Comparative effectiveness of early-line nab-paclitaxel vs. Paclitaxel in patients with metastatic breast cancer

A US community-based real-world analysis

Reshma Mahtani, Monika Parisi, Stefan Glück, Quanhong Ni, Siyeon Park, Corey Pelletier, Claudio Faria, Fadi Braiteh

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Real-world analyses of treatments for patients with metastatic breast cancer are limited. We evaluated the comparative effectiveness of nab-paclitaxel vs. paclitaxel in patients with metastatic breast cancer using data from an electronic medical record database from community practices across the USA. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study using fully de-identified data from an independent US electronic medical record platform of patients with metastatic breast cancer initiating single-agent nab-paclitaxel or paclitaxel as a first- or second-line treatment from December 1, 2010 to October 6, 2014. The clinical efficacy objectives were time to treatment discontinuation (TTD) and time to next treatment (TTNT). Subgroup analyses were performed in patients with 2 types of metastatic breast cancer as follows: 1) hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative, and 2) triple-negative disease. Results: This analysis included 925 patients. Patients receiving nab-paclitaxel vs. paclitaxel had significantly longer TTD (median 4.2 vs. 2.8 months, P<0.0001) and TTNT (median 6.0 vs. 4.2 months, P<0.0001); similar outcomes were observed for patients with hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative disease. Compared with paclitaxel, nab-paclitaxel was associated with significantly longer TTD in patients with triple-negative disease. nab-Paclitaxel was associated with significantly less all-grade neuropathy, anemia, pain, and diarrhea than paclitaxel. Antiemetic and antihistamine use were significantly less frequent with nab-paclitaxel vs. paclitaxel, whereas use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, hydrating agents, and bone-directed therapy to decrease skeletal-related events were more frequent. Conclusion: nab-Paclitaxel demonstrated improved clinical effectiveness compared with paclitaxel when examining TTD and TTNT in patients with metastatic breast cancer in a real-world setting.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)249-256
Number of pages8
JournalCancer Management and Research
Volume10
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 8 2018

Fingerprint

Paclitaxel
Breast Neoplasms
Therapeutics
Electronic Health Records
130-nm albumin-bound paclitaxel
Hormones
Antiemetics
Histamine Antagonists
Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor
Anemia
Diarrhea
Cohort Studies
Retrospective Studies
Databases
Bone and Bones
Pain

Keywords

  • Hormone receptor positive
  • Metastatic breast cancer
  • Nab-paclitaxel
  • Paclitaxel
  • Triple negative

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology

Cite this

Comparative effectiveness of early-line nab-paclitaxel vs. Paclitaxel in patients with metastatic breast cancer : A US community-based real-world analysis. / Mahtani, Reshma; Parisi, Monika; Glück, Stefan; Ni, Quanhong; Park, Siyeon; Pelletier, Corey; Faria, Claudio; Braiteh, Fadi.

In: Cancer Management and Research, Vol. 10, 08.02.2018, p. 249-256.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Mahtani, Reshma ; Parisi, Monika ; Glück, Stefan ; Ni, Quanhong ; Park, Siyeon ; Pelletier, Corey ; Faria, Claudio ; Braiteh, Fadi. / Comparative effectiveness of early-line nab-paclitaxel vs. Paclitaxel in patients with metastatic breast cancer : A US community-based real-world analysis. In: Cancer Management and Research. 2018 ; Vol. 10. pp. 249-256.
@article{62c52bc986ce41668ec183032ca241df,
title = "Comparative effectiveness of early-line nab-paclitaxel vs. Paclitaxel in patients with metastatic breast cancer: A US community-based real-world analysis",
abstract = "Background: Real-world analyses of treatments for patients with metastatic breast cancer are limited. We evaluated the comparative effectiveness of nab-paclitaxel vs. paclitaxel in patients with metastatic breast cancer using data from an electronic medical record database from community practices across the USA. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study using fully de-identified data from an independent US electronic medical record platform of patients with metastatic breast cancer initiating single-agent nab-paclitaxel or paclitaxel as a first- or second-line treatment from December 1, 2010 to October 6, 2014. The clinical efficacy objectives were time to treatment discontinuation (TTD) and time to next treatment (TTNT). Subgroup analyses were performed in patients with 2 types of metastatic breast cancer as follows: 1) hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative, and 2) triple-negative disease. Results: This analysis included 925 patients. Patients receiving nab-paclitaxel vs. paclitaxel had significantly longer TTD (median 4.2 vs. 2.8 months, P<0.0001) and TTNT (median 6.0 vs. 4.2 months, P<0.0001); similar outcomes were observed for patients with hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative disease. Compared with paclitaxel, nab-paclitaxel was associated with significantly longer TTD in patients with triple-negative disease. nab-Paclitaxel was associated with significantly less all-grade neuropathy, anemia, pain, and diarrhea than paclitaxel. Antiemetic and antihistamine use were significantly less frequent with nab-paclitaxel vs. paclitaxel, whereas use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, hydrating agents, and bone-directed therapy to decrease skeletal-related events were more frequent. Conclusion: nab-Paclitaxel demonstrated improved clinical effectiveness compared with paclitaxel when examining TTD and TTNT in patients with metastatic breast cancer in a real-world setting.",
keywords = "Hormone receptor positive, Metastatic breast cancer, Nab-paclitaxel, Paclitaxel, Triple negative",
author = "Reshma Mahtani and Monika Parisi and Stefan Gl{\"u}ck and Quanhong Ni and Siyeon Park and Corey Pelletier and Claudio Faria and Fadi Braiteh",
year = "2018",
month = "2",
day = "8",
doi = "10.2147/CMAR.S150960",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "10",
pages = "249--256",
journal = "Cancer Management and Research",
issn = "1179-1322",
publisher = "Dove Medical Press Ltd.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparative effectiveness of early-line nab-paclitaxel vs. Paclitaxel in patients with metastatic breast cancer

T2 - A US community-based real-world analysis

AU - Mahtani, Reshma

AU - Parisi, Monika

AU - Glück, Stefan

AU - Ni, Quanhong

AU - Park, Siyeon

AU - Pelletier, Corey

AU - Faria, Claudio

AU - Braiteh, Fadi

PY - 2018/2/8

Y1 - 2018/2/8

N2 - Background: Real-world analyses of treatments for patients with metastatic breast cancer are limited. We evaluated the comparative effectiveness of nab-paclitaxel vs. paclitaxel in patients with metastatic breast cancer using data from an electronic medical record database from community practices across the USA. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study using fully de-identified data from an independent US electronic medical record platform of patients with metastatic breast cancer initiating single-agent nab-paclitaxel or paclitaxel as a first- or second-line treatment from December 1, 2010 to October 6, 2014. The clinical efficacy objectives were time to treatment discontinuation (TTD) and time to next treatment (TTNT). Subgroup analyses were performed in patients with 2 types of metastatic breast cancer as follows: 1) hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative, and 2) triple-negative disease. Results: This analysis included 925 patients. Patients receiving nab-paclitaxel vs. paclitaxel had significantly longer TTD (median 4.2 vs. 2.8 months, P<0.0001) and TTNT (median 6.0 vs. 4.2 months, P<0.0001); similar outcomes were observed for patients with hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative disease. Compared with paclitaxel, nab-paclitaxel was associated with significantly longer TTD in patients with triple-negative disease. nab-Paclitaxel was associated with significantly less all-grade neuropathy, anemia, pain, and diarrhea than paclitaxel. Antiemetic and antihistamine use were significantly less frequent with nab-paclitaxel vs. paclitaxel, whereas use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, hydrating agents, and bone-directed therapy to decrease skeletal-related events were more frequent. Conclusion: nab-Paclitaxel demonstrated improved clinical effectiveness compared with paclitaxel when examining TTD and TTNT in patients with metastatic breast cancer in a real-world setting.

AB - Background: Real-world analyses of treatments for patients with metastatic breast cancer are limited. We evaluated the comparative effectiveness of nab-paclitaxel vs. paclitaxel in patients with metastatic breast cancer using data from an electronic medical record database from community practices across the USA. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study using fully de-identified data from an independent US electronic medical record platform of patients with metastatic breast cancer initiating single-agent nab-paclitaxel or paclitaxel as a first- or second-line treatment from December 1, 2010 to October 6, 2014. The clinical efficacy objectives were time to treatment discontinuation (TTD) and time to next treatment (TTNT). Subgroup analyses were performed in patients with 2 types of metastatic breast cancer as follows: 1) hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative, and 2) triple-negative disease. Results: This analysis included 925 patients. Patients receiving nab-paclitaxel vs. paclitaxel had significantly longer TTD (median 4.2 vs. 2.8 months, P<0.0001) and TTNT (median 6.0 vs. 4.2 months, P<0.0001); similar outcomes were observed for patients with hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative disease. Compared with paclitaxel, nab-paclitaxel was associated with significantly longer TTD in patients with triple-negative disease. nab-Paclitaxel was associated with significantly less all-grade neuropathy, anemia, pain, and diarrhea than paclitaxel. Antiemetic and antihistamine use were significantly less frequent with nab-paclitaxel vs. paclitaxel, whereas use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, hydrating agents, and bone-directed therapy to decrease skeletal-related events were more frequent. Conclusion: nab-Paclitaxel demonstrated improved clinical effectiveness compared with paclitaxel when examining TTD and TTNT in patients with metastatic breast cancer in a real-world setting.

KW - Hormone receptor positive

KW - Metastatic breast cancer

KW - Nab-paclitaxel

KW - Paclitaxel

KW - Triple negative

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85041832336&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85041832336&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2147/CMAR.S150960

DO - 10.2147/CMAR.S150960

M3 - Article

VL - 10

SP - 249

EP - 256

JO - Cancer Management and Research

JF - Cancer Management and Research

SN - 1179-1322

ER -