`v. 32, no. 4 (Feb. 12014)
`General Collection
`W1 JO5894H
`2014-02-10 08:26:42
`
`0
`
`
`.
`1:ru:;mn-A @;llIT.jmmtin
`
`‘lifimm
`
`
`
`V
`
`
`A
`
`‘ @§'»W9‘i355‘5“9“W'3Hi159‘1*3i3953*33"l5fi“31“9?“3
`maamm-mmamiraammmmmmam
`ceaumaanétmmamémmfiwmmcmmatam
`zsarmtartzsaleti
`A
`@&il£~3mfiL9é1iEléXih‘1aIa1:i9li9TS!)I9$i1‘s124lKliEEfi.
`% &g g?m MWE(E}1 lfl5flBElE!IEifiB
`1
`'
`1'
`‘
`on
`~
` lmlmglmg.
`
`I
`I3?|R€fi‘)£I=W§I1l3'
`- lm ’e
` liFE$lfl|@fl'@WfiflmYGfl5‘
` tm fim:a@nt-ztlairza
`e0 ‘GEVIEJV/lIi?EIi1@EliEl:'iE‘
`
`-
`1
`,
`"
`
`tawrmtaaaainasalaraxatmn
`° 4' "%v"Eflmfi"9E3'1 1
`'“m|lIi'Ei!~3(E?lR?.lliE:1iIB\'l!ll'.Ii1@1‘sI-‘£1‘:‘
`This matE—rla‘l\f.'v‘s.tsu-pi
`AVENTIS EXHIBIT 2125
`
`Mylan v. Aventis, lPR2016—,00‘.7l‘2’ '
`aylzwa
`atthe
`ightL vs
`Sublet
`...
`‘
`V
`'
`-
`V
`'
`»
`
`
`
`7 1
`
`1
`
`
`-
`“E ‘o
`,
`@1512«mm
`flm§'j__,;.‘§D;
`
`
`
`>
`
`%
`
`
`
`.
`
`-
`
`.
`,
` W.@ e A1‘ «
`
`
`
`V
`
`i
`3
`
`*
`
`.
`1
`l '
`
`0
`
`|
`
`1
`PROPERTYOFTHE
`3 NATIONAL
`LIBRARYOF
`1 . MEDICINE
`%
`JOURNHL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY‘
`2014 VOLUME 32 ISSUE 4
`91999
`
`
`llllll
`ll
`0732 183X(2014)32
`-
`OH
`
`\11,_]
`5% 8989768
`
`§. /
`"'7'
`
`.
`
`
`
`Ill
`
`: 4 : 1 -8
`
`AVENTIS EXHIBIT 2125
`Mylan v. Aventis, IPR2016-00712
`
`
`
`
`Correspondence
`
`for patients with HPVI6-positive OPC is currently intensive and re-
`sults in substantial morbidity, albeit with a high survival rate, ongoing
`trials are evaluating radiation deintensification among patients with
`HPV-positive OPC. Thus, there may be less intensive treatment op-
`tions in the future, especially for HPV-driven cancers diagnosed at an
`earlier stage.
`On the basis of available data, we estimate that, in regions like the
`United States where rates of HPV-driven OPC are rare but increasing,
`the number of individuals in the population needed to be screened to
`detect one case of OPC is approximately 5,000 (assuming 70% of
`tumors are HPVI6 positive and 90% assay sensitivity), and the num-
`ber of individuals who screened positive that would yield one case is
`approximately 50 (assuming 99.0% specificity); this value decreases to
`approximately 1 1 ifspecificity increases to 99.8% (Table 1). To put this
`into context, in comparison with cervical cancer screening,” the
`number ofindividuals needed to screen to detect one cancer would be
`
`higher for OPC because of differences in incidence, whereas the num-
`ber ofindividuals who screen positive needed to detect one case would
`be lower for OPC because of the high specificity of the HPV16 E6
`assay, especially if test characteristics can be further improved.
`It is too early to judge the suitability of HPV16 E6 antibody as a
`screening tool for OPC, and we will continue to evaluate this poten-
`tially important cancer prevention opportunity. However, because
`OPC is only a subset of head and neck cancers, even if this marker is
`proven successful as a screening test, efforts to evaluate markers for
`non-HPV—related head and neck cancer are also important ifwe are to
`have a global and meaningful impact.
`
`Aimée R. Kreimer
`National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD
`
`Mattias Ioliansson
`International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France
`
`Michael Pawlita
`German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany
`
`Paul Brennan
`international Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France
`
`ACKNOWLEDGMENT
`
`We thank Dr Anna Coghill for her input in the calculations related to
`HPV16 E6 positivity as a screening tool for oropharyngeal cancer.
`
`AUTHURS' DISCLOSURES OF POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
`
`The authors indicated no potential conflicts of interest.
`
`REFERENCES
`1. Castle PE: Teaching moment: Why promising biomarkers do not always
`translate into clinically useful tests. J Clin Oncol 32:359-360, 2014
`2. Kreimer AR, Johansson M, Waterboer T, et al: Evaluation of human
`papillomavirus antibodies and risk of subsequent head and neck cancer. J Clin
`Oncol 31:2708—2715, 2013
`identification of clinically useful
`3. McShane LM, Altman DG, Sauerbrei W:
`cancer prognostic factors: What are we missing? J Natl Cancer Inst 0721023-
`1025, 2005
`4. de Martel C, Ferlay J, Franceschi S, et al: Global burden of cancers
`attributable to infections in 2008: A review and synthetic ‘analysis. Lancet Oncol
`132607-615, 2012
`5. Anantharaman D, Gheit T, Waterboer T, et al: Human papillomavirus
`infections and upper aero—digestive tract cancers: The ARCAGE study. J Natl
`Cancer inst 1051536645, 2013
`6. Ribeiro KB, Levi JE, Pawlita M, et al: Low human papillomavirus prevalence
`in head and neck cancer: Results from two large case-control studies in
`high-incidence regions. Int J Epidemiol 402489-502, 2011
`7. Nanda K, McCrory DC, Myers ER, et al: Accuracy of the Papanicolaou test
`in screening for and follow-up of cervical cytologic abnormalities: A systematic
`review. Ann Intern Med 132810-819, 2000
`8. Meijer CJ Berkhof J, Castle PE, et al: Guidelines for human papillomavirus
`DNA test requirements for primary cervical cancer screening in women 30 years
`and older. Int J Cancer 124:516-520, 2009
`
`Allan Hildesheim
`National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD
`
`DOl: 10.1200/JCO.2013.53.2697; published online ahead of print at
`www.jco.org on December 23, 2013
`
`lIl—I
`
`US Food and Drug Administration
`Approval of Drugs for the Treatment
`of Prostate Cancer: A New Era
`
`Has Begun
`
`To THE EDITOR: Before 2002, only three drugs were approved by
`the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of
`prostate cancer (PC),l'3 as shown in Table 1, and only one of these
`approvals3 was based on a prolongation ofsurvival from a randomized
`clinical trial (RCT). Since then, that number has risen to 12,” with
`nearly all new drug approvals (NDAS) a result ofa survival benefit that
`was documented in an RCT. What changed?
`In 1993, under the umbrella of the newly formed organization
`called the Prostate Cancer Foundation (PCF),5 formerly the Associa-
`tion for the Cure of Cancer of the Prostate (CaP CURE), leading
`scientific and clinical experts in the treatment of PC were assembled
`on a board whose mission was to use the resources of PCF to find a way
`to expedite new treatments and improve outcomes for men facing a
`
`diagnosis of advanced PC. Significant resources were initially pro-
`vided by the founder and chairman of this group, Michael Milken,
`who had been diagnosed with PC in 1993. This was followed by a large
`fundraising effort by PCF to perpetuate the revenue stream that was
`needed to support ongoing research initiatives. To date, $510 million
`have been raised for PC research, making this organization the largest
`private sponsor of PC research in the world, funding more than 1,600
`proposals at nearly 200 research centers in 16 countries.
`The ND/\ for zoledronic acid" was issued by the FDA in 2002.
`This was the first agent shown to decrease skeletal-related events (eg,
`compression fractures) in an RCT of men with PC whose primary site
`of metastasis is the skeleton. The impetus for this RCT was a PCP-
`funded survivorship study that elucidated the relationship between
`declining bone mineral density and hormonal therapy use in PC.
`Next, work by clinical leaders in the PCF Clinical Consortium contrib-
`uted to our understanding that PC was sensitive to taxane-based
`chemotherapy regimens (ie, docetaxel; sanofi-aventis, Bridgewater,
`NI)“; docetaxel was FDA approved in 2004 after the publication oftwo
`RCTS, one of which was led by a PCF clinical investigator and showed
`an improvement in survival in men with castration-resistant and
`metastatic PC. Moving forward, during this new era of NDAs for PC,
`
`362
`
`© 2013 by American Society of Clinical Oncology
`
`This material was copied
`at the NLM and may‘ be
`Su.l:ijes:t.‘ U5 {lo-p-yrigrht Laws
`
`JouitN.\1. or Ci,1Nu:.\i. 0N(2()LOG\'
`
`
`
`Correspondence
`
`
`
`cammHm_mo_o5mcop53>nmE:mocoucomEm:
`
`ccmdm9cozcmumm:353:9:>cmaEou
`
`$3_m>oan_m9um_ESpom_:$939:
`
`
`
`one..9mm:mm>c__mu___o“Cacmaxwcm
`
`
`
`_9mm:mm>c__moE:omommEcmxosucoo
`
`>909m_m_:.:_vcm__owmca9:5%Emsmsficm
`
`.6EmEm:omE9:nmccmuES>_u3mm5bmnczm
`
`
`
`nmumamcmmEE3dcoamzmafimBcocoa
`
`
`
`
`
`_m>o._qam9um:65m_9mwcmm>c__mo_E_o“Gm
`
`
`
`
`
`509mEUm®_coammmoamoceomones9:moves;
`
`
`
`aofimomccwmoficmE5mgucflmawucs
`
`
`
`E28um;oc>>>:maEoomE.amfiwmoyEmsoam
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`momm:_cmm_.on=>_mumm>:uco_mmw_axm.m>o
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`.mn_EmS_mN:m._m>oom_U9m_9mm:ww>c_vmncfl
`
`moma3v2mm?Sm¥_mEuc29:.
`
`_9mw:wm>c_
`
`
`
`um>oEqmmm_.s.Ewo:m_:Bm£oE>>
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:_393art9mc_vmw__un_E>am_m£oc:EEM
`
`
`
`Era_9mm:8>£_muE;omomm>2mm.Hum
`
`
`
`
`
`+0>omo_tm95383>u3m__mmmzam5vmucf
`
`mcoz
`
`
`
`5:3mmEm:m:o.2w9m9oz
`
`
`
`HwfommImIi_
`
`
`
`
`
`um>oEqmwm.SExflmooucoE_.5awzm
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`m:E__um_omE_m>ooc:mm_nBmaEm_o>_>Smumucam
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`gumoE9nm_oN52:3Etapom___mwmcq9:9mE.umm_.3:HI£3)Eficmu_9mEEmcon
`
`855%mm»:
`
`
`
`m>EmcmmmmionSEmc__mm>m_w_9mm:mm>c_
`
`
`
`whom:_$939:9mcfimfl._mxmHmooU9
`
`
`
`
`
`_moE:omom3E:mwfifim:mmmcauwu::u_
`
`51-3.
`
`aonwmx
`
`bnwmi
`
`
`
`Em.mmcoamm__moE__u
`
`
`
`mEm>mo9m_mim.Hm_ov_m
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`_m>o._Qa<9nmfiSE.“Ca>3cocanzbcoomc_u:_o:_.._mocmUmzmymoi+0EmEHm.mF.8«HIQt>2uwgcmaom_m>oEa<9:0>523>_mEE:m_m.o_mo_ocoE0ABaa...
`
`
`
`
`3.83EonEmco::nE:oo“Cmmzummmmmmé
`_m>9nE<99:0
`
`«on.B_mm>
`
`fi>oEn_d.
`
`mcoflcnma+mcobcmxoéé
`
`occm:Em:mm
`
`
`
`2:6>530
`
`_m2>5w
`
`
`
`onnmocmium>=mooi_
`
`ono:BmSw_>_
`
`
`
`on.o_§mSm_2
`
`ono_§mEm_2
`
`$9
`
`89
`
`mm?
`
`Sow
`
`®COZU®UCm>U/W
`meowéemmmo
`
`_§_>5m0n:\/E0E8
`
`Exfimooo
`
`_m>_>.5m
`
`_m>_?_:w
`
`
`
`
`
`o:mEoEE>m>__mEE_E.0o:mEoEE>m<
`
`uasio
`
`_wXmH®0OUEtaUn:2IU
`
`Sow
`
`Sow
`
`_mxm:.NmnmU
`
`..r._mu:m_:Q_m
`
`
`m~C®>®n9m_9._$m_mv_wm_.ON
`
`
`nmumoz9:8EocmoBflmoio_§mSmEcoznmE:mocwQ
`
`Eomo_co_um_oN
`
`
`
`>am_w£cozméambcomoficm£_>>
`
`
`
`
`
`_m>_>Sm
`
`
`
`mcozExfimoonamtmon?/EumrommNN.E2umm
`
`
`
`
`
`_®>_>_DwExflmoov€032ucm.050N_.ON
`
`
`
`
`
`_m>_>5wExmumuou._®CmQQEEON_.ON
`
`mcoamumtnax
`
`mn_EmS_mNcm
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EcommImIi_Smamomczmxmmoo
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EocmoBflmoimomumucmoEfimoaUm”mcoE._ocmc_mmm_mTocoE_o;mEN_:_93.ImIi_”co:m:mMEEn<mamEm88ms.<nEumucmuQfimoaSEQEEEm§mm_.co:m:mmo.on:>_muw:o_§.§fi<
`
`
`
`
`
`495Um__ObCOonmN_EoccE.PUEmcocmucsom
`
`wiv1v.jL'o.org
`
`This material was in-pied
`at the NLM and may be
`Su_i:ijes:T.‘ UE {in-pzyrigrht Laws
`
`© 2013 by American Society of Clinical Oncology
`
`363
`
`
`
`Correspondence
`
`avoiding a testosterone flare became possible with a single agent in
`2008 with the approval of degarelix,‘1 a pure luteinizing hormone-
`releasing hormone antagonist. Then, in 2010 and 2011, three new
`agents were approved by the FDA for patients with PC: sipuleucel-T
`(Provenge; Dendreon, Seattle, WA),4 the first immunotherapy to
`stimulate the body’s immune system and prolong survival, remark-
`ably, in the absence of a prostate-specific antigen response; Ievtana
`(cabazitaxel; sanofi-aventis),“ another taxane-based chemotherapy
`that prolonged survival after disease progression during treatment
`with docetaxel; and finally, on September 16, 2011, the FDA granted
`approval for Xgeva (denosumab; Amgen, Thousand Oaks, CA)" as a
`treatment to increase bone mass in patients who are at high risk of
`fracture from receiving androgen deprivation therapy for nonmeta-
`static PC. PCF’s sentinel contributions leading to FDA approval for
`two of these three agents are described in Table 1. During the last 2
`years, abiraterone acetate‘ and enzalutamide," two novel forms of
`hormonal therapy that have been shown in the context of multi-
`institutional RCTs to prolong survival and improve patient-reported
`health-related quality of life for men with castration-resistant and
`metastatic PC, have been approved by the FDA and are now being
`tested in earlier stages ofthe disease by cooperative groups around the
`world. The expectation is that these agents will increase the probability
`of cure for men with newly diagnosed high-risk and nonmetastatic
`PC. PCF played the major role in defining the mechanism ofaction
`of these drugs, and in one case, supported the research that led to
`the discovery of the drug. In both cases, PCF clinical investigators
`led the RCTs that resulted in FDA approval, as detailed in Table 1.
`Finally, on May 15, 2013, the first radiopharmaceutical, radium-
`223,4 was found to prolong survival in men with PC and bone
`metastasis refractory to conventional hormonal therapy? By selec-
`
`tive uptake in bone and the short distance (< 1 mm) over which
`the charged particle (ie, alpha particle) acts, damage to surround-
`ing hematopoietic tissues was minimal.
`Therefore, of the nine NDAs that occurred after 2002, six were
`driven by research and collaborations that existed because of PCF, as
`shown in Table 1. Today, with federal funding initiatives for cancer
`research continuing to decline, the need for novel approaches, such as
`that used by PCF to fund the research that lead to NDAs, are needed
`across all cancers.
`
`Anthony V. D’Amico
`Brigham and Women's Hospital and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA
`
`AUTHOR'S DISCLOSURES OF POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
`
`The author(s) indicated no potential conflicts ofinterest.
`
`REFERENCES
`1. Perry CM, McTavish D: Estramustine phosphate sodium: A review of its
`pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties, and therapeutic efficacy in
`prostate cancer. Drugs Aging 7:49-74, 1995
`2. Kantoff PW, Halabl S, Conaway M, et al: Hydrocortisone with or without
`mltoxantrone in men with hormone—refractory prostate cancer: Results of the
`cancer and leukemia group B 9182 study. J Clin Oncol 17:2506—2513, 1999
`3. Bolla M, Gonzalez D, Warde P, et alz lmproved survival
`in patients with
`locally advanced prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy and goserelin. N Engl
`J Med 3371295-300, 1997
`4. Leibowitz-Amlt R, Joshua AM: The changing landscape in metastatic
`castration-resistant prostate cancer. Curr Opin Support Palliat Care [epub ahead
`of print on June 28, 2013]
`5. Prostate Cancer
`Foundation,
`b.5699537/k.BEF4/Homahtm
`
`http://wvvw.pcf.org/site/c.|eJRlROrEpH/
`
`DOI: 10.1200/.JCO.2013.53.9528; published onllne ahead of print at
`www.jco.org on December 16, 2013
`
`I—I—I
`
`364
`
`© 2013 by American Society of Clinical Oncology
`
`This material waste-pied
`at: the N LM a nd may be
`Subjeet US {in-wright Laws
`
`JOURNAL 01-‘ CLINICAI. ONcoI.onY