throbber
EXHIBIT 2006
`EXHIBIT 2006
`
`Fresenius v. Cephalon IPR201 6-D0098
`
`Cephalon Exhibit 2006
`Cephalon Exhibit 2006
`Fresenius v. Cephalon
`IPR2016-00098
`
`
`
`

`
`Comparison of Fludarabine, Cyclophosphamide/Doxorubicin/
`Prednisone, and Cyclophosphamide/Doxorubicin/Vincristine/
`Prednisone in Advanced Forms of Chronic Lymphocytic
`Leukemia: Preliminary Results of a Controlled Clinical Trial
`
`The French Cooperative Group on Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia
`
`In a multicenter clinical trial conducted by the French
`Cooperative Group on Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia
`(CLL) between June 1, 1990, and October 1, 1992, 183
`patients with stage B CLL and 79 patients with stage C
`CLL were randomized to receive either cyclophospha-
`mide/doxorubicin/prednisone (CAP) (71 stage B patients
`and 25 stage C patients), or cyclophosphamide/doxo-
`rubicin/vincristine/prednisone (CHOP) (56 stage B pa-
`tients and 27 stage C patients), or fludarabine (FDB) (56
`stage B patients and 27 stage C patients). The mean
`follow-up was 14 months (standard deviation, 7
`months). At the 6-month follow-up examination, the re-
`sults suggested that FDB was more effective than CAP
`and CHOP in patients with stage B disease (n = 183),
`with 19% of FDB-treated patients achieving "clinical and
`hematological remission" (CR) compared with 11% of
`the CHOP-treated patients and 7% of the CAP-treated
`patients (P = .08; 6 degrees of freedom; chi-squared
`test). The rates of partial remission (PR) and overall re-
`sponse (CR + PR) were, respectively, 75% and 94% for
`the FDB-treated patients, 64% and 75% for the CHOP-
`treated patients, and 65% and 72% for the CAP-treated
`patients. However, in patients with stage C CLL (n
`= 77) at entry to the study, the remission status at 6
`months showed slightly greater improvement in the
`CAP-treated group (n = 25), in which 84% of patients
`achieved remission (CR + PR) compared with 64% of
`patients in the FOB-treated group (n = 27) and 63% of
`patients in the CHOP-treated group (n = 27). Further
`analysis of the study data may help to clarify the signif-
`icance of these findings and to determine whether FDB
`improves survival in patients with advanced CLL.
`Copyright © 1993 by W.B. Saunders Company
`
`IN JUNE 1990, the French Cooperative Group
`
`on Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL)
`activated a multicenter randomized clinical trial
`in which Binet stage B and stage C CLL patients
`were allocated to receive either fludarabine (FDB)
`or one of two polychemotherapeutic regimens
`that included doxorubicin. We report the pre-
`liminary results of this trial, based on October 1,
`1992, as the reference date.
`
`MATERIALS AND METHODS
`Diagnosis of CLL was based on the International Workshop
`on Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia criteria.' Patients younger
`than 75 years who had not been previously treated and who
`were classified as stage B or C2 were eligible for this trial.
`There were 51 participating centers, and randomization was
`performed through a centralized telephone assignment pro-
`
`cedure according to stage. Follow-up examinations were
`scheduled for the third and sixth month after randomization,
`and every 6 months thereafter.
`Patients were randomly allocated to receive either FDB 25
`mg/m2 intravenously (IV) daily for 5 days; cyclophosphamide
`750 mg/m2 IV day 1, doxorubicin 50 mg/m2 IV day 1, and
`prednisone 40 mg/m2 orally on days 1 to 5 (CAP); or vin-
`cristine 1 mg/m2 IV and doxorubicin 25 mg/m2 IV on day I
`plus cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m2 and prednisone 40 mg/
`m2 orally on days 1 to 5 (CHOP). The first six courses of
`treatment were given at monthly intervals and the last six
`courses at 3-month intervals. In case of disease progression
`within the first 3 months after randomization, initial treatment
`was continued, but thereafter choice of treatment could be
`made according to the following rule. At 3 months, patients
`allocated to receive CAP or FDB who were considered to be
`treatment failures (see below) were switched to FDB or CAP,
`respectively. At 6 months, patients exhibiting disease pro-
`gression were given FDB, with the exception of previous FDB
`treatment failures; reduction by 50% (doxorubicin dose) was
`made whenever remission was observed. Finally, all re-
`sponders (see below) who received FDB at 6 months were
`randomized either to continuation for six courses or dis-
`continuation of FDB.
`The main endpoint was overall survival from the date of
`randomization. Remission status ("clinical and hematological
`remission" [CR], partial remission [PR], stable disease [SD],
`progressive disease [PD]) and stage at 6 months were also
`analyzed. Complete remission was defined by the absence of
`clinical signs, lymphocytosis less than 4 X 109/L, hemoglobin
`greater than 120 g/L, and platelets greater than 150 x 109/L;
`PR was defined by a decrease of at least 50% in the diameter
`of the involved lymph nodes and a decrease of at least 75%
`in the lymphocyte count, both compared with the initial ex-
`amination; PD was defined as either progression to stage C,
`increase in lymphocyte count, or increase in tumoral mass;
`and SD was defined as the absence of both remission and
`progression.
`Statistical analysis (using SAS software; SAS Institute, Cary,
`NC) was made on an intention-to-treat basis based on the
`log-rank and the chi-squared tests.
`
`RESULTS
`
`From June 1, 1990, to October 1, 1992, 183
`stage B patients and 79 stage C patients were re-
`
`Address reprint requests to M. Leporrier, MD, Service
`d'Hematologie, CHU, Avenue Georges Clernenceau, 14033
`Caen Cedex, France.
`Copyright © 1993 by W.B. Saunders Company
`0093-7754/93/2005-0703.05.00/0
`
`Seminars in Oncology, Vol 20, No 5, Suppl 7 (October), 1993: pp 21-23
`
`21
`
`CEPHALON, INC. -- EXHIBIT 2006 0001
`
`(cid:9)
`

`
`22 (cid:9)
`
`THE FRENCH COOPERATIVE GROUP ON CHRONIC LYMPHOCYTIC LEUKEMIA
`
`cruited and randomized to receive either CAP
`(71 stage B patients and 25 stage C patients),
`CHOP (56 stage B patients and 27 stage C pa-
`tients), or FDB (56 stage B patients and 27 stage
`C patients). The mean follow-up was 14 months
`(standard deviation, 7 months). At the reference
`date, 19 patients had died (five stage B patients
`and 14 stage C patients) and information was
`incomplete for 30 patients (22 stage B patients
`and eight stage C patients).
`Although there were slight imbalances, no ma-
`jor difference in the distribution of clinical and
`biologic parameters was observed between treat-
`ment groups in each stage. In stage B and stage
`C patients, the mean age was 60 and 62 years,
`the mean lymphocyte count was 58 X 109/L and
`112 X 109/L, the mean hemoglobin level was 133
`g/L and 96 g/L, the mean platelet count was 192
`X 109/L and 114 X 109/L, and the mean lym-
`phocyte bone marrow infiltration was 73% and
`84%, respectively.
`Stage B Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia
`In the follow-up examination at 6 months, re-
`mission status (CR, PR, SD, and PD), assessed
`in 151 patients, differed between the three treat-
`ment groups, but not significantly (P = .08; 6
`degrees of freedom; chi-squared test). Complete
`remission was observed in nine (19%) patients in
`the FDB-treated group compared with four (7%)
`in the CAP-treated group and five (11%) in the
`CHOP-treated group (Table 1). Moreover, stage
`at 6 months differed between the treatment
`groups (P = .02; 6 degrees of freedom; chi-
`squared test), with 39 (83%) of the 47 FDB-treated
`patients in stage A or in remission compared with
`31 patients (54%) in the CAP-treated group and
`27 patients (56%) in the CHOP-treated group.
`Among the five deaths, three occurred in the
`CAP-treated group and two occurred in the
`CHOP-treated group (P = .30; 2 degrees of free-
`dom; log-rank test).
`
`Stage C Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia
`Remission status at 6 months was not different
`between the three groups (P = .17; 6 degrees of
`freedom; chi-squared test), although slight im-
`provement could be observed in the CAP-treated
`group, with 84% patients exhibiting remission
`(CR or PR) compared with 64% in the FDB-
`treated group and 63% in the CHOP-treated
`group (Table 1). In terms of staging at the 6-
`month follow-up examination, differences were
`no longer observed between the three groups (P
`= .94; 6 degrees of freedom; chi-squared test),
`with 55% of the CAP-treated patients in stage A
`or in remission compared with 50% of patients
`in the FDB-treated group and 43% of patients in
`the CHOP-treated group.
`Among the 14 deaths, five occurred in the
`CAP-treated group, four occurred in the CHOP-
`treated group, and five occurred in the FDB-
`treated group (P = .73; 2 degrees of freedom; log-
`rank test).
`
`DISCUSSION
`In advanced forms of CLL, the efficacy of FDB,
`a fluorinated analog of adenine, recently has been
`claimed,3'4 with reported complete response rates
`ranging from 29% in previously treated CLL cases
`to 75% in previously untreated CLL cases; mild
`toxicity also has been reported. Unfortunately,
`these results were based on uncontrolled studies
`and, thus, no conclusion in terms of superiority
`of FDB could be demonstrated.
`We report the short-term results of a multi-
`center, randomized clinical trial based on 262
`stage B and C CLL patients comparing FDB with
`classically used CAP and CHOP regimens. Our
`results appear surprisingly controversial accord-
`ing to stage, and suggest that FDB is more effec-
`tive than the polychemotherapy regimens con-
`taining anthracycline in stage B while CAP may
`be slightly superior in stage C. This may be ex-
`
`Table 1. Response Status 6-Months Follow-up Examination According to Stage and Randomization
`
`CR
`PR
`SD
`PD
`
`CAP
`
`4 (7)
`37 (65)
`12 (21)
`4 (7)
`
`Stage B (96)
`
`CHOP (cid:9)
`
`5 (11)
`30 (64)
`9 (19)
`3 (6)
`
`P= .08
`
`FOB
`
`9 (19)
`35 (75)
`1 (2)
`2 (4)
`
`CAP
`
`1 (5)
`15 (79)
`2 (11)
`1 (5)
`
`Stage C (%)
`
`CHOP (cid:9)
`
`2 (8)
`13 (54)
`9 (38)
`
`P .17
`
`FOB
`
`3(14)
`11 (50)
`5 (23)
`3 (13)
`
`CEPHALON, INC. -- EXHIBIT 2006 0002
`
`(cid:9)
`(cid:9)
`(cid:9)
`(cid:9)
`

`
`CAP, CHOP, AND FDB FOR CLL (cid:9)
`
`23
`
`plained by the distinct pathophysiology of this
`latter form of the disease.
`However, even if FDB induces a higher re-
`sponse rate in stage B CLL, in agreement with
`previous results from Keating et a1,3A its effect
`on survival is still undetermined. Although cor-
`relation between treatment response and survival
`in CLL has been described, it was not analyzed
`in statistical terms, so that further analysis is war-
`ranted. Moreover, we are now segregating the
`"clinical and hematologic remissions" and the
`"biologic remissions" (defined by bone marrow
`biopsy, blood lymphocyte phenotypes, and im-
`munoglobulin rearrangement). Finally, studies by
`our group and by other investigators have shown
`that, at least in stage B patients, the CHOP reg-
`imen improved response without improving sur-
`vival. Whether this is explained through a selec-
`tion process leading to the appearance of a
`resistant clone remains unclear. Vie hope this
`study is able, in the near future, to answer the
`question of whether FDB could improve survival
`in CLL cases.
`
`APPENDIX
`
`The members of the French Cooperative Group on Chronic
`Lymphocytic Leukemia (protocol CLL 90) include the De-
`partments of Hematology and Physicians from the following
`institutions: CHU de Lilies (P. Fenaux); CHU Pitie-Salpetriere,
`Paris (J-L. Binet and K. Maloum); CHU de Caen (M. Le-
`porrier); CHU de Nantes (M-J. Rapp); Centre Henri Becquerel,
`Rouen (H. Piguet); CHU de Besancon (A. Brion); HOpital
`Mustapha, Alger (N. Boudjerra); Poitiers (B. Dreyfus); HOpital
`Sud, Rennes (R. Leblay); Institut Paoli Calmettes, Marseille
`(A-M. Stoppa); Hospital du Morvan, Brest (J-P. Autrand);
`Hopital Edouard Herriot, Lyon (C. Sebban); CHU Brabois,
`Nancy (J-F. Paitel); Hopital de La Roche-sur-Yon (P. Mai-
`sonneuve); H8pital Lapeyronic, Montpellier (T. Rousset);
`
`Hopital Bretonneau, Tours (M. Linassier); Hopital Saint-
`Louis, Paris (P. Brice); Hotel-Dieu, Clermont-Ferrand (Ph.
`Travade); Hopital Henri-Mondor, Creteil (M. Divine); CHU
`d'Amiens (B. Desablens); HOpital Nord, Saint-Etienne (J.
`Jaubert); HOpital de Meaux (C. Allard); Hopital Saint-Antoine,
`Paris (D. Cheron); Fondation Bergonie, Bordeaux (J-P. Egh-
`bali); Centre Jean Bernard, Le Mans (Ph. Solal Celigny); CHU
`de Limoges (D. Bordessoule); Hopital Robert Debit, Reims
`(B. Pignon); HOpital d'Orleans (G. Vaugier); Hopital Jean
`Verdier, Bondy (F. Lejeune); Hopital de Chalon-sur-Saone
`(B. Salles); Centre Henri Dunan, Corbel! (M. Devidas); Hopital
`de Chambery (M. Blanc); HOpital Jeanne Delanoue, Saumur
`(M. Maigre); Hopital de Vichy (A. Reigner); Hotel-Dieu, Val-
`enciennes (Ph. Simon); Hopital de Bon Secours, Metz (B.
`Christian); CHU de Nimes (J-F. Schved); Hopital Antoine
`&dere, Clamart (P. d'Oiron); Hopital de Blois (M. Rodon);
`Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif (P. Carde); Hospital Labo-
`chee, Saint-Brieue (I. Yakoub); Hopital de la Durance, Avig-
`non (P. Souteyrand); Centre Hospitalier de la Cote Basque,
`Bayonnes (M. Renoux); Hopital de Pontoise (J. Facquet-
`Danis); Hotel-Dieu, Nantes (M. Hamidou); Hopital Rene
`Huguenin, Saint-Cloud (F. Turpin); HOpital d'Antibes (J-F.
`Dor); Hopital Saint-Louis, Paris (J-P. Fermand); HOpital Av-
`icenne, Bobigny (N. 'Vigneron); Hopital 8e Cimiez, Nice (A.
`Gamier); HOpital de Saint-Germain en Laye (J.P. Le Loster).
`Statisticians: S. Chevret and C. Chasting, Departement de
`Statistiques et d'Informatique Medicate, Hopital Saint Louis,
`Paris.
`
`REFERENCES
`1. International Workshop on Chronic Lymphocytic Leu-
`kemia: Chronic lymphocytic leukemia: Recommendations for
`diagnosis, staging and response criteria. Ann Intern Med 110:
`236-238, 1989
`2. Binet JL, Auquier A, Dighiero G, et al: A new prognostic
`classification of chronic lymphocytic leukemia derived from
`a multivariate survival analysis. Cancer 48:198-206, 1981
`3. Keating MJ, Kantarjian M, Redman J, et al: Fludarabine:
`A new agent with major activity against chronic lymphocytic
`leukemia. Blood 74:19-25, 1989
`4. Keating MJ: Fludarabine phosphate in the treatment of
`chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Semin Oncol 17:49-62, 1990
`(suppl 8)
`
`CEPHALON, INC. -- EXHIBIT 2006 0003

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