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.

Bioequivalence of a hybrid pegylated liposomal doxorubicin hydrochloride injection and Caelyx®: A single-dose, randomized, multicenter, open-label, two-period crossover study in patients with advanced ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the bioequivalence of a hybrid pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) hydrochloride injection with reference product Caelyx®. METHODS: This multicenter, open-label, balanced, randomized, two-treatment, two-period, two-sequence, single-dose, crossover, bioequivalence study was conducted in female patients aged ≥18 years and ≤75 years with ovarian cancer, whose disease progressed or recurred after platinum-based chemotherapy, and who were scheduled to start PLD therapy. Patients were intravenously infused drugs over 1 h at 50 mg/m2 dose two hours after breakfast on the first day of the chemotherapy cycle in period-I and crossed over to the other arm in period-II (day 29). Pharmacokinetic (PK) analyses were performed using two separate, validated liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry methods for encapsulated and unencapsulated doxorubicin. RESULTS: Both the test and reference formulations were well-tolerated and safe. The pharmacokinetic analysis for both encapsulated and unencapsulated doxorubicin was conducted in 50 patients and PK parameters were found to be comparable between test and reference products. The geometric mean ratios (90% confidence interval) of hybrid PLD/Caelyx® were; maximum measured plasma concentration (Cmax): 91.94-97.28%, area under the plasma concentration versus time from time 0 to t (AUC0-t): 95.19-103.67%, AUC from time 0 to ∞ (AUC0-∞): 95.13-103.66% for encapsulated doxorubicin and for unencapsulated doxorubicin Cmax: 92.08-116.46%, AUC0-t: 91.91-108.28%, AUC0-∞: 93.45-110.05%. CONCLUSION: The PLD formulation was found to be bioequivalent to Caelyx®.

Randomized, Double-Blind, Pharmacokinetic Equivalence Trial Comparing DRL-Rituximab With MabThera in Patients With Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma.

PURPOSE: We sought to compare the pharmacokinetics (PKs) of DRL-rituximab (DRL_RI; potential biosimilar) and innovator rituximab MabThera (Roche, Grenzach-Wyhlen, Germany; reference medicinal product [RMP]) in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Efficacy, pharmacodynamics (PDs), safety, and immunogenicity were also compared. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, parallel-group study in patients with untreated DLBCL who were eligible to receive cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (CHOP) therapy. Patients were randomly assigned at a one-to-one ratio to receive DRL_RI or RMP for six 21-day cycles of rituximab plus CHOP, with 18 months of follow-up after day 1, cycle 6 (C6). Primary end point was C1 PKs, measured as area under the plasma concentration-time curve from day 0 to 21 (AUC0-21 days) and maximum plasma concentration (Cmax). Equivalence was defined as 90% CIs for the DRL_RI/RMP geometric mean ratios (GMRs) within 80% and 125%. Secondary end points included efficacy noninferiority measured by objective response rate (ORR) at C6 and event-free survival and overall survival at 87 weeks, PK equivalence at C6 and PD equivalence (rate of B-cell depletion and repletion), safety, and immunogenicity. The trial was stopped after sufficient patients for primary end point evaluation were enrolled. Secondary end points are reported as observed. RESULTS: A total of 151 patients were randomly assigned (DRL_RI, n = 76; RMP, n = 75). DRL_RI/RMP GMRs for AUC0-21 days and Cmax in C1 were 99.77 (90% CI, 87.60 to 113.63) and 96.19 (90% CI, 88.65 to 104.38), respectively. ORR at C6 for DRL_RI and RMP were 82.0% and 84.8%, respectively. Rates of B-cell depletion/repletion, immunogenicity, and adverse events were comparable in both groups. CONCLUSION: DRL_RI and RMP had equivalent PKs, with comparable efficacy, PDs, safety, and immunogenicity.