throbber
MuItitargeted Antifolate LY231514 as First-Line
`Chemotherapy for Patients With Advanced Non-Small-Cell
`Lung Cancer: A Phase II Study
`
`By James J. Rusthoven, Elizabeth Eisenhauer, Charles Butts, Richard Gregg, Janet Dancey, Bryn Fisher,
`and Jose Iglesias for the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group
`
`Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the
`multitargeted antifolate LV231514 (MTA) in patients
`receiving initial chemotherapy for unresectable, ad(cid:173)
`vanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
`Patients and Methods: Patients with measurable, ad(cid:173)
`vanced NSCLC who had not received previous chemo(cid:173)
`therapy for advanced disease were considered for this
`study. Eligible patients who gave written informed con(cid:173)
`sent initially received MTA 600 mg/m2 intravenously
`(IV) for 10 minutes every 3 weeks. After three patients
`received treatment at this dose, the dose was reduced to
`500 mg/m2 IV at the same infusion time and frequency
`because of toxicity seen in this study and another
`Canadian MTA trial in colorectal cancer. Patients re(cid:173)
`ceived up to four cycles after complete or partial remis(cid:173)
`sion or six cycles after stable disease was documented.
`Results: Thirty-three patients were accrued onto the
`study. All were assessable for toxicity, and 30 patients
`were assessable for response. All but one patient had
`an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance
`status score of 0 or 1, 18 patients (55%) had adenocarci(cid:173)
`noma, and nine patients (27%) had squamous cell
`carcinoma. Twenty-five patients (76%) had stage IV
`disease, and the remainder had stage IIIB disease at
`
`trial entry. Seven patients experienced a confirmed
`partial response and no complete responses were seen;
`thus, the overall response rate was 23.3% (95% confi(cid:173)
`dence interval, 9.9% to 42.3%). The median duration of
`response was 3.1 months (range, 2.3 to 13.5 months)
`after a median follow-up period of 7.9 months. Four
`(67%) of six patients with stage IIIB disease and three
`(12.5%) of 24 with stage IV disease responded to
`treatment. Four patients (13.3%) experienced febrile
`neutropenia and 13 (39%) experienced grade 3 or 4
`neutropenia, whereas only one patient (3%) developed
`grade 4 thrombocytopenia. Nonhematologic toxicity
`was generally mild or moderate, but 39% of patients
`developed a grade 3 skin rash. Most other toxicities
`comprised grade 1 or 2 stomatitis, diarrhea, lethargy,
`and anorexia. Ten patients stopped protocol therapy
`because oftoxicity.
`Conclusion: MTA seems to have clinically meaningful
`activity as a single agent against advanced NSCLC.
`Toxicity is generally mild and tolerable. Further study of
`this agent in combination with cisplatin and other active
`drugs is warranted in this disease.
`J Clin Oncol 17:1194-1199.
`Society of Clinical Oncology.
`
`1999 by American
`
`T HYMIDYLATE SYNTHASE (TS) is the primary tar(cid:173)
`
`get of the fluoropyrimidines fluorouracil (5-FU) and
`fluorodeoxyuridine, long-established active agents in the
`treatment of gastrointestinal cancers, breast cancer, and
`other malignancies. I ,2 Biomodulation of 5-FU by leucovo(cid:173)
`rin? interferon,3 or methotrexate4 has resulted in greater
`inhibition ofTS and, consequently, improved response rates5
`and survival,6 particularly among patients with colorectal
`cancer. However, the fluorinated pyrimidines, such as 5-FU,
`
`From the Hamilton Regional Cancer Centre, Hamilton, Queen 5
`University, Kingston, and Eli Lilly and Company, Scarborough, On(cid:173)
`tario; and Nova Scotia Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation and
`Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
`Submitted May 18, 1998; accepted November 23, 1998.
`Supported by the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials
`Group, Kingston, and Eli Lilly and Company, Scarborough, Ontario,
`Canada.
`Address reprint requests to james J. Rusthoven, MD, Eli Lilly and
`Company, Lilly Research Laboratories, Lilly Corporate Center, DC
`2202, Indianapolis, IN 46285.
`1999 by American Society of Clinical Oncology
`0732-183X/99/1704-1J94
`
`are indirect inhibitors ofTS, requiring metabolic activation,
`and are linked to other effects, such as alteration of RNA
`metabolism. I Such non-TS-inhibiting effects may lead to a
`low therapeutic index due to increased toxicity or loss of
`efficacy. In addition, inhibition ofTS results in an increase in
`intracellular deoxyuridine monophosphate that can compete
`with pyrimidine analogs for binding to TS. 8
`Direct and more specific inhibitors of TS have been
`developed that interact with the folate-binding site ofTS. 9-11
`These folate analogs have been designed to improve the
`specificity for TS inhibition; furthermore, deoxyuridine
`monophosphate would enhance rather than competitively
`reverse their binding to TS. Multitargeted antifolate
`LY231514 (MTA) was designed as a folate-based TS
`inhibitor with a glutamate side chain in this new class of
`folate antimetabolites. 12,13 Although MTA itself only moder(cid:173)
`ately inhibits TS, polyglutamation of the parent drug and its
`metabolites readily occurs, and the polyglutamated form of
`MTA is lOO-fold more potent than MTA itself. In addition,
`other folate-requiring enzymes may act as targets for this
`drug, including dihydrofolate reductase, glycinamide ribo(cid:173)
`nucleotide formyltransferase, aminoimidazole carboxamide
`
`1194
`
`Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol 17, No 4 (April), 1999: pp 1194-1199
`
`Downloaded from jco.ascopubs.org on January 30, 2015. For personal use only. No other uses without permission .
`Copyright © 1999 American Society of Clinical Oncology. All rights reserved.
`
`Sandoz Inc.
`Exhibit 1052-0001
`
`JOINT 1052-0001
`
`

`
`MULTI-TARGETED ANTIFOLATE FOR ADVANCED NSCLC
`
`ribonucleotide fonnyltransferase, and Cl tetrahydrofolate
`synthase. 14,15
`MTA has demonstrated activity in a wide range of tumor
`types. The drug is highly active against CCRF-CEM human
`leukemia cells in vitro; the activity is partially reversible
`with the addition of thymidine. 12-14 The 50% inhibitory
`concentration in CCRF -CEM cells was 7 ng/mL.13 It is also
`cytotoxic in human tumor colony-fonning unit assays against
`human colon, renal, small-cell lung and non-small-cell lung
`cancers, hepatomas, and carcinoid tumors. 16 MTA can
`inhibit tumor growth in mice transplanted with human colon
`xenografts resistant to methotrexate. 17 In beagle dogs treated
`with a weekly and/or single-dose intravenous (IV) schedule,
`major toxicities included anorexia, emesis, diarrhea, mucosi(cid:173)
`tis, weight loss, neutropenia, lymphopenia, and mild anemia.
`Plasma concentrations increased linearly with increasing
`doses, with the tenninal half-life occurring at about 2.3
`hours. IS Early studies have suggested that dietary supplemen(cid:173)
`tation with folic acid may improve the therapeutic index by
`reducing toxicity in mice.
`A phase I trial of single-agent MTA was recently com(cid:173)
`pleted in which patients were treated by lO-minute IV
`infusion every 3 weeks. Starting at 50 mg/m2, doses were
`escalated to 700 mg/m2, at which point three of six patients
`developed grade 4 neutropenia and grade 3 or 4 thrombocy(cid:173)
`topenia. In patients who received 500 to 600 mg/m2 MTA,
`serum peak concentrations were 70 to 200 flg/mL, values
`well above the 50% inhibitory concentration in CCRF-CEM
`cells (data for peak concentrations provided by J. Walling,
`personal communication, October 1998). Twenty patients
`were treated at the 600-mg/m2 dose level, and 25% of them
`developed grade 4 neutropenia, 10% developed grade 3 or 4
`thrombocytopenia, and 50% developed grade 2 pruritic skin
`rash. Four partial responses (four [11 %] of 37 patients) were
`seen in patients with pancreatic and colorectal cancer. 19
`With these data, the recommended starting dose for phase
`II studies using this schedule was 600 mg/m2. Two phase II
`studies have been conducted through the National Cancer
`Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group, one in colorectal
`cancer and one in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The
`results ofthe latter study are reported here.
`
`PATIENTS AND METHODS
`
`Patient Selection
`
`Eligible patients were accrued between September 1995 and Febru(cid:173)
`ary 1997. These patients had histologically or cytologically confirmed
`inoperable, locally advanced, or metastatic NSCLC with evidence of
`bidimensionally measurable disease. Prior radiation therapy was permit(cid:173)
`ted if acute side effects had resolved. Previous systemic therapy given
`for advanced disease was not permitted, but prior adjuvant therapy was
`allowed if the last dose was given 2: 12 months earlier. Other eligibility
`criteria included (1) age 2: 16 years, (2) Eastern Cooperative Oncology
`
`1195
`
`Group performance status of 0 to 2, (3) serum creatinine level within
`normal limits, (4) good hepatic function (ie, serum bilirubin :s 1.5 times
`the upper normal limit and AST :s two times the upper normal limit or
`:s five times the upper normal limit if liver metastases were present), (5)
`adequate bone marrow function and reserve (absolute granulocyte
`count> 1.5 X 109/L and platelet count 2: 150 X 109/L), (6) absence of
`clinically detectable third-space fluid collections, (7) absence of clinical
`evidence of brain metastases, and (8) no concurrent treatment with other
`experimental drugs, anticancer therapy, or folinic/folic acid supple(cid:173)
`ments.
`
`Drug Administration
`
`MTA was supplied as a lyophilized powder in 1 OO-mg vials and was
`reconstituted by adding 10 mL of 0.9% sodium chloride. The appropri(cid:173)
`ate dose was then withdrawn, diluted in normal saline, and administered
`intravenously over 10 minutes every 3 weeks. Retreatment at the initial
`dose and on schedule was determined by the lack of hematologic (:s
`grade 1 on day of treatment and granulocytopenia 2: 0.5 X 109/L and
`thrombocytopenia 2: 50 X 109/L at nadir) and nonhematologic (grade
`:s 2) toxicity. Patients with grade :s 2 nonhematologic toxicity were
`treated symptomatically without delays, except for cases of grade 2 skin
`rash, in which case treatment was delayed until rash improved to grade
`:s 1. Patients with severe (grade 3 or 4) nonhematologic toxicity
`received a 25% dose reduction during subsequent cycles once toxicity
`had subsided. Those with nadir granulocytopenia less than 0.5 but less
`than severe thrombocytopenia (2: 50 X 1 09/L) also received a 25% dose
`reduction for the next cycle. The use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory
`drugs and salicylates was permitted but not on or around the day of
`treatment. (This precaution was taken because of previous kinetic data
`suggesting increased drug levels during coadministration of anti(cid:173)
`inflammatory agents.) Supportive-care agents, such as colony(cid:173)
`stimulating factors, were permitted but could not be substituted for dose
`reductions required according to protocol. No dose escalations were
`permitted.
`
`Measurements of Study End Points
`
`All patients were assessable for toxicity from the time of their first
`treatment. Patients who had received at least one cycle ofMTA and had
`follow-up measurements performed to assess change in tumor size were
`assessable for response. Response was assessed on day 1 of each cycle
`by clinical tumor measurements and documentation of the tumor size of
`measurable and nonmeasurable disease, using positive radiographic
`tests. If results were initially negative, tests were repeated only if
`clinically indicated. All sites with measurable lesions were followed for
`response. Measurements of undimensional lesions (ie, single largest
`dimensions) and bidimensional lesions (the products of the largest
`diameter and its largest perpendicular) were summed at each assessment
`and the best response on study was recorded.
`A complete response required the disappearance of all clinical and
`radiologic evidence of tumor for at least 4 weeks. A partial response
`required a 2: 50% decrease in the sum of the products of the diameters
`of all measurable lesions, also for at least 4 weeks. Stable disease
`designated a steady-state of disease, which was a response less than a
`partial response or progression less than progressive disease, both for at
`least 6 weeks from the start of therapy. In addition, there could be no
`new lesions or increases in the size of any nonmeasurable lesions for
`
`Downloaded from jco.ascopubs.org on January 30 , 2015. For personal use only. No other uses without permission .
`Copyright © 1999 American Society of Clinical Oncology. All rights reserved.
`
`Sandoz Inc.
`Exhibit 1052-0002
`
`JOINT 1052-0002
`
`

`
`1196
`
`complete or partial remissions or for stable disease. Progressive disease
`indicated an unequivocal increase of at least 25% in the sum of the
`products of the diameters of all measurable lesions compared with
`baseline or the appearance of new lesions. Nonmeasurable disease was
`not considered in the response assessment, except that new lesions
`would constitute progressive disease; all nonmeasurable lesions had to
`disappear for a designation of complete response to be made.
`Response duration was defined from the time that criteria for
`response were met until disease progression was objectively docu(cid:173)
`mented, with disease progression measured from the time that response
`was established. Stable disease was measured from the start of therapy
`until disease progression. All reported responses were verified by
`independent radiology review.
`
`RESULTS
`
`Thirty-three patients were accrued onto this study. All
`patients were assessable for toxicity, and 30 patients were
`assessable for response. The three unassessable patients
`came off study before the second treatment because of
`toxicity. One hundred thirty-two cycles were administered;
`13 cycles were given to the three patients at the initial
`600-mg/m2 dose (median, six cycles; range, one to six
`cycles), and 75 cycles were given to patients who started at
`the 500-mg/m2 dose (median, four cycles; range, one to
`eight cycles). Of the 30 patients who started at the 500-
`mg/m2 dose, 15 received one cycle at this dose, four received
`two cycles, and 11 received three or more cycles. Fourteen
`patients required a dose reduction to 375 mg/m2 for one or
`more cycles. Four patients required a further dose reduction
`to 281 mg/m2. Characteristics of the 33 patients are listed in
`Table 1. The majority were male, presented with excellent
`performance status, and received only radiotherapy as prior
`treatment. A majority (18 of 33) had adenocarcinoma as a
`histologic diagnosis, and 26 of 33 patients had more than
`one site of involvement at study entry. At the time this article
`was written, the median follow-up was 7.9 months (range,
`3.3 to 16.8 months). (For patients who died, the last
`follow-up date was the date of death.)
`
`Antitumor Activity
`
`Of the 30 patients assessable for response, none had a
`complete response and seven patients had a confirmed
`partial response; thus, the overall response rate was 23.3%
`(95% confidence interval, 9.9% to 42.3%). When all eligible
`patients are included, the response rate is 2l.2%. The
`median time to progression for all patients was 3.8 months
`(range, 0.5 to 15.8 months). The median survival time of all
`patients was 9.2 months (Fig 1), and the I-year survival rate
`was 25.3% (95% confidence interval, 9.7% to 40.9%). A
`higher response was seen among stage IllB patients (four
`[67%] of six) compared with those who entered the study
`with stage IV disease (three [12.5%] of24).
`
`RUSTHOVEN ET AL
`
`Table 1. Patient Characteristics
`
`No. of Patients
`
`63
`42-74
`
`Age, years
`Median
`Range
`Sex
`Female
`Male
`Performance status"
`o
`
`2
`Histology
`Adenocarcinoma
`Squamous
`Undifferential
`Prior therapy
`Radiation therapy
`Sites of disease
`Lung
`Lymph nodes
`Liver
`Bone
`Adrenal
`Pleural effusion
`Subcutaneous
`Spleen
`Stage at study entry
`IIiB
`IV
`No. of organ sites involved
`1
`2
`3
`"':4
`
`7
`26
`
`13
`19
`
`18
`9
`6
`
`11
`
`27
`24
`8
`7
`7
`5
`
`8
`25
`
`7
`11
`10
`5
`
`'Eastern Coopoerative Oncology Group performance status.
`
`Toxicity
`
`After the first three patients were accrued, a decision was
`made to reduce the starting dose to 500 mg/m2 based on the
`combined toxicity of 12 patients entered onto this study and
`a Canadian study of the same initial dose and schedule in
`patients with advanced colorectal cancer (Cripps et ai,
`manuscript submitted for publication). Of the first three
`patients in the present trial, one patient experienced grade 3
`dyspnea, mucositis, and high fever with radiographic suspi(cid:173)
`cion of pneumonia. The patient recovered but refused further
`therapy. The other two patients completed six cycles of
`therapy at the initial dose. Two of the three patients
`experienced grade 3 neutropenia, and none experienced
`higher than grade 2 renal or hepatic toxicity. The hemato(cid:173)
`logic toxicity experienced by the 30 patients who started at
`the 500-mg/m2 dose level was similar to that of the other
`three patients. Hematologic toxicity, as median nadir counts
`and by worst grade experienced for all patients, is listed in
`Table 2. Overall, only two patients experienced a grade 4
`
`Downloaded from jco.ascopubs.org on January 30 , 2015. For personal use only. No other uses without permission .
`Copyright © 1999 American Society of Clinical Oncology. All rights reserved.
`
`Sandoz Inc.
`Exhibit 1052-0003
`
`JOINT 1052-0003
`
`

`
`MULTI-TARGETED ANTIFOLATE FOR ADVANCED NSCLC
`
`1197
`
`Table 3. Nonhematologic Toxicity (n = 33)
`
`'"
`c: .;;
`.~
`" en
`c:
`0
`'2
`0
`Q. e
`c..
`
`0.8
`
`0.6
`
`0.4
`
`0.2
`
`0
`0
`33
`
`Grade (no. of patients)
`
`Median survival: 9.61 months
`
`Toxicity
`
`Skin rash
`Lethargy
`Anorexia
`Diarrhea
`Nausea
`Arthralgia
`Stomatitis
`Vomiting
`Tearing
`Edema
`Febrile neutropenia
`Infection
`
`3
`5
`8
`9
`13
`
`5
`8
`6
`5
`
`3
`
`10
`15
`10
`2
`9
`4
`4
`5
`3
`5
`
`3
`
`13
`9
`4
`3
`4
`3
`2
`3
`2
`3
`4
`4
`
`5
`30
`
`10
`16
`Time (months)
`#At Risk
`
`15
`
`20
`
`4
`
`0
`0
`0
`0
`0
`0
`0
`0
`0
`0
`
`0
`
`% Drug-
`Total No. of %of
`Patients
`Patients Related Only
`
`26
`29
`22
`14
`26
`8
`11
`16
`11
`13
`4
`10
`
`79
`88
`67
`42
`79
`24
`33
`49
`33
`39
`12
`30
`
`79
`76
`58
`33
`76
`0
`33
`46
`30
`21
`12
`6
`
`Fig 1. Overall survival of all patients.
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`adverse event; one experienced a cerebrovascular accident,
`and the other patient developed a deep vein thrombosis and
`pulmonary thromboembolus associated with severe short(cid:173)
`ness of breath. Neither of these events was considered
`related to the MTA therapy. Other than these cases, the most
`severe and prevalent nonhematologic toxicities are listed in
`Table 3. Severe (grade 3) nonhematologic toxicity presented
`most commonly as a skin rash (39%), lethargy (27%),
`anorexia (12%), nausea (12%), vomiting (9%), and diarrhea
`(9%), most of which was attributable to the study drug. The
`skin rash was generalized in half of affected patients and
`symptomatic with primarily pruritus in 23 of 26 patients.
`Subsequent retrospective analysis in this and the colorectal
`phase II study of the same agent showed that patients who
`received dexamethasone in their first cycle had a lower
`frequency and severity of skin rash (without dexamethasone,
`93% of cycles with skin rash, 47.5% grade 3; with dexametha(cid:173)
`sone, 56% of cycles with skin rash, 12% grade 3). Four
`patients (12% of all patients) on the study developed febrile
`neutropenia, with one documented severe systemic infection
`considered related to protocol therapy.
`Nonhematologic biochemical changes were mild. Only
`three patients developed transient grade 3 elevations of their
`liver function tests (bilirubin and AST), and only one patient
`developed grade 2 elevation of serum creatinine (Table 4).
`
`Initial results from preclinical animal studies and phase I
`trials suggested clinical activity for MTA primarily against
`colorectal and pancreatic cancer. 19,20 The level of activity
`seen in the present study in NSCLC was higher than initially
`anticipated, and independent reviewers confirmed all re(cid:173)
`sponses. This promising level of clinical activity was seen in
`patients with lung and lymph node involvement as well as in
`those with visceral and bone involvement, although the
`proportion of patients who responded was much higher in
`the group of stage IllB patients. In another phase II study of
`MTA in patients with NSCLC by Clarke et al,21 all patients
`were initially treated with 600 mg/m 2 MTA. Response rates
`were comparable to those in this study; among 12 patients
`assessable for response, the overall response rate was 33%
`(all partial responses). Toxicity profiles were similar be(cid:173)
`tween the two studies; in addition, toxicity seen in the phase
`I studies was similar to that reported for other drugs in this
`class. 19,2o,22 Neutropenia was the predominant hematologic
`toxicity, resulting in dose reduction in 12% of patients, but it
`did not lead to treatment delays; only one patient (3%)
`experienced dose-reducing (grade 4) thrombocytopenia.
`Most symptomatic, nonhematologic toxicity was man(cid:173)
`aged with appropriate supportive care; for 2:: grade 3
`toxicity, the next cycle was delayed until symptoms resolved
`to 2:: grade 1 severity and subsequent doses were reduced by
`25%. Nausea and emesis were infrequent and not severe,
`
`Table 2. Hematologic Toxicity (n = 33)
`
`Table 4. Biochemical Changes (n = 31)
`
`Nadir (x 10' III
`
`Toxicity Grade
`
`Toxicity Grade
`
`Median
`
`Range
`
`Hemoglobin, giL
`WBC
`Granulocytes
`Platelets
`
`111
`2.5
`1.1
`152
`
`73-149
`0.4-8.1
`0.0-4.0
`20-278
`
`0
`
`6
`6
`7
`17
`
`14
`5
`3
`14
`
`10
`9
`10
`
`3
`11
`9
`0
`
`4
`
`0
`2
`4
`
`Test
`
`Serum creatinine
`Bilirubin
`AST
`Alkaline phosphatase
`
`0
`
`29
`26
`5
`14
`
`0
`17
`16
`
`4
`7
`
`0
`
`2
`0
`
`4
`
`0
`0
`0
`0
`
`Downloaded from jco.ascopubs.org on January 30 , 2015. For personal use only. No other uses without permission .
`Copyright © 1999 American Society of Clinical Oncology. All rights reserved.
`
`Sandoz Inc.
`Exhibit 1052-0004
`
`JOINT 1052-0004
`
`

`
`1198
`
`and physician discretion was pennitted for prophylaxis
`based on the low emetogenic potential projected from phase
`I studies. Skin rashes were frequent; 30% of patients had
`treatment delayed with no subsequent dose reduction,
`whereas patients with generalized, symptomatic rash (39%)
`were given a 25% dose reduction. Both groups were treated
`prophylactically with dexamethasone for 3 days starting the
`day before each subsequent dose. With this intervention,
`skin toxicity decreased in subsequent cycles. Later in the
`study, it was noted that prophylactic dexamethasone given in
`cycle 1 seemed to have a beneficial effect in reducing the
`expected frequency and severity of skin rash. Future trials
`should likely incorporate this premedication at the first dose.
`Thirty percent of patients came off protocol therapy because
`of toxicity, most often gastrointestinal. This highlights the
`considerable interpatient variability of the toxicity experi(cid:173)
`enced. Nonhematologic biochemical alteration of renal and
`hepatic function was relatively mild and of no clinical
`consequence. In three patients (9%), grade 3 elevation of
`bilirubin or AST levels resulted in dose reduction.
`The decision to reduce the starting dose from 600 mg/m2
`to 500 mg/m2 early in this study was based largely on the
`toxicity seen in a larger cohort of patients in a Canadian
`phase II study of colorectal cancer that is using the same
`dose and schedule. The toxicity seen in all other phase II
`trials of lung, breast, and gastrointestinal tumors at the
`600-mg/m2 dose and schedule has been similar to that seen
`in our study. Factors that may be associated with the more
`severe toxicity seen in the Canadian colorectal trial cohort
`have not yet been identified. The clinical activity in our trial
`
`RUSTHOVEN ET AL
`
`is similar to that seen in the study of Clarke et al,2l in which
`all patients started at a dose of 600 mg/m2. Furthennore, it is
`interesting that all responding patients were treated at an
`initial dose of500 mg/m2.
`MTA clearly has relevant clinical activity in patients with
`advanced NSCLC and toxicity that is tolerable with conven(cid:173)
`tional dose and schedule adjustments. In addition to its effect
`on multiple enzymes in the folate-dependent pathways,
`MTA can synchronize treated cells at the Gl/S interface
`initially, followed by synchronous entry of treated cells into
`S phase II 4 hours after initial drug exposure in vitro.23 A
`recent study suggests that MTA may enhance the cytotoxic
`effect of other drugs, such as gemcitabine, when target
`cancer cells are exposed to MTA 12 to 24 hours earlier. 24 A
`phase I combination trial of these two agents is in progress.
`As a result, further studies are planned to test the efficacy of
`MTA in combination with other agents with proven efficacy
`against NSCLC, such as the taxanes and platinum com(cid:173)
`pounds. Our group is presently conducting a phase II
`combination study of MTA and cisplatin in advanced
`NSCLC. Ultimately, it is hoped that MTA may contribute to
`an improvement in the survival and quality of life of some
`patients with this disease.
`
`ACKNOWLEDGMENT
`
`We thank the following investigators who, in addition to the authors,
`contributed patients to this study: Y. Cormier, Hopital Laval, Quebec
`City; A. Neville, Hamilton Regional Cancer Centre, Hamilton; and F.
`Shepherd, The Toronto Hospital, Toronto, Canada.
`
`REFERENCES
`
`I. Rustum YM, Harstrick A, Cao S, et al: Thymidylate synthase
`inhibitors in cancer therapy: Direct and indirect inhibitors. J Clin Oncol
`15:389-400, 1997
`2. Poon MA, O'Connell MJ, Moertel CG, et al: Biochemical
`modulation of fluorouracil: Evidence of significant improvement of
`survival and quality of life in patients with advanced colorectal
`carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 7:1407-1418,1989
`3. Sotos AG, Grogan L, Allegra CJ: Preclinical and clinical aspects
`ofbiomodulation of 5-fluorouracil. Cancer Treat Rev 20: 11-49, 1994
`4. The Advanced Colorectal Cancer Meta-Analysis Project: Meta(cid:173)
`analysis of randomized trials testing the biochemical modulation of
`fluorouracil by methotrexate in metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin
`OncoI12:960-969,1994
`5. The Advanced Colorectal Cancer Meta-Analysis Project: Modula(cid:173)
`tion of fluorouracil by leucovorin in patients with advanced colorectal
`cancer: Evidence in terms of response rate. J Clin Oncol 10: 896-903,
`1992
`6. Scheithauer W, Depisch D, Kornek G, et al: Randomized compari(cid:173)
`son of fluorouracil and leucovorin therapy versus fluorouracil, leucovo(cid:173)
`rin and cisplatinum therapy in patients with advanced colorectal cancer.
`Cancer 73:1562-1568,1994
`
`7. Harrap KR, Jackman AL, Newell DR, et al: Thymidylate syn(cid:173)
`thase: A target for anti-cancer drug design. Adv Enzyme Regul
`29: 161-179,1989
`8. Spears CP, Gustavsson BG, Verne M, et al: Mechanisms of innate
`resistance to thymidylate synthase inhibition after 5-fluorouracil. Can(cid:173)
`cer Res 48:5894-5900, 1988
`9. Jackman AL, Calvert AH: Folate-based thymidylate synthase
`inhibitors as cancer drugs. Ann OncoI6 :871-881, 1995
`10. Taylor EC: Design and synthesis of inhibitors offolate-depended
`enzymes as anti-tumour agents. Adv Exp Med Bioi 338:387-408, 1993
`II. Touroutoglou N, Pazdur R: Thymidylate synthase inhibitors.
`Clin Cancer Res 2:227-243, 1996
`12. Shih C, Grindey GB, Barnett CJ, et al: Structure-activity
`relationship studies of novel pyrrolopyrimidine anti-folate LY231514.
`ProcAm Assoc Cancer Res 33:411,1992 (abstr 2452)
`13. Grindey GB, Shih C, Barnett CJ, et al: LY231514, a novel
`pyrrolopyrimidine anti-folate that inhibits thymidylate synthase (TS).
`ProcAm Assoc Cancer Res 33:411,1992 (abstr 2451)
`14. Shih C, Chen VJ, Gossett LS, et al: LY231514, a pyrrolo [2,3-dJ
`pyrimidine-based antifolate that inhibits multiple folate-requiring en(cid:173)
`zymes. Cancer Res 57:1116-1123,1997
`
`Downloaded from jco.ascopubs.org on January 30 , 2015. For personal use only. No other uses without permission .
`Copyright © 1999 American Society of Clinical Oncology. All rights reserved.
`
`Sandoz Inc.
`Exhibit 1052-0005
`
`JOINT 1052-0005
`
`

`
`MULTI-TARGETED ANTIFOLATE FOR ADVANCED NSCLC
`
`1199
`
`15. Chen VJ, Bewley JR, Gossett L, et al: Activity of LY231514
`against several enzymes in the folate-dependent pathways. Proc Am
`Assoc Cancer Res 37:381, 1996 (abstr 2598)
`16. Von Hoff DD: Human tumour cloning assays: Applications in
`clinical oncology and new anti-neoplastic agent development. Cancer
`Metastasis Rev 7:357-371,1988
`17. Schultz RM, Andis SL, Bewley JR, et al: Antitumor activity of
`the multi-targeted anti-folate LY231514. Proc Am Assoc Cancer Res
`37:380,1996 (abstr 2597)
`18. Thymidylate synthase inhibi tor LY231514 [clinical investigation
`brochure]. Indianapolis, IN, Lilly Research Laboratories, Eli Lilly and
`Co, 1992
`19. Rinaldi D, Burris H, Dorr F, et al: A phase I evaluation of
`LY231514 administered every 21 days, utilizing the modified continual
`reassessment method for dose escalation. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol
`14:474,1995 (abstr 1539)
`20. Rinaldi D, Burris, Dorr F, et al: Initial phase I evaluation of the
`novel thymidylate synthase inhibitor, LY231514, using the modified
`
`continual reassessment method for dose escalation. J Clin Oncol
`13:2842-2850, 1995
`21. Clarke S, Boyer M, Milward M, et al. Phase II study of
`LY231514, a multi-targeted antifolate, in patients with advanced
`non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). ProcAm Soc Clin OncoI16:465a,
`1997 (abstr 1670)
`22. Zalcberg JR, Cunningham D, Van Cutsem E, et al: ZD1694: A
`novel thymidylate synthase inhibitor with substantial activity in the
`treatment of patients with advanced colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol
`14:716-721,1996
`23. Tonkinson JL, Marder P, Andis SL, et al: Cell cycle effects of
`anti-folate antimetabolites: Implications for cytotoxicity and cytostasis.
`Cancer Chemother PharmacoI39:521-531, 1997
`24. Tonkinson JL, Wagner MM, Paul DC, et al: Cell cycle modula(cid:173)
`tion by the multi-targeted anti-folate, LY231514, increases the antipro(cid:173)
`liferative activity of gemcitabine. Proc Am Assoc Cancer Res 37:370,
`1996 (abstr 2523)
`
`Downloaded from jco.ascopubs.org on January 30 , 2015. For personal use only. No other uses without permission .
`Copyright © 1999 American Society of Clinical Oncology. All rights reserved.
`
`Sandoz Inc.
`Exhibit 1052-0006
`
`JOINT 1052-0006

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