaxel (346) (median age, 50 years; range, 25-79 years). The intention-to-treat analysis of the primary end point pCR revealed that the improved pCR rate after nab-paclitaxel (22.5%) was not statistically significant compared with paclitaxel (18.6%; odds ratio [OR], 0.77; 95% CI, 0.52-1.13; P = .19). Overall, 38 of 335 patients (11.3%) 11.3% of patients had at least 1 serious adverse event in the paclitaxel arm and 54 of 337 patient (16.0%) in the nab-paclitaxel arm. Peripheral neuropathy of grade 3 or higher occurred in 6 of 335 patients (1.8%) and in 15 of 337 (4.5%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The improved rate of pCR after nab-paclitaxel was not statistically significant. The multivariate analysis revealed that tumor subtype (triple-negative vs luminal B-like) was the most significant factor (OR, 4.85; 95% CI, 3.28-7.18) influencing treatment outcome. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01822314.
Authors: Hope S Rugo; William T Barry; Alvaro Moreno-Aspitia; Alan P Lyss; Constance Cirrincione; Eleanor Leung; Erica L Mayer; Michael Naughton; Deborah Toppmeyer; Lisa A Carey; Edith A Perez; Clifford Hudis; Eric P Winer Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-06-08 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Eleftherios P Mamounas; John Bryant; Barry Lembersky; Louis Fehrenbacher; Scot M Sedlacek; Bernard Fisher; D Lawrence Wickerham; Greg Yothers; Atilla Soran; Norman Wolmark Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-05-16 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Patricia Cortazar; Lijun Zhang; Michael Untch; Keyur Mehta; Joseph P Costantino; Norman Wolmark; Hervé Bonnefoi; David Cameron; Luca Gianni; Pinuccia Valagussa; Sandra M Swain; Tatiana Prowell; Sibylle Loibl; D Lawrence Wickerham; Jan Bogaerts; Jose Baselga; Charles Perou; Gideon Blumenthal; Jens Blohmer; Eleftherios P Mamounas; Jonas Bergh; Vladimir Semiglazov; Robert Justice; Holger Eidtmann; Soonmyung Paik; Martine Piccart; Rajeshwari Sridhara; Peter A Fasching; Leen Slaets; Shenghui Tang; Bernd Gerber; Charles E Geyer; Richard Pazdur; Nina Ditsch; Priya Rastogi; Wolfgang Eiermann; Gunter von Minckwitz Journal: Lancet Date: 2014-02-14 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Helena M Earl; Anne-Laure Vallier; Louise Hiller; Nicola Fenwick; Jennie Young; Mahesh Iddawela; Jean Abraham; Luke Hughes-Davies; Ioannis Gounaris; Karen McAdam; Stephen Houston; Tamas Hickish; Anthony Skene; Stephen Chan; Susan Dean; Diana Ritchie; Robert Laing; Mark Harries; Christopher Gallagher; Gordon Wishart; Janet Dunn; Elena Provenzano; Carlos Caldas Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2013-12-19 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Erin R Gardner; William L Dahut; Charity D Scripture; Jacquin Jones; Jeanny B Aragon-Ching; Neil Desai; Michael J Hawkins; Alex Sparreboom; William D Figg Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2008-07-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: L Gianni; C M Kearns; A Giani; G Capri; L Viganó; A Lacatelli; G Bonadonna; M J Egorin Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1995-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Miguel Martín; José I Chacón; Antonio Antón; Arrate Plazaola; Elena García-Martínez; Miguel A Seguí; Pedro Sánchez-Rovira; José Palacios; Lourdes Calvo; Carmen Esteban; Enrique Espinosa; Agusti Barnadas; Norberto Batista; Angel Guerrero; Montserrat Muñoz; Estefania Romio; César Rodríguez-Martín; Rosalía Caballero; María I Casas; Federico Rojo; Eva Carrasco; Silvia Antolín Journal: Oncologist Date: 2017-07-12
Authors: Ramon Colomer; Cristina Saura; Pedro Sánchez-Rovira; Tomás Pascual; Isabel T Rubio; Octavio Burgués; Lourdes Marcos; César A Rodríguez; Miguel Martín; Ana Lluch Journal: Oncologist Date: 2019-02-01