A multicenter, open-label, randomized trial (TAX316) evaluated the efficacy and safety of another formulation of docetaxel for the adjuvant treatment of patients with axillary-node-positive breast cancer and no evidence of distant metastatic disease. After stratification according to the number of positive lymph nodes (1 to 3, 4+), 1491 patients were randomized to receive either docetaxel 75 mg/m 2 administered 1-hour after doxorubicin 50 mg/m 2 and cyclophosphamide 500 mg/m 2 (TAC arm), or doxorubicin 50 mg/m 2 followed by fluorouracil 500 mg/m 2 and cyclosphosphamide 500 mg/m 2 (FAC arm). Both regimens were administered every 3 weeks for 6 cycles.
Docetaxel was administered as a 1-hour infusion; all other drugs were given as intravenous bolus on day 1. In both arms, after the last cycle of chemotherapy, patients with positive estrogen and/or progesterone receptors received tamoxifen 20 mg daily for up to 5 years. Adjuvant radiation therapy was prescribed according to guidelines in place at participating institutions and was given to 69% of patients who received TAC and 72% of patients who received FAC.
Results from a second interim analysis (median follow-up 55 months) are as follows: In study TAX316, the docetaxel-containing combination regimen TAC showed significantly longer disease-free survival (DFS) than FAC (hazard ratio=0.74; 2-sided 95% CI=0.60, 0.92, stratified log rank p=0.0047). The primary endpoint, disease-free survival, included local and distant recurrences, contralateral breast cancer and deaths from any cause. The overall reduction in risk of relapse was 25.7% for TAC-treated patients. (See Figure 1).
- At the time of this interim analysis, based on 219 deaths, overall survival was longer for TAC than FAC (hazard ratio=0.69, 2-sided 95% CI=0.53, 0.90). (See Figure 2 ). There will be further analysis at the time survival data mature.
Figure 1 — TAX316 Disease Free Survival K-M curve
Figure 2 — TAX316 Overall Survival K-M curve
The following table describes the results of subgroup analyses for DFS and OS (See Table 15).
|Disease Free Survival||Overall Survival|
|Patient subset||Number of patients||Hazard ratio *||95% CI||Hazard ratio *||95% CI|
No. of positive nodes
1 to 3
- The efficacy and safety of another formulation of docetaxel has been evaluated in patients with unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer whose disease has failed prior platinum-based chemotherapy or in patients who are chemotherapy-naïve.
Monotherapy with docetaxel for NSCLC Previously Treated with Platinum Based Chemotherapy
Two randomized, controlled trials established that a docetaxel dose of 75 mg/m 2 was tolerable and yielded a favorable outcome in patients previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy (see below). Docetaxel at a dose of 100 mg/m 2 , however, was associated with unacceptable hematologic toxicity, infections, and treatment-related mortality and this dose should not be used [see Boxed Warning, Dosage and Administration (2.7), Warnings and Precautions (5.3)].
One trial (TAX317), randomized patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer, a history of prior platinum-based chemotherapy, no history of taxane exposure, and an ECOG performance status ≤2 to docetaxel or best supportive care. The primary endpoint of the study was survival. Patients were initially randomized to docetaxel 100 mg/m 2 or best supportive care, but early toxic deaths at this dose led to a dose reduction to docetaxel 75 mg/m 2. A total of 104 patients were randomized in this amended study to either docetaxel 75 mg/m 2 or best supportive care.
In a second randomized trial (TAX320), 373 patients with locally advanced or metastatic non small cell lung cancer, a history of prior platinum-based chemotherapy, and an ECOG performance status ≤2 were randomized to docetaxel 75 mg/m 2 , docetaxel 100 mg/m 2 and a treatment in which the investigator chose either vinorelbine 30 mg/m 2 days 1, 8, and 15 repeated every 3 weeks or ifosfamide 2 g/m 2 days 1 to 3 repeated every 3 weeks. Forty percent of the patients in this study had a history of prior paclitaxel exposure. The primary endpoint was survival in both trials. The efficacy data for the docetaxel 75 mg/m 2 arm and the comparator arms are summarized in Table 16 and Figures 3 and 4 showing the survival curves for the two studies.
|Docetaxel 75 mg/m 2 n=55||Best Supportive Care n=49||Docetaxel 75 mg/m 2 n=125||Control (V/I *) n=123|
Risk Ratio †, Mortality
95% CI (Risk Ratio)
7.5 months ‡
% 1-year Survival
Time to Progression
12.3 weeks ‡
Only one of the two trials (TAX317) showed a clear effect on survival, the primary endpoint; that trial also showed an increased rate of survival to one year. In the second study (TAX320) the rate of survival at one year favored docetaxel 75 mg/m 2.
Figure 3 — TAX317 Survival K-M Curves — Docetaxel 75 mg/m 2 vs. Best Supportive Care
Figure 4 — TAX320 Survival K-M Curves — Docetaxel 75 mg/m 2 vs. Vinorelbine or Ifosfamide Control
Patients treated with docetaxel at a dose of 75 mg/m 2 experienced no deterioration in performance status and body weight relative to the comparator arms used in these trials.
Combination Therapy with docetaxel for Chemotherapy-Naïve NSCLC
In a randomized controlled trial (TAX326), 1218 patients with unresectable stage IIIB or IV NSCLC and no prior chemotherapy were randomized to receive one of three treatments: docetaxel 75 mg/m 2 as a 1 hour infusion immediately followed by cisplatin 75 mg/m 2 over 30 to 60 minutes every 3 weeks; vinorelbine 25 mg/m 2 administered over 6 to 10 minutes on days 1, 8, 15, 22 followed by cisplatin 100 mg/m 2 administered on day 1 of cycles repeated every 4 weeks; or a combination of docetaxel and carboplatin.
The primary efficacy endpoint was overall survival. Treatment with docetaxel+cisplatin did not result in a statistically significantly superior survival compared to vinorelbine+cisplatin (see table below). The 95% confidence interval of the hazard ratio (adjusted for interim analysis and multiple comparisons) shows that the addition of docetaxel to cisplatin results in an outcome ranging from a 6% inferior to a 26% superior survival compared to the addition of vinorelbine to cisplatin. The results of a further statistical analysis showed that at least (the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval) 62% of the known survival effect of vinorelbine when added to cisplatin (about a 2-month increase in median survival; Wozniak et al. JCO, 1998) was maintained. The efficacy data for the docetaxel+cisplatin arm and the comparator arm are summarized in Table 17.
|Comparison||Docetaxel + Cisplatin n=408||Vinorelbine + Cisplatin n=405|
Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Median Survival
Estimated Hazard Ratio †
Adjusted 95% CI ‡
The second comparison in the same three-arm study, vinorelbine+cisplatin versus docetaxel+carboplatin, did not demonstrate superior survival associated with the docetaxel arm (Kaplan-Meier estimate of median survival was 9.1 months for docetaxel +carboplatin compared to 10.0 months on the vinorelbine+cisplatin arm) and the docetaxel+carboplatin arm did not demonstrate preservation of at least 50% of the survival effect of vinorelbine added to cisplatin. Secondary endpoints evaluated in the trial included objective response and time to progression. There was no statistically significant difference between docetaxel+cisplatin and vinorelbine+cisplatin with respect to objective response and time to progression (see Table 18).
|Endpoint||Docetaxel + Cisplatin||Vinorelbine + Cisplatin||p-value|
Objective Response Rate
(95% CI) *
Median Time to Progression †
21.4 weeks (19.3, 24.6)
22.1 weeks (18.1, 25.6)
(95% CI) *
All MedLibrary.org resources are included in as near-original form as possible, meaning that the information from the original provider has been rendered here with only typographical or stylistic modifications and not with any substantive alterations of content, meaning or intent.