Efficacy and safety analysis of paclitaxel, docetaxel and liposomal paclitaxel after neoadjuvant therapy in breast cancer.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Paclitaxel-based regimens are widely used in the neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) of breast cancer. The purpose is to analysis the efficacy and adverse events (AEs) among common paclitaxel (PTX), docetaxel and liposomal paclitaxel. At the same time, we want to analysis the axillary nodal pathologic complete response (apCR) after NAT among the three groups.

METHODS

From April 2014 to 2020, 647 breast cancer patients underwent operation after NAT were included in this study. Patients received full course of anthracycline- and paclitaxel-based chemotherapy before surgery. The paclitaxel-based regimens included PTX, docetaxel and liposomal paclitaxel. The therapy efficacy and AEs of the three groups were evaluated. At the same time, the apCR was also analyzed.

RESULTS

In general, 30.6% (198/647) of patients achieved breast pathologic complete response (bpCR), which was 28.6%, 28.3% and 39.3% among PTX, docetaxel and liposomal paclitaxel group, respectively (p = 0.067). The total pathologic complete response (tpCR) (achieving both bpCR and apCR) was 21.6% (140/647). The tpCR was 13.3%, 19.4% and 34.4% among PTX, docetaxel and liposomal paclitaxel group, respectively (p = 0.026). The multivariate logistic analysis result showed that clinical tumor stage and molecular subtype were significantly associated with tpCR (all p < 0.05). Among 592 clinical positive patients (cN), the apCR was 39.0% (231/592). The multivariate logistic analysis showed that paclitaxel- based regimens and molecular subtype were indicated as independent predictors for apCR of NAT. The apCR was significantly higher in liposomal paclitaxel group (63.5%) than in PTX (24.6%) and docetaxel group (34.8%) (p < 0.001). The subgroup analysis among different molecular subtypes found that in triple negative (TN) and HER-2 positive (HER2+) subgroup, the apCR in liposomal paclitaxel group was significantly higher than those in PTX and docetaxel group (all p < 0.05). But no significant result was found in the subgroup analysis in hormone receptor positive/HER-2 negative subgroup (p = 0.050). Safety analysis indicated that the incidence of neutropenia (grade III-IV) and peripheral neurotoxicity (grade I-II) was significantly lower in the liposomal paclitaxel group than in the PTX and docetaxel group. The incidence of oral mucositis, anaphylaxis and palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome was also much lower in liposomal paclitaxel than other two groups (all p < 0.05). And there was no significant difference in other AEs among the three groups (all p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Liposome paclitaxel had similar tumor suppressor effect compared with PTX and docetaxel in NAT setting. Moreover, it had a better axillary lymph node (ALN) response after NAT than PTX and docetaxel. These patients who received liposome paclitaxel had more chance to avoid ALN dissection after NAT. At the same time, the application of liposome enables liposome paclitaxel could significantly reduce AEs caused by chemotherapy. Therefore, we suggested the application of liposome paclitaxel in the NAT setting, especially for cN patients with TN and HER2 + disease.