throbber
Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2004 ASCO Annual Meeting Proceedings (Post-Meeting Edition).
`Vol 22, No 14S (July 15 Supplement), 2004: 2572
`© 2004 American Society of Clinical Oncology
`
`Abstract
`A phase 1 trial of PT-100 in patients receiving
`myelosuppressive chemotherapy
`J. J. Nemunaitis, C. C. Cunningham, N. N. Senzer, E. Haltom, B. Jones, S. J. Vukelja,
`D. A. Richards and M. J. Uprichard
`
`US Oncology, Dallas, TX; Point Therapeutics, Boston, MA; US Oncology, Tyler, TX
`
`2572
`
`Background: PT-100 is a small molecule which competitively inhibits dipeptidyl peptidase
`activity of fibroblast activation protein (FAP) and dipeptidyl peptidase IV (DPP-IV). It rapidly
`increases cytokine (G-CSF, IL-8) production, accelerates neutrophil and erythrocyte
`regeneration, and causes tumor regression in mice via inhibition of FAP and DPP-IV. This
`dose-escalation study was conducted to evaluate the safety of PT-100 in patients receiving
`myelosuppressive chemotherapy (a doxorubicin or taxane based regimen) and to assess
`its effects on neutrophil recovery. Methods: Patients received 2 cycles of chemotherapy:
`the first cycle (C1) served as each patient's individual control. PT-100 was administered
`orally for 7 days in cycle 2 (C2) as a 200, 400, 800, and 1200mcg total daily dose (divided
`twice daily) to 6, 6, 13, and 4 patients, respectively. Most patients received PT-100 on Days
`2–8 of chemotherapy in C2, except at 800mcg where one cohort was treated on a Day 5
`–11 schedule. Patients had to have Grade 3/4 neutropenia in C1 to receive PT-100 in C2.
`Results: Five of 13 patients receiving PT-100 800mcg experienced a
` 2-day improvement
`in
` Grade 3 neutropenia, and a 62% improvement in median AUC in C2 vs. C1 was
`observed in patients treated on the Day 2–8 schedule. A corresponding upregulation in
`G-CSF, IL-6, and IL-8 was observed in most patients. Overall, PT-100 was well-tolerated.
`Edema/peripheral swelling, hypotension, and hypovolemia were the most common non-
`hematologic AEs considered related to PT-100. Two Grade 3 AEs were considered related
`to PT-100: syncope (1200mcg) and orthostatic hypotension (800mcg). An MTD was not
`reached. Conclusions: Given the accelerated neutrophil recovery, strong preclinical
`evidence of antitumor activity, and tolerable toxicities of PT-100, studies using a longer PT-
`100 dosing schedule are warranted to investigate its antitumor and neutrostatic effects.
`
`View larger version (14K):
`[in this window]
`[in a new window]
`
`Author Disclosure
`Employment
`or
`Leadership
`
`Consultant
`or Advisory
`
`Stock
`Ownership Honoraria
`
`Research Expert
`
`Funding
`Testimony
`
`Other
`Remuneration
`
`Point
`Therapeutics
`
`Point
`Therapeutics
`
`Point
`Therapeutics
`
`Cell Genesys;
`ONYX
`Pharmaceuticals
`
`Corixa
`
`Abstract presentation from the 2004 ASCO Annual Meeting
`
`(cid:3097)
`
`(cid:3098)
`
`AstraZeneca Exhibit 2159
`Mylan v. AstraZeneca
`IPR2015-01340
`
`Page 1 of 1

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket