Dataset Information

Phase II study of DHP107 (oral paclitaxel) in the first-line treatment of HER2-negative recurrent or metastatic breast cancer (OPTIMAL study).

ABSTRACT:

Background

Standard intravenous (IV) paclitaxel is associated with hypersensitivity/toxicity. Alternative IV formulations have improved tolerability but still require frequent hospital visits and IV infusion. DHP107 is a novel oral formulation of paclitaxel that is approved in South Korea for the treatment of gastric cancer.

Methods

This multicenter, phase II study using a Simon's two-stage design investigated the efficacy and safety of DHP107 200 mg/m² administered orally twice daily on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks for the first-line treatment of recurrent or metastatic HER2-negative breast cancer.

Results

Thirty-six patients were enrolled and 31 were assessable for efficacy. Patient median age was 57 years (range = 34-81) and 11 (31%) had triple-negative disease. A median of seven cycles (range = 1-28) of DHP107 was administered. Objective response rate was 55% (17 patients), all partial responses, according to the investigator's decision and independent central review (ICR), and 44% (4/9 patients) in those with triple-negative disease. Disease control rate (partial response and stable disease) was 74% (23 patients) according to the investigator's decision and ICR. In the intention-to-treat (ITT) population of all enrolled participants, the objective response rate was 50% (18/36 patients). Median progression-free survival was 8.9 months [95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.2-12.3) and median time to treatment failure was 8.0 months (95% CI: 4.2-10.0). DHP107 had an acceptable toxicity profile. All patients experienced treatment-emergent adverse events; the most common adverse events were decreased neutrophil count (81% all grades and 78% grade ⩾ 3) followed by peripheral sensory neuropathy (61% all grades and 8% grade 3). However, there was no febrile neutropenia or sepsis.

Conclusion

DHP107 showed promising efficacy and acceptable tolerability in this phase II study and is currently being investigated in the OPTIMAL phase III study (NCT03315364).

Trial registration

This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03315364.

SUBMITTER: Kim SB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8679020 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:We conducted an open-label, randomized, two-arm multi-center study to assess the efficacy and safety of paclitaxel versus paclitaxel + sorafenib in patients with locally advanced or metastatic HER2-negative breast cancer.Patients were randomly assigned to receive either paclitaxel monotherapy (80 mg/m2) weekly (3 weeks on, 1 week off) plus sorafenib 400 mg orally, twice a day taken continuously throughout 28 day cycles. Sorafenib dose was gradually escalated from a starting dose of 200 mg twice a day. The primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS).A pre-planned efficacy interim analysis was performed on the data of 60 patients, 30 patients in each treatment arm. Median PFS was estimated at 6.6 months (95% CI: 5.1 to 9.0) in patients randomized to single-agent paclitaxel (Arm A) and 5.6 months (95% CI: 3.8 to 6.5) in patients randomized to paclitaxel-sorafenib combination (Arm B) therapy. Contrary to the hypothesis, the treatment effect was statistically significant in favor of paclitaxel monotherapy (hazard ratio 1.80, 95% CI: 1.02 to 3.20; log-rank test P = 0.0409). It was decided to stop the trial early for futility. Median OS was also in favor of Arm A (20.7 months (95% CI: 16.4 to 26.7) versus 12.1 months (95% CI: 5.8 to 20.4) in Arm B. Clinical control was achieved in 28 patients (93.3%) in Arm A and in 21 patients 70.0% in Arm B. Overall response rate was met in 43.3% of patients in Arm A and in 40.0% in Arm B. Toxicities were increased in Arm B with higher rates of diarrhea, nausea, neutropenia, hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR) and anorexia, Grad 3 and 4 toxicities were rare.In this pre-planned interim analysis, paclitaxel-sorafenib combination therapy was not found to be superior to paclitaxel monotherapy with regard to the primary end point, progression-free survival. The trial was therefore discontinued early. There was no indication of more favorable outcomes for combination therapy in secondary efficacy end points. As expected, the safety and toxicity profile of the combination therapy was less favorable compared to monotherapy. Overall, this trial did not demonstrate that adding sorafenib to second- or third-line paclitaxel provides any clinical benefit to patients with HER2-negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer. Cautious dosing using a sorafenib ramp up schedule might have contributed to negative results.The study was registered at EudraCT (No 2009-018025-73) and retrospectively registered at Clinical trials.gov on March 17, 2011 ( NCT01320111 ).

Project description:Background Paclitaxel is commonly used as first-line chemotherapy for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients. However, with response rates of 21.5–53.7% and significant risk of peripheral neuropathy, there is need for better chemotherapy. Patients and methods This open-label phase II/III trial randomised HER2-negative MBC patients 1:1 to either 6 cycles of three-weekly cabazitaxel (25 mg/m2), or, weekly paclitaxel (80 mg/m2) over 18 weeks. The primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), time to response (TTR), overall survival (OS), safety and tolerability and quality of life (QoL). Results 158 patients were recruited. Comparing cabazitaxel to paclitaxel, median PFS was 6.7 vs 5.8 months (HR 0.87; 80%CI 0.70–1.08, P = 0.4). There was no difference in median OS (20.6 vs 18.2 months, HR 1.00; 95%CI 0.69–1.45, P = 0.99), ORR (41.8% vs 36.7%) or TTR (HR 1.09; 95%CI 0.68–1.75, P = 0.7). Grade ≥3 adverse events occurred in 41.8% on cabazitaxel and 46.8% on paclitaxel; the most common being neutropenia (16.5%) and febrile neutropenia (12.7%) cabazitaxel and neutropenia (8.9%) and lung infection (7.6%) paclitaxel. Peripheral neuropathy of any grade occurred in 54.5% paclitaxel vs 16.5% cabazitaxel. Mean EQ-5D-5L single index utility score (+0.05; 95%CI 0.004–0.09, P = 0.03) and visual analogue scale score (+7.7; 95%CI 3.1–12.3, P = 0.001) were higher in cabazitaxel vs paclitaxel. Conclusions Three-weekly cabazitaxel in HER2-negative MBC does not significantly improve PFS compared to weekly paclitaxel, although it has a lower risk of peripheral neuropathy with better patient reported QoL outcomes. It is well tolerated and requires fewer hospital visits. Graphical abstract Image 1 Highlights • 3 weekly Cabazitaxel does not significantly improve PFS versus weekly paclitaxel.• PFS and OS were similar between 3 weekly Cabazitaxel and weekly Paclitaxel.• Cabazitaxel had better overall patient reported health outcomes.• Cabazitaxel had a lower risk of peripheral neuropathy.• Three weekly Cabazitaxel requires fewer hospital visits than weekly Paclitaxel.