PetCaseFinder

Peer-reviewed veterinary case report

Paclitaxel treatment for advanced mast cell tumors in dogs

By Vail, D M et al.·Published in Journal of veterinary internal medicine·2012·Department of Medical Sciences, United States·View original on PubMed

PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →

Original publication title: A randomized trial investigating the efficacy and safety of water soluble micellar paclitaxel (Paccal Vet) for treatment of nonresectable grade 2 or 3 mast cell tumors in dogs.

Species:
dog

Plain-English summary

A group of 252 dogs with advanced stage mast cell tumors (a type of skin cancer) were treated with either a new formulation of paclitaxel (micellar) or a standard chemotherapy drug called lomustine. The dogs receiving paclitaxel showed a significantly higher response rate, with 7% having a confirmed response compared to just 1% in the lomustine group. Additionally, paclitaxel had fewer serious side effects, with only 2% of dogs experiencing liver issues, compared to 33% in the lomustine group. This suggests that paclitaxel (micellar) is a safer and more effective treatment option for dogs with these tumors.

People also search for: dog mast cell tumor treatment · paclitaxel for dogs · lomustine side effects in dogs

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Effective treatments for dogs with advanced stage mast cell tumors (MCT) remain a pressing need. A micellar formulation of paclitaxel (paclitaxel [micellar]) has shown promise in early-phase studies. HYPOTHESIS/OBJECTIVES: The objective was to demonstrate greater activity for paclitaxel (micellar) compared with lomustine. The null hypothesis was &#x3bc;(p) = &#x3bc;(L) (ie, proportion of responders for the paclitaxel [micellar] and lomustine groups, respectively). ANIMALS: Two hundred and fifty-two dogs with advanced stage nonresectable grade 2 or 3 MCT. METHODS: Prospective multicenter randomized double-blind positive-controlled clinical trial. The primary endpoint was confirmed overall response rate (CORR) at 14 weeks. A secondary endpoint, biologic observed response rate (BORR), also was calculated. Safety was assessed by the characterization and grading of adverse events (AE). RESULTS: Overall CORR (7% versus 1%; P = .048) and BORR (23% versus 10%; P = .012) were greater for paclitaxel (micellar) compared with lomustine. Paclitaxel (micellar)-treated dogs were 6.5 times more likely to have a confirmed response and 3.1 times more likely to experience a biologic observed response. The majority of AE with paclitaxel (micellar) were transient and clinically manageable. Twenty-seven dogs (33%) receiving lomustine were discontinued because of hepatopathy compared with 3 dogs (2%) receiving paclitaxel (micellar) (P < .0001; odds ratio 26.7). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: Paclitaxel (micellar)'s activity and safety profile are superior to lomustine. The addition of an active and novel taxane to the veterinary armamentarium could fill a substantial need and, as its mechanism of action and AE profile do not overlap with currently available TKI, its availability could lead to effective combination protocols.

Find similar cases for your pet

PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.

Search related cases →

Original publication on PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22390318/