A Pilot, Phase II, Randomized, Open-Label Clinical Trial Comparing the Neurotoxicity of Three Dose Regimens of Nab-Paclitaxel to That of Solvent-Based Paclitaxel as the First-Line Treatment for Patients with Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Type 2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer.

Eva Ciruelos, María Apellániz-Ruiz, Blanca Cantos, Noelia Martinez-Jáñez, Coralia Bueno-Muiño, Maria-Jose Echarri, Santos Enrech, Juan-Antonio Guerra, Luis Manso, Tomas Pascual, Cristina Dominguez, Juan-Francisco Gonzalo, Juan-Luis Sanz, Cristina Rodriguez-Antona, Juan-Manuel Sepúlveda

Journal: The oncologist 2020;24(11):e1024-e1033

PMID: 31023863

Abstract

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to characterize the neurotoxicity of three different regimens of nab-paclitaxel compared with a standard regimen of solvent-based (sb) paclitaxel for the first-line treatment of HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer based on the Total Neurotoxicity Score (TNS), a tool specifically developed to assess chemotherapy-induced neurotoxicity.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a randomized, open-label study testing 4-week cycles of 80 mg/m sb-paclitaxel (PACL80/w) on days 1, 8, and 15; 100 mg/m nab-paclitaxel on days 1, 8, and 15 (NAB100/w); 150 mg/m nab-paclitaxel on days 1, 8, and 15 (NAB150/w); and 150 mg/m nab-paclitaxel on days 1 and 15 (NAB150/2w). In addition to the TNS, neuropathy was assessed using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (NCI-CTCAE). Tumor response and quality of life were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Neurotoxicity, as evaluated by the TNS, did not significantly differ between the sb-paclitaxel group and any of the nab-paclitaxel groups. The frequency of (any grade) polyneuropathy, as measured by the NCI-CTCAE, was lower in the PACL80/w ( = 7, 50%) and NAB150/2w ( = 10, 62.5%) groups than in the NAB100/w ( = 13, 81.3%) or NAB150/w ( = 11, 78.6%) group. Although the differences were not statistically significant, compared with the other groups, in the NAB150/w group, the time to occurrence of grade ≥2 polyneuropathy was shorter, and the median time to recovery from grade ≥2 polyneuropathy was longer. Dose delays and reductions due to neurotoxicity and impact of neurotoxicity on the patients' experience of symptoms and functional limitations was greater with NAB150/w. Among the seven polymorphisms selected for genotyping, the variant alleles of -rs7349683, -rs301927, and -rs209709 were associated with an increased risk of paclitaxel-induced neuropathy.

CONCLUSION

The results of this exploratory study showed that, regardless of the dose, nab-paclitaxel did not differ from sb-paclitaxel in terms of neurotoxicity as evaluated with the TNS. However, results from NCI-CTCAE, dose delays and reductions, and functional tools consistently indicate that NAB150/w regimen is associated with a greater risk of chemotherapy-induced neuropathy. Thus, our results question the superiority of the TNS over NCI-CTCAE for evaluating chemotherapy-induced neuropathy and guiding treatment decisions in this context. The selection of the nab-paclitaxel regimen should be individualized based on the clinical context and potentially supported by pharmacogenetic analysis. Registry: EudraCT, 2012-002361-36; NCT01763710 IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The results of this study call into question the superiority of the Total Neurotoxicity Score over the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events for evaluating chemotherapy-induced neuropathy and guiding treatment decisions in this context and suggest that a regimen of 150 mg/m nab-paclitaxel administered on days 1, 8, and 15 is associated with a greater risk of chemotherapy-induced neuropathy and hematological toxicity compared with other lower-dose nab-paclitaxel regimens or a standard regimen of solvent-based paclitaxel. The selection of the nab-paclitaxel regimen should be individualized based on the clinical context and could benefit from pharmacogenetics analysis.

© AlphaMed Press 2019.

Address: Medical Oncology Department, Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, Madrid, Spain [email protected].; Oncosur Study Group, Madrid, Spain.; Hereditary Endocrine Cancer Group, Human Cancer Genetics Programme, Spanish National Cancer Research Center (CNIO), Madrid, Spain.; Medical Oncology Department, Hospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro, Majadahonda, Spain.; Medical Oncology Department, Hospital Ramón y Cajal, Madrid, Spain.; Medical Oncology Department, Hospital Infanta Cristina, Parla, Spain.; Medical Oncology Department, Hospital Severo Ochoa, Leganes, Spain.; Medical Oncology Department, Hospital Universitario de Getafe, Getafe, Spain.; Medical Oncology Department, Hospital de Fuenlabrada, Fuenlabrada, Spain.; Medical Oncology Department, Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, Madrid, Spain.; Clinical Research Department, Apoyo a la Investigación Clínica en España (APICES), Madrid, Spain.; Neurology Division, Neuromuscular Unit, ISCIII Center for Biomedical Research on Rare Diseases (CIBERER), Madrid, Spain.
Bant logo

© Copyright 2026, Nutrition Evidence

NED wishes to thank the following organisations for their support:

We use cookies to improve your experience and analyze site traffic with Google Analytics. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more.