Prophylaxis for paclitaxel hypersensitivity reactions

Impact of institutional interventions on the rate of paclitaxel hypersensitivity reactions

PURPOSE

Paclitaxel is associated with hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs). Intravenous premedication regimens have been devised to decrease the incidence and severity of HSRs. At our institution oral histamine 1 receptor antagonists (H1RA) and histamine 2 receptor antagonists (H2RA) were adopted as standard. Standardizations were implemented for consistent premedication use in all disease states. The purpose of this retrospective study was to compare the incidence and severity of HSRs before and after standardization.

METHODS

Patients who received paclitaxel from 20 April 2018 to 8 December 2020 having an HSR were included in analysis. An infusion was flagged for review if a rescue medication was administered after the start of the paclitaxel infusion. The incidences of all HSR prior to and post-standardization were compared. A subgroup analysis of patients receiving paclitaxel for the first and second time was performed.

RESULTS

There were 3499infusions in the pre-standardization group and 1159infusions in the post-standardization group. After review, 100 HSRs pre-standardization and 38 HSRs post-standardization were confirmed reactions. The rate of overall HSRs was 2.9% in the pre-standardization group and 3.3% in the post-standardization group (p = 0.48). HSRs, during the first and second doses of paclitaxel, occurred in 10.2% of the pre-standardization and 8.5% of the post-standardization group (p = 0.55).

CONCLUSIONS

This retrospective interventional study demonstrated that same-day intravenous dexamethasone, oral H1RA, and oral H2RA are safe premedication regimens for paclitaxel. No change in the severity of reactions was seen. Overall, better adherence to premedication administration was seen post-standardization.

Successful desensitisation to paclitaxel with omalizumab

We present the case of a patient with failed desensitisation to paclitaxel that was ultimately successful with omalizumab treatment. Our patient, a female aged between 20-25 and diagnosed with a triple negative breast cancer, received first-line treatment with carboplatin and paclitaxel. During the second cycle of paclitaxel, she experienced heat, dyspnoea, facial angioedema and vomiting. Skin tests for allergic reactions returned negative results, and drug provocation tests showed a positive result (anaphylaxis). Rapid drug desensitisation (RDD) was carried out with two bags of dilutions but at the beginning of the infusion, the patient experienced symptoms again, so the infusion was stopped. Therefore, the use of omalizumab, already reported as a successful adjuvant in desensitisation to other drugs, was considered. The anti-immunoglobulin E (IgE) monoclonal antibody was administered off-label before the first programmed desensitisation with success: total dose of paclitaxel was infused without any reaction. The patient was able to receive the complete chemotherapy treatment.

Pre-medication protocols for the prevention of paclitaxel-induced infusion related reactions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Prophylaxis against infusion-related reactions (IRR) from paclitaxel with steroids and antihistamines is a standard of care due to high rates of IRR. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to comprehensively summarize the evidence behind various prophylaxis strategies.

METHODS

EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials were searched (1946 to May 14, 2021). The primary outcomes were Grade 3/4 IRR and any-grade IRR. Secondary outcomes included treatment delay or discontinuation and adverse events secondary to pre-medications.

RESULTS

Of the 1285 unique citations, 26 studies were selected: 11 studies for quantitative analysis and 15 studies for qualitative analysis. Studies included randomized controlled trials and observational studies (n = 25-281). There was a non-significant benefit in favour of oral steroids starting 12 h prior to paclitaxel administration versus intravenous steroids immediately prior to paclitaxel administration for grade 3/4 IRRs, with a risk difference (RD) of 2% [95%CI 0 to 5%], any-grade IRR with a RD of 4% [95%CI: -1% to 9%] and treatment discontinuation with a RD of 1% [95%CI -1% to 2%]. For de-escalation strategies, a point-estimate for any-grade IRR was 0.44% [95% CI, 0 to 0.02, p = 0.98] and for grade 3/4 IRR was 3.1% (95% CI, 0.02 to 0.07, p = 0.11).

CONCLUSION

Although studies have high risk of bias and risk, differences between steroid routes of administration were small, there was a non-significant trend in favour of oral steroids. De-escalation strategies after two previous successful paclitaxel infusions have an overall low incidence rate of severe IRR and warrant further prospective clinical trials. Insufficient evidence remains to recommend for or against other interventions for the prevention of paclitaxel IRR.

The Role of Cetirizine in the Changing Landscape of IV Antihistamines: A Narrative Review

Since 1955, the only available H1 antihistamines for intravenous administration have been first-generation formulations and, of those, only intravenously administered (IV) diphenhydramine is still approved in the USA. Orally administered cetirizine hydrochloride, a second-generation H1 antihistamine, has been safely used over-the-counter for many years. In 2019, IV cetirizine was approved for the treatment of acute urticaria. In light of this approval, this narrative review discusses the changing landscape of IV antihistamines for the treatment of histamine-mediated conditions. Specifically, IV antihistamines will be discussed as a treatment option for acute urticaria and angioedema, as premedication to prevent infusion reactions related to anticancer agents and other biologics, and as an adjunct treatment for anaphylaxis and other allergic reactions. Before the development of IV cetirizine, randomized controlled trials of IV antihistamines for these indications were lacking. Three randomized controlled trials have been conducted with IV cetirizine versus IV diphenhydramine in the ambulatory care setting. A phase 3 trial of IV cetirizine 10 mg versus IV diphenhydramine 50 mg was conducted in 262 adults who presented to the urgent care/emergency department with acute urticaria requiring antihistamines. For the primary efficacy endpoint, defined as change from baseline in a 2-h patient-rated pruritus score, non-inferiority of IV cetirizine to IV diphenhydramine was demonstrated (score - 1.6 vs - 1.5, respectively; 95% CI - 0.1, 0.3). Compared with IV diphenhydramine, IV cetirizine demonstrated fewer adverse effects including less sedation, a significantly shorter length of stay in the treatment center, and fewer returns to the treatment center at 24 and 48 h. Similar findings were demonstrated in another phase 2 acute urticaria trial and in a phase 2 trial assessing IV cetirizine for pretreatment for infusion reactions in the oncology/immunology setting. IV cetirizine is associated with similar patient outcomes, fewer adverse effects, and increased treatment center efficiency than IV diphenhydramine.

Effects of Diluent Volume and Administration Time on the Incidence of Anaphylaxis Following Docetaxel Therapy in Breast Cancer

Hypersensitivity reactions, including anaphylaxis, are common side effects associated with docetaxel treatment in breast cancer patients. However, preventive measures have not yet been established. In this study, we retrospectively analyzed the risk factors for developing anaphylaxis in 182 female breast cancer patients treated with docetaxel. We found that 6.6% of all patients (n = 12) experienced anaphylaxis. Multivariate analyses indicated that concentration of docetaxel higher than 0.275 mg/m²/mL, docetaxel dose rate higher than 1.15 mg/m²/min, and white blood cell count less than 4290 cells/mL are risk factors for developing docetaxel-related anaphylaxis. In particular, concentrations of docetaxel or doses per administration time were associated with a high odds ratio (11.88 or 11.60) for docetaxel-related anaphylaxis. Moreover, patients receiving doses in 250 mL volume experienced anaphylaxis more frequently than those receiving doses in 500 mL (7.0 vs. 0.9%, p = 0.0236). Additionally, patients receiving treatments over 60 min tended to experience anaphylaxis more frequently than those who were treated over 90 min (6.7 vs. 1.1%, p = 0.0637). The present results indicate that high docetaxel concentrations, high dose rates, and low white blood cell counts are risk factors for developing docetaxel-related anaphylaxis, and administering docetaxel diluted in 500 mL over 90 min may limit docetaxel-induced hypersensitivity reactions.

Randomized, Controlled Trial of Dexamethasone Versus Dexamethasone Plus Hydrocortisone as Prophylaxis for Hypersensitivity Reactions Due to Paclitaxel Treatment for Gynecologic Cancer

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess intravenous hydrocortisone (HCT) added to standard dexamethasone (DXM) prophylaxis for paclitaxel-associated hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs).

METHODS

Paclitaxel naives scheduled for 6 cycles of paclitaxel (plus platinum) were randomized to DXM alone (20 mg intravenously [IV]) versus DXM plus HCT (100 mg IV) as premedication including chlorpheniramine (10 mg IV), diphenhydramine (25 mg orally), and ranitidine (50 mg IV) 30 minutes before infusion. Clinic nurses observed for HSRs. Groups were well balanced for cancer type, stage, drug allergy, chemotherapy naivete, mean age, body mass index, and paclitaxel dose.

RESULTS

The 44 DXM controls underwent 213 cycles and the 42 investigational DXM plus HCT group 192 per protocol cycles. Hypersensitivity reactions were observed among 9 (4.2%) DXM only cycles compared with 1 (0.5%) among DXM plus HCT cycles (P = 0.022). Hypersensitivity reactions occurred in 8 (18%) DXM only patients and in 1 (2.4%) among those correctly receiving DXM plus HCT (P = 0.030). All HSRs occurred in cycles 1 to 3, within 10 to 40 minutes after infusion initiation, and peaked in cycle 2 (5/39) for DXM recipients and in cycle 3 (1/30) for DXM plus HCT. Hypersensitivity reaction severity was grade 1 in 3 DXM only recipients and grade 2 in 6 DXM and 1 DXM plus HCT. A sole grade 3 HSR was in an intention-to-treat DXM-HCT patient, who erroneously received no HCT. Hypersensitivity reaction symptoms were facial flushing (8 episodes), dyspnea (7), palmar rash (1), and transient hypotension (1). Paclitaxel infusion was suspended for treatment of HSRs; in all cases, symptoms mitigated and infusion successfully restarted for the remaining dose.

CONCLUSIONS

Adding HCT to routine DXM prophylaxis significantly decreased paclitaxel HSR frequency.

Meta-analysis of the effects of oral and intravenous dexamethasone premedication in the prevention of paclitaxel-induced allergic reactions

Background

Dexamethasone premedication is required to prevent paclitaxel-related hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs). Oral dexamethasone (PO-D) has been considered the standard premedication regimen. However, whether intravenous dexamethasone (IV-D) is feasible for preventing paclitaxel-related HSRs is still unclear. We conducted a meta-analysis to compare these two regimens.

Methods

We performed a systematic search in the PubMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Web of Science databases for relevant articles published before June 2016. Outcomes included HSRs and severe HSRs. Statistical analyses were performed using RevMan 5.2 software.

Result

Six studies comprising 1347 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The PO-D premedication regimen showed a significantly decreased incidence of severe HSRs compared with the IV-D regimen with an OR of 0.53 (95% CI 0.28-0.99, p = 0.05). However, there was no difference in the overall paclitaxel-related HSR rates between the two premedication regimens (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.55-1.06, p = 0.11). Subgroup analyses according to study type and country of origin showed similar statistical results between the two premedication regimens.

Conclusion

Our meta-analysis showed that the PO-D premedication regimen is superior to the IV-D regimen in preventing paclitaxel-related HSRs. Additional randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm our findings.

An Open-Label, Randomized, Parallel, Phase II Trial to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of a Cremophor-Free Polymeric Micelle Formulation of Paclitaxel as First-Line Treatment for Ovarian Cancer: A Korean Gynecologic Oncology Group Study (KGOG-3021)

PURPOSE

Genexol-PM is a biodegradable cremophor EL-free polymeric micelle formulation of paclitaxel. Here,we compared efficacy and safety of Genexol-PM plus carboplatin versus Genexol plus carboplatin for ovarian cancer treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this multicenter, randomized, phase II study, patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics IC-IV epithelial ovarian cancer were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive Genexol-PM 260 mg/m² or Genexol 175 mg/m² with 5 area under the curve carboplatin every 3weeks (6 cycles). The primary endpointwas the carbohydrate antigen 125 and Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumor composite overall response rate (ORR).

RESULTS

Of 131 enrolled patients, 98 were included in intention-to-treat analysis. Mean dosages were 260.00±0.00 mg/m² Genexol-PM or 174.24±3.81 mg/m² Genexol. Median followup was 18.0 months (range, 6.1 to 33.8 months). ORR was 88.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 80.4 to 95.6) with Genexol-PM, and 77.1% (95% CI, 67.1 to 87.1) with Genexol (noninferiority threshold, 16.3%). Median time to progression was 14.8 months (95% CI, 11.3 to 20.2) with Genexol-PM and 15.4 months (95% CI, 13.2 to 29.6) with Genexol (p=0.550). Overall, six patients died. Neutropenia was the most common toxicity (incidences of 86.0% vs. 77.1%, p=0.120). Peripheral neuropathy incidences were 84.0% versus 64.6% (p= 0.148). Peripheral neuropathy of ≥ grade 3 occurred in one patient receiving Genexol. All toxicities were manageable.

CONCLUSION

Genexol-PM plus carboplatin as first-line treatment in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer demonstrated non-inferior efficacy and well-tolerated toxicities compared with the standard paclitaxel regimen. Further studies are warranted to optimize the dose and schedule, and to investigate long-term outcomes.

Intravenous versus oral dexamethasone for prophylaxis of paclitaxel-associated hypersensitivity reaction in patients with primary ovarian, fallopian tube and peritoneal cancer: A double-blind randomized controlled trial

AIM

To compare the efficacies and side effects of intravenous and oral dexamethasone (IV-D and PO-D) for paclitaxel-associated hypersensitivity reaction (P-HSR) prophylaxis in patients with primary ovarian, fallopian tube and peritoneal carcinomas (POC/PFTC/PPC) receiving a first cycle of paclitaxel plus carboplatin (TC).

METHODS

In this double-blind randomized controlled trial, patients with POC/PFTC/PPC receiving a first cycle of TC were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to either the IV-D or PO-D groups. Those were followed at 28 days. Primary outcomes were incidence of overall and severe P-HSRs. Secondary outcomes included incidence of dexamethasone-related side effects, other chemotherapy-related adverse events (AEs), and quality-of-life (QoL).

RESULTS

A total of 288 patients were enrolled from February to July 2015, of whom 281 were eligible for analysis, including 140 allocated to IV-D and 141 to PO-D. There was no significant difference in P-HSR rate between the IV-D and PO-D groups (17.9% vs. 19.1%, P = 0.780). Severe P-HSR occurred in one women in the IV-D group (0.7% vs. 0%, P = 0.498). There were no significant differences in other chemotherapy-related AEs and QoL scores. However, women in the PO-D had more side effects from short-term corticosteroid use than those in the IV-D group, especially acne (10.6% vs. 2.1%, P = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

IV-D and PO-D have similar efficacies for preventing P-HSR. However, short-term IV-D may be associated with fewer side effects than PO-D. IV-D is thus suggested for P-HSR prophylaxis in patients with POC/PFTC/PPC receiving a first cycle of TC.

Engineering Biomaterial-Drug Conjugates for Local and Sustained Chemotherapeutic Delivery

The standard of care for cancer patients includes surgical resection, radiation, and chemotherapy with cytotoxic chemotherapy drugs usually part of the treatment. However, these drugs are commonly associated with cardiotoxicity, ototoxicity, nephrotoxicity, peripheral neuropathy, and myelosuppression. Strategies to deliver cytotoxic chemotherapy drugs while reducing secondary toxicity and increasing tumor dosing would therefore be desirable. This goal can be achieved through the use of controlled release drug carrier systems. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of clinically used drug carrier systems and recently developed approaches for drug-biomaterial conjugation.

Adverse events to nontargeted and targeted chemotherapeutic agents: emphasis on hypersensitivity responses

Use of cytotoxic agents is associated with potential hypersensitivity reactions which are common with platinum compounds, L-asparaginase, taxanes, procarbazine and epipodophyllotoxins. Mechanisms underlying the reactions may involve IgE, non-allergic or a number of pathogenetically unclear events. Targeted therapies produce less collateral damage but demonstrate their own unique reactions. Cytopenias occur less often and mucocutaneous reactions to EGFR inhibitors, including papulopustular rash, are common. Fifteen currently approved mAbs provoke all four types of hypersensitivities including immune cytopenias, vasculitis, serum sickness and pulmonary events. Some successful desensitization protocols have been developed. Prevention of hypersensitivity reactions is based on skin testing, premedication and/or desensitization.

An insight into cochleates, a potential drug delivery system

Cochleates are solid particulates made up of large continuous lipid bilayer sheets rolled up in a spiral structure with little or no internal aqueous phase. Cochleates improve the oral bioavailability and efficacy of the drugs by decreasing side effects.

Design, synthesis and bioevaluation of an EphA2 receptor-based targeted delivery system

Because of its overexpression in a range of solid tumors, the EphA2 receptor is a validated target for cancer therapeutics. We recently described a new targeted delivery system based on specific EphA2-targeting peptides conjugated with the chemotherapeutic agent paclitaxel. Here, we investigate the chemical determinants responsible for the stability and degradation of these agents in plasma. Introducing modifications in both the peptide and the linker between the peptide and paclitaxel resulted in drug conjugates that are both long-lived in rat plasma and that markedly decrease tumor size in a prostate cancer xenograft model compared with paclitaxel alone treatment. These studies identify critical rate-limiting degradation sites on the peptide-drug conjugates, enabling the design of agents with increased stability and efficacy. These results provide support for our central hypothesis that peptide-drug conjugates targeting EphA2 represent an innovative and potentially effective strategy to selectively deliver cytotoxic drugs to cancer cells.

Intravenous Versus Oral Dexamethasone Premedication in Preventing Paclitaxel Infusion Hypersensitivity Reactions in Gynecological Malignancies

Objective

Dexamethasone premedication is required with paclitaxel to prevent infusion-related hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs). Both oral dexamethasone (PO-D; 20 mg 12 and 6 hours before paclitaxel) and intravenous dexamethasone (IV-D; 20 mg 30 minutes before paclitaxel) regimens are used. The optimal premedication regimen and management of patients after HSR are unclear.

Methods

Data on HSRs in women receiving paclitaxel, 175 mg/m2, every 3 weeks at Imperial College Healthcare Trust from May 2011 to February 2012 were obtained from the pharmacy database. During this period, dexamethasone premedication for paclitaxel was administered orally (PO-D; 20 mg 12 and 6 hours before paclitaxel) from May to August 2011, then changed to intravenous dexamethasone (IV-D; 20 mg 30 minutes before paclitaxel) for 3 months, and then reverted to PO-D from November 2011. There were 93 and 55 patients who received PO-D and IV-D before paclitaxel, respectively. Hypersensitivity reaction rates were pooled with those from published studies for analysis. Gynecologic oncology centers in the UK and Canada were surveyed regarding premedication and post-HSR management. A Markov Monte-Carlo simulation model compared costs and benefits of different strategies.

Results

Hypersensitivity reaction rates with PO-D and IV-D were 5.4% (5/93) versus 14.5% (8/55) (P= 0.07) in Imperial College Healthcare Trust patients, and 6.8% (20/290) versus 14.1% (30/212) (P= 0.009) on pooled analysis with data from 2 additional studies (502 patients), respectively. However, IV-D is the most common premedication regimen used in the UK and Canada (48.5% and 34.2% of centers). Post-HSR paclitaxel on a desensitization protocol is a cost-effective alternative to discontinuing paclitaxel altogether.

Conclusion

Oral dexamethasone seems to be superior to IV-D in preventing HSRs. Post-HSR patients should be considered for desensitization.

Phase II study of a cremophor-free, polymeric micelle formulation of paclitaxel for patients with advanced urothelial cancer previously treated with gemcitabine and platinum

INTRODUCTION

Genexol-PM is a novel Cremophor® EL (CrEL)-free polymeric micelle formulation of paclitaxel. This multicenter phase II study was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Genexol-PM monotherapy in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma who developed disease progression after gemcitabine and cisplatin combination chemotherapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients received Genexol-PM 240 mg/m(2) intravenously over 3 h every 3 weeks without premedication. Intra-patient dose escalation to 300 mg/m(2) was allowed during the second and subsequent cycles if pre-specified toxicities were not observed during the first cycle. The primary endpoint was response.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven patients were enrolled in this study. Platinum-free interval was less than 6 months in 27 (73%) patients, and 24 (64%) were categorized as having intermediate or poor prognosis according to Bajorin's criteria. Of 34 evaluable patients, there were 7 responses (21%; 95% CI, 7-34%), including one complete response (CR), with a median response duration of 6.5 months (95% CI, 3.5-9.6 months). The median time to progression was 2.7 months (95% CI, 0.9-4.6 months) with a median overall survival of 6.5 months (95% CI, 5.0-8.0 months). The most common grade 3/4 non-hematologic toxicities were peripheral neuropathy (sensory type 5.9%; motor type 8.8%) and infection (5.9%). Grade ≥3 hematologic toxicities occurred in only one patient.

CONCLUSION

Genexol-PM was generally well tolerated and demonstrated sufficient antitumor activity to warrant further development when used as second-line chemotherapy after gemcitabine-cisplatin failure in patients with urothelial carcinoma (NCT01426126).

Dexamethasone premedication for prophylaxis of taxane toxicities: can the doses be reduced when paclitaxel or docetaxel are given weekly?

PURPOSE

To evaluate the clinical literature supporting reduced doses of dexamethasone to prevent taxane hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs), and edema/skin toxicities in respect to docetaxel, when taxanes are given weekly, as opposed to every 3 weeks.

DATA SOURCE

Clinical literature of human-controlled clinical trials, accessed through MEDLINE and meeting abstract databases (from 1990 to 2010).

DATA EXTRACTION

The retrieved literature was reviewed to include all human clinical trials that recorded adverse effect information with weekly taxanes utilizing reduced-dose or tapering dexamethasone schemas, either prospectively or retrospectively.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Prophylaxis for paclitaxel-related HSRs generally includes one or more 20 mg doses of dexamethasone, with histamine-1 and -2 receptor antagonists prior to infusion of paclitaxel. Prophylaxis for docetaxel-related HSRs generally includes dexamethasone beginning 1 day before docetaxel, and continuing twice daily for a total of 3 days. These schedules were designed for taxanes given every 3 weeks, but may lead to steroid-related adverse effects when given weekly with weekly taxane administration. Treatment strategies designed to reduce corticosteroid exposure in patients receiving weekly taxanes have been investigated.

CONCLUSIONS

Several predication strategies utilizing reduced doses of dexamethasone with weekly taxanes appear to be feasible and safe, and can be considered for patients experiencing, or at high risk for steroid-induced side effects. However, the optimal schedule is not yet determined; larger prospective clinical trials are needed.

Phase II clinical trial of paclitaxel loaded polymeric micelle in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer

PURPOSE

To determine in patients, with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer (APC), efficacy and safety of treatment with intravenous paclitaxel loaded polymeric micelle (GPM).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a multicenter, open-label Phase II study. Patients with APC, ECOG performance status < or = 2, no prior chemotherapy and adequate organ function were treated with 3-hour GPM infusions every 3 weeks. Initial patients were treated with 435 mg/m(2) (n = 11). The dose was reduced for subsequent patients to 350 or 300 mg/m(2) (n = 45). Primary endpoint was time to tumor progression (TTP).

RESULTS

56 patients were enrolled. Median TTP for patients treated with 300 or 350 mg/m(2) doses was 3.2 months (95% CI, 2.6-4.2). Median progression free survival (PFS) was 2.8 months (95% CI, 1.4-4.0). Median overall survival (OS) was 6.5 months (95% CI, 5.1-7.9). Among patients treated with above doses of GPM, there was 1 complete remission (CR) and 2 partial remissions (PR) with an overall response rate (ORR) of 6.7%. Disease control rate (CR + PR + stable disease) was 60.0%. Most common grade 3 toxicities were: neutropenia (40.0%), fatigue (17.8%), infection, dehydration, neuropathy (each 13.3%), and abdominal pain (11.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of APC with GPM at a dose of 300 mg/m(2) q 3 weeks was well tolerated and common toxicities were qualitatively similar to Cremophor-based paclitaxel. GPM monotherapy resulted in OS and other efficacy parameters preferable to that seen historically with gemcitabine. Future studies of GPM in combination with other agents for treatment of APC are warranted.

Multicenter phase II trial of Genexol-PM, a Cremophor-free, polymeric micelle formulation of paclitaxel, in patients with metastatic breast cancer

Genexol-PM is a novel Cremophor EL-free polymeric micelle formulation of paclitaxel. This single arm, multicenter phase II study was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Genexol-PM in patients with histologically confirmed metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Forty-one women received Genexol-PM by intravenous infusion at 300 mg/m2 over 3 h every 3 weeks without premedication until disease progression or intolerability. A total of 331 chemotherapy cycles were administered, with a median of 8 cycles per patient (range, 1-16). Overall response rate was 58.5% (95% CI: 43.5-72.3) with 5 complete responses and 19 partial responses. Thirty-seven patients who received Genexol-PM as a first-line therapy for their metastatic disease showed a response rate of 59.5% (95% CI: 43.5-73.7), and two responses were reported in four patients treated in the second-line setting for their metastatic disease. The median time to progression (TTP) for all patients was 9.0 months (range, 1.0-17.0+ months). Grade 3 non-hematologic toxicities included sensory peripheral neuropathy (51.2%), and myalgia (2.4%). Eight patients (19.5%) experienced hypersensitivity reactions, with grade 3 in two patients. Hematologic toxicities were grade 3 and 4 neutropenia (51.2 and 17.1%, respectively), and grade 1 and 2 thrombocytopenia (22.0%). Notably, no febrile neutropenia was observed. Genexol-PM appears a promising new paclitaxel in view of significant efficacies. Further trials with different dosing schedules, durations of delivery, or in combination with other drugs are warranted.

Paclitaxel Hypersensitivity Reactions

Several studies have suggested the usefulness of a test dose of paclitaxel to reduce the incidence of hypersensitivity reactions and the resulting cost of drug wastage. The aim of this study was to assess the utility of implementing such a test dose.

METHOD

We retrospectively reviewed the medical charts of patients who had received one or two courses of single-agent paclitaxel or a combination chemotherapy regimen to calculate hypersensitivity reaction incidence and the cost of drug wastage. Thereafter, a paclitaxel test-dose program was routinely implemented during the first and second cycles of paclitaxel treatment for all patients. Hypersensitivity reaction incidence and drug wastage cost were again assessed.

RESULTS

Before the routine use of a test dose, 162 patients received one or two paclitaxel infusions alone or in combination therapy from January 1, 1997 to February 28, 2003. Ten (6.2%) patients experienced a hypersensitivity reaction; one of them was severe. After implementation of the test-dose program, 130 patients received 244 test doses (12 mg paclitaxel/10 mL normal saline) with an intensified premedication regimen at the first and second cycles of chemotherapy from June 28, 2003 to March 2, 2005. Three patients (2.3%) experienced a minor hypersensitivity reaction, one immediately after the test dose and two during infusion of the full dose despite a well-tolerated test dose. Thus, the negative predictive value of the test dose was 98.4%. The overall incidence of hypersensitivity reactions experienced during the first or second cycle of paclitaxel chemotherapy decreased about 63% compared with the incidence before implementation of the test dose (P < 0.20). The test-dose program resulted in a 29% increase in the cost of chemotherapy (approximately 6100 dollars for 130 patients).

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, this is the largest study ever reported to test the potential cost-saving benefit of the implementation of a paclitaxel test-dose program to prevent hypersensitivity reactions. The results suggest that the routine use of a test dose is not a cost-effective measure.

Paclitaxel in a novel formulation containing less Cremophor EL as first-line therapy for advanced breast cancer: a phase II trial

Paclitaxel (Taxol) is formulated in 50% Cremophor EL (CrEL)/absolute ethanol for clinical use. In order to reduce vehicle-related side effects, Genetaxyl was developed to have paclitaxel formulated in a solution containing lesser amounts of CrEL and ethanol plus 2 other solvents. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Genetaxyl as first-line therapy to treat breast cancer patients. Patients with newly diagnosed stage III (N = 8) or IV (N = 10), or recurrent (N = 11) breast cancer received single-agent Genetaxyl at 175 mg/m(2) administered in a 3-h infusion every 3 weeks for 3-6 cycles. A total of 148 cycles were delivered to 29 patients. The overall response rate was 41.4% (95% confidence interval, 23.4 to 59.2%), and that of patients with metastatic disease (N = 20) was 30%. Median survival for all patients was 32.4 months and 24.3 months for patients having metastatic disease. The toxicity profile seems favorable, especially regarding myelosuppression and myalgia/arthralgia. No severe hypersensitivity reaction occurred. These phase II trial results demonstrate that a 60% reduction of CrEL by Genetaxyl's formulation does not affect the activity of paclitaxel and could allow for better control of several CrEL-related toxicities.

Improving Patient Outcomes in an Ambulatory Infusion Setting

Nurses working in the outpatient ambulatory setting treat patients with multiple infusion drug regimens. Patients can have allergic reactions to infusions ranging from very mild to life-threatening. The reaction and the subsequent treatment measures can be very disconcerting to the patients and to the visitors in the infusion area. The nursing team described in this article took a proactive approach to minimize infusion reactions in the authors' facility, thereby ensuring the safety of other patients. Staff members examined the performance improvement data, conducted a retrospective study, and collaborated with the primary physician providers to develop rechallenge protocols for patients receiving paclitaxel and carboplatin regimens.

Incidence and risk factors for paclitaxel hypersensitivity during ovarian cancer chemotherapy

Hypersensitivity reaction (HSR) is still a major concern during cancer chemotherapy with paclitaxel. In the present study, we investigated retrospectively the incidence of HSRs to paclitaxel and the risk factors in 105 patients (553 courses) who received adjuvant chemotherapy (paclitaxel and carboplatin) for ovarian cancer. Moderate to severe HSRs that led to cessation or discontinuation of the chemotherapy, including respiratory distress and hypotension, were observed in 14 patients (13.3%) and 16 courses (2.9%), regardless of the use of conventional premedication with glucocorticoid, and histamine H(1) and H(2) antagonists. The incidence of HSRs to paclitaxel in patients with ovarian cancer seemed to be considerably higher than those reported by other investigators in patients with other carcinomas such as non-small-cell lung cancer and breast cancer. Four risk factors were identified: (1) history of mild dermal reactions such as facial flushing and urticaria in previous courses, (2) presence of respiratory dysfunction, (3) obesity (body mass index >25), and (4) postmenopausal at the time of ovariectomy. The incidence of hypersensitivity increased linearly as the number of risk factors increased (r=0.992, P=0.008). It is likely that disappearance of the estrous cycle facilitates the occurrence of HSRs to paclitaxel.

Fatal outcome of a hypersensitivity reaction to paclitaxel: a critical review of premedication regimens

Hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to paclitaxel are frequently encountered in patients receiving this antitumour drug. Administration of histamine H1- and H2-receptor antagonists and corticosteroids has been shown to reduce significantly the risk of developing an HSR in patients receiving taxanes. In this case report, we describe the fatal outcome of an HSR in a patient receiving paclitaxel despite short-course premedication. The level of evidence supporting the short-course i.v. premedication schedule is challenged, as it is not compatible with the pharmacokinetic properties of dexamethasone.