throbber
British Journal of Cancer (2007) 96, 177
`& 2007 Cancer Research UK All rights reserved 0007 – 0920/07 $30.00
`
`www.bjcancer.com
`
`Letter to the Editor
`Evaluating the activity of temsirolimus in neuroendocrine cancer
`
`PH O’Donnell1 and MJ Ratain*,1
`1Section of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Chicago, 5841 S Maryland Ave. MC 2115, Chicago, IL 60637, USA
`
`British Journal of Cancer (2007) 96, 177. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6603513 www.bjcancer.com
`Published online 12 December 2006
`& 2007 Cancer Research UK
`
`

`
`Sir,
`Duran et al (10 October 2006) reported the results of a phase II
`trial of temsirolimus in 37 patients with advanced neuroendocrine
`carcinomas (NEC). The authors cite an intent-to-treat response
`rate of 5.6% (two out of 36 patients who received temsiroliums
`achieved a partial response by RECIST criteria), and conclude
`therefore that ‘temsirolimus appears to have little activity and does
`not warrant further single-agent evaluation in advanced NEC’. Yet,
`Duran et al found that tumour control (partial response plus stable
`disease), measured as the percent tumour change from baseline,
`was achieved in 23 out of the 36 patients (63.9%) on temsirolimus.
`When it is considered that all patients in this trial had to have
`documented, progressive disease within 6 months of the study
`entry, the significant percentage of patients experiencing disease
`stabilisation on temsirolimus and the 1-year progression-free rate
`of 40.1% suggest drug activity beyond the natural course of the
`disease. Temsirolimus also compares favourably with other agents
`previously studied in NEC (Oberg, 2002). As a comparison, Faiss
`et al (2003) prospectively studied the use of interferon-alpha and
`the somatostatin analogue lanreotide in treatment-naı¨ve NEC
`patients and found tumour control rates of 32% (lanreotide),
`30% (interferon-alpha), and 25% (combination) at 1 year. Another
`study of 15 patients with metastatic NEC refractory to lanreotide
`examined the use of slow-release octreotide, and a partial response
`
`was seen in 7% of patients, stable disease in 40%, and progressive
`disease in 53% (Ricci et al, 2000). Duran et al also cite other recent
`reports of the use of sunitinib and, separately, gefitinib in NEC and
`acknowledge that the response rate and median time to progres-
`sion with temsirolimus ‘compares favourably with other targeted
`therapies tested in this tumour population’.
`This trial exemplifies the difficulty of interpreting the results of
`single-arm trials using the RECIST criteria (Michaelis and Ratain,
`2006). This is especially true for noncytotoxic agents being studied
`in indolent diseases for which one would expect a high rate of
`stable disease in the absence of treatment. In fact, the response rate
`for temsirolimus in NEC compares favourably to that observed
`with sorafenib in advanced renal cell cancer, where the RECIST
`response rate is less than 5% (Ratain et al, 2006). Furthermore, if
`one compares the figures demonstrating ‘tumour size change from
`baseline’ for sorafenib in renal cell cancer to that of temsirolimus
`in NEC, the response distributions are nearly identical. However,
`the use of a randomised discontinuation design for the phase II
`trial of sorafenib demonstrated convincing evidence of activity
`and its subsequent widespread approval for the treatment of this
`disease. Rather than abandoning further evaluation of temsirolimus
`as a single-agent
`therapy for NEC, one should abandon the
`concept of single-arm studies of novel agents in neuroendocrine
`carcinomas.
`
`REFERENCES
`
`Faiss S, Pape UF, Bohmig M, Dorffel Y, Mansmann U, Golder W,
`Riecken EO, Wiedenmann B,
`International Lanreotide Interferon
`Alfa Study Group (2003) Prospective,
`randomized, multicenter
`trial on the antiproliferative effect of
`lanreotide,
`interferon alfa,
`and their combination for
`therapy of metastatic neuroendocrine
`gastroenteropancreatic
`tumors
`–
`the
`International
`Lanreotide
`J Clin Oncol 21(14): 2689 –
`and Interferon Alfa Study Group.
`2696
`Michaelis LC, Ratain MJ (2006) Measuring response in a post-RECIST
`world: from black and white to shades of grey. Nat Rev Cancer 6(5):
`409 – 414
`
`Oberg K (2002) Carcinoid tumors: molecular genetics, tumor biology, and
`update of diagnosis and treatment. Curr Opin Oncol 14(1): 38 – 45
`Ratain MJ, Eisen T, Stadler WM, Flaherty KT, Kaye SB, Rosner GL, Gore M,
`Desai AA, Patnaik A, Xiong HQ, Rowinsky E, Abbruzzese JL, Xia C,
`Simantov R, Schwartz B, O’Dwyer PJ (2006) Phase II placebo-controlled
`randomized discontinuation trial of sorafenib in patients with metastatic
`renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 24(16): 2505 – 2512
`Ricci S, Antonuzzo A, Galli L, Ferdeghini M, Bodei L, Orlandini C, Conte PF
`(2000) Octreotide acetate long-acting release in patients with metastatic
`neuroendocrine tumors pretreated with lanreotide. Ann Oncol 11:
`1127 – 1130
`
`*Correspondence: Dr MJ Ratain;
`E-mail: mratain@medicine.bsd.uchicago.edu
`Published online 12 December 2006
`
`PAR-ZORT-001007
`
`NOVARTIS EXHIBIT 2175
`Par v Novartis, IPR 2016-00084
`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