Comparing nanoparticle polymeric micellar paclitaxel and solvent-based paclitaxel as first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: an open-label, randomized, multicenter, phase III trial

•Polymeric micellar paclitaxel is a significant breakthrough in the history of chemotherapy.•Polymeric micellar paclitaxel yielded a superior objective response rate compared with solvent-based paclitaxel.•Polymeric micellar paclitaxel yielded a superior progression-free survival compared with solvent-based paclitaxel.•Polymeric micellar paclitaxel yielded a lower incidence of treatment-related serious adverse events compared with solvent-based paclitaxel.•Polymeric micellar paclitaxel should be preferred over solvent-based paclitaxel in the first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. BackgroundPolymeric micellar paclitaxel (pm-Pac) is a novel Cremophor EL-free, nanoparticle micellar formulation of paclitaxel. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety between pm-Pac plus cisplatin and solvent-based paclitaxel (sb-Pac) plus cisplatin in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).Patients and methodsA total of 448 stage IIIB to IV NSCLC patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive six 3-week cycles of either pm-Pac (230 mg/m2) plus cisplatin (70 mg/m2; n = 300), followed by dose escalation of pm-Pac to 300 mg/m2 from the second 3-week cycle if prespecified toxic effects were not observed after the first cycle, or sb-Pac (175 mg/m2) plus cisplatin (70 mg/m2; n = 148). The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) assessed by independent review committees (IRCs). The secondary end points included IRC-assessed progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety.ResultsPatients in the pm-Pac-plus-cisplatin group showed significant improvements in IRC-assessed ORR compared with those in the sb-Pac-plus-cisplatin group (50% versus 26%; rate ratio 1.91; P < 0.0001). Additionally, subgroup analysis showed that a higher ORR was consistently observed in both squamous and nonsquamous histological types. IRC-assessed median PFS was significantly higher in the pm-Pac-plus-cisplatin group than in the sb-Pac-plus-cisplatin group (6.4-month versus 5.3-month; hazard ratio 0.63; P = 0.0001). Median OS was not significantly different between the two groups. The incidence of treatment-related serious adverse events (9% versus 18%; P = 0.0090) was significantly lower in the pm-Pac-plus-cisplatin group than in the sb-Pac-plus-cisplatin group.ConclusionPm-Pac plus cisplatin yielded superior ORR and PFS along with a favorable safety profile and should become an option for patients with advanced NSCLC.Clinical trial identifierClinicalTrials.gov NCT02667743; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02667743. Polymeric micellar paclitaxel (pm-Pac) is a novel Cremophor EL-free, nanoparticle micellar formulation of paclitaxel. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety between pm-Pac plus cisplatin and solvent-based paclitaxel (sb-Pac) plus cisplatin in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). A total of 448 stage IIIB to IV NSCLC patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive six 3-week cycles of either pm-Pac (230 mg/m2) plus cisplatin (70 mg/m2; n = 300), followed by dose escalation of pm-Pac to 300 mg/m2 from the second 3-week cycle if prespecified toxic effects were not observed after the first cycle, or sb-Pac (175 mg/m2) plus cisplatin (70 mg/m2; n = 148). The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) assessed by independent review committees (IRCs). The secondary end points included IRC-assessed progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. Patients in the pm-Pac-plus-cisplatin group showed significant improvements in IRC-assessed ORR compared with those in the sb-Pac-plus-cisplatin group (50% versus 26%; rate ratio 1.91; P < 0.0001). Additionally, subgroup analysis showed that a higher ORR was consistently observed in both squamous and nonsquamous histological types. IRC-assessed median PFS was significantly higher in the pm-Pac-plus-cisplatin group than in the sb-Pac-plus-cisplatin group (6.4-month versus 5.3-month; hazard ratio 0.63; P = 0.0001). Median OS was not significantly different between the two groups. The incidence of treatment-related serious adverse events (9% versus 18%; P = 0.0090) was significantly lower in the pm-Pac-plus-cisplatin group than in the sb-Pac-plus-cisplatin group. Pm-Pac plus cisplatin yielded superior ORR and PFS along with a favorable safety profile and should become an option for patients with advanced NSCLC.