throbber
Sandoz Inc. IPR2016-00318
`Sandoz v. Eli Lilly, Exhibit 1070-0001
`
`

`
`Program/Proceedings
`of the
`$tmerican Society of Clinical Oncology
`
`Michael C. Perry, MD
`Program/Proceedings Editor
`
`American Society of Clinical Oncology
`
`Officers
`
`1997.98
`
`Robert J. Mayer, MD
`
`Allen S, Lichtar, MD
`President-Elect
`James O. Armitage, lVID
`Immediate Past President
`
`William P. Vaughan, MD
`Secretary/Treasurer
`
`Board of Directors
`Douglas W. Blayne:~ MD
`George J. Bosl, MD
`PaulA. Bunn, Jr., MD
`Nancy E. Davidson, MD
`Jay R. Harris, MD
`Harry E. Hynes, MD, PhD
`John D. Minna, MD
`Larry Norton, MD
`Philip A. Pizzo, MD
`James Lloyd Wade III, MD
`Barbara Lynn Weber, M:D
`William C. Wood, MD
`
`John R. Durant, MD
`Executive Vice President
`
`Al~txact management and indexing prodded by Prism Productions, Inc., Westervflle, OH
`
`Electronic page ~npositiau a~d print productionpmvided by W.B. Saunde.~ Company, Philadelphia,
`and the Mack Printing Group.
`
`0. (~opyri~t 1998 by the American Society of Cliai~ On~logy
`
`Sandoz Inc. IPR2016-00318
`Sandoz v. Eli Lilly, Exhibit 1070-0002
`
`

`
`Proceedings of ASCO Volume 171998
`
`GENITOURINARY CANCER
`
`339a
`
`1305
`ADJUVANT AOMINISTRATION OF SUBCUTANEOUS (SC) IN1TRLEUKIN-2 (RIL-2)
`IN PATIENTS FOLLOWING RESECTION OF RENAL CELL CARCINOMA: PREMMI-
`N~RY RESULT~ OF A PILOTSTUDY. T. Olencki, R.M. Bukowski, K. Zuccaro, D.
`McLain, P. Elson, J. Finke, A. Novick. Cleveland Clinic Foundation,
`Cleveland, OH.
`Adjuvant administration of rlL-2 following resection of locally advanced
`(T~-c Nz Mo) or metastatic renal cell carcinoma was investigated to
`determine toxicity and patient (pt) tolerance to 4 different SC rlL-2
`regimens. Pts with adequate cardiovascular, renal and hepatic function
`who had no evidence of residual disease were treated within 3 mos of
`surgery. Pts. were randomized to receive rlL-2 at either 2.0 or 4.0 MIU/m2
`S.C. BID dl-5 q o wk (cohorts I & II respectively) or wks 1-4 every 8 wks
`(cohorts III & IV respectively) for a total of 24 wks. Dose reduction (50%)
`for ~ Gr III toxicity or patient intolerance was permitted. 24 pts (6/cohort)
`will be entered, with 17 entered to date (stage 111-15, stage IV-2). 15 pts
`are currently evalual31e and preliminary results are as follows:
`
`Cohort
`
`No. Eval.
`
`Completed
`24 wks
`
`Dose
`Reduction
`
`Currently
`On Therapy
`
`I
`II
`III
`IV
`
`414
`4/4
`5/4
`4/3
`
`2
`2
`2
`1
`
`0
`0
`1
`1
`
`1
`1
`1
`2
`
`Toxicity included constitutional symptoms in all pts and Gr III hepatic
`toxicity consisting of SGOT elevation (1 pt cohort IV) which subsequently
`returned to normal. Dose reduction or discontinuation of rlL-2 was required
`in 2/15 (pt request) and 1/15 patients respectively, with no major
`differences between the cohorts apparent. Progressive disease developed
`in 4/15 pts. Prolonged S.C. administration of rlL-2 is possible, in an
`adjuvant setting, and early discontinuation because of pt intolerance or
`toxicity does not appear excessive. It remains unclear which regimen is
`optimal in terms of patient compliance/tolerance. Adjuvant trials compar-
`ing rlL-2 to surgery alone in high risk renal cell carcinoma patients should
`be performed (supported by Chiton Therapeutics).
`
`1307
`A PHASE II STUDY OF THE MULTI-TARgETED ANTIFOLATE, MTA (LY231514), IN
`PATIENTS WITH ADVANCED TRANSITIONAL CELL CARCINOMA (TCC) OF THE
`BLADDER. L. Paz.Ares, J. Tabemero, A. Moya~o, J. Rifa, H. Gomez, E.
`Marcuello, A. Gonzalez, I. Tarazona, H. Cort~s-Funes, H. Dote de Octubre,
`Madrid, Spain; H. Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain; H. R y Cajal Madrid, Spain;
`H. Son Dureta, Palma de Mallorca, Spain; Lilly Spain.
`MTA is a novel multi-targeted antifolate that inhibits multiple folate-
`dependent enzymes, including thymidylata synthase (TS), dihydrofolate
`reductase (DHFR) and glycinamJde ribonucleotide formyltransferase
`(GARFT). MTA has activity in preclinical models and human tumors (breast,
`colon and lung). We undertook a phase II trial of MTA in 22 patients (pts)
`with advanced TCC of the bladder. MTA was administered as 10 minute
`infusions every 3 weeks, ata dose of 600 mWm2 (first 6 pts) or 500 mg/m2
`(subsequent pts). 18 pts are currently evaluable. 1 was ineligible (prior
`chemotherapy), 3 are too early. Median age was 66 years (range: 48-76);
`17 were male; PS was 0 (6 pta), I (10 pts) and 2 (2 pts). All ts had
`metastatic disease; median number of disease sites: 2 (range: 1-4). 60
`courses were administered, median cycleeipt: 3 (range 1-12). Five courses
`(8%) were dose-reduced and 6 (10%) delayed. The main toxicity was
`hematologic: 8 pts (44%) had grade (G) 3 and 5 pts (28%) G4 neutropenia;
`4 pts developed neutropenic fever; 1 pt had G3 thrombocytopenia; 3 pts
`G2-4 anemia. Non-hematologic toxicity included: skin rash (G1/2:10 pts,
`G3:1 pt) preventable with dexamethasone, nausea/uomitin8 (G1/2:)0
`pts), stomatitis (G1/2:7 pts, G3:1 pt), diarrhea (G3:2 pts), and alopecia
`(G 1: 3 pts). There were 2 toxic deaths (septicemia and renal failure). Doses
`were subsequently reduced to 500 mg/mz due to toxicity. Six pts (33%,
`95% Ch 13-59%) had a partial remission, 4 (22%) had stable disease, 7
`(39%) had progressive disease (1 pt died after the first course--reported
`above as the toxic death due to septicemia). Responses lasted for 1.5+ to 8
`months. In conclusion, MTA has definitive antitumor activity in advanced
`TCC of the bladder, but its toxicity is significant.
`
`1306
`BLADDER PRESERVATION IN LOCALLY ADVANCED (T2-T4) TRANSITIONAL BLAD-
`DER CARCINOMA (TgC) AFTER TRANSURETHRAL RESECTION (I’UR) AND NEOAD-
`JUVANT CHEMDRADIOTHERAPY. R. Passalacqua, N. Naldi, F. Leonardi, G.
`Ceci, V Franciosi, L. Bidin, V. Paietta, B. Monica, A. Prati, D. Potenzoni, G.
`Sanfilippo, M. Fuma~alli, R. Martinelli, R. Camisa, G. CocconL Medical
`Oncolo~y, Urology Division and Radiotherapy, Azienda Ospedaliera, Urolog~
`Division, Azienda USL, Parma, Italy.
`This is a single institution study aiming to evaluate, in muscle invasive BC,
`an approach of TUR, chemotherapy and pelvic radiotherapy (RT) in terms of
`bladder preservation, survival and toxicity. Since March 1994, 55 T2-T4
`NO-N 1, MO patients (pts) entered the study. Median age was 65 (42-77);
`T2-T3a: 36%; T3b: 49%, T4: 13%, G3: 89%, M/F ratio: 4916, PS
`100-90: 76%, 80-60: 24%. All pts underwent an initial TUR and were
`treated w=th cispiatin (P) 20 mg/m2 and 5-Fluorouracil (F) 200 mg/mz daily
`for 5 days on weeks 1,4 and 7. Pelvic RT (2 Gy/die for 5 days each week)
`was delivered on weeks 2-3 and 5-6 for a total of 40 Gy in 4 weeks. Pts
`were then evaluated with cystoscopy, multiple biopsies, CT scan and urine
`cytology. Pts with residual disease were considered as incomplete respond-
`ers (IR) and an immediate cystectomy was proposed. Complete responders
`(CR) were treated with 2 additional PF cycles plus a further bladder RT
`boost with 24-28 Gy. At present 53 pts are evaluable for response; 38
`(72%) achieved a complete histological response (89% for T2-T3a, 74%
`for T3b, 14% for T4). 15 were IR and 12 accepted an immediate
`cystectomy. With a median follow-up of 15 months (2-44), 5/15 (33%) in
`the IR group relapsed and died for distant metastasis; in the RC graup 9/38
`(24%) relapsed (6 in the bladder and 3 in distant sites) and 2/38 (5%)
`died. Toxicity was mild: neutropenia gr. 3-4: 23%; diarrhea gr. 2-3: 27%,
`cystitis gr. 3: 4%. Conclusions: this combined approach of TUR and
`alternated chemoradiotherapy induces an high rate of CR, is well tolerated
`even in the elderly pts, and represents a valid treatment for locally
`advanced TBC in a therapeutical conservative perspective.
`
`1308
`A PHASE II TRIAL OF LIPOSOMAL DOXORBICIN (DOXILe) IN THE TREATMENT OF
`ADVANCED RENAL CELL CANCER: A HOOSIER ONCOLUSY GROUP (HOG) STUDY.
`K. Pennington, M. Gordon, J. Picus. Hoosier Oncology Group and the
`Walther Cancer Institute, Indianapolis, IN.
`Metastatic renal cell cancer has few effective therapies. Standard chemo-
`therapy has poor response rates and minimal impact on survival. Early
`responses in phase I trials of Doxil® in patients with advanced renal cell
`cancer prompted the HOG to conduct a formal phase II trial. Between
`7/10/96 and 1U7197 a total of 32 patients was entered onto this trial.
`Eligibility criteria included biopsy proven renal cell cancer that was
`metastatic or unresectable, KPS > 60%, no prior chemotherapy, ~1 prior
`immunotherapy regimen, Creatinine -=2.5, and no clinical evidence of
`compromised cardiac function. Patients received 50 mg/mz IV every 28
`days. Standard dose reductions for cytopenia were employed, along with
`dose reductions for plantar-palmar erythema. The patients ranged in age
`from 38-78 years (median 60) with a median KPS of 90. Twelve patients
`had previous immunotherapy. A maximum of eight cycles was allowed, and
`five patients received that number of cycles. The median number of cycles
`was three. One patient showed a partial response based on standard
`criteria, which lasted 190 days. Thirteen additional patients showed stable
`disease, that lasted a median of 105 days. Fourteen patients showed
`progressive disease, without evidence of disease stabilization. The median
`survival is 10 months, with 19 patients still alive. Major grade III or IV
`toxicities included fatigue (4), leukopenia (3), skin or hand-foot Syndrome
`(3), stomatitis or mucositis (2), constipation (2), infection (1], nausea or
`vomiting (I). More minor nausea (grade I or II} was seen in 6 other patients.
`Only 2 patients had grade I and I patient had grade II cardiotoxicity. This
`regimen was very well tolerated, but unfortunately only exhibited minimal
`evidence of tumor response.
`Supported by Sequus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
`
`Sandoz Inc. IPR2016-00318
`Sandoz v. Eli Lilly, Exhibit 1070-0003

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