Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

, Volume 163, Issue 3, pp 495–506 | Cite as

Efficacy and safety of nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m2 and nab-paclitaxel 150 mg/m2 compared to paclitaxel in early high-risk breast cancer. Results from the neoadjuvant randomized GeparSepto study (GBG 69)

  • Jenny FurlanettoEmail author
  • Christian Jackisch
  • Michael Untch
  • Andreas Schneeweiss
  • Sabine Schmatloch
  • Bahriye Aktas
  • Carsten Denkert
  • Hermann Wiebringhaus
  • Sherko Kümmel
  • Mathias Warm
  • Stefan Paepke
  • Marianne Just
  • Claus Hanusch
  • John Hackmann
  • Jens Uwe Blohmer
  • Michael Clemens
  • Serban Dan Costa
  • Bernd Gerber
  • Valentina Nekljudova
  • Sibylle Loibl
  • Gunter von Minckwitz
Clinical trial



The GeparSepto study demonstrated that the use of nab-paclitaxel instead of paclitaxel prior to anthracycline-based chemotherapy could lead to a significantly increased pCR rate, especially in the triple negative subpopulation. We report efficacy and safety for patients treated with two different doses of nab-paclitaxel in comparison to weekly solvent-formulated paclitaxel.


Patients were treated for 12 weeks with either intravenous nab-paclitaxel 150 mg/m2 (nP150) weekly, after study amendment 125 mg/m2 (nP125) weekly or solvent-based paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 (P80) weekly followed by epirubicin 90 mg/m2 and cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m2 on day 1 for four 3-week cycles.


229 patients received nP150, 377 nP125. Baseline characteristics were fairly balanced between these two sequential cohorts as well as compared to 601 patients receiving P80 except for hormone receptor status, HER2 status, and Ki67. Taxane treatment was discontinued in 26.8% (nP150), 16.6% (nP125), and 13.3% of (P80) patients, respectively. Median relative total dose intensity (mRTDI) based on 125 mg/m2 for nP was 103% with nP150, 95% with nP125, 99% with P80 before and 98% with P80 after the amendment. PSN grade 3–4 was observed in 14.5% of patients with nP150, 8.1% of patients with nP125 (p = 0.018), and 2.7% of patients with P80. Overall pCR before the amendment was 33.6% after nP150 and 23.5% after P80 (OR 1.65 [95% CI 1.10–2.50]; p = 0.022); pCR after the amendment was 41.4% after nP125, and 32.4% after P80 (1.48 [95% CI 1.10–1.99]; p = 0.013).


Nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m2 was associated with a better safety profile and compliance without compromising the efficacy compared to nab-paclitaxel 150 mg/m2.


Early breast cancer Neoadjuvant treatment Nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m2 Nab-paclitaxel 150 mg/m2 



We would like to thank all investigators and patients that participated in the GeparSepto study.


The trial was sponsored by GBG Forschungs GmbH with financial support from Celgene and Roche.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Denkert C: Shareholder and cofounder of Sividon Diasgnostics Cologne, Hanusch C: Honoraria by Celgene and Roche, Jakisch C: Honoraria by Celgene, Loibl S: Institution received research grants by Celgene and Roche, von Minckwitz G: Institution received research grants by Celgene and Roche. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the GeparSepto study.

Supplementary material

10549_2017_4200_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (37 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 36 kb)
10549_2017_4200_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (9 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (PDF 9 kb)


  1. 1.
    Peto R, Davies C, Godwin J et al (2012) Comparisons between different polychemotherapy regimens for early breast cancer: meta-analyses of long-term outcome among 100,000 women in 123 randomised trials. Lancet 379:432–444CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gianni L, Baselga J, Eiermann W et al (2009) Phase III trial evaluating the addition of paclitaxel to doxorubicin followed by cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil, as adjuvant or primary systemic therapy: European Cooperative Trial in Operable Breast Cancer. J Clin Oncol 27:2474–2481CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sparano JA, Wang M, Martino S et al (2008) Weekly paclitaxel in the adjuvant treatment of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 358:1663–1671CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sparano JA, Zhao F, Martino S et al (2015) Long-term follow-up of the E1199 phase III trial evaluating the role of Taxane and schedule in operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 33:2353–2360CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gradishar WJ (2006) Albumin-bound paclitaxel: a next-generation taxane. Expert Opin Pharmacother 7:1041–1053CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Quock J, Dea G, Tanaka M et al (2002) Premedication strategy for weekly paclitaxel. Cancer Investig 20:666–672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Authier N, Gillet JP, Fialip J et al (2001) Assessment of neurotoxicity following repeated cremophor/ethanol injections in rats. Neurotox Res 3:301–306CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gradishar WJ, Tjulandin S, Davidson N et al (2005) Phase III trial of nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel compared with polyethylated castor oil-based paclitaxel in women with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 23:7794–7803CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Untch M, Jackisch C, Schneeweiss A et al (2016) Nab-paclitaxel versus solvent-based paclitaxel in neoadjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer (GeparSepto-GBG 69): a randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 17:345–356CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bonetti M, Gelber RD (2004) Patterns of treatment effects in subsets of patients in clinical trials. Biostatistics 5:465–481CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bonadonna G, Valagussa P, Moliterni A et al (1995) Adjuvant cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil in node-positive breast cancer: the results of 20 years of follow-up. N Engl J Med 332:901–906CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Scripture CD, Figg WD, Sparreboom A (2006) Peripheral neuropathy induced by paclitaxel: recent insights and future perspectives. Curr Neuropharmacol 4:165–172CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Argyriou AA, Kyritsis AP, Makatsoris T, Kalofonos HP (2014) Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy in adults: a comprehensive update of the literature. Cancer Manag Res 6:135–147CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Speck RM, Sammel MD, Farrar JT et al (2013) Impact of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy on treatment delivery in nonmetastatic breast cancer. J Oncol Pract 9:234–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Han Y, Smith MT (2013) Pathobiology of cancer chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN). Front Pharmacol 4:156CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wickham R (2007) Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy: a review and implications for oncology nursing practice. Clin J Oncol Nurs 11:361–376CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Seretny M, Currie GL, Sena ES et al (2014) Incidence, prevalence, and predictors of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pain 155:2461–2470CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nudelman KN, McDonald BC, Wang Y et al (2016) Cerebral perfusion and gray matter changes associated with chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy. J Clin Oncol 34:677–683CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Eckhoff L, Knoop A, Jensen MB, Ewertz M (2015) Persistence of docetaxel-induced neuropathy and impact on quality of life among breast cancer survivors. Eur J Cancer 51:292–300CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Peng L, Bu Z, Ye X et al (2015) Incidence and risk of peripheral neuropathy with nab-paclitaxel in patients with cancer: a meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer Care (in press)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gianni L, Mansutti M, Anton A et al (2016) ETNA (Evaluating Treatment with Neoadjuvant Abraxane) randomized phase III study comparing neoadjuvant nab-paclitaxel (nab-P) versus paclitaxel (P) both followed by anthracycline regimens in women with HER2-negative high-risk breast cancer: a MICHELANGO study. J Clin Oncol 34 (suppl; abstr 502)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kümmel S, von Minckwitz G, Nekljudova V et al (2016) Investigating denosumab as add-on neoadjuvant treatment for hormone receptor-negative, RANK-positive or RANK-negative primary breast cancer and two different nab-Paclitaxel schedules – 2 × 2 factorial design (GeparX). J Clin Oncol 34 (suppl; abstr TPS635)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Huang L, Chen S, Yao L et al (2015) Phase II trial of weekly nab-paclitaxel and carboplatin treatment with or without trastuzumab as nonanthracycline neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced breast cancer. Int J Nanomed 10:1969–1975Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sinclair NF, Abu-Khalaf MM, Rizack T et al (2012) Neoadjuvant weekly nab-paclitaxel, carboplatin plus bevacizumab with or without dose-dense doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide (ddAC) plus bevacizumab in ER+/HER2-negative (HR+) and triple-negative breast cancer: a BrUOG study. J Clin Oncol 30 (suppl, abstr 1045)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mrozek E, Lustberg MB, Knopp MV et al (2010) Phase II trial of neoadjuvant chemotherapy with weekly nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel, carboplatin, and bevacizumab in women with clinical stages II-III breast cancer: pathologic response prediction by changes in angiogenic volume by dynamic contrast magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI). J Clin Oncol 28 (suppl, abstr 604)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Yardley DA, Raefsky E, Castillo R et al (2011) Phase II study of neoadjuvant weekly nab-paclitaxel and carboplatin, with bevacizumab and trastuzumab, as treatment for women with locally advanced HER2+ breast cancer. Clin Breast Cancer 11:297–305CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Carboplatin and paclitaxel albumin-stabilized nanoparticle formulation before surgery in treating patients with locally advanced or inflammatory triple negative breast cancer (2015)
  28. 28.
    Ueno NT, Mamounas EP (2016) Neoadjuvant nab-paclitaxel in the treatment of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 156:427–440CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jenny Furlanetto
    • 1
    Email author
  • Christian Jackisch
    • 2
  • Michael Untch
    • 3
  • Andreas Schneeweiss
    • 4
  • Sabine Schmatloch
    • 5
  • Bahriye Aktas
    • 6
  • Carsten Denkert
    • 7
  • Hermann Wiebringhaus
    • 8
  • Sherko Kümmel
    • 9
  • Mathias Warm
    • 10
  • Stefan Paepke
    • 11
  • Marianne Just
    • 12
  • Claus Hanusch
    • 13
  • John Hackmann
    • 14
  • Jens Uwe Blohmer
    • 15
  • Michael Clemens
    • 16
  • Serban Dan Costa
    • 17
  • Bernd Gerber
    • 18
  • Valentina Nekljudova
    • 1
  • Sibylle Loibl
    • 1
  • Gunter von Minckwitz
    • 1
  1. 1.German Breast Group, GBG Forschungs GmbHNeu-IsenburgGermany
  2. 2.Sana Klinikum OffenbachOffenbachGermany
  3. 3.Helios Klinikum Berlin-BuchBerlinGermany
  4. 4.National Center for Tumor DiseaseUniversity Hospital HeidelbergHeidelbergGermany
  5. 5.Elisabeth Krankenhaus KasselKasselGermany
  6. 6.University Women’s Hospital EssenEssenGermany
  7. 7.Institute of Pathology and German Cancer Consortium (DKTK)Charité-University HospitalBerlinGermany
  8. 8.St. Barbara Klinik HeessenHammGermany
  9. 9.Interdisziplinäres Brustzentrum an den Kliniken Essen-MitteEssenGermany
  10. 10.Brustzentrum in Krankenhaus Köln-HolweideCologneGermany
  11. 11.Klinikum rechts der Isar der TU München, Klinik und Poliklinik für FrauenheilkundeMunichGermany
  12. 12.Onkologische SchwerpunktpraxisBielefeldGermany
  13. 13.Klinikum zum Roten Kreuz MünchenMunichGermany
  14. 14.Marien Hospital WittenWittenGermany
  15. 15.Frauenklinik an der Charité-University HospitalBerlinGermany
  16. 16.Klinik Mutterhaus der BorromäerinnenTrierGermany
  17. 17.Universitäts-FrauenklinikMagdeburgGermany
  18. 18.Universitäts-FrauenklinikRostockGermany

Personalised recommendations