Treatment with nanosomal paclitaxel lipid suspension versus conventional paclitaxel in metastatic breast cancer patients - a multicenter, randomized, comparative, phase II/III clinical study.

Background: A novel nanosomal paclitaxel lipid suspension (NPLS), free from Cremophor EL (CrEL) and ethanol, was developed to address the solvent-related toxicities associated with conventional paclitaxel formulation. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of NPLS versus CrEL-based paclitaxel (conventional paclitaxel) in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Design: A prospective, open-label, randomized, multiple-dose, parallel, phase II/III study. Methods: Adult (18-65 years) female patients with MBC who had previously failed at least one line of chemotherapy were randomized (2:2:1) to NPLS 175 mg/m2 every 3 weeks (Q3W, n = 48, arm A), NPLS 80 mg/m2 every week (QW, n = 45, arm B) without premedication or conventional paclitaxel (Taxol®, manufactured by Bristol-Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ, USA) 175 mg/m2 Q3W (n = 27, arm C) with premedication. In the extension study, an additional 54 patients were randomized (2:1) to arm A (n = 37) or arm C (n = 17). Results: Pooled data from the primary study and its extension phase included 174 patients. The primary endpoint was the overall response rate (ORR). As per intent-to-treat analysis, ORR was significantly better in the NPLS QW arm as compared to conventional paclitaxel [44.4% (20/45) versus 22.7% (10/44), (p = 0.04)]. An improvement in ORR with NPLS Q3W versus conventional paclitaxel arm [29.4% (25/85) versus 22.7% (10/44)] (p = 0.53) was observed. Disease control rates observed were improved with NPLS Q3W versus conventional paclitaxel Q3W (77.7% versus 72.7%, p = 0.66) and with NPLS QW versus conventional paclitaxel Q3W (84.4% versus 72.7%, p = 0.20), although not significant. A lower incidence of grade III/IV peripheral sensory neuropathy, vomiting, and dyspnea was reported with NPLS Q3W versus conventional paclitaxel Q3W arms. Conclusion: NPLS demonstrated an improved tumor response rate and a favorable safety profile versus conventional paclitaxel. NPLS 80 mg/m2 QW demonstrated a significantly better response versus conventional paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 Q3W. Trial registration: Clinical Trial Registry-India (CTRI), CTRI/2010/091/001344 Registered on: 18 October 2010 (https://ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/pmaindet2.php?EncHid=MjEzNQ==&Enc=&userName=CTRI/2010/091/001344), CTRI/2015/07/006062 Registered on: 31 July 2015 (https://ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/pmaindet2.php?EncHid=MTE2Mjc=&Enc=&userName=CTRI/2015/07/006062).

Role of nanosomal paclitaxel lipid suspension (NPLS) in the treatment of patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) Why was the study done? Paclitaxel is a commonly used drug for the treatment of breast cancer. Conventional formulation of paclitaxel is known to cause side effects like injection site reactions. A newer formulation named NPLS was developed to overcome the limitations of the conventional paclitaxel. The current study was done to compare the safety and effectiveness of NPLS and conventional paclitaxel in patients with advanced breast cancer. What did the researchers do? The research team conducted a large study in multiple hospitals across India, involving women with advanced breast cancer who had experienced treatment failure with previous chemotherapy. A total of 174 patients were randomly assigned to receive either of the three treatment schedules: (1) NPLS every 3 weeks, (2) NPLS every week, (3) conventional paclitaxel every 3 weeks. What did the researchers find? The results showed that NPLS, in a weekly schedule, led to better tumor response rates compared to conventional paclitaxel given every 3 weeks. Additionally, NPLS demonstrated a favorable safety profile, as compared to conventional paclitaxel. What do the findings mean? These findings suggest that NPLS could be a promising alternative for women with advanced breast cancer. NPLS improved the response to treatment, with a better safety profile compared to conventional paclitaxel.

A Real-World Study of Safety, Immunogenicity and Efficacy of Bevacizumab in Patients With Solid Malignancies: A Phase IV, Post-Marketing Study in India.

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the post-marketing safety, tolerability, immunogenicity and efficacy of Bevacizumab (manufactured by Hetero Biopharma) in a broader population of patients with solid tumors. Patients And Methods: This phase IV, prospective, multi-centric clinical study was carried out in Indian patients with solid malignancies (metastatic colorectal cancer, non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer, metastatic renal cell carcinoma) treated with Bevacizumab between April 2018 and July 2019. This study included 203 patients from 16 tertiary care oncology centers across India for safety assessment, of which a subset of 115 patients who have consented were also evaluated for efficacy and immunogenicity. This study was prospectively registered in the Clinical Trial Registry of India (CTRI), and was commenced only after receiving approval from the competent authority (Central Drugs Standard Control Organization, CDSCO). Results: Out of the 203 enrolled patients, 121 (59.6%) patients reported 338 adverse events (AEs) during this study. Of 338 reported AEs, 14 serious adverse events (SAEs) were reported by 13 patients including 6 fatal SAEs, assessed as unrelated to the study medication and 7 non-fatal SAEs, 5 assessed as related, and 3 unrelated to Bevacizumab. Most AEs reported in this study (33.9%) were general disorders and administration site conditions, followed by gastrointestinal disorders (29.1%). The most frequently reported AEs were diarrhea (11.3%), asthenia (10.3%), headache (8.9%), pain (7.4%), vomiting (7.9%), and neutropenia (5.9%). At the end of the study, 2 (1.75%) of 69 patients reported antibodies to Bevacizumab without affecting safety and efficacy. However, at the end of 12 months, no patient had reported antibodies to Bevacizumab. Complete response (CR), partial response (PR), stable disease (SD), and progressive disease (PD) were reported in 18.3%, 22.6%, 9.6%, and 8.7% of patients, respectively. The overall response rate (CR + PR) was reported in 40.9% of patients at the end of the study. Disease control rate (DCR), also known as the clinical benefit rate (CBR) was reported in 50.4% of patients. Conclusions: Bevacizumab (Cizumab, Hetero Biopharma) was observed to be safe, well tolerated, lacking immunogenicity, and efficacious in the treatment of solid tumors. The findings of this phase IV study of Bevacizumab, primarily as a combination therapy regimen suggest its suitability and rationality for usage in multiple solid malignancies. Clinical Trial Registry Number: CTRI/2018/4/13371 [Registered on CTRI http://ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/advsearch.php : 19/04/2018]; Trial Registered Prospectively.

Comparison of the Efficacy, Safety, Pharmacokinetic and Immunogenicity of UJVIRA (ZRC-3256, Trastuzumab Emtansine) With the Kadcyla (Trastuzumab Emtansine) in the Treatment of HER2-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Randomized, Open-Label, Multicenter Study in India.

BACKGROUND: UJVIRA is the first DCGI approved biosimilar of trastuzumab emtansine (Kadcyla) which may offer an alternative cost-effective treatment option for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive metastatic breast cancer patients in India. This article summarizes the available clinical evidence supporting the biosimilarity of UJVIRA and Kadcyla with respect to efficacy, pharmacokinetic, safety, and immunogenicity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A phase 3, randomized, open-label, active-controlled study was conducted at 31 sites across India. A total of 168 patients were enrolled and randomized to receive either UJVIRA or Kadcyla. Of which, only first 50 patients were included in pharmacokinetic assessment. UJVIRA or Kadcyla were administered at a dose of 3.6 mg/kg by intravenous infusion every 3 weeks (21 days) for 8 cycles or until disease progression or unmanageable toxicity, whichever was earlier. The study assessed efficacy (ORR), safety, pharmacokinetics, and immunogenicity. RESULTS: The ORR at the end of Week 24 was 37.76% in the UJVIRA and 33.33% in the Kadcyla group. The risk difference was 4.42% [-12.01, 20.85]. It met noninferiority margin of -15%. The pharmacokinetic parameters were comparable between groups. No antidrug antibody was detected in any of the treatment groups. The overall safety profile in terms of TEAEs and laboratory abnormalities was also comparable between the treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Results demonstrated biosimilarity between UJVIRA and Kadcyla in terms of efficacy, safety, pharmacokinetics, and immunogenicity. Therefore, UJVIRA could prove to be a cost-effective treatment alternative for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer patients in India.

Fixed dose combination of capecitabine and cyclophosphamide in metastatic breast cancer: Results from THE ENCLOSE phase 2/3 randomized multicenter study.

AIM: To evaluate pharmacokinetics, efficacy and safety of fixed-dose combination (FDC) of oral capecitabine + cyclophosphamide in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients progressing after anthracycline and/or taxane chemotherapy. METHODS: In this prospective, adaptive, phase-2/3, open-label study (CTRI/2014/12/005234), patients were randomized (1:1:1) to three FDC doses (doses/day: D1, capecitabine + cyclophosphamide 1400 mg + 60 mg; D2, 1800 mg + 80 mg; D3, 2200 mg + 100 mg) for 14 days, in 21-day cycles. In Part-I, multiple-dose pharmacokinetics and optimal dose(s) were evaluated with futility analysis. Group(s) with <3 responders based on best overall response rate (BOR, complete response [CR]+partial response [PR]), were discontinued. Efficacy (BOR, disease control rates [DCR; CR + PR + stable disease]) and safety of optimal dose(s) were evaluated in Part-II. RESULTS: Of 66 patients (n = 22/group) in Part-I, pharmacokinetics (D1 = 7/22, D2 = 9/22, D3 = 8/22) showed dose-proportionality for cyclophosphamide and greater than dose-proportionality for capecitabine. Modified intent-to-treat (mITT) analysis showed BOR of 7.14% (1/14) in D1 (discontinued), and 22.22% (4/18) each in D2 and D3, respectively. In Part-II, 50 additional patients were randomized in D2 and D3 (n = 144; total 72 [22 + 50] patients/group). mITT analysis in D2 (n = 54) and D3 (n = 58) showed BOR of 29.63% (16/54, 95%CI: 17.45-41.81%) and 22.41% (13/58, 95%CI: 11.68-33.15%), respectively. DCR in D2 and D3 were 87.04% (47/54, 95%CI: 78.08-96.00%) and 82.76% (48/58; 95%CI: 73.04-92.48%) after 3 and 57.41% (31/54; 95%CI: 52.41-79.50%) and 50.00% (29/58; 95%CI: 40.40-67.00%), after 6-cycles, respectively. Hand-foot syndrome (16.67%), vomiting (9.72%) in D2, and hand-foot syndrome (18.06%), asthenia (15.28%) in D3 were most-common adverse events. CONCLUSION: FDC of capecitabine + cyclophosphamide (1800 + 80 mg/day) showed high disease control rates and good safety profile in MBC patients.