`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________________
`
`AMERIGEN PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED and
`ARGENTUM PHARMACEUTICALS LLC
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`JANSSEN ONCOLOGY, INC.
`Patent Owner.
`
`_______________________
`Case IPR2016-002861
`Patent 8,822,438 B2
`_______________________
`
`DECLARATION OF GERALD WALTER CHODAK, MD
`IN SUPPORT OF JANSSEN ONCOLOGY, INC.’S
`PATENT OWNER RESPONSE
`
`
`1 Case IPR2016-01317 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`ACTIVE 217581642v.3
`
`JANSSEN EXHIBIT 2042
`Amerigen v. Janssen IPR2016-00286
`
`
`
`
`
`I, Gerald W. Chodak, M.D., hereby declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`
`I have been retained by counsel for Patent Owner Janssen Oncology,
`
`Inc. (“Janssen”) to provide expert testimony as background for the panel of
`
`Administrative Patent Judges of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the United
`
`States Patent and Trademark Office (“Panel”) as it considers issues relating to the
`
`patentability of U.S. Patent No. 8,822,438 (“the ’438 patent”) (Ex. 1001) in an
`
`inter partes review requested by Amerigen Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (“Amerigen”) and
`
`Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC (collectively “Petitioners”) in Case No. IPR2016-
`
`00286 and Case No. IPR2016-01317.
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated at my customary rate of $325 per hour for
`
`work in connection with this proceeding. I am also being reimbursed for
`
`reasonable and customary expenses associated with my work in this proceeding.
`
`My compensation is in no way contingent upon the outcome of this proceeding or
`
`the specifics of my testimony.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE
`3.
`
`I am a Board Certified physician in Urology and have been in clinical
`
`practice since 1982 . I received my M.D. degree from the State University of New
`
`York at Buffalo in 1975 and completed my training in Urology at the University of
`
`Chicago in 1981. I received my Bachelor’s degree in Chemistry from the
`
`
`ACTIVE 217581642v.3
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`University of Rochester in 1969, and my Master’s degree in Chemistry from the
`
`State University of New York at Buffalo in 1971. My curriculum vitae can be
`
`found at Exhibit 2043.
`
`4.
`
`From 1982-1999, I was a full time faculty member in the Department
`
`of Surgery/Urology at the University of Chicago, reaching the rank of Professor in
`
`1989. In 1999, I formed the Midwest Prostate and Urology Health Center in
`
`Chicago, and remained its director until 2008 when I closed my clinical practice.
`
`Currently, I conduct online consultations for patients with prostate cancer.
`
`5.
`
`I am credited with performing the first laparoscopic lymph node
`
`operation for prostate cancer in Japan, Sweden, Finland and Norway and also the
`
`first continent urinary diversion for bladder cancer in Illinois. In addition, I was
`
`part of the team that performed the first laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node
`
`dissection (“RPLND”) for testes cancer and bilateral nephrectomy.
`
`6.
`
`I am a named author on over 161 original peer-reviewed medical
`
`articles, over 40 published abstracts, and 24 book chapters, mostly on prostate
`
`cancer. I have been invited to speak in over 120 engagements, throughout the
`
`United States and in more than 14 countries to both physicians and the public.
`
`7.
`
`I have received numerous awards over the course of my career and
`
`served on numerous professional committees. I have also served as an expert
`
`
`ACTIVE 217581642v.3
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`speaker for a number of pharmaceutical companies, including Johnson and
`
`Johnson, and have served on numerous pharmaceutical advisory boards.
`
`8. My primary area of research over the last 33 years has been in the
`
`field of prostate cancer. I have been a principal or co-investigator on numerous
`
`prostate cancer clinical trials sponsored by the NIH, the American Cancer Society,
`
`and pharmaceutical companies.
`
`9. My opinions are based on my education, research, and medical
`
`practice and experience in the field of oncology, including my specific experience
`
`studying and treating prostate cancer, as well as my investigation and study of the
`
`relevant materials. A list of the documents that I relied on in connection with the
`
`development of my opinions set forth in this declaration is attached as Appendix
`
`A.
`
`
`ACTIVE 217581642v.3
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`III. GERBER (1990)
`
`A. BACKGROUND
`10.
`I am a co-author of Gerber, G.S. et al., “Prostate Specific Antigen for
`
`Assessing Response to Ketoconazole and Prednisone in Patients with Hormone
`
`Refractory Metastatic Prostate Cancer,” J. of Urology, 144(5):1177-9 (1990)
`
`(“Gerber”). My co-author, Dr. Glenn S. Gerber, was then a resident at the
`
`University of Chicago, working under my supervision. It is my understanding that
`
`a copy of Gerber (1990) has been previously submitted in this proceeding as
`
`Amerigen Ex. 1004 (“Ex. 1004”).
`
`11.
`
`I understand that Petitioners’ expert, Dr. Scott Serels, has stated in his
`
`declaration that “[k]etoconazole ... was commonly used off-label in combination
`
`with prednisone to treat metastatic refractory prostate cancer.” (Ex. 1002 at ¶23).
`
`I also understand that Dr. Serels has stated that “[k]etoconazole ... was known to be
`
`effective as a second-line treatment for metastatic hormone-refractory prostate
`
`cancer.” (Id. at ¶ 33). In addition, I understand that Dr. Serels has stated that
`
`“Gerber teaches that the combination of ketoconazole and prednisone is safe and
`
`effective in treating human patients with hormone-refractory advanced prostate
`
`cancer.” (Id. at ¶ 48). I disagree with all three of his statements.
`
`12. Gerber is a retrospective chart review of clinical observations,
`
`including prostate-specific antigen (“PSA”) levels, in 15 men with metastatic
`
`
`ACTIVE 217581642v.3
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`hormone refractory prostate cancer who were administered ketoconazole and
`
`prednisone. 2 (Ex. 1004 at Abstract). For purposes of our report, Dr. Gerber and I
`
`examined ex post facto the charts of a sampling of my patients whom I had
`
`previously treated for metastatic hormone refractory prostate cancer that had
`
`received ketoconazole and prednisone therapy under my supervision and had PSA
`
`measurements taken as part of their clinical care.
`
`13. PSA is a glycoprotein found almost exclusively in normal and
`
`neoplastic prostate cells and seminal fluids. In 1987, the New England Journal of
`
`Medicine published a study examining the potential use of PSA as a biomarker for
`
`prostate cancer, which suggested that PSA could be useful in monitoring patient
`
`response to prostate cancer therapy. (Ex. 2047 (Stamey) at Abstract). Following
`
`the publication of Stamey, researchers began to measure serum PSA levels in
`
`patients with prostate cancer with the hope of reliably demonstrating that changes
`
`in PSA levels could be useful as an indicator of disease regression or progression
`
`and response to treatment.
`
`14. At about this time, I also became interested in determining whether
`
`PSA measurements could be used as an indicator of disease activity in patients
`
`
`2 “Hormone refractory prostate cancer” can also be referred to “castration resistant
`
`prostate cancer” or “androgen independent prostate cancer.”
`
`
`ACTIVE 217581642v.3
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`with metastatic hormone refractory prostate cancer. In 1990, PSA was still
`
`relatively new, and little was known about what drop in PSA, if any, correlated
`
`with clinical benefit. Since PSA was new, and the only other reliable options for
`
`determining response to a therapeutic agent were bone scan and CAT scan, we
`
`were hoping to find out if PSA could predict whether a patient would show an
`
`improved bone scan or CAT scan in response to therapy, which takes much longer
`
`to determine. The attempt was to spare patients from continuing on unnecessary
`
`and potentially harmful therapy sooner by using PSA rather than having to wait for
`
`CAT scan or bone scan results. In the Gerber publication, Dr. Gerber and I sought
`
`to share with other researchers our experience using PSA levels as a possible
`
`surrogate for disease progression and regression in the context of metastatic
`
`hormone refractory prostate cancer. We never believed that our data could prove
`
`or disprove whether ketoconazole was safe or effective because it was not a formal
`
`study designed to assess those outcomes. If, however, we did find a correlation
`
`between the drug and changes in PSA, then the hope would be to do a proper
`
`clinical trial to determine if ketoconazole and prednisone were actually safe and
`
`effective in this setting.
`
`15. By 1990, it was established that medical and surgical castration
`
`offered similar clinical benefit to patients. Despite these advances, most castrated
`
`patients with metastatic disease eventually relapsed. In 1990, there were no FDA
`
`
`ACTIVE 217581642v.3
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`approved treatment options available for patients with hormone refractory
`
`metastatic prostate cancer, and no treatment had shown a survival benefit for
`
`patients in a controlled clinical trial. As a result, clinicians and researchers,
`
`including myself, desperate to offer patients some type of treatment and to find a
`
`drug that could control the growth of the cancer and extend survival, were
`
`experimenting with off-label uses of available drugs.
`
`16. The drug combination used in Gerber, ketoconazole and prednisone,
`
`was one such off-label use. As Gerber explains, ketoconazole was originally
`
`developed as an antifungal agent. (Ex. 1004 at 1177). However, it was also
`
`observed that ketoconazole is a potent inhibitor of gonadal and adrenocortical
`
`steroid synthesis and that it had an in vitro cytotoxic effect on prostate cancer cells.
`
`(Id.). In men with hormone-refractory prostate cancer, however, results with
`
`ketoconazole had not been promising. (Id.). For example, Gerber describes
`
`Jubelirer et al. as concluding that ketoconazole “has limited use in patients who
`
`have failed prior hormonal therapy for advanced prostate cancer.” (Id. at 1179).
`
`At the same time, however, there were rare reports in the literature suggesting that
`
`a small subset of patients with hormone refractory prostate cancer experienced
`
`some signs of brief disease regression using measurements of tumor mass or bone
`
`scan. (Id. at 1179). In light of these disparate results, Dr. Gerber and I sought to
`
`determine whether ketoconazole should be continued in a patient where there is no
`
`
`ACTIVE 217581642v.3
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`other option, based on changes in the PSA level, without having to wait for
`
`changes in bone scan or CAT scan which take longer to observe. There was never
`
`any expectation that our paper would prove “safety and efficacy” of the
`
`combination of ketoconazole and prednisone. We selected ketoconazole and
`
`prednisone because, as I have noted above, there were some rare reports in the
`
`literature that suggested short-term responses in some patients with hormone
`
`refractory disease. No other approved options were available for hormone-
`
`refractory prostate cancer patients that increased survival. However, ketoconazole
`
`was not “commonly used” for treating hormone refractory prostate cancer patients.
`
`17.
`
`In order to properly evaluate whether a new therapy is safe or
`
`effective, the safety or efficacy (or both) of the therapy should be evaluated using a
`
`well-controlled randomized clinical trial. In particular, a study protocol is required
`
`that prospectively defines the purpose of the study, the selection criteria for study
`
`participants, the duration of treatment and evaluation periods, and response criteria
`
`(including describing reliable methods for observing and quantifying the response
`
`criteria). Also, side effects must be carefully monitored and documented.
`
`Adherence to the protocol is required and any modifications should not only be
`
`documented, but also analyzed to determine their potential impact on the results.
`
`Any report of the findings should describe the results and the analytic methods
`
`
`ACTIVE 217581642v.3
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`used to evaluate them, including the statistical methods used. (See Ex. 2048
`
`(Altman) at Table 2).
`
`18. Gerber does not satisfy any of these requirements, and does not report
`
`the results of an actual prospective clinical trial. The report was not designed to
`
`measure whether treatment with ketoconazole and prednisone was “safe and
`
`effective.” The patients included in the reported results in Gerber were self-
`
`selected from among the many patients I had treated for metastatic hormone
`
`refractory prostate cancer after discussing ketoconazole and prednisone therapy as
`
`a potential option for them. These men were willing to try an unproven and
`
`incompletely tested therapy because no other approved therapy was available that
`
`increased survival. Thus, there was an obvious selection bias because men were
`
`not randomly selected to receive this treatment.
`
`19. Gerber does not describe that any clinical trial protocol was followed
`
`for purposes of our report, and the paper does not define the selection criteria for
`
`study participants, the duration of treatment and evaluation periods, the response
`
`criteria (including describing reliable methods for observing and quantifying the
`
`response criteria), the measurement of adverse effects, nor the analytical methods
`
`used to analyze any results. By way of example, no patient selection criteria (i.e.
`
`inclusion and exclusion criteria) were specified for the patients included in the
`
`Gerber report. Rather, we retrospectively described the commonalities and
`
`
`ACTIVE 217581642v.3
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`differences between the patients whose results were being reported. Fourteen out
`
`of the fifteen patients had undergone orchiectomy at least 5 months before
`
`participation, but one had been treated with injections of a luteinizing hormone-
`
`releasing hormone agonist for 17 months before participation. (Ex. 1004 (Gerber)
`
`at 1177). In addition, 10 of the 15 patients previously received radiotherapy.
`
`Twelve “had bone pain and/or other symptoms of widespread malignancy,” and
`
`the remaining three were asymptomatic. (Id.). The prior treatment histories of the
`
`patients reported in Gerber could have influenced their response to ketoconazole
`
`and prednisone.
`
`20. Gerber states that patients were initially administered “600 mg to 900
`
`mg. ketoconazole daily in 3 divided doses and 5 mg. prednisone twice per day,”
`
`and that “the ketoconazole dosage was increased to 1,200 mg. daily in 3 divided
`
`doses if the PSA did not decrease.” (Id. at 1178). However, the paper does not
`
`describe how often the higher dose was administered. Gerber also explains that at
`
`each visit, the patients underwent history and physical examination, and were
`
`asked about any treatment-related side effects. (Id.). However, we made no
`
`attempt to monitor patients’ compliance to the dosage schedule or report the use of
`
`other medications, including analgesics. This in turn may have affected the
`
`patients’ response to ketoconazole and prednisone, or the side effects they
`
`
`ACTIVE 217581642v.3
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`experienced. We also made no effort to objectively measure symptomatic side
`
`effects.
`
`21. Gerber also does not describe the actual interval between
`
`measurement of PSA levels, stating only that “PSA levels were recommended
`
`monthly.” (Id.) (emphasis added). As shown in Figures 1-3, this recommendation
`
`was not always followed. Figures 1-3 show that PSA measurements were
`
`performed at a variety of different time periods. (See, e.g., id. Figs. 1-3).
`
`22. We also did not specify a minimum change in PSA level that was to
`
`be considered a “response” to ketoconazole and prednisone for purposes of the
`
`Gerber (1990) report. Rather, we included as a “responder” any patient who
`
`experienced any measurable decline in PSA. (See, e.g., id. at 1178, in which one
`
`“‘responding patient[]’… had a 7% decrease in PSA”).
`
`23. We also did not use any objective criteria, such as reduction in
`
`measurable tumor size or improvements in bone scan abnormalities, to evaluate the
`
`regression of the patient’s prostate cancer. Furthermore, although the patients were
`
`asked about any perceived improvements in their bone pain, there was no
`
`standardized survey or objective measures used to evaluate patients’ bone pain
`
`while on ketoconazole and prednisone. As a result, the bone pain data reported
`
`was highly subjective and subject to a great degree of variability.
`
`
`ACTIVE 217581642v.3
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`24.
`
`In addition, all of the patients reported in Gerber received both
`
`ketoconazole and prednisone. Thus, there was no control for a placebo effect of
`
`either drug in any patient.
`
`B. RESULTS
`25. Gerber reports that 12 of the 15 patients (80%) with hormone
`
`refractory prostate cancer “showed a decrease in PSA in response to ketoconazole
`
`and prednisone.” (Id. at 1178, 1179). As explained above, this “response”
`
`included any amount of decrease in PSA. Gerber also reports that the mean
`
`decrease in PSA in the 12 “responding” patients was 49% of the pre-treatment
`
`level. (Id. at 1178). Thus, in Gerber, there were patients included in the
`
`“responding” group who had a PSA decline of greater than 50%, but also included
`
`individuals who had a PSA decline of less than 50%. However, no information is
`
`provided in Gerber as to the number of patients that had a PSA decline of greater
`
`than 50% versus the number of patients that had a PSA decline of less than 50%.
`
`26. Gerber reports that of the 15 patients, 12 (80%) had a decrease in PSA
`
`with a median duration of response of 3 months. (Id. at Abstract, 1178). Gerber
`
`also reports that in 9 of 12 men, the improvement in PSA was “short-lived (i.e. less
`
`than or equal to four months)”) and “occasionally of small magnitude,” but it did
`
`correlate with subjective improvement in symptomatic patients in all but 1
`
`instance. (Id. at 1179). More specifically, of the 12 patients who had bone pain
`
`
`ACTIVE 217581642v.3
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`and/or other symptoms of advancing malignancy prior to administration of
`
`ketoconazole and prednisone, nine (75%) reported subjective improvement,
`
`however these were not validated either by documenting patients’ use of analgesics
`
`or by documenting in an objective fashion what kind of subjective improvement
`
`occurred.3 (Id.). One patient had a 7% decrease in PSA during four months of
`
`treatment but he had no improvement in bone pain. (Id. at 1178). However, 1 of
`
`the 3 patients who had no decrease in PSA levels also reported a transient decrease
`
`in bone pain. (Id. at 1178). We concluded that “[s]hort-term decreases in PSA are
`
`of unclear importance but probably do not reflect significant disease regression”
`
`and “it is unlikely that significant impact on survival will be seen in these cases.”
`
`(Id. at 1179).
`
`27. We also reported that 2 out of the 15 patients (13%) “suffered minor
`
`bruising believed to be secondary to prednisone.” (Id.). Besides monitoring liver
`
`functions and blood chemistry and questioning the participants regarding
`
`treatment-related side effects, however, we did not evaluate the “safety” of
`
`ketoconazole and prednisone.
`
`
`3 As noted in my later comment regarding Gerber, even for patients who reported
`
`“a clear reduction in analgesics” this subjective improvement was “short-lived.”
`
`(Ex. 2049 (Blackard) at 1622).
`
`
`ACTIVE 217581642v.3
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`28. The results reported in Gerber did not establish that the combination
`
`of ketoconazole and prednisone was “safe and effective” in hormone-refractory
`
`prostate cancer patients. While PSA was measured and patients were asked about
`
`their pain at each visit, no objective clinical response criteria (e.g. imaging
`
`procedures such as bone scan) were reported in the Gerber paper. In fact, as I
`
`discuss in more detail in Section V, as of August 2006, no scientific conclusions
`
`about ketoconazole and prednisone or PSA could be drawn from the Gerber paper.
`
`C. Glucocorticoid Replacement for Ketoconazole
`29. When we administered ketoconazole to patients as reported in Gerber,
`
`we co-administered prednisone only for purposes of glucocorticoid replacement
`
`therapy. At the time, we knew that ketoconazole was an unselective drug that
`
`decreased the production of all steroids (including glucocorticoids and
`
`mineralocorticoids) and could cause adrenal insufficiency.
`
`30. Nevertheless, we were also aware in 1990 that ketoconazole had been
`
`safely administered without glucocorticoid replacement to patients with prostate
`
`cancer. (Ex. 1004 (Gerber) at 1179).
`
`IV. REACTIONS TO GERBER
`31. Following its publication, prostate cancer researchers commented on
`
`the limitations of the results described in Gerber. Specifically, in a December 1991
`
`letter to the editor of the journal in which Gerber was published, Dr. Clyde
`
`
`ACTIVE 217581642v.3
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`Blackard of the Park Nicollet Medical Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota, noted that
`
`the decrease in PSA levels reported in Gerber likely did not reflect clinical
`
`improvement:
`
`It is likely that the effects of ketoconazole and prednisone
`in decreasing PSA levels have little or nothing to do with
`clinical improvement.
`
`
` (Ex. 2049 (Blackard) at 1621) (emphasis added).
`
`32. Dr. Blackard also noted that the reductions in bone pain reported in
`
`Gerber were “largely subjective and difficult to evaluate” and “could have been
`
`related partly to bed rest, simultaneously administered analgesics and/or the
`
`prednisone.” (Id.). And, Dr. Blackard emphasized that none of the 15 patients in
`
`Gerber “showed a significant improvement in terms of increased survival.” (Id.)
`
`In our response to Dr. Blackard, we acknowledged that “we have insufficient data
`
`to determine the impact on survival.” (Id. at 1622). Dr. Blackhard concluded, and
`
`we agreed, that “[w]e definitely need more research in this area.” (Id. at 1621) Dr.
`
`Blackard’s 1991 letter reflects the pressing concern shared among clinicians at the
`
`time that experimental treatments for refractory prostate cancer consistently failed
`
`to meet the ultimate goal of improving survival.
`
`33. Other publications from the 1990s similarly confirmed that Gerber did
`
`not teach that ketoconazole, alone or in combination with prednisone, was “safe
`
`and effective.” (See, e.g., Ex. 2053 (Lara) at 140 (noting “objective (measurable)
`
`
`ACTIVE 217581642v.3
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`responses [to ketoconazole] are unusual (<5%), the duration of PSA response is
`
`only 3-4 months, and there is no improvement in overall survival”); Ex. 2054
`
`(Kuzel) at 1965 (noting the short duration of PSA response in Gerber); Ex. 2055
`
`(Scher) at 2928 (noting that ranges of response rates to second- and third-line
`
`hormonal therapies is “less clear because a range of response proportions have
`
`been reported” which is “the result of patient- and tumor-related factors”); Ex.
`
`2056 (Sternberg) at 331 (citing Gerber to say “[w]hile changes in PSA are a good
`
`indicator of disease activity in men with metastatic prostate cancer treated with
`
`hormonal manipulation, the role in patients treated with second line therapy is less
`
`clear”) (emphasis added).
`
`34.
`
`Indeed, by the early 2000s, over a decade after the Gerber paper was
`
`published, peer-reviewed clinical trials confirmed that ketoconazole-based
`
`therapies, like so many other therapies that were studied, did not improve survival
`
`in patients with hormone refractory prostate cancer. (Ex. 2063 (Small (2004)) at
`
`1031 (“no difference in survival was observed” for patients treated with either anti-
`
`androgen withdrawal alone or antiandrogen withdrawal plus simultaneous
`
`ketoconazole and hydrocortisone replacement therapy); Ex. 2064 (Millikan) at 115
`
`(“we found no evidence that either of these regimens [ketoconazole and
`
`hydrocortisone or ketoconazole, hydrocortisone, and doxorubicin] is likely to
`
`substantially improve the survival of patients with androgen independent prostate
`
`
`ACTIVE 217581642v.3
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`cancer.”). These larger studies in the early 2000s confirmed that ketoconazole
`
`offered, at best, a “last resort” therapeutic option for such patients, particularly in
`
`view of the fact that docetaxel-based chemotherapy was the first (and only) therapy
`
`shown to improve overall survival in patients with metastatic hormone refractory
`
`prostate cancer. Ketoconazole has never been approved by the FDA for prostate
`
`cancer treatment because no randomized trial has shown it to be either safe and/or
`
`effective for patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer.
`
`V. DEVELOPMENTS IN THE USE OF PSA AS OF AUGUST 2006
`35. As of August 2006, researchers’ understanding of the use of PSA in
`
`diagnosing and evaluating prostate cancer response and progression had evolved
`
`significantly.
`
`36.
`
`In 1999, the Prostate-Specific Antigen Working Group (“Working
`
`Group”), a group of 26 leading clinical researchers, published eligibility and
`
`response guidelines for clinical trials in androgen-independent prostate cancer,
`
`explaining that “it was important for investigators to agree on definitions and
`
`values for a minimum set of parameters for eligibility and PSA declines and to
`
`develop a common approach to outcome analysis and reporting” in clinical trials.
`
`(Ex. 2057 (Bubley) at 3461).
`
`37. The Working Group had found that “[u]nfortunately, even among
`
`investigators who have reported a decline in serum PSA as an end point, there is no
`
`
`ACTIVE 217581642v.3
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`consistency in how a PSA decline is measured and reported.” (Id. at 3462).
`
`Nevertheless, the Working Group also noted that “many but not all investigators
`
`have observed an association between a decline in PSA levels of 50% or greater
`
`and survival.” (Id. at 3461).
`
`38. Therefore, the Working Group proposed that investigators define a
`
`“PSA response” as, at a minimum, a PSA decline of at least 50% confirmed by a
`
`second PSA value 4 or more weeks later:
`
`[I]nvestigators should report, at minimum, a PSA decline
`of at least 50%, which must be confirmed by a second
`PSA value 4 or more weeks later. The reference PSA for
`these declines should be a PSA measured within 2 weeks
`before starting therapy. Patients may not demonstrate
`clinical or radiographic evidence of disease progression
`during this time period.
`
`(Id. at 3464). The goal of the proposed guidelines was “to use [PSA] as an
`
`outcome measure to guide the development of further trials, generally
`
`randomized.” (Id.).
`
`39. By 2006, the Working Group guidelines had been adopted and were
`
`widely applied by researchers and clinicians for evaluating response to therapeutic
`
`agents in hormone refractory prostate cancer patients. Accordingly, researchers
`
`and clinicians who used PSA as a measurement of outcome understood that only
`
`patients who showed a greater than 50% decrease in PSA were likely to have
`
`actually experienced a clinically significant response. Publications that reported a
`
`
`ACTIVE 217581642v.3
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`PSA decline of less than 50% as a “response” were not given much weight and
`
`were often repeated or superseded by studies that applied the Working Group
`
`guidelines.
`
`40.
`
`In light of the Working Group guidelines, as of August 2006, a
`
`physician or researcher working in the field of prostate cancer would have
`
`understood that the patient outcomes described in Gerber, which reported any
`
`decline in PSA as a “response,” and also did not include any other objective
`
`response criteria, did not establish that ketoconazole and prednisone were “safe
`
`and effective” for the treatment of hormone refractory prostate cancer. Indeed, a
`
`physician or researcher working in the field of prostate cancer reading Gerber
`
`would have understood that the paper’s conclusion that “there appears to be a small
`
`subgroup of patients who will derive significant benefit from the combination of
`
`ketoconazole and glucocorticoid replacement therapy” overstated the observed
`
`outcomes and that the results of Gerber were, at best, inconclusive.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ACTIVE 217581642v.3
`
`20
`
`
`
`3 dxtcizmx azzékcr gznmaffiy gs? ;:m;§u2g: mzém“ 3%: éawzs sfkéw éfgziim Sizwsg «:2?
`
`;%::am%¢3 am: ziaa faraggéag
`
`¥;s:;:a% am zrrsxsvm.
`
` , zfiié
`
`V{:*}?“1>~”z«»£i»~§¥««-~“:» V
`
`
`
`
`
`APPENDIX A
`
`I have relied upon the following documents (and any other documents cited in my
`declaration) in connection with the development of my opinions set forth in this
`declaration.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,822,438
`
`Gerber and Chodak, “PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN FOR ASSESSING
`RESPONSE TO KETOCONAZOLE AND PREDNISONE IN PATIENTS WITH
`
`HORMONE REFRACTORY METASTATIC PROSTATE CANCER,” J.
`
`Urology, 144:1177-1179 (1990)
`
`Altman et al., “The Revised CONSORT Statement for Reporting Randomized
`Trials: Explanation and Elaboration,” Ann. Intern. Med, 134:663-694 (2001)
`
`Blackard, “Letters to the Editor,” Journal ofUrology, 146(6): 1621-1622 (1991)
`
`Bubley et al., “Eligibility and Response Guidelines for Phase II Clinical Trials in
`Androgen-Independent Prostate Cancer: Recommendations From the Prostate-
`Specific Antigen Working Group,” J, Clin. Oncology, 173461-3467 (1999)
`
`Kuzel et al., “A Phase 11 Study of Continuous Infusion 5-Fluorouracil in Advanced
`Hormone Refractory Prostate Cancer,” Cancer, 72(6):l965-1968 (1993)
`
`Lara and Meyers, “Treatment Options in Androgen-Independent Prostate Cancer,”
`Cancer Investigation, 17(2): 137-144 (1999)
`
`Scher et al., “Bicalutamide for Advanced Prostate Cancer: The Natural Versus
`Treated History of Disease,” J. Clin. Oncology, 1522928-2838 (1997)
`
`Small et al., “Antiandrogen Withdrawal Alone or in Combination With
`Ketoconazole in Androgen-Independent Prostate Cancer Patients: A Phase III Trial
`(CALGB 9583),” J. Clin. Oncology, 22(6):lO25—1033 (2004)
`
`Stamey et al., “Prostate-Specific Antigen As A Serum Marker For
`Adenocarcinoma Of The Prostate,” NEJM, 317(l5):909—916 (1987)
`
`Sternberg, “Hormone refractory metastatic prostate cancer,” Annals of Oncology,
`3:331-335 (1992)
`
`22
`
`