Oral paclitaxel shows non-inferior efficacy compared to IV paclitaxel for HER2-negative mBC

Share :
Published: 31 May 2025
Views: 68
Rating:
Save
Prof Sung-Bae Kim - Asan Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea

Prof Kim talks to ecancer at ASCO 2025 about data he presented from the phase III OPTIMAL trial.

This demonstrated that DHP107, an oral formulation of paclitaxel, is non-inferior to intravenous paclitaxel in terms of progression-free survival (PFS) for patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer, with a median PFS of 10.02 vs. 8.54 months, and a comparable overall survival of around 33 months.

DHP107 also showed higher response and disease control rates, with fewer instances of peripheral neuropathy, hypersensitivity, and infusion-related reactions, although it was associated with higher rates of neutropenia and mild gastrointestinal side effects.

Overall, DHP107 was found to provide an effective and convenient oral alternative to intravenous paclitaxel with a manageable safety profile, supporting its potential use in routine clinical care.

At ASCO the OPTIMAL trial was presented. The OPTIMAL trial is a phase III study evaluating oral paclitaxel versus IV paclitaxel in HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. Paclitaxel is a cornerstone in the management of breast cancer but it is [??], it is associated with a high percentage of reactions in peripheral neuropathy and requires infusion time. Three-weekly versus weekly showed that the weekly regimen has a higher efficacy but because a weekly regimen means more frequent hospital visits. So our hypothesis was that if the oral paclitaxel is an alternative comparable to the IV paclitaxel it can reduce not only the medical course and the hospital visits, it can overcome the disadvantages of IV paclitaxel.

Before we conducted this trial the oral paclitaxel has an advantage: free from the [??] and also no need for p-glycoprotein. A phase III study was conducted in gastric cancer, it was approved in Korea and Japan, and also before we conducted a phase III trial, the phase II trial demonstrated that the progression free survival was 8.9 months and overall response rate is 50% in this population and acceptable toxicities. Based on the previous research, this is the rationale to proceed into a phase III study.

What was the methodology and what did you find?

This is a non-inferior design so the relative margin is 1.33. The primary endpoint is progression free survival for oral paclitaxel versus IV paclitaxel. That hazard ratio crosses 1.0, the upper limit of the confidence interval did not exceed 1.33 which means it is non-inferior, almost comparable. Also the overall survival data, response rate data and toxicity profile were almost comparable although hematologic toxicity, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia and anaemia were more common and also GI toxicity – diarrhoea, nausea, vomiting – is more common in the oral form but it is usually grade 1 and 2, it is manageable. But peripheral neuropathy, hyposensitive reaction, infusion-related reaction, is more common in the IV paclitaxel.

So based on this comparable efficacy, the acceptable toxicity, this oral paclitaxel, DHP107, could be an alternative to IV paclitaxel in the management of the HER2 negative chemo-naïve patient population. If it is applicable in the clinical setting it can reduce the medical costs, administrative costs, it can reduce the hospital visits, it can overcome the disadvantages of IV paclitaxel.

Is there anything else you would like to add?

Oral paclitaxel, I mentioned that it has a definite advantage but nowadays paclitaxel is an important partner with the immune checkpoint inhibitors. So without the steroid it’s an advantage of this oral paclitaxel. And also safety is an issue so it can move to oral and also a good combination pattern with the immune checkpoint inhibitor. So it has more chance to expand further.