Annals of Oncology Advance Access originally published online on December 19, 2005
Annals of Oncology 2006 17(5):735-749; doi:10.1093/annonc/mdj100
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
© 2005 European Society for Medical Oncology
review |
Novel formulations of taxanes: a review. Old wine in a new bottle?
1 St Louis College of Pharmacy, Ortho Biotech Clinical Affairs, LLC, St Louis, MO; 2 Alvin J Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO, USA
* Correspondence to: Dr R. Govindan, Division of Medical Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, 4960 Children's Place, Box 8056, St Louis, MO 63110, USA. Tel: +1-314-362-4819; Fax: +1-314-362-7086; E-mail: rgovinda{at}im.wustl.edu
 |
Abstract |
|---|
Top
Abstract
introductionOver the past two decades, the taxanes have played a significant role in the treatment of various malignancies. However, the poor solubility of these compounds necessitates the inclusion of surfactant vehicles in their commercial formulations. Cremophor EL and polysorbate 80 have long comprised the standard solvent system for paclitaxel and docetaxel, respectively. A number of pharmacologic and biologic effects related to both of these drug formulations have been described, including clinically relevant acute hypersensitivity reactions and peripheral neuropathy. In addition, these solvents affect the disposition of intravenously administered solubilized drugs and leach plasticizers from polyvinylchloride infusion sets. A number of strategies to develop formulations of surfactant-free taxanes have been developed. They include albumin nanoparticles, polyglutamates, taxane analogs and prodrugs, emulsions, and lipsomes. An overview of these novel formulations of taxanes, their mechanisms of action, pharmacokinetics, dose and administration, adverse effects, and clinical efficacy will be discussed.
Key words: novel formulations, taxanes, vehicles
|
introduction |
|---|
Of the several new chemotherapeutic agents introduced recently, the taxanes have had a profound impact in a wide variety of malignancies. Paclitaxel and docetaxel are approved for clinical use by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) board for the treatment of breast cancer, ovarian cancer, non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and prostate cancer. The taxanes are a unique class of hydrophobic antineoplastic agents that exhibit cytotoxic activity by binding to tubulin and promoting inappropriately stable, non-functional microtubule formation [1
]. Interference with microtubule function leads to disrupted mitosis and cell death. The toxicity profiles for these agents are somewhat different; paclitaxel has been most widely associated with peripheral neuropathies and myalgias/athralgias, whereas docetaxel most commonly results in cumulative fluid retention that may be dose-limiting in some cases.
Paclitaxel was first discovered in the early 1960s as part of a National Cancer Institute screening study to identify natural compounds with antineoplastic activity. Paclitaxel was identified as the crude extract from the bark of the North American pacific yew tree, Taxus brevifolia, in the early 1970s and found to exert significant cytotoxic effects in preclinical studies against many tumors [2]. However, clinical development was slowed until the early 1980s owing to the scarce supply of the pacific yew tree bark and its poor solubility.
Docetaxel is a semisynthetic compound produced from 10-deacetylbaccatin-III, which is found in the needles of the European yew tree, Taxus baccata [3]. Although slightly more water soluble than paclitaxel, docetaxel also requires a complex solvent system for its commercial formulation. The semisynthetic production process of docetaxel circumvented the availability problems that first plagued the development of paclitaxel. A semisynthetic process has now been developed for paclitaxel production as well [4].
Despite overcoming the initial difficulties surrounding a limited drug supply, problems related to solubility of both agents remain challenging. After much investigation, Cremophor EL® (CrEL), a polyoxyethylated castor oil vehicle, and dehydrated ethanol USP (1:1, v/v) was identified as the most viable option for the solvent system employed in the commercial formulation of paclitaxel. CrEL has been widely used as the vehicle for a number of hydrophobic pharmacologic agents, including propofol, diazepam and cyclosporine [5]. Notably, the concentration of CrEL in the therapeutic dose of parenteral paclitaxel is relatively high compared with other agents using this solvent [4]. In contrast, docetaxel is solubilized in another polyoxyethylated surfactant, polysorbate 80 (Tween 80), for clinical use. Both solvents are both biologically and pharmacologically active. A number of biologic effects related to both of these drug formulation vehicles have been described, including acute hypersensitivity reactions and peripheral neuropathies. In addition, several reports have linked these solvents to alterations in the pharmacokinetic profiles of both paclitaxel and docetaxel [5].
|
drawbacks of current taxane formulations |
|---|
toxicities of vehicles
In the early development of paclitaxel, a high incidence of acute hypersensitivity reactions characterized by respiratory distress, hypotension, angioedema, generalized urticaria and rash were observed [6
, 7]. It is generally felt that CrEL contributes significantly to the hypersensitivity reactions, as the vehicle has induced similar release reactions in dogs [8, 9]. These reactions appear to be associated with an increased rate of infusion [10]. Researchers initially investigated alternative excipients such as polyethylene glycol for paclitaxel solubilization; however, this compound appeared to decrease the antitumor activity of paclitaxel in murine models. Thus, CrEL has remained the standard solvent [7]. Despite premedications with corticosteroids and histamine antagonists, minor reactions (e.g. flushing and rash) still occur in approximately 40% of all patients, and nearly 3% of patients experience potentially life-threatening reactions [5, 11]. Prolonging the infusion does not eliminate the risk of hypersensitivity reactions [6]. In addition, the cumulative toxicities of dexamethasone used as a premedication may contribute to treatment-related morbidity. Docetaxel has been known to cause infusion-related reactions in the absence of premedication; however, these reactions have occurred at a decreased frequency when compared with paclitaxel and can be effectively managed by premedication with corticosteroids and histamine receptor antagonists [9].
Agents formulated in CrEL have been known to cause peripheral neurotoxicity. Whether CrEL is the sole causative agent remains unknown. Electrophysiologic studies in patients who developed neurotoxicity after paclitaxel treatment have shown evidence of both axonal degeneration and demyelination [12]. Administration of intravenous cyclosporine, which contains CrEL in its formulation, results in development of peripheral neuropathies in 25% of patients [13]. The oral formulation, on the other hand, never induces this adverse effect, which is consistent with the observations that CrEL is not absorbed through the gastrointestinal tract. Furthermore, CrEL plasma concentrations achieved after administration of therapeutic doses of both paclitaxel and intravenous cyclosporine have been noted to cause axonal swelling, vesicular degeneration and demyelination in rat dorsal root ganglion neurons exposed to the formulation vehicle [14]. Recent evidence suggests that the ethoxylated derivatives of castor oil account for much of the neuronal damage observed [15]. Polysorbate 80 is also capable of producing vesicular degeneration. Although sensory neuropathies have been associated with docetaxel administration, the incidence is much lower than that seen with paclitaxel administration. However, the polysorbate 80-containing epipodophyllotoxin etoposide is not a known neurotoxin, suggesting that the mechanism of taxane-induced neuropathy may be multifactorial, at least in part contributed by the vehicle formulation [5].
influence of vehicles on the pharmacokinetics of taxanes
CrEL and polysorbate 80 have also been demonstrated to alter the disposition of intravenously administered paclitaxel and docetaxel. The pseudo-non-linear plasma pharmacokinetics of paclitaxel in patients has long been established; however, the cause of this phenomenon is less well understood. Pharmacokinetic studies conducted in mouse models first described that the non-linear pharmacokinetics of paclitaxel result exclusively from CrEL [16]. Human studies have since reported similar findings [17]. At the higher doses administered most often on a thrice weekly schedule and shorter infusion rates (3 h versus 24 h), the plasma concentration of paclitaxel appears to exceed the metabolic capacity of its elimination pathways. The overall resulting effect is a substantial increase in systemic exposure to paclitaxel with a concomitantly reduced systemic clearance, leading to altered pharmacodynamic characteristics of the solubilized drug. This is a result of the micellar entrapment of paclitaxel by CrEL in plasma, and these micelles subsequently act as the principal carriers of paclitaxel in systemic circulation. It has been shown that the percentage of total paclitaxel trapped in micelles increases disproportionately with the administration of higher doses of CrEL, thereby making it less available for tumor tissue distribution, metabolism and biliary excretion [18]. Diminished clearance and prolonged exposure to high concentrations of the chemotherapeutic agent place patients at risk for severe systemic toxicities. Winer and colleagues demonstrated that dose escalation of standard formulation paclitaxel resulted in increased toxicity, but with no improvement in efficacy [19]. Moreover, weekly paclitaxel administration has improved response rates in patients with metatastatic breast cancer and rates of pathologic complete remission in those receiving treatment in the neo-adjuvant setting [20–22]. Notably, CrEL micelles may entrap other hydrophobic drugs (e.g. doxorubicin) or inhibit drug uptake in the plasma (e.g. cisplatin), and place patients at risk for increased adverse effects and diminished efficacy when these agents are used in combination with paclitaxel [5, 23]. An additional problem linked to the CrEL solvent is the leaching of plasticizers from polyvinylchloride (PVC) bags and infusion sets used routinely in clinical practice. Consequently, paclitaxel must be prepared and administered in either glass bottles or non-PVC infusion systems with in-line filtration.
It has long been thought that polysorbate 80 is rapidly degraded in plasma and does not interfere with kinetics of docetaxel [24], but recent evidence suggests that this vehicle may indeed influence binding of docetaxel in plasma in a concentration-dependent manner [25]. Furthermore, Baker and colleagues reported a similar pharmacokinetic profile when docetaxel was administered weekly compared with 3-weekly [26]. In this study, the weekly regimen was administered over 30 min while the 3-weekly regimen was given over 1 h, resulting in similar polysorbate 80 concentrations at the end of the docetaxel infusion in either arm. This practice was deemed consistent with current modes of docetaxel administration.
the impact of vehicles on efficacy
Some in vitro models have demonstrated that CrEL and polysorbate 80 may enhance cytotoxic activity by modulating P-glycoprotein and inhibiting multidrug resistance gene expression [27–29]. However, in vivo studies have failed to replicate this finding with either surfactant. This lack of efficacy in vivo is likely due to the low volume of distribution of CrEL and rapid degradation of polysorbate 80 in plasma. Historically, overexpression of multidrug transporter P-glycoprotein by intestinal enterocytes has limited the oral absorption of the taxanes. Oral administration of both paclitaxel and docetaxel has been attempted with P-glycoprotein inhibitors, but there are limited human clinical data supporting this alternative for administration [30–32]. In addition, several reports have suggested that these drug formulation vehicles may have antitumor activity on their own [33, 34]. The intrinsic cytotoxic activity of CrEL is thought to result from free radical formation by polyunsaturated fatty acids in its formulation. Conversely, some investigators have demonstrated that CrEL may antagonize the cytotoxicity of paclitaxel through cell cycle arrest when administered at therapeutic concentrations [35]. The exact contribution of polysorbate 80 to antitumor effects has not been clarified; however, several reports suggest that it may be linked to the release of oleic acid, a fatty acid known to interfere with malignant cell proliferation, and inhibition of angiogenesis [36, 37].
Owing to the complexity of the effects of CrEL and polysorbate 80 on taxane administration and antitumor activity, changing the solvent system and replicating clinical data previously published is a daunting task. Still, there is good evidence that these formulation vehicles are responsible for a number of severe adverse effects and clinically relevant drug–drug interactions. The drawbacks of the taxane formulation vehicles have spurred interest in the development of surfactant-free taxane formulations, while continuing to maximize the proven activity of the taxanes against many solid tumors. Several strategies are in progress to develop alternative formulations of paclitaxel and docetaxel, including the use of albumin nanoparticles, prodrugs, polyglutamates, analogs, emulsions and liposome, to avoid vehicle-related adverse effects, overcome resistance attributed to P-glycoprotein and the multi-drug resistance (MDR) gene, and increase response rates beyond those achieved with standard taxanes [38] (Tables 1 and 2). In addition, some of the new compounds may enable better drug delivery to tumor sites. This article will review these novel formulations of taxanes in their mechanisms of action, pharmacokinetics, dose and administration, adverse effects, and clinical efficacy (Tables 3 and 4).
|
|
|
|
|
paclitaxel protein-bound particles |
|---|
formulation
Paclitaxel protein-bound particles (nab paclitaxel; ABI-007; AbraxaneTM) is a novel formulation of paclitaxel that does not employ the CrEL solvent system. This novel formulation is prepared by high-pressure homogenization of paclitaxel in the presence of human serum albumin at a concentration of 3–4%, similar to that of albumin concentration in the blood, resulting in a nanoparticle colloidal suspension [39
]. The resultant nanoparticle has a mean particle diameter of 130–150 nm, approximately one-hundredth the size of a single red blood cell, thus eliminating the need for any solvent. In addition, nanoparticle drug carriers have been known to preferentially accumulate in tumor beds and facilitate the partitioning of nab paclitaxel into tumor tissue [39]. nab paclitaxel is the first biologic chemotherapeutic compound to exploit the gp60 receptor (albondin)-mediated pathway in endothelial cell walls of tumor microvessels to achieve enhanced intratumoral concentrations. The gp60 receptors are specific for albumin and, once activated, allow for transport of albumin complexes across blood vessel wall barriers into underlying tumor tissue [40]. nab paclitaxel can be reconstituted in normal saline at concentrations of 2–10 mg/ml, compared with 0.3–1.2 mg/ml for paclitaxel [39]. Thus, infusion of nab paclitaxel requires less volume and administration time compared with standard formulation paclitaxel. Furthermore, the absence of CrEL eliminates the need for steroid premedication and alleviates the danger of leaching plasticizers from infusion bags or tubing.
preclinical data
In five animal models, Desai and colleagues consistently demonstrated enhanced efficacy and reduced toxicity of nab paclitaxel when compared with paclitaxel at the maximum tolerated doses (MTDs) of each agent [41]. These investigators examined the plasma pharmacokinetics and tumor tissue/red blood cell partitioning of radiolabeled paclitaxel from nab paclitaxel and paclitaxel in a human breast tumor cell line implanted in athymic mice. nab paclitaxel partitioned rapidly into red blood cells after intravenous administration and exhibited enhanced biodistribution and prolonged half-life. It appears that nab paclitaxel has a concentration in tumor tissue that is 33% higher than that of standard paclitaxel [42].
phase I trials
Several phase I trials have been performed to examine the toxicity profile, MTD and pharmacokinetics of nab paclitaxel. In a clinical study performed by Ibrahim et al., nab paclitaxel was administered over 30 min at doses ranging from 135 to 375 mg/m2 every 21 days in 19 patients [39]. The majority of the enrolled patients had a histologic diagnosis of breast cancer. The dose-limiting toxicities were sensory neuropathy, stomatitis and superficial keratopathy. Of the 96 treatment cycles administered, only seven (7.3%) resulted in absolute neutrophil count nadir <500/mm3; six of these events occurred at the dose level above the determined MTD. The authors determined the MTD to be 300 mg/m2 administered every 3 weeks. No hypersensitivity reactions were reported despite the lack of steroid or antihistamine premedication.
A phase I clinical study evaluating the safety, MTD and antitumor activity of weekly administration of nab paclitaxel in non-hematological malignancies was recently presented [43]. In this study, patients were stratified according to their level of pretreatment. Doses ranged from 80 to 200 mg/m2/week and were administered over 30 min without premedications for 3 of 4 weeks. Dose-limiting toxicities were grade 4 neutropenia for heavily pretreated patients and grade 3 peripheral neuropathy for those that had received less prior therapy. The authors determined the MTD to be 100 mg/m2/week in heavily pretreated patients and 150 mg/m2/week for the lightly pretreated group. Other phase I studies in various tumor types have evaluated intraarterial administration of nab paclitaxel at doses ranging from 120 to 300 mg/m2 every 3–4 weeks have reported considerable cytotoxic activity as well as acceptable toxicity [44, 45].
phase II trials
Ibrahim et al. have reported the results of two multicenter phase II studies of single-agent nab paclitaxel in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer (MBC) [46]. Patients received either nab paclitaxel at 175 mg/m2 (n = 43) or 300 mg/m2 (n = 63), administered intravenously over 30 min every 3 weeks. In the group of patients receiving the lower dose, 21 (51%) patients experienced an objective response, with complete response in three (7%) patients. Grade 4 neutropenia was observed in 5% of patients, while no grade 3/4 peripheral neuropathy was reported. At the 300 mg/m2 dose level, 36 patients (61%) of patients experienced an objective response, of which three patients had received prior taxane therapy. The response rate in previously untreated patients was 76%. Grade 4 neutropenia occurred in 23% and grade 3/4 peripheral neuropathy was reported in 10% of patients in the higher-dose group. No hypersensitivity reactions were reported in either group. These results lead to the development of a phase III international study comparing nab paclitaxel to standard paclitaxel in MBC.
Based upon the results of a phase I study evaluating weekly administration, Blum and colleagues initiated a phase II clinical study of weekly administration of nab paclitaxel in taxane-refractory MBC [47]. In this trial, patients (n = 106) received nab paclitaxel at a dose of 100 mg/m2 weekly over 30 min on days 1, 8 and 15 on a 28-day cycle. Patients did not receive premedications or prophylactic growth factor support. The median age of the patient cohort was 54 years (range 34–76) and 65% had more than three sites of metastatic disease. Prior to enrollment, patients received a median of two (range two to eight) chemotherapy regimens and 89% had tumor growth while on taxane therapy. All patients were evaluable for response and toxicity. While 91% were treated at full dose with no reductions from 100 mg/m2/week throughout the study, 16 patients [15%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 8.3% to 21.9%] achieved an objective response. One patient developed grade 4 neutropenia and no patients experienced grade 3 sensory neuropathy.
phase III trials
Gradishar and colleagues recently reported the results of a phase III, randomized clinical trial comparing the efficacy and safety of nab paclitaxel with paclitaxel in 460 patients with MBC [48]. The primary objective of this study was to demonstrate non-inferiority of nab paclitaxel when compared with paclitaxel. Eligible patients [age 
18 years, measurable MBC, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 
1, no prior taxane therapy] were randomized to receive either nab paclitaxel at a dose of 260 mg/m2 (n = 229), administered intravenously over 30 min, or paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 (n = 225), administered intravenously over 3 h. Both agents were administered every 3 weeks. Tumor responses were assessed after two cycles of treatment and confirmed after the completion of six cycles. All data underwent independent radiologic review. A total of 454 patients received at least one treatment and were included in the data analysis. Patients in both groups received 98% of the planned chemotherapy doses. The mean delivered dose of paclitaxel received by patients in the nab paclitaxel arm was 49% higher compared with the standard formulation paclitaxel arm (mean ± standard deviation, 85.13 ± 3.118 versus 57.02 ± 3.008 mg/m2 per week, respectively). Based upon an intention-to-treat analysis, nab paclitaxel demonstrated significant improvements in response rates compared with the paclitaxel arm for patients receiving first-line therapy (33% versus 19%; P = 0.001) and for those patients receiving second-line or greater therapy (27% versus 13%; P = 0.006) and patients with prior anthracycline exposure (34% versus 18%; P = 0.002). A similar trend was observed for the elderly subset (>65 years) and patients with poor prognostic factors (i.e. non-visceral dominant lesions). Median time to progression was significantly longer with nab paclitaxel than with standard paclitaxel in all patients (23 versus 16.9 weeks, respectively; P = 0.006). The median time for overall survival was 103 weeks for nab paclitaxel and 101 weeks for standard paclitaxel at the time of analyses; a trend for improved median survival with nab paclitaxel was observed with all patients (64 versus 55.7 weeks, respectively; P = 0.374). There was not a statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups for those receiving first-line therapy; however, for those receiving second-line therapy or greater, the difference did reach statistically significance (56.4 versus 46.7 weeks; P = 0.024).
Toxicity data were collected and compared through six cycles of chemotherapy. Despite higher cumulative doses of paclitaxel, grade 4 neutropenia occurred less frequently in the nab paclitaxel arm (9% versus 22%; P < 0.001). Grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia, anemia, and febrile neutropenia occurred in <2% of patients in both groups. No deaths related to infection were reported. The incidence of grade 3 sensory neuropathy was 10% in the nab paclitaxel arm and 2% in patients receiving standard formulation paclitaxel (P < 0.001). Subgroup analyses reported similar toxicities observed in patients receiving front-line therapy compared with those receiving salvage treatment [48].
|
DHA–paclitaxel |
|---|
formulation
Docosahexaenoic acid–paclitaxel (DHA–paclitaxel; Taxoprexin®) is a novel compound formed by covalently linking the natural fatty acid docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) to paclitaxel. This conjugate was designed to function as a prodrug and accumulate preferentially in tumor tissue [49
]. DHA is classified as a nutritional additive by the United States FDA, found in human milk, and is added to infant formula in Europe. The clinical preparation of DHA–paclitaxel is formulated in a vehicle containing 80% less CrEL and ethanol on a molar basis than standard formulation paclitaxel [50]. This agent can be reconstituted in dextrose 5% to a maximum concentration of 8 mg/ml and administered intravenously over 2 h every 21 days [49]. Owing to the presence of CrEL, steroid and antihistamine premedications, as well as non-PVC tubing and in-line filtration systems, are required for drug administration.
preclinical data
Bradley et al. demonstrated enhanced antitumoral activity when mice bearing the Madison 109 (M109) s.c. lung tumor received equimolar doses of DHA–paclitaxel compared with those receiving standard formulation paclitaxel [50]. The mean tumoral area under the curve (AUC) of paclitaxel was six-fold higher after intravenous administration of DHA–paclitaxel than that from standard paclitaxel. The drug conjugate appeared to remain inactive as a cytotoxic agent until metabolized by tumor cells to its active form. Notably, the performed pharmacokinetic analysis indicated a 21-fold higher conversion of DHA–paclitaxel to paclitaxel in tumor relative to plasma. The drug conjugate is less toxic than paclitaxel, allowing 4.4-fold higher concentrations to be delivered. In the M109 mouse models, DHA–paclitaxel caused sustained complete regressions at a dose of 120 mg/kg, whereas an equitoxic dose of paclitaxel 20 mg/kg did not induce tumor regression in any of the tested models. In addition, the prolonged tumoral half-life of DHA–paclitaxel (240 h versus 16 h standard paclitaxel) may contribute to its improved antitumor activity. In preclinical pharmacokinetic studies, DHA–paclitaxel exhibited a relatively small volume of distribution [50]. In vitro, DHA–paclitaxel was found to be extensively bound to plasma (99.6%) in a dose-independent manner [51]. Despite the small volume of distribution and relatively high plasma binding, DHA–paclitaxel resulted in greater tumor delivery of paclitaxel than that of the standard formulation [50]. The preliminary evidence of cytotoxic activity, favorable toxicity profile and pharmacokinetic behavior prompted investigation of the novel conjugate in a phase I study.
phase I trials
In order to characterize the primary toxicities, MTD and pharmacokinetic profile, Wolff and colleagues conducted a phase I study of DHA–paclitaxel in patients with advanced refractory solid tumors [49]. Twenty-four patients received DHA–paclitaxel at doses ranging from 200 to 1100 mg/m2, administered intravenously over 2 h every 21 days. Dose level one (200 mg/m2) was equivalent to 146 mg/m2 of paclitaxel on an equimolar basis. All patients received steroid and antihistamine premedications. Patients received a median two cycles (range one to eight). The authors determined the MTD to be 1100 mg/m2, the dose level at which neutropenia was the principal toxicity (grade 3/4 neutropenia observed in 100% of patients). Neutropenia appeared to be dose related, but not cumulative, and no cycles of therapy were delayed due to persistent myelosuppression. Non-hematological toxicity was infrequent and mild. No patients developed alopecia, peripheral neuropathy greater than grade 1 or musculoskeletal toxicity greater than grade 1. Two patients developed grade 1 acute hypersensitivity reactions on the first cycle, and five others developed mild facial flushing on subsequent cycles of treatment. At the MTD, DHA–paclitaxel demonstrates a dramatically different pharmacokinetic profile compared with standard paclitaxel, similar to that observed in preclinical models. Additionally, a phase I clinical trial evaluating weekly administration of single-agent DHA–paclitaxel is underway in patients with refractory malignant solid tumors. The starting dose of DHA–paclitaxel in this study was 200 mg/m2.
Harries and colleagues, to determine the MTD of DHA–paclitaxel and carboplatin when administered in combination, conducted a phase I study in 15 patients with advanced refractory solid tumors [52]. Patients were treated with either carboplatin AUC 5 and DHA–paclitaxel 660 mg/m2 or carboplatin AUC 5 and DHA–paclitaxel 880 mg/m2. Both agents were administered on day 1 out of a 21-day cycle. Enrolled patients were heavily pretreated; 11 patients (79%) had received at least one prior chemotherapy regimen. In the group receiving DHA–paclitaxel 880 mg/m2, 75% (nine of 12 patients) required dose reduction, while 42% were required to delay treatment on cycle 2 due to persistent myelosuppression. Like the single-agent phase I trial, neutropenia was the dose-limiting toxicity; grade 3/4 neutropenia occurred in 11 of 12 patients at the higher dose level. Minimal alopecia and peripheral neuropathy was observed in both cohorts. The authors recommended DHA–paclitaxel at a dose of 660 mg/m2 and carboplatin AUC 5 given every 3 weeks as the regimen for further study.
phase II trials
A number of phase II clinical trials have been conducted to determine the efficacy and tolerability of DHA–paclitaxel in patients with NSCLC, prostate cancer, breast cancer, pancreatic cancer, malignant melanoma, gastric cancer or esophageal cancer [53–58]. Schacter et al. conducted a multicenter clinical study to determine the efficacy and safety of DHA–paclitaxel as front-line therapy for the treatment of advanced or metastatic NSCLC [53]. DHA–paclitaxel was administered intravenously over 2 h every 21 days at one of two doses, 900 mg/m2 (n = 31) or 1100 mg/m2 (n = 13). Patients were premedicated with steroids and antihistamines. Owing to excess toxicity, including one toxic death, the starting dose was reduced to 900 mg/m2 for the remainder of the trial. Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia was the main toxicity, occurring in 34 (77%) patients, and appears to be dose related. No grade 3 or 4 neuropathy, nausea or vomiting, or stomatitis was observed. Alopecia was rare. Forty patients were evaluable for response. In the group of patients treated at 900 mg/m2, partial response and stable disease were observed in two of 30 patients (6.7%) and 13 of 30 patients (43%), respectively, and at the higher dose of 1100 mg/m2, zero of 10 patients and patients and three of 10 (30%) achieved partial response and stable disease, respectively. Median survival was 9.8 months in the lower dose group compared with 5.3 months at the higher dose level. A second phase II study examining DHA–paclitaxel in combination with carboplatin is ongoing.
The efficacy and safety of DHA–paclitaxel in previously untreated malignant melanoma was examined by Modiano and colleagues in a phase II clinical study [57]. In an interim report, the authors describe the efficacy and tolerability of DHA–paclitaxel administered intravenously at a dose of 1100 mg/m2 over 2 h every 21 days in 34 patients. Neutropenia was the primary toxicity, with 17 (50%) patients experiencing grade 4 and two related deaths. Sensory neuropathies and stomatits were generally mild, while alopecia rarely occurred. Notably, a mild skin rash (grade 2) was observed in 27% of the cohort. Secondary to toxicity, the authors recommended a dose of 900 mg/m2 for future investigation. Of the 26 evaluable patients, two (7.6%) demonstrated partial response, whereas 12 (46%) had disease stabilization. Overall, median survival was 10.2 months, which is comparable to that previously shown with either single-agent dacarbazine or temozolimide. These results have prompted initiation of a phase III study comparing single-agent dacarbazine with DHA–paclitaxel in this setting.
Similar to the previously described phase II trials, DHA–paclitaxel has been evaluated in patients with previously untreated hormone-refractory prostate cancer, pancreatic cancer and gastric cancer, as well as second-line MBC [54–56, 58]. In each of these trials, DHA–paclitaxel was administered intravenously every 21 days at a dose of 1100 mg/m2. Dose reduction to 900 mg/m2 was permitted. In each of these studies, reversible neutropenia was the main toxicity. Owing to this toxicity and the observance of related deaths, the authors of each of these trials recommended a dose of 900 mg/m2 for further study. Alopecia, stomatitis and sensory neuropathies were observed notably less than that expected for either paclitaxel or docetaxel. A skin rash most often characterized by pigmentation changes was observed, but was not dose limiting. In each of these tumor types, DHA–paclitaxel demonstrated promising cytotoxic activity.
phase III trials
A phase III trial comparing DHA–paclitaxel with single-agent dacarbazine for first-line treatment of metastatic malignant melanoma is currently enrolling patients. The primary objective of this study is to compare overall survival between the two treatment groups. Secondary outcomes include response rate, response duration, time to progression, time to treatment failure and toxicities.
|
paclitaxel polyglumex |
|---|
formulation
Paclitaxel polyglumex (CT-2103; XytotaxTM) is another novel conjugate postulated to enhance solubility of hydrophobic drugs, increase tumor permeability and retention of paclitaxel, minimize normal tissue exposure to free drug and evade MDR efflux pumps via pinocytotic tumoral uptake [59
]. Paclitaxel polyglumex is a macromolecule consisting of a biodegradable, water-soluble polymer of glutamic acid, a naturally occurring amino acid, linked to paclitaxel [60]. Its molecular weight is 
80 000 Da and it contains 37% paclitaxel by weight [61]. Unlike standard formulation paclitaxel, the clinical preparation of paclitaxel polyglumex does not contain the toxic vehicle CrEL owing to the ability of polyglutamic acid to render highly hydrophobic molecules soluble. This results in shorter infusion times and eliminating the need for antihistamine and steroid premedications. This agent can be safely administered over 10 min through a peripheral vein every 21 days.
preclinical data
Preclinical models support the theorized benefits of paclitaxel polyglumex. In mice exposed to melanoma tumors, administration of paclitaxel polyglumex appears to be enhance tumor tissue distribution and exposure compared with standard paclitaxel alone [59]. Another preclinical study in rodents bearing either breast or ovarian carcinoma demonstrated rodents disease-free after a single intravenous injection of conjugated paclitaxel at a doses equivalent to paclitaxel that ranged from 40 to 160 mg/kg [62]. Similar results have also been noted in paclitaxel-resistant tumors [63]. Additionally, this agent seems to exhibit synergic activity with irradiation and improved tumor radiocurability in animal models [64–66].
phase I trials
Two single-agent, phase I trials are being conducted in patients with either NSCLC or advanced solid malignancies to determine the safety and pharmacokinetic profile in humans [67, 68]. Pharmacokinetic analyses in each of these trials demonstrated a linear relationship between paclitaxel polyglumex dose and AUC. Paclitaxel polyglumex displayed biphasic elimination with a significantly long elimination half-life of >130 h [68]. Its volume of distribution at steady state (Vss) was relatively low as well (mean 4 ± 2.5 l), suggesting strictly plasma volume distribution. The AUC of unconjugated paclitaxel represented between 2% and 6% of the total plasma content of paclitaxel polyglumex [67, 68]. This compound does not appear to accumulate in patients when administered every 3 weeks [68]. In each of these trials, the predominant toxicity has been neutropenia. Only mild neurotoxicities occurred and alopecia was minimal. When administered every 21 days, responses were observed in heavily pretreated patients with a variety of solid tumors, including those with NSCLC. In the ongoing single agent study in NSCLC, the formal MTD has not yet been defined [68].
Paclitaxel polyglumex has also been evaluated in phase I studies in combination with platinum chemotherapeutic agents in tumor types refractory to conventional therapy [69, 70]. At doses up to 250 mg/m2 paclitaxel polyglumex in combination with cisplatin 75 mg/m2, Kudelka and colleagues reported reversible neutropenia as the predominant toxicity [70]. Cytotoxic activity was observed across a number of solid malignancies. In combination with carboplatin AUC 6, Bolton et al. evaluated paclitaxel polyglumex at doses ranging from 175 up to 250 mg/m2 [69]. Results similar to those seen with cisplatin combination therapy were observed. The primary toxicities were neutropenia and thrombocytopenia, consistent with the known toxicity profile of carboplatin. In this trial, disease response and stabilization were noted across many refractory solid tumors, including NSCLC with good performance status (0/1) and platinum-refractory ovarian carcinoma. The authors determined an MTD of 225 mg/m2 conjugated paclitaxel in combination with carboplatin AUC 6.
Paclitaxel polyglumex is being evaluated in combination with radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy for the treatment of esophageal or gastric carcinoma and locally advanced, non-resectable NSCLC. Additional studies exploring the role of paclitaxel polyglumex and carboplatin combination therapy for first-line treatment of epithelial ovarian or primary peritoneal carcinoma as well as weekly administration are ongoing.
phase II trials
Based upon the preclinical activity of paclitaxel polyglumex against a taxane-resistant ovarian cancer cell line and the antitumor activity demonstrated in the phase I studies, Sabbatini and colleagues intiated a multicenter phase II clinical study in patients with epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal or Fallopian tube cancer [61]. In this trial, paclitaxel polyglumex was administered intravenously over 10 min at a dose of 175 mg/m2 every 3 weeks without routine premedications. In this study, 99 patients, both platinum-sensitive (n = 42) and platinum-resistant or refractory (n = 57) were enrolled and received at least one cycle of chemotherapy. All patients had received at least one prior regimen, and a majority (61%) had received three or more prior regimens. The principal toxicities were neutropenia and neurotoxicity. Reversible grade 3/4 neutropenia occurred in 15 (15%) and nine (9%) patients, respectively. No cases of febrile neutropenia were reported. Grade 3 neuropathy was observed in 15 patients, seven of which reported neuropathies at study entry and 12 had received five or more cycles of paclitaxel polyglumex. Eight patients (8%) were removed from study secondary to neuropathies. The incidence of clinically relevant neuropathies was higher than predicted, but a majority had received prior platinum/taxane-based chemotherapy; thus, further study is needed to characterize this study in patients with minimal pretreatment. No significant alopecia was observed. Despite the lack of premedications, 13 patients experienced mild allergic reactions (grade 1/2) and only one patient experienced a grade 3 hypersensitivity reaction. Of note, a majority of the study population had received prior taxane therapy and the effect of this on the incidence of hypersensitivity reactions remains unknown.
The overall response rate in all patients was 10% (95% CI 5% to 18%). When categorized by platinum sensitivity, the overall response rate in sensitive patients was improved compared with patients with refractory disease (14% versus 7%). As expected, in the minimally pretreated subgroup, response improved to 28% and 10% in sensitive and resistant disease, respectively. These response rates are comparable to those reported for paclitaxel in this setting [71, 72]. Overall, the median time to progression was 2.1 months (95% CI 1.9–3). In patients resistant or refractory to taxane chemotherapy, the response rate was only 2%; contrary to the preclinical data, paclitaxel polyglumex does not appear to have clinical activity in taxane-resistant disease [63]. However, this conjugate does appear to have antitumor activity in heavily pretreated patients with ovarian carcinoma.
Bodkin and colleagues have also evaluated the clinical efficacy of paclitaxel polyglumex as a single-agent for the first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC in a mixed cohort of elderly and poor performance status patients [73]. In this open-label, multicenter study, paclitaxel polyglumex was administered intravenously at a dose of 175 mg/m2 over 10 min every 21 days for up to six cycles. Of the 28 patients treated, the median age was 76 years (range 49–88), 28% had ECOG performance status 2, and 29% had stage IV disease. Twenty-five patients were evaluable for response, 18 (72%) of which achieved disease control. Fourteen (50%) patients had completed four cycles at the time of data presentation. Overall survival was 7.8 and 5.4 months, in the performance status 0–1 and 2 groups respectively. Treatment with paclitaxel polyglumex resulted in an improved toxicity profile compared with conventional taxanes. Grade 3/4 neuropathies were observed in two and three patients respectively, while one case of febrile neutropenia was reported. Neuropathy, as well as generalized weakness and fatigue, was seen in patients with concomitant progressive disease and significant disease-related comorbidities [73]. Based on the promising results of this trial, the trial remains open at a higher dose level of 235 mg/m2.
Additionally, phase II trials in patients with 5-fluorouracil-resistant advanced colorectal cancer and advanced metastatic breast suggest that paclitaxel polyglumex has antitumor activity in these populations as well [74, 75]. For each of these indications further development is warranted.
phase III trials
Based on observations previously reported in patients with NSCLC and poor performance status, three international, multicenter, randomized phase III studies of paclitaxel polyglumex designed to demonstrate superiority in overall survival have been initiated. The STELLAR (Selective Targeting for Efficacy in Lung Cancer, Lower Adverse Reactions) trials studied the role of paclitaxel polyglumex in patients with advanced NSCLC [76]. STELLAR 3 is a randomized, open-label trial comparing paclitaxel polyglumex 210 mg/m2 in combination with carboplatin AUC 6 versus standard paclitaxel (225 mg/m2) and carboplatin AUC 6, administered every 3 weeks, in chemotherapy-naïve performance status 2 patients with advanced NSCLC. The primary end point was overall survival. The overall survival did not differ significantly between the two treatment arms (7.9 versus 8 months; hazard ratio 0.97; n = 400) [77]. However, alopecia, arthralgias/myalgias, and cardiac events were significantly less frequent in the paclitaxel polyglumex treatment arm (P < 0.05). In addition, the median time to development of neuropathy was significantly longer for the paclitaxel polyglumex-treated patients (100 versus 54 days; P < 0.001). STELLAR 4 is a randomized, open-label trial comparing paclitaxel polyglumex 175 mg/m2, administered every 3 weeks, with either single-agent gemcitabine or vinorelbine in a patient population similar to that of STELLAR 3. This compound is also being evaluated as second-line monotherapy in the STELLAR 2 trial at a dose of 210 mg/m2 (performance status 0–1) or 175 mg/m2 (performance status 2) every 3 weeks compared with single-agent docetaxel. Enrollment in each of these trials has been completed.
|
taxane analogs |
|---|
As another means to bypass the toxicity of conventional taxanes and maintain or improve clinical antitumor activity, investigators have sought the development of taxane analogs. Many researchers are seeking the development of a compound with good oral bioavailability, having at least comparable efficacy to the parenteral taxanes currently available, and the absence of unmanageable side-effects.
BMS-184476
BMS-184476 is a novel taxane analog, characterized by substitution of a 7-methylthiomethyl ether group for the 7-hydroxyl group present on paclitaxel [78]. The 7-methylthiomethyl ether substitution increases the solubility of the drug and allows for formulation with 80% less CrEL per milligram of drug, thus potentially eliminating the need for routine premedications [79].
It has demonstrated properties that suggest an advantage over standard taxanes in preclinical and early clinical models [79, 80]. In various in vitro and in vivo tumor models, BMS-184476 has shown improved potency over either paclitaxel or docetaxel and has the ability to overcome paclitaxel resistance in some models [79]. Particulary encouraging is its antitumor activity in taxane-resistant human tumor cell lines with MDR due to P-glycoprotein overexpression or mutated tubulin [79]. BMS-184476 also enhances the effects of radiation in human lung cancer cells both in vitro and in vivo [80].
Two phase I studies of BMS-184476 as a single agent with 3-weekly and weekly administration have been published. Hidalgo and colleagues have reported the results of their study in which BMS-184476 was administered intravenously over 1 h every 3 weeks at doses ranging from 20 to 80 mg/m2 in 34 patients with advanced solid tumors. An MTD of 60 mg/m2 was established based on a toxicity profile of febrile neutropenia, diarrhea and mucositis [81]. Plummer et al. [82] initially treated 53 patients with BMS-184476 weekly every three out of four weeks, but this schedule was later modified to a regimen of weekly administration for two consecutive weeks every 21 days. At a MTD of 50 mg/m2, dose-limiting neutropenia was the main toxicity and diarrhea emerged as a prominent non-hematological toxicity. The authors recommended a phase II dose of 50 mg/m2 for weekly administration. The incidence of hypersensitivity reactions in each of these studies was minimal and did not require use of prophylactic medications.
Several phase I trials have evaluated BMS-184476 in combination with various chemotherapeutic agents. Sun and colleagues have published the results of their phase I trial evaluating BMS-184476 as a 1-h infusion followed by cisplatin every 21 days [83]. Twenty-seven patients with advanced solid malignancies were treated with BMS-184476 at doses ranging from 40 to 60 mg/m2 in combination with cisplatin 75 mg/m2. At the MTD of BMS-184476 60 mg/m2 and cisplatin 75 mg/m2, neutropenia and diarrhea were dose-limiting but manageable with appropriate supportive care measures. Unlike the single-agent trials, an initial observation of hypersensitivity reactions prompted use of routine premedications. Based on their findings, the authors recommended doses of BMS-184476 60 mg/m2 and cisplatin 75 mg/m2 with standard premedications for further study. Similarly, a combination study of BMS-184476 50 mg/m2 and carboplatin AUC 6, administered every 3 weeks, reported dose-limiting toxicities of neutropenia and diarrhea [84]. Weekly and 3-weekly administration of BMS-184476 prior to bolus doxorubicin were associated with dose-limiting neutropenia. The high degree of hematological toxicity observed in the 3-weekly regimen was attributed to pharmacologic interaction and prompted a decision to administer the agents in a weekly manner (BMS-184476 35 mg/m2/week and doxorubicin 50 mg/m2). Pharmacokinetic analysis did not reveal enhanced formation of doxorubicin's cardiotoxic metabolite when given in combination [85]. In conclusion, the results of these early trials indicate that both single-agent and combination therapy with BMS-184476 appear to be worth testing in future trials.
DJ-927
DJ-927 is a new oral taxane analog designed to overcome drug resistance and improve clinical efficacy. Preclinically, this compound has shown marked efficacy in vitro and in vivo in various tumor cell lines. DJ-927 displayed higher intracellular concentrations in P-glycoprotein-expressing tumors and enhanced potency compared with both paclitaxel and docetaxel [86]. In mice, dogs and monkeys, the pharmacokinetic profile of DJ-927 was compared with standard taxanes [87]. The authors reported that DJ-927 has many similar pharmacokinetic characteristics compared with commercially available taxanes, including route of elimination, degree of plasma protein binding and wide distribution to all tissue except the brain. In contrast, DJ-927 is well absorbed and displays a long biologic half-life when administered orally. Its oral bioavailability eliminates the need for toxic vehicles and attendant hypersensitivity reactions. A phase I study to determine its MTD and characterize its toxicity profile is ongoing [88]. In this study, patients with advanced malignancies receive DJ-927 as a single oral 3-weekly dose at doses ranging from 1.5 to 40 mg/m2. Above the MTD of 27 mg/m2, neutropenia was dose-related and dose-limiting. Minor reponses were observed in one patient with breast cancer and another with bladder carcinoma; disease stabilization was seen in 15 (35%) patients. Pharmacokinetic analysis indicates dose-proportional absorption and long elimination half-life (180 h).
BMS-275183
BMS-275183, a C-3'-t-butyl-3'-N-t-butyloxycarbonyl analog, is yet another orally bioavailable (24% in humans) and efficacious novel taxane currently in phase I clinical trials [89, 90]. In vitro, BMS-275183 demonstrated similar potency to paclitaxel. Interestingly, in an MDR-overexpressing tumor cell line, a rather modest loss of potency was seen compared with standard paclitaxel [91]. Similar findings were exhibited in vivo. Administration schedule effects have been investigated and, in rat models, it appears that intermittent use of BMS-275183 is optimal. Treatment schedules are being evaluated in initial clinical trials.
It has been found in phase I testing to have notable activity in patients with heavily pretreated NSCLC when administered weekly [89]. The main dose-limiting toxicity was cumulative peripheral neuropathy; major hematologic toxicity was infrequent. Based on these observations, Rose and Wild initiated preclinical testing of BMS-275183 and the anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitor, cetuximab, in mice bearing EGFR-expressing human tumor xenografts [92]. The combination appears to exhibit synergic activity warranting clinical evaluation.
ortataxel
Like its class counterparts, ortataxel (BAY 59-8862; IDN 5109) was synthesized to overcome resistance in cell lines expressing the MDR phenotype. Compared with paclitaxel, ortataxel displayed an improved toxicity profile as well as enlarged spectrum of antitumor activity in a large array of human tumor xenografts after intravenous administration [93, 94]. These results prompted researchers to investigate its bioavailability and cytotoxic activity after oral administration [95, 96]. Preclinically, ortataxel demonstrates an oral bioavailability of approximately 50%, owing to the inability of P-glycoprotein to recognize it as a substrate. Notably, compared with the intravenous formulation of paclitaxel and intravenous ortataxel, oral ortataxel exhibited similar anti-tumor potency in multiple models [95, 96].
Initial phase I clinical studies have been conducted [97, 98]. Tonkin and colleagues [98] initiated a multicenter, open-label, uncontrolled trial to evaluate oral ortataxel administered daily for 5 days every 3 weeks. Oral bioavailability of the compound ranged from 19% to 31% and the compounds half-life extended to nearly 70 h. Febrile neutropenia was the dose-limiting toxicity; nausea and vomiting was the most common non-hematological adverse event. Laurence et al. [97] have investigated weekly administration of the intravenous formulation in patients with advanced solid tumors. Both hematological and non-hematological toxicity were mild and authors determined the MTD for 3-weekly administration to be 75 mg/m2 [97]. Based upon the phase I findings, a phase II study evaluating its antitumor efficacy and safety as a single agent in patients with taxane-resistant NSCLC is ongoing [99]. Interim findings in 65 patients revealed partial responses in four (1.5%) patients; no patient with brain metastases achieved response. Ortataxel was well-tolerated as a 3-weekly intravenous infusion; mild anemia was the most frequent hematological toxicity, while fatigue was the most common non-hematological adverse event.
RPR 109881A
RPR 109881A is a novel semisynthetic taxane compound similar in origin and mechanism to docetaxel. The activity of RPR 109881A has been assessed, both in vitro and in vivo, in various murine and human tumor cell lines compared with conventional docetaxel. RPR 109881A has demonstrated a broad spectrum of activity both in docetaxel-sensitive and -resistant murine tumor cell lines [100, 101]. Of note, RPR 109881A is also active against tumor models overexpressing the MDR-1 gene [102]. In addition, it was found to cross the blood–brain barrier, probably a consequence of its decreased recognition by P-glycoprotein [101]. Preclinical evaluation of the optimal treatment schedule of RPR 109881A revealed that split-dosing schedule allowed the highest total dosage to be administered [100]. RPR 109881A is supplied as a single-dose vial containing polysorbate 80 solvent for administration.
A number of early clinical trials in heavily pretreated patients with solid malignancies were initiated in Europe, the USA, Canada and Japan in the mid-1990s [100, 101, 103–106]. Each of these trials sought to assess the toxicity profile and tolerability of different durations of infusion, ranging from 1 to 6 h, up to a 24-h continuous infusion. The reported toxicity patterns have been reproducible across all studies, with the neutropenia and diarrhea reported as the main dose-limiting toxicities. To date, infusion duration and toxicity do not seem to be correlated. Owing to polysorbate 80 in its formulation, prophylactic premedications were administered to prevent hypersensitivity reactions. Furthermore, the pharmacokinetic profile of RPR 109881A has been consistently described and does not appear to be schedule-related [107]. In contrast to docetaxel, RPR 109881A reaches detectable levels in the cerebrospinal fluid shortly after administration. This unique characteristic may substantially enhance therapeutic benefits for patients with brain metastases; however, further clinical investigation in this area must be completed. Phase II evaluation in patients previously treated with taxoids for MBC is ongoing [108].
|
co-polymers |
|---|
polymeric-micellar paclitaxel
Polymeric-micellar paclitaxel (Genexol-PM) is another novel taxane formulation utilizing paclitaxel and a biodegradable block copolymer [109
]. Polymeric micelles serve as an alternative vehicle to CrEL for hydrophobic paclitaxel. In vitro, this compound demonstrated comparable cytotoxicity compared with commercially available paclitaxel against many human cancers, including ovarian, breast, NSCLC and colon cancer cell lines [109–111]. Moreover, this compound was found to have three-times higher MTD and the biodistribution of paclitaxel after its administration in various tissues, including liver, spleen, kidney and lung, was nearly two to three times that expected with standard formulation. The antitumor efficacy of polymeric-micellar paclitaxel in vivo has exceeded that of paclitaxel in a variety of tumor cell lines [109–111]. In initial phase I testing, 21 patients with refractory solid tumors received Genexol-PM intravenously over 3 h every 3 weeks without premedications. The main dose-limiting toxicities at the determined MTD of 390 mg/m2 were neuropathy, myalgia and neutropenia [112]. Its CrEL-free formulation permits administration of higher paclitaxel doses than the conventional paclitaxel without associated increase in toxicities. Phase II studies with Genexol-PM are currently underway for patients with advanced breast and NSCLCs. |
liposomal-encapsulated paclitaxel |
|---|
The advancement of liposomal drug-delivery systems has recently expanded from encapsulation of doxorubicin to paclitaxel to attenuate its systemic toxicities. In preclinical evaluation, liposomal-encapsulated paclitaxel (LEP) demonstrated its ability to modulated MDR in human ovarian cancer cell lines and demonstrated comparable antitumor activity in mice models [113
, 114]. Addtionally, its elimination half-life was twice as long as conventional paclitaxel, while drug distribution of LEP was significantly enhanced as well [114].
Based upon its success preclinically, a number of phase I clinical trials have been initiated [115–118]. In the trial conducted by Treat and colleagues [115], LEP was administered over 45 min intravenously every 3 weeks to 26 patients. At the MTD of 175 mg/m2, mucositis and neutropenia were the dose-limiting adverse effects. No clinically significant neuropathies, myalgias or alopecia was observed. To combat liposome infusion reactions, the investigators required the routine administration antihistamines and steroids prior to treatment. The reported toxicity profile was similar in each of the studies; however, hypersensitivity reactions were not consistently reported. Further evaluation of the need for routine premedications is warranted.
|
paclitaxel vitamin E emulsion |
|---|
Paclitaxel vitamin E emulsion [paclitaxel injectable emulsion (PIE); TOCOSOL; S-8184] is a CrEL-free, vitamin E-based paclitaxel emulsion incorporating a P-glycoprotein inhibitor and a small particle size designed to minimize toxicity [119
]. In preclinical evaluation, its MTD was three-times that of standard paclitaxel. The ability to administer higher doses of paclitaxel conferred an antitumor activity advantage in animal models. Phase I testing was completed in a wide array of tumor types, many of which were taxane resistant, and it appears that PIE may be safely administered either weekly or 3-weekly [119, 120]. Neutropenia was the major toxicity in both of these trials. In phase II evaluations, PIE was well-tolerated and demonstrated promising efficacy when administered weekly in patients with refractory transitional cell carcinoma, NSCLC and ovarian cancer [121–123]. Neutropenia and anemia were the most common hematological toxicities; no grade 4 neuropathy was reported. |
microspheres |
|---|
In an effort to enhance local-regional therapy for patients with CNS malignancies, unresectable NSCLC or advanced prostate cancer, microsphere encapsulation of paclitaxel has been developed to bypass physiologic barriers (PACLIMER delivery system) [124
–126]. Local delivery of a controlled-release paclitaxel may allow sustained exposure and for increased tumoral drug concentrations. Whether these preclinical effects will translate to clinical therapeutic benefits is not yet known. |
conclusions |
|---|
In conclusion, there are a number of novel taxane formulations, from albumin nanoparticles to prodrugs and analogs to microsphere encapsulation, currently undergoing development. Coming back to the question we posed in the title of this review, do these agents represent anything more than old wine in a new bottle? With currently available data, we have to say, ‘not really’. However, some of the agents discussed above have certain advantages: shorter administration time, lower incidence of hypersensitivity reactions, myelosuppression and alopecia. Some of them are not substrates for P-glycoprotein, the clinical impact of which is unknown presently (Table 2). Whether these agents would improve survival when compared with established taxanes is largely unknown. Paclitaxel protein-bound particles (nab paclitaxel; ABI-007; AbraxaneTM) has received FDA-approval for the treatment of MBC after failure of combination chemotherapy or relapse within 6 months of adjuvant chemotherapy [127
]. The novel formulations of taxanes do hold some promise in cancer therapy and may provide modest improvement in outcomes. Received for publication August 13, 2005. Revision received November 5, 2005. Accepted for publication November 7, 2005.
|
References |
|---|
1. Schiff PB, Fant J, Horowitz SB. Promotion of microtubule assembly in vitro by taxol. Nature 1979; 227: 665–667.
2. Wani MC, Taylor HL, Wall ME. Plant antitumor agents VI. The isolation and structure of taxol: a novel antileukemic and antitumour agent from Taxus brevifolia. J Am Chem Soc 1971; 93: 2325–2327.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
3. Gelmon K. The taxoids: paclitaxel and docetaxel. Lancet 1994; 344: 1267–1272.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
4. Boehnke Michaud L, Valero V, Hortobagyi GN. Risks and benefits of taxanes in breast and ovarian cancer. Drug Safety 2000; 23: 401–428.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
5. ten Tije AJ, Verweij J, Loos WJ, Sparreboom A. Pharmacological effects of formulation vehicles: implications for cancer chemotherapy. Clin Pharmacokinet 2003; 42: 665–685.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
6. Weiss RB, Donehower RC, Wiernik PH et al. Hypersensitivity reactions from taxol. J Clin Oncol 1990; 8: 1263–1268.[Abstract]
7. Wiernik PH, Schwartz EL, Strauman JJ et al. Phase I clinical and pharmacokinetic study of taxol. Cancer Res 1987; 47: 2486–2493.
8. Lorenz W, Reimann HJ, Schmal A. Histamine release in dogs by Cremophor EL and its derivatives: oxethylated oleic acid is the most effective constituent. Agents Actions 1977; 7: 63–67.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
9. Bernstein B. Docetaxel as an alternative to paclitaxel after acute hypersensitivity reactions. Ann Pharmacother 2000; 34: 1332–1335.[Abstract]
10. Michaud LB. Methods for preventing reactions secondary to Cremophor EL. Ann Pharmacother 1997; 31: 1402–1404.[Web of Science][Medline]
11. Rowinsky EK, Eisenhauer EA, Chaudhry V et al. Clinical toxicities encountered with paclitaxel (Taxol). Semin Oncol 1993; 20: 1–15.[Web of Science][Medline]
12. Onetto N, Canetta R, Winograd B et al. Overview of Taxol safety. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993; 15: 131–139.
13. de Groen PC, Aksamit AJ, Rakela J et al. Central nervous system toxicity after liver transplantation. The role of cyclosporine and cholesterol. N Engl J Med 1987; 317: 861–866.[Abstract]
14. Windebank AJ, Blexrud MD, de Groen PC. Potential neurotoxicity of the solvent vehicle for cyclosporine. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 1994; 268: 1051–1056.
15. Brat DJ, Windebank AJ, Brimijoin S. Emulsifier for intravenous cyclosporin inhibits neurite outgrowth, causes deficits in rapid axonal transport and leads to structural abnormalities in differentiating N1E.115 neuroblastoma. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 1992; 261: 803–810.
16. Sparreboom A, van Tellingen O, Nooijen WJ, Beijnen JH. Nonlinear pharmacokinetics of paclitaxel in mice results from the pharmaceutical vehicle Cremophor EL. Cancer Res 1996; 56: 2112–2115.
17. van Tellingen O, Huizing MT, Panday VR et al. Cremophor EL causes (pseudo-) non-linear pharmacokinetics of paclitaxel in patients. Br J Cancer 1999; 81: 330–335.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
18. Sparreboom A, van Zuylen L, Brouwer E. Cremophor EL-mediated alteration of paclitaxel distribution in human blood: clinical pharmacokinetic implications. Cancer Res 1999; 59: 1454–1457.
19. Winer E, Berry D, Duggan D et al. Failure of higher dose paclitaxel to improve outcome in patients with metastatic breast cancer: Cancer and Leukemia Group B trial 9342. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22: 2061–2068.
20. Seidman AD, Berry D, Cirrincione C. CALGB 9840: phase III study of weekly paclitaxel via 1-hour infusion versus standard 3h infusion every third week in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer (MBC) with trastuzumab (T) for HER2 positive MBC and randomized for T in HER2 normal MBC. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2004; 22: 512 (Abstr).
21. Seidman. "Will weekly work"? seems to be so. . . J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 5873–5874.
22. Green MC, Buzdar AU, Smith T et al. Weekly paclitaxel improves pathologic complete remission in operable breast cancer when compared with paclitaxel once every 3 weeks. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 5983–5992.
23. van Zuylen L, Verweij J, Sparreboom A. Role of formulation vehicles in taxane pharmacology. Invest New Drugs 2001; 19: 125–141.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
24. van Tellingen O, Beijnen JH, Verweij J. Rapid esterase-sensitive breakdown of polysorbate 80 and its impact on the plasma pharmacokinetics of docetaxel and its metabolites in mice. Clin Cancer Res 1999; 5: 2918–2924.
25. Loos WJ, Baker SD, Verweij J et al. Clinical pharmacokinetics of unbound docetaxel: role of polysorbate 80 and serum proteins. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2003; 74: 364–371.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
26. Baker SD, Zhao M, Lee CK et al. Comparative pharmacokinetics of weekly and every-three-weeks docetaxel. Clin Cancer Res 2004; 10: 1976–1983.
27. Woodcock DM, Jefferson S, Linsenmeyer ME et al. Reversal of the multidrug resistance phenotype with cremophor EL, a common vehicle for water-insoluble vitamins and drugs. Cancer Res 1990; 50(14): 4199–4203.
28. Schuurhuis GJ, Broxterman HJ, Pinedo HM et al. The polyoxyethylene castor oil Cremophor EL modifies multidrug resistance. Br J Cancer 1990; 62: 591–594.[Web of Science][Medline]
29. Friche E, Jensen PB, Sehested M et al. The solvents cremophor EL and Tween 80 modulate daunorubicin resistance in the multidrug resistant Ehrlich ascites tumor. Cancer Commun 1990; 2: 297–303.[Web of Science][Medline]
30. van Asperen J, van Tellingen O, Sparreboom A. Enhanced oral bioavailability of paclitaxel in mice treated with the p-glycoprotein blocker SDZ PSC 833. Br J Cancer 1997; 76: 1181–1183.[Web of Science][Medline]
31. Richel DJ, Malingre MM, ten Bokkel Huinink WW. Cyclosporin a strongly enhances the oral bioavailability of docetaxel in cancer patients. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1999; 17: 775 (Abstr).
32. Malingre MM, Terwogt JM, Biejnen JH. Phase I and pharmacokinetic study of oral paclitaxel. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18: 2468–2475.
33. Fjallskog ML, Frii L, Bergh J. Paclitaxel-induced cytotoxicity—the effects of cremophor EL (castor oil) on two human breast cancer cell lines with acquired multidrug resistant phenotype and induced expression of the permeability glycoprotein. Eur J Cancer 1994; 30A: 687–690.
34. Fjallskog ML, Frii L, Bergh J. Is Cremophor EL, solvent for paclitaxel, cytotoxic? Lancet 1993; 342: 873.[Medline]
35. Liebmann J, Cook JA, Lipschultz C et al. The influence of Cremophor EL on the cell cycle effects of paclitaxel (Taxol) in human tumor cell lines. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 1994; 33: 331–339.[Web of Science][Medline]
36. Chajes V, Sattler W, Stranzl A, Kostner GM. Influence of n-3 fatty acids on the growth of human breast cancer cells in vitro: relationship to peroxides and vitamin-E. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1995; 34: 199–212.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
37. Kimura Y. Carp oil or oleic acid, but not linoleic acid or linolenic acid, inhibits tumor growth and metastasis in Lewis lung carcinoma-bearing mice. J Nutr 2002; 132: 2069–2075.
38. Nuijen B, Bouma M, Schellens JH, Beijnen JH. Progress in the development of alternative pharmaceutical formulations of taxanes. Invest New Drugs 2001; 19: 143–153.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
39. Ibrahim NK, Desai N, Legha S et al. Phase I and pharmacokinetic study of ABI-007, a Cremophor-free, protein-stabilized, nanoparticle formulation of paclitaxel. Clin Cancer Res 2002; 8: 1038–1044.
40. Desai N, Trieu V, Yao R et al. Evidence of greater antitumor activity of cermophor-free nanoparticle albumin-bound (nab) paclitaxel (abraxane) compared to taxol: role of a novel albumin transporter mechanism. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2003; 92: 348 (Poster).
41. Desai N, Yao Z, Soon-Shiong P, Dykes D. Evidence of enhanced in vivo efficacy at maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of nanoparticle paclitaxel (ABI-007) and taxol in 5 human xenografts of varying sensitivity to paclitaxel. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2002; 20: 462 (Abstr).
42. Desai N, Yao Z, Trieu V et al. Evidence of greater tumor and red cell partitioning and superior antitumor activity of cremophor free nanoparticle paclitaxel (ABI-007) compared to taxol. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2003; 82: 348 (Abstr).
43. Nyman DW, Campbell KJ, Hersh E et al. A phase I trial of ABI-007, nanoparticle paclitaxel, administered to patients with advanced non-hematologic malignancies. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2004; 22: 2027 (Abstr).
44. Damascelli B, Cantu G, Mattavelli F et al. Intraarterial chemotherapy with polyoxyethylated castor oil free paclitaxel, incorporated in albumin nanoparticles (ABI-007). Cancer 2001; 92: 2592–2602.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
45. Damascelli B, Patelli G, Lanocita R et al. A novel intraarterial chemotherapy using paclitaxel in albumin nanoparticles to treat advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the tongue: preliminary findings. Am J Roentgenol 2003; 181: 253–260.
46. Ibrahim NK, Samuels B, Page R. Nanoparticle paclitaxel (ABI-007) in metastatic breast cancer: efficacy and evidence of dose-dependent activity in two multicenter phase II studies. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2002; 20: 209 (Abstr).
47. Blum JL, Savin MA, Edelman G et al. Long term disease control in taxane-refractory metastatic breast cancer treated with nab paclitaxel. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2004; 22: 543 (Abstr).
48. Gradishar WJ, Tjulandin S, Davidson N et al. Superior efficacy of albumin-bound paclitaxel, ABI-007, compared with polyethylated castor-oil-based paclitaxel in women with metastatic breast cancer: results of a phase III trial. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 7794–7803.
49. Wolff AC, Donehower RC, Carducci MK et al. Phase I study of docosahexaenoic acid-paclitaxel: a taxane-fatty acid conjugate with a unique pharmacology and toxicity profile. Clin Cancer Res 2003; 9: 3589–3597.
50. Bradley MO, Webb NL, Anthony FH et al. Tumor targeting by covalent conjugation of a natural fatty acid to paclitaxel. Clin Cancer Res 2001; 7: 3229–3238.
51. Sparreboom A, Wolff AC, Verweij J et al. Disposition of docosahexaenoic acid-paclitaxel, a novel taxane, in blood: in vitro and clinical pharmacokinetic studies. Clin Cancer Res 2003; 9: 151–159.
52. Harries M, O'Donnell A, Scurr M et al. Phase I/II study of DHA-paclitaxel in combination with carboplatin in patients with advanced malignant solid tumors. Br J Cancer 2004; 91: 1651–1655.[Web of Science][Medline]
53. Schacter L, Talbot D, Ellis P et al. Safety and efficacy of DHA-paclitaxel (TXP) in non-small cell lung cancer. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2004; 22: 7111 (Abstr).
54. Bellet R, Carducci MA, Petrylak D et al. Phase II study of DHA-paclitaxel as first line chemotherapy in patients with hormone refractory prostate cancer. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2004; 22: 4657 (Abstr).
55. Johnston SRD, Houston S, Jones A et al. Efficacy of DHA-paclitaxel (TXP) for the second line treatment of breast cancer. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2004; 22: 65 (Abstr).
56. Jacobs A, Planting A, Ferry D et al. Efficacy of DHA-paclitaxel in pancreatic cancer. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2003; 21: 1090 (Abstr).
57. Modiano M, Houston S, Savage P et al. Efficacy of DHA-paclitaxel in malignant melanoma. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2003; 21: 2891 (Abstr).
58. Evans TR, Hawkins RW, Eatock M et al. Efficacy of DHA-paclitaxel in adenocarcinoma of the esophagus or stomach. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2003; 21: 1154 (Abstr).
59. Singer JW, Baker B, De Vries P et al. Poly-(L)-glutamic acid-paclitaxel (CT-2103) [XYOTAX], a biodegradable polymeric drug conjugate: characterization, preclinical pharmacology, and preliminary clinical data. In Maeda H (ed.): Polymer Drugs in the Clinical Stage. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers 2003; 81–99.
60. Li C. Poly(L-glutamic acid): anticancer drug conjugates. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2002; 54: 695–713.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
61. Sabbatini P, Aghajanian C, Dizon D et al. Phase II study of CT-2103 in patients with recurrent epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22: 4523–4531.
62. Li C, Yu DF, Newman RA et al. Complete regression of well-established tumors using a novel water-soluble poly(L-glutamic acid)-paclitaxel conjugate. Cancer Res 1998; 58: 2404–2409.
63. Li C, Price JE, Milas L et al. Antitumor activity of poly(L-glutamic acid)-paclitaxel on syngeneic and xenografted tumors. Clin Cancer Res 1999; 5: 891–897.
64. Milas L, Mason KA, Hunter N et al. Poly(L-glutamic acid)-paclitaxel conjugate is a potent enhancer of tumor radiocurability. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003; 55: 707–712.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
65. Li C, Ke S, Wu QP et al. Tumor irradiation enhances the tumor-specific distribution of poly(L-glutamic acid)-conjugated paclitaxel and its antitumor efficacy. Clin Cancer Res 2000; 6: 2829–2834.
66. Li C, Ke S, Wu QP et al. Potentiation of ovarian OCa-1 tumor radioresponse by poly (L-glutamic acid)-paclitaxel conjugate. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2000; 48: 1119–1126.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
67. Verrill MW, Boddy AV, Todd R et al. Phase I pharmacokinetic study of CT-2103 given Q2 or Q3 weeks in patients with solid tumors. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2003; 21: 533 (Abstr).
68. Shipley D, Greco A, Jones S et al. Phase I study of CT-2103 in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2003; 21: 2833 (Abstr).
69. Bolton M, Nemunaitis J. Phase I study of CT-2103/carboplatin in patients with solid tumors. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2003; 21: 646 (Abstr).
70. Kudelka A, Skubitz KM, Kavanagh JJ, Bolton M. Phase I study of CT-2103/cisplatin in patients with solid tumors. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2003; 21: 1841 (Abstr).
71. McGuire WP, Blessing JA, Bookman MA et al. Topotecan has substantial antitumor activity as first-line salvage therapy in platinum-sensitive epithelial ovarian carcinoma: a gynecologic oncology group study. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18: 1062–1067.
72. Gore M, Huinink W, Carmichael J et al. Clinical evidence for topotecan-paclitaxel non-cross-resistance in ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol 2001; 19: 1893–1900.
73. Bodkin D, Neubauer M, Bolton MG. Phase 2 study of first line chemotherapy using CT-2103 (XYOTAX) in patients with non-small cell lung cancer who are >69 years of age or who have performance status (PS) = 2. Eur J Cancer Suppl 2003; 1: S242.
74. Schulz JJ, Burris HA, Redfern C, Bolton M. Phase 2 study of CT-2103 in patients with colorectal cancer having recurrent disease after treatment with a 5-flourouracil-containing regimen. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2003; 21: 1137 (Abstr).
75. Robson L, Verrill M, Lind MJ et al. A phase 2 study of CT-2103, a poly(L-glutamic acid)-paclitaxel conjugate administered every 3 weeks in patients with advanced breast cancer. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2003; 21: 169 (Abstr).
76. Langer CJ. Dilemmas in management: the controversial role of chemotherapy in PS 2 advanced NSCLC and the potential role of CT-2103 (Xyotax). Oncologist 2004; 9: 398–405.
77. Langer CJ, Socinski, MA, Ross H, O'Byrne KJ. Paclitaxel poligulmex/carboplain vs. paclitaxel/carboplatin for the treatment of PS2 patients with chemotherapy-naive advanced non-small cell lung cancer: A phase III study. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2005; 23: LBA7011 (Abstr).
78. Altstadt TJ, Fairchild CR, Golik J et al. Synthesis and antitumor activity of novel C-7 paclitaxel ethers: discovery of BMS-184476. J Med Chem 2001; 44: 4577–4583.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
79. Rose WC, Fairchild C, Lee FY. Preclinical antitumor activity of two novel taxanes. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 2001; 47: 97–105.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
80. Kim JS, Amorino GP, Pyo H et al. The novel taxane analogs, BMS-184476 and BMS-188797, potentiate the effects of radiation therapy in vitro and in vivo against human lung cancer cells. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001; 51: 525–534.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
81. Hidalgo M, Aylesworth C, Hammond LA et al. Phase I and pharmacokinetic study of BMS-184476, a taxane with greater potency and solubility than paclitaxel. J Clin Oncol 2001; 19: 2493–2503.
82. Plummer R, Ghielmini M, Calvert P et al. Phase I and pharmacokinetic study of the new taxane analog BMS-184476 given weekly in patients with advanced malignancies. Clin Cancer Res 2002; 8: 2788–2797.
83. Sun W, Stevenson JP, Gallagher ML et al. Phase I and pharmacokinetic trial of the novel taxane BMS-184476 administered as a 1-hour intravenous infusion in combination with cisplatin every 21 days. Clin Cancer Res 2003; 9: 5221–5227.
84. Bilenker JH, Stevenson JP, Gallagher ML et al. Phase I trial of the novel taxane BMS-184476 administered in combination with carboplatin every 21 days. Br J Cancer 2004; 91: 213–218.[Web of Science][Medline]
85. Sessa C, Perotti A, Salvatorelli E et al. Phase IB and pharmacological study of the novel taxane BMS-184476 in combination with doxorubicin. Eur J Cancer 2004; 40: 563–570.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
86. Shionoya M, Jimbo T, Kitagawa M et al. DJ-927, a novel oral taxane, overcomes P-glycoprotein-mediated multidrug resistance in vitro and in vivo. Cancer Sci 2003; 94: 459–466.[CrossRef][Medline]
87. Ono C, Takao A, Atsumi R. Absorption, distribution, and excretion of DJ-927, a novel orally effective taxane, in mice, dogs, and monkeys. Biol Pharm Bull 2004; 27: 345–351.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
88. Syed SK, Beeram M, Takimoto CH et al. Phase I and pharmacokinetics of DJ-927, an oral taxane, in patients with advanced cancers. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2004; 22: 2028 (Abstr).
89. Broker LE, De Vos FY, Gall H et al. A phase I trial of the novel oral taxane BMS-275183 in patients with advanced solid tumors. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2004; 22: 2029 (Abstr).
90. Trump DL, Egorin MJ, Ramesh R et al. A new oral taxane (BMS-275183): phase I trial with evaluation of pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and bioavailability. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2002; 20: 398 (Abstr).
91. Rose WC, Long BH, Fairchild CR et al. Preclinical pharmacology of BMS-275183, an orally active taxane. Clin Cancer Res 2001; 7: 2016–2021.
92. Rose WC, Wild R. Therapeutic synergy of oral taxane BMS-275183 and cetuximab versus human tumor xenografts. Clin Cancer Res 2004; 10: 7413–7417.
93. Cassinelli G, Lanzi C, Supino R et al. Cellular bases of the antitumor activity of the novel taxane IDN 5109 (BAY59-8862) on hormone-refractory prostate cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2002; 8: 2647–2654.
94. Polizzi D, Pratesi G, Tortoreto M et al. A novel taxane with improved tolerability and therapeutic activity in a panel of human tumor xenografts. Cancer Res 1999; 59: 1036–1040.
95. Polizzi D, Pratesi G, Monestiroli S et al. Oral efficacy and bioavailability of a novel taxane. Clin Cancer Res 2000; 6: 2070–2074.
96. Nicoletti MI, Colombo T, Rossi C et al. IDN5109, a taxane with oral bioavailability and potent antitumor activity. Cancer Res 2000; 60: 842–846.
97. Laurence V, Pierga JY, Beuzeboc P et al. A phase I and pharmacokinetic study of a novel taxane BAY 59-8862 with a weekly schedule. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2003; 21: 647 (Abstr).
98. Tonkin K, Herbert H, Lathia C et al. A phase I and pharmacokinetic study of a novel oral taxane BAY 59-8862 in solid tumors. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2003; 21: 965 (Abstr).
99. Gurtler JS, Von Pawel J, Spiridonidis H et al. An uncontrolled phase II study evaluating anti-tumor efficacy and safety of ortataxel (BAY 59-8862) in patients with taxane-resistant non-small cell lung cancer. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2004; 22: 7136 (Abstr).
100. Gelmon KA, Latreille J, Tolcher A et al. Phase I dose-finding study of a new taxane, RPR 109881A, administered as a one-hour intravenous infusion days 1 and 8 to patients with advanced solid tumors. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18: 4098–4108.
101. Kurata T, Shimada Y, Tamura T et al. Phase I and pharmacokinetic study of a new taxoid, RPR 109881A, given as a 1-hour intravenous infusion in patients with advanced solid tumors. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18: 3164–3171.
102. Bissery MC, Vrignaud P, Riou JF. In vivo isolation and characterization of a docetaxel resistant B16 melanoma. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1995; 36: 1882 (Abstr).
103. Sessa C, Cuvier C, Caldiera S et al. Phase I clinical and pharmacokinetic studies of the taxoid derivative RPR 109881A administered as a 1-hour or a 3-hour infusion in patients with advanced solid tumors. Ann Oncol 2002; 13: 1140–1150.
104. Barthier S, Dieras VC, Kalla S et al. A Phase I and pharmacokinetics study of RPR 109881A given as 6-hour iv infusion in patients with advanced solid tumors. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1998; 16: 747 (Abstr).
105. Slaughter M, Pazdur R, Hoff PM et al. Phase I trial of RPR 109881A, a novel taxoid derivative, administered as a 24-hour continuous infusion. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1998; 16: 748 (Abstr).
106. Hyodo I, Shimada Y, Tamura T et al. Phase I study of RPR 109881A in patients with advanced solid tumors. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1998; 16: 745 (Abstr).
107. Vernillet L, Semiond D, Vergniol JC et al. Pharmacokinetics of a new taxoid (RPR 109881A): comparison of five different administration schedules. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1998; 16: 749 (Abstr).
108. Dieras VC, Limantani SA, Lortholary A et al. A multicentre, non randomized phase II study with RPR 10988A in metastatic breast cancer patients. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2003; 22: 141 (Abstr).
109. Kim SC, Kim DW, Shim YH et al. In vivo evaluation of polymeric micellar paclitaxel formulation: toxicity and efficacy. J Control Release 2001; 72: 191–202.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
110. Zhang X, Burt HM, Mangold G et al. Anti-tumor efficacy and biodistribution of intravenous polymeric micellar paclitaxel. Anticancer Drugs 1997; 8: 696–701.[CrossRef][Medline]
111. Zhang X, Burt HM, Von Hoff D et al. An investigation of the antitumour activity and biodistribution of polymeric micellar paclitaxel. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 1997; 40: 81–86.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
112. Kim TY, Kim DW, Chung JY et al. Phase I and pharmacokinetic study of genexol-PM, a cremophor-free, polymeric micelle-formulated paclitaxel, in patients with advanced malignancies. Clin Cancer Res 2004; 10: 3708–3716.
113. Rafaeloff R, Hussain SR, Rahman A. Liposomal encapsulated taxol is an effective modality to circumvent multidrug resistance phenotype. Proc Am Assoc Cancer Res 1992; 33: 2883 (Abstr).
114. Cabanes A, Briggs KE, Gokhale PC. Comparative in vivo studies with paclitaxel and liposome encapsulated paclitaxel. Int J Oncol 1998; 12: 1035–1040.[Web of Science][Medline]
115. Treat J, Damjanov N, Huang C et al. Liposomal-encapsulated chemotherapy: preliminary results of a phase I study of a novel liposomal paclitaxel. Oncology 2001; 15: 44–48.
116. Bowden C, Huang C, Eisenberg P. Phase I trial in advanced malignancies with liposome encapsulated paclitaxel (LEP) Q 3 weeks. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2002; 20: 1862 (Abstr).
117. Soepenberg O, Sparreboom A, de Jonge MJ. Phase I and pharmacokinetic study of weekly schedule of LEP (liposomal encapsulated paclitaxel) in patients with solid tumors. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2002; 20: 404 (Abstr).
118. Fishman MN, Elsayed Y, Damjanov N. Phase I study of lipsome entrapped paclitaxel (LEP-ETU) in patients with advanced cancer. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2004; 20: 2110 (Abstr).
119. Spigel SC, Jones SF, Greco FA. S-8184 vitamin E paclitaxel emulsion: preclinical and phase I data. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2002; 20: 406 (Abstr).
120. Bogdanova N, Lissianskaya A, Gorelov A. Paclitaxel vitamin E emulsion: phase I/II study of weekly administration in patients with non-small cell lung cancer, transitional cell, ovarian, or colorectal cancer. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2003; 21: 988 (Abstr).
121. Gorelov A, Gorelov S, Karlov P. Paclitaxel injectable emulsion: phase 2a study of weekly administration in patients with metastatic or locally advanced unresectable or recurrent urothelial transitional cell cancer. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2004; 22: 4586 (Abstr).
122. Bogdanova N, Karaseva N, Ognerubov N. Paclitaxel injectable emulsion: phase 2a study of weekly administration in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol, 2004; 22: 7133 (Abstr).
123. Lissianskaya A, Gershanovich M, Ognerubov N. Paclitaxel injectable emulsion: phase 2a study of weekly administration in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2004; 22: 5047 (Abstr).
124. Harper E, Dang W, Lapidus RG, Garver RI Jr. Enhanced efficacy of a novel controlled release paclitaxel formulation (PACLIMER delivery system) for local-regional therapy of lung cancer tumor nodules in mice. Clin Cancer Res 1999; 5: 4242–4248.
125. Li KW, Wenbin D, Tyler BM. Polilactofate microspheres for paclitaxel delivery to central nervous system malignancies. Clin Cancer Res 2003; 9: 3441–3447.
126. Lapidus RG, Dang W, Rosen DM et al. Anti-tumor effect of combination therapy with intratumoral controlled-release paclitaxel (PACLIMER microspheres) and radiation. Prostate 2004; 58: 291–298.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
127. Product Information: Abraxane, Paclitaxel Protein-Bound Particles. Schaumburg, IL: Abraxis Oncology, updated January 2005.
128. Blum JL, Beveridge R, Robert N et al. ABI-007 nanoparticle paclitaxel: demonostration of anti-tumor activity in taxane-refractory metastatic breast cancer. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2003; 21: 64 (Abstr).
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  J. Kang, X. Wu, Z. Wang, H. Ran, C. Xu, J. Wu, Z. Wang, and Y. Zhang Antitumor Effect of Docetaxel-Loaded Lipid Microbubbles Combined With Ultrasound-Targeted Microbubble Activation on VX2 Rabbit Liver Tumors J. Ultrasound Med., January 1, 2010; 29(1): 61 - 70. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. Goodin Novel cytotoxic agents: Epothilones Am. J. Health Syst. Pharm., May 15, 2008; 65(10_Supplement_3): S10 - S15. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 N. Wiedenmann, D. Valdecanas, N. Hunter, S. Hyde, T. A. Buchholz, L. Milas, and K. A. Mason 130-nm Albumin-Bound Paclitaxel Enhances Tumor Radiocurability and Therapeutic Gain Clin. Cancer Res., March 15, 2007; 13(6): 1868 - 1874. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. Goldstein, O. Gofrit, A. Nyska, and S. Benita Anti-HER2 Cationic Immunoemulsion as a Potential Targeted Drug Delivery System for the Treatment of Prostate Cancer Cancer Res., January 1, 2007; 67(1): 269 - 275. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||