4.6 Article

Nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel-based neoadjuvant regimen: A promising treatment option for HER2-low-positive breast cancer

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.nano.2023.102666

关键词

Paclitaxel; Nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel; HER2-low-positive breast cancer; Neoadjuvant systemic therapy; Pathological complete response

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compared the efficacy of different paclitaxel formulations in neoadjuvant systemic therapy for HER2-low-positive and HER2-zero breast cancers. The results showed that Nab-P had a significantly higher pathological complete response rate in HER2-low-positive patients compared to other paclitaxel formulations. However, there was no significant difference in the response rate among the four paclitaxel groups in HER2-zero patients. The NST regimen containing Nab-P could be a promising treatment option for HER2-low-positive breast cancer.
This study aimed to compare the efficacy of neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST) with solvent-based paclitaxel (Sb-P), liposomal paclitaxel (Lps-P), nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel (Nab-P), and docetaxel in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-low-positive and HER2-zero breast cancers. A total of 430 patients receiving 2-weekly dose-dense epirubicin and cyclophosphamide (EC) followed by 2weekly paclitaxel (Sb-P, Lps-P, or Nab-P), or 3-weekly EC followed by 3-weekly docetaxel for NST were enrolled in the study. In HER2-lowpositive patients, the pathological complete response (pCR) rate in Nab-P group was significantly higher than that in the other three paclitaxel groups (2.8 % in Sb-P group, 4.7 % in Lps-P group, 23.2 % in Nab-P group and 3.2 % in docetaxel group, p < 0.001). In HER2-zero patients, the pCR rate did not differ significantly among the four paclitaxel groups (p = 0.278). The NST regimen containing Nab-P could be considered a promising treatment option in HER2-low-positive breast cancer. (c) 2023 Published by Elsevier Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据