throbber
V O L U M E 2 3 d N U M B E R 2 3 d A U G U S T 1 0 2 0 0 5
`
`JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
`
`O R I G I N A L R E P O R T
`
`From the Mayo Clinic College of
`Medicine and Mayo Foundation,
`Rochester, MN; Scottsdale CCOP,
`Scottsdale, AZ; Carle Cancer Center
`CCOP, Urbana, IL; Metro-Minnesota
`Community Clinical Oncology Program,
`St Louis Park, MN; Iowa Oncology
`Research Association CCOP, Des
`Moines, IA; Wichita CommunityClinical
`Oncology Program, Wichita, KS; and
`Hematology & Oncology of Dayton Inc,
`Dayton, OH.
`
`Submitted January 24, 2005; accepted
`April 7, 2005.
`
`Supported in part by Public Health
`Service grants CA-25224,
`CA-37404, CA-15083, CA-63826,
`CA-35195, CA-35267, CA-35101,
`CS-35431, CA-35090, CA-35113,
`CA-35415, CA-60276, CA-35448,
`and CA-63848, and grant CA97274
`from the National Cancer Institute,
`Department of Heath and Human
`Services, Bethesda, MD.
`
`This study was conducted as a
`collaborative trial of the North Central
`Cancer Treatment Group and Mayo Clinic.
`Additional participating institutions include
`Medcenter One Health Systems,
`Bismarck, ND (Edward Wos, MD); Illinois
`Oncology Research Association CCOP,
`Peoria, IL (John W. Kugler, MD); Toledo
`Community Hospital Oncology Program
`CCOP, Toledo, OH (Paul L. Schaefer, MD);
`Scottsdale CCOP, Scottsdale, AZ (Tom R.
`Fitch, MD); Geisinger Clinic & Medical
`Center CCOP, Danville, PA (Albert
`Bernath, MD); and Ann Arbor Regional
`CCOP, Ann Arbor, MI (Philip J. Stella, MD).
`
`Terms in blue are defined in the glossary,
`found at the end of this issue and online
`at www.jco.org.
`
`Authors’ disclosures of potential
`conflicts of interest are found at the
`end of this article.
`
`Address reprint requests to Thomas E.
`Witzig, MD, Mayo Clinic, Stabile 628,
`200 First St SW, Rochester, MN 55905;
`e-mail: witzig@mayo.edu.
` 2005 by American Society of Clinical
`Oncology
`
`0732-183X/05/2323-5347/$20.00
`
`DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2005.13.466
`
`Phase II Trial of Single-Agent Temsirolimus (CCI-779)
`for Relapsed Mantle Cell Lymphoma
`Thomas E. Witzig, Susan M. Geyer, Irene Ghobrial, David J. Inwards, Rafael Fonseca, Paul Kurtin,
`Stephen M. Ansell, Ronnie Luyun, Patrick J. Flynn, Roscoe F. Morton, Shaker R. Dakhil,
`Howard Gross, and Scott H. Kaufmann
`
`A
`
`B
`
`S
`
`T
`
`R
`
`A
`
`C
`
`T
`
`Purpose
`Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is characterized by a t(11;14) resulting in overexpression of
`cyclin D1 messenger RNA. This study tested whether temsirolimus (previously known as
`CCI-779), an inhibitor of the mammalian target of rapamycin kinase that regulates cyclin
`D1 translation, could produce tumor responses in patients with MCL.
`Patients and Methods
`Patients with relapsed or refractory MCL were eligible to receive temsirolimus 250 mg intra-
`venously every week as a single agent. Patients with a tumor response after six cycles were
`eligible to continue drug for a total of 12 cycles or two cycles after complete remission, and
`were then observed without maintenance.
`Results
`Thirty-five patients were enrolled and were assessable for toxicity; one patient had MCL by
`histology but was cyclin D1 negative and was ineligible for efficacy. The median age was 70
`years (range, 38 to 89 years), 91% were stage 4, and 69% had two or more extranodal sites.
`Patients had received a median of three prior therapies (range, one to 11), and 54% were
`refractory to the last treatment. The overall response rate was 38% (13 of 34 patients;
`90% CI, 24% to 54%) with one complete response (3%) and 12 partial responses (35%).
`The median time-to-progression in all patients was 6.5 months (95% CI, 2.9 to 8.3 months),
`and the duration of response for the 13 responders was 6.9 months (95% CI, 5.2 to 12.4
`months). Hematologic toxicities were the most common, with 71% (25 of 35 patients) having
`grade 3 and 11% (four of 35 patients) having grade 4 toxicities observed. Thrombocytopenia
`was the most frequent cause of dose reductions but was of short duration, typically resolving
`within 1 week.
`Conclusions
`Single-agent temsirolimus has substantial antitumor activity in relapsed MCL. This study dem-
`onstrates that agents that selectively target cellular pathways dysregulated in MCL cells can
`produce therapeutic benefit. Further studies of this agent in MCL and other lymphoid malig-
`nancies are warranted.
`J Clin Oncol 23:5347-5356.  2005 by American Society of Clinical Oncology
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`lymphoma (MCL) is an in-
`Mantle cell
`curable, aggressive B-cell non-Hodgkin’s
`lymphoma (NHL) that represents approx-
`imately 8% of cases of NHL. The disease
`usually presents in an advanced stage (III
`or IV), and involvement of extranodal sites
`such as the gut, bone marrow, and periph-
`
`eral blood are common. There is a male
`predominance, and most patients are older
`adults. The characteristic tumor cell immu-
`nophenotype is CD20⫹, CD10⫺, CD5⫹,
`and CD23⫺, with monoclonal light chain
`expression on the cell surface. MCL is a
`unique subtype in that the tumor cells
`have a t(11;14)(q13;q32) chromosomal
`translocation that juxtaposes the cyclin D1
`
`5347
`
`Downloaded from ascopubs.org by 66.28.38.188 on July 25, 2017 from 066.028.038.188
`
`Copyright © 2017 American Society of Clinical Oncology. All rights reserved.
`
`Ex. 1118-0001
`
`

`

`Witzig et al
`
`gene on chromosome 11 to the immunoglobulin heavy
`chain enhancer region on chromosome 14.1-3 The tran-
`scription enhancers on 14q32, now linked to the cyclin
`D1 gene, result in the characteristic overexpression of cy-
`clin D1 in the MCL tumor cells.
`There is currently no standard therapy for newly di-
`agnosed or relapsed MCL. Many regimens have been dem-
`onstrated to be highly active in producing responses,4-17
`but relapse typically occurs, and patients usually die of
`their disease, with a median survival of 3 to 4 years. It
`is clear that new treatments are needed for MCL.
`Even though cyclin D1 mRNA is constitutively ex-
`pressed in MCL, it is potentially subject to translational
`regulation by a pathway (Fig 1) involving the mammalian
`target of rapamycin (mTOR).18,19 Activated receptor tyro-
`sine kinases and activated ras proteins enhance the cata-
`lytic activity of the lipid kinase phosphatidylinositol-3
`kinase (PI3K), which converts phosphatidylinositol-4,5-
`bisphosphate
`(PIP2)
`to
`phosphatidylinositol-3,4,5-
`trisphosphoate (PIP3). PIP3 activates the protein kinase
`phosphoinositide-dependent kinase 1 (PDK1), which,
`along with a second kinase such as integrin-linked kinase
`(ILK), contributes two phosphorylations required for
`maximal Akt activity. Akt then phosphorylates a number
`
`of substrates, including tuberous sclerosis (TSC) protein 2
`(TSC2), which in its unphosphorylated state is complexed
`with TSC protein 1 (TSC1) and acts as a GTPase activating
`protein that diminishes activation of the small guanine
`nucleotide binding protein Rheb. When the TSC1/TSC2
`complex is inactivated by Akt, Rheb remains in a GTP-
`bound state that activates mTOR, a protein kinase that
`regulates mRNA translation by phosphorylating two crit-
`ical
`substrates, eukaryotic initiation factor (eIF) 4E
`(eIF4E) binding protein (4E-BP1) and p70S6 kinase.20,21
`Previous studies have shown that eIF4E is a component
`of a helicase complex that binds to the cap structure
`at the 5# end of mRNAs and enhances the ability of
`ribosome-eIF complexes to scan the mRNA in search of a
`translation initiation site.22 The ability of eIF4E to bind
`to and participate in this helicase complex is inhibited
`when 4E-BP1 is bound. This inhibitory interaction is
`possible only when 4E-BP1 is unphosphorylated and is
`abrogated when 4E-BP1 is sequentially phosphorylated
`by mTOR and other kinases.22,23 At the same time, mTOR-
`mediated phosphorylation activates p70S6K, enabling
`its phosphorylation of ribosomal protein S6 and possibly
`other substrates, thereby enhancing the translation of
`messages with 5# terminal oligopyrimidine tracts.18,22
`
`Activated Ras
`
`PI3K
`
`PIP2
`
`PIP3
`
`PTEN
`ILK
`
`PDK1
`
`Akt
`
`pAkt
`
`ppAkt
`
`TSC1/TSC2
`
`pTSC2
`+
`TSC1
`
`Rheb.GTP
`
`Rheb.GDP
`
`eIF4E.4EBP-1 complex
`
`P 4E-BP1
`+
`eIF4E
`
`mTOR
`
`p70S6k
`
`P p70S6k
`
`Protein S6
`
`P S6
`
`Rapamycin
`+
`FKBP12
`
`Rapamycin .FKBP12
`
`Cyclin D1 mRNA
`
`Cyclin D1 protein
`
`Fig 1. Current understanding of the mamma-
`lian target of rapamycin (mTOR) pathway and
`mechanism of action of rapamycin.
`In this
`diagram, arrows pointing downward or curved
`arrows pointing to the right indicate activation,
`whereas curved arrows pointing leftward or
`lines ending in crossbars indicate inhibition. The
`phosphorylation of S6 was studied before
`and after
`temsirolimus on clinical samples
`from patients in this study (see Fig 4).
`PI3K, phosphatidylinositol-3 kinase; PIP2,
`phosphatidylinositol-4,5-bisphosphate;
`PIP3,
`phosphatidylinositol-3,4,5-trisphosphoate; PDK1,
`phosphoinositide-dependent kinase 1;
`ILK,
`integrin-linked kinase; TSC, tuberous sclerosis;
`4E-BP1, eIF4E binding protein; eIF4E, eukary-
`otic initiation factor 4E.
`
`5348
`
`JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
`
`Downloaded from ascopubs.org by 66.28.38.188 on July 25, 2017 from 066.028.038.188
`
`Copyright © 2017 American Society of Clinical Oncology. All rights reserved.
`
`Ex. 1118-0002
`
`

`

`Temsirolimus for Mantle Cell Lymphoma
`
`Collectively, these events markedly enhance translation of
`a small but important group of messages, including those
`encoding c-myc, ornithine decarboxylase, and cyclin D1,
`as well as ribosomal proteins themselves.18,22,24,25
`mTOR activity is modulated by mitogenic signals,
`which are transmitted through a signal transduction path-
`way involving PI3K, Akt, and TSC1 and TSC2 (Fig
`1).18,19,26,27 In addition, mTOR-mediated signaling is
`also subject to modulation by the macrocyclic lactone ra-
`pamycin and its derivatives.19,26,27 Once these agents bind
`to the 12 kDa cytosolic FK506-binding protein FKBP12,
`the resulting rapamycin-FKBP12 complexes bind to a spe-
`cific site near the catalytic domain of mTOR and inhibit
`phosphorylation of mTOR substrates by a mechanism
`that remains somewhat poorly understood.27 As a con-
`sequence, translation of messages that require mTOR sig-
`naling is inhibited. This mechanism is thought to be
`responsible for the immunosuppressive effects of rapamy-
`cin as well as its putative antineoplastic activity.
`Temsirolimus (also known as CCI-779), a dihy-
`droester of rapamycin that is suitable for intravenous
`use, is currently undergoing testing in solid tumor patients
`as a potential antineoplastic agent.28-31 In view of the role
`of cyclin D1 in MCL, we conducted a phase II trial of
`single-agent
`temsirolimus
`for patients with relapsed
`MCL to learn if therapy that specifically targeted this
`pathway could result in tumor responses.
`
`PATIENTS AND METHODS
`A single-stage phase II study with an interim analysis was con-
`ducted to assess the proportion of previously treated MCL patients
`who achieved a partial response (PR) or better after treatment with
`temsirolimus. This study was conducted through the North Cen-
`tral Cancer Treatment Group (NCCTG) cooperative group and
`was approved by the institutional review boards of each treatment
`site. Patients were eligible for this trial if they had previously re-
`ceived therapy and had relapsed or were refractory to their last
`treatment. There was no limit on the number of prior therapies.
`Central pathology review confirmed the diagnosis of MCL based
`on morphology and phenotype. In addition, all tumors were pos-
`itive for cyclin D1 by immunohistochemistry or demonstrated
`t(11;14)(q13;q32)/immunoglubulin H fusion by fluorescence in
`situ hybridization. Patients were required to have measurable dis-
`ease with a lymph node or tumor mass $ 2 cm or malignant lym-
`phocytosis with an absolute lymphocyte count $ 5,000; a life
`expectancy of $ 3 months; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group
`performance status of 0, 1, or 2; absolute neutrophil count (ANC)
`$ 1,000; platelets $ 75,000; hemoglobin $ 8 g/dL; serum creati-
`nine # 2⫻ the upper limit of normal (ULN); serum bilirubin
`# 1.5 ULN; serum cholesterol # 350 mg/dL; and triglycer-
`ides # 400 mg/dL. Patients could not have had CNS involvement
`or HIV infection.
`Patients were treated with a flat dose of 250 mg of tem-
`sirolimus diluted in 250 mL of normal saline and delivered in-
`travenously (IV) over 30 minutes. Patients were pretreated with
`diphenhydramine 25 to 50 mg IV. Treatment was weekly, and
`4 weeks was considered to be one cycle. A CBC was performed
`
`each week, and the full dose of temsirolimus was delivered if
`the platelet count was $ 50,000 and the ANC $ 1,000, and if
`there were no grade 3 or 4 nonhematologic toxicities (National
`Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria, version 2). Patients
`who did not meet the retreatment criteria had the dose held until
`recovery, followed by a stepwise dose modification to 175, 125,
`75, or 50 mg. Patients were not to receive prophylactic WBC
`growth factors to maintain dosing but could receive them at
`physician discretion if neutropenia developed. Erythropoietin
`treatment for anemia was also permitted.
`Patients were restaged after one cycle and every three cycles
`thereafter or at physician discretion. Responses were categorized
`using the International Workshop Criteria.32 Patients who pro-
`gressed anytime or those patients with stable disease after six cycles
`went off study. Patients who had a complete remission (CR) or PR
`at 6 months were to receive two cycles after CR or for a total of 12
`months if there was a PR and they were then observed without
`further therapy.
`
`Statistical Design
`This trial was designed to test the null hypothesis that the
`true overall response rate (ORR) was at most 5%. The smallest
`ORR that would indicate that this regimen was worth further
`study in this relapsed MCL patient population was 20%. The de-
`sign was generated based on the parameters and assumptions of
`a two-stage Simon min max design, but where accrual was not
`suspended for the interim analysis. This study design required
`a maximum of 32 assessable patients, where the interim analysis
`was performed after 18 patients had been accrued and followed
`up for at least 24 weeks for response. An additional three patients
`were accrued to this cohort (for a maximum of 35 patients over-
`all) to account for the possibilities of ineligibility, withdrawal
`from study before drug administration, or major violations.
`However, only the first 32 assessable patients were used to eval-
`uate the decision criteria for this design. At least one response in
`the first 18 assessable patients needed to be observed in the in-
`terim analysis to continue accrual. At the time of the final ana-
`lyses, a total of four or more responses were required to indicate
`that this regimen warrants further evaluation in this patient
`population. The proportion of responses was calculated, and the
`90% exact binomial CI for the true ORR was calculated (with
`all eligible patients accrued), assuming that the number of re-
`sponses was binomially distributed.
`Duration of response (DR) was defined as the time from the
`date of documented response to the date of progression. Patients
`who went off treatment due to other reasons (eg, adverse reac-
`tions, refusal of further treatment) were censored at that time.
`Time to progression (TTP) was defined as the time from regis-
`tration to the date of progression. Patients who died without dis-
`ease progression were censored at the date of their last evaluation.
`If a patient died without documentation of disease progression,
`the patient was considered to have had disease progression at the
`time of death unless there was sufficient documented evidence to
`conclude that progression did not occur before death. Time
`to discontinuation of active treatment was defined as the time
`from registration to the date the decision was made to take
`the patient off active treatment. Patients who were still receiving
`treatment at the time of these analyses were censored at the date
`of their last evaluation. Overall survival (OS) was defined as the
`time from registration to death resulting from any cause. The dis-
`tributions of these time-to-event end points were each estimated
`using the Kaplan-Meier method.33
`
`www.jco.org
`
`5349
`
`Downloaded from ascopubs.org by 66.28.38.188 on July 25, 2017 from 066.028.038.188
`
`Copyright © 2017 American Society of Clinical Oncology. All rights reserved.
`
`Ex. 1118-0003
`
`

`

`Witzig et al
`
`Tissue Culture and Exposure to Rapamycin
`in Vitro
`The MO2058 human line, which was established from a
`patient with prolymphocytic leukemia and which contains the
`t(11;14)(q13;q32) translocation associated with Cyclin D1 activa-
`tion,34 was propagated at 37°C in RPMI 1640 medium containing
`10% heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum, 2 mmol/L L-glutamine,
`100 units/mL penicillin G, and 100 ␮g/mL streptomycin. To
`establish conditions for detecting an effect of rapamycin on
`downstream signaling of mTOR, cells were treated with various
`rapamycin (Sigma, St Louis, MO) concentrations for 24 hours,
`washed three times with ice-cold serum-free RPMI 1640
`10 mmol/L HEPES (pH 7.4), solubilized in buffered 6M guani-
`dine hydrochloride under reducing conditions, and prepared
`for electrophoresis, as previously described.35
`To determine whether mTOR signaling was inhibited in
`MCL tumor cells in situ, circulating mantle cells were purified
`from the peripheral blood of eight patients at four to five time
`points, which typically included: before therapy, 24 hours after
`administration of dose 1, 48 hours after dose 1, before dose 5,
`and before dose 12. At each time point, 1 to 2 ⫻ 106 CD19⫹ cells
`were purified by magnetic bead selection, washed and solubilized
`under strongly denaturing conditions as describe above. Fur-
`ther characterization of an additional aliquot of these cells by
`flow cytometry confirmed that they were typically ⬎ 90% CD19⫹.
`
`Immunoblotting
`Aliquots containing protein from 5 ⫻ 105 immunopurified
`B cells were subjected to electropheresis on sodium dodecyl sulfate
`(SDS)-polyacrylamide gels containing 5% to 12% acrylamide,
`transferred to nitrocellulose, and probed under previously de-
`scribed conditions36 with polyclonal antibodies that recognize
`the following antigens: phospho-Ser235/236 ribosomal protein S6,
`S6, phospho-Thr389 p70S6K and p70S6K (all from Cell Signaling
`Technology, Beverly, MA). Antigen-antibody complexes were
`detected using peroxidase-coupled secondary antibodies (KPL,
`Gaithersburg, MD) and enhanced chemiluminescence reagents
`(Amersham Pharmacia Biotech, Piscataway, NJ) as described.36
`Blots were reprobed with antibody to heat shock protein 90 (David
`Toft, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN) as a loading control.
`
`RESULTS
`
`Patient Characteristics
`A total of 35 patients were enrolled onto this trial by
`the NCCTG sites from April 2002 to October 2003. One
`patient was declared ineligible after pathology review in-
`dicated that although the histology was consistent with
`MCL, the cyclin D1 stain was negative. The patients tended
`to be older adults with a median age of 70 years (range, 38
`to 89 years). Most patients (91%) had stage IV disease and
`were heavily pretreated with a median number of three
`prior therapies (mean, four therapies; range, one to 11
`therapies). The majority of patients had failed to improve
`on rituximab, an alkylator agent such as cyclophospha-
`mide, and an anthracycline such as doxorubicin. More
`than half of the patients had received a purine nucleoside
`analogue. Twenty-nine percent of patients (10 of 35) had
`an elevated lactate dehydrogenase at baseline. Additional
`
`baseline characteristics of these patients are presented
`in Table 1.
`
`Clinical Outcomes
`The ORR was 38% (13 of 34 patients; 90% CI, 24% to
`54%) with one CR and 12 PR. The tumor responses oc-
`curred rapidly, with a median time to response of 1 month
`(range, 1 to 8 months) (Fig 2). Eight responses occurred
`after one cycle, three were documented after three cycles,
`and one each after the evaluations at 4 and 8 months,
`respectively. In addition, the patient who was ineligible
`obtained a PR with temsirolimus.
`The patient who achieved a CR received a total of six
`cycles; three patients who achieved a PR completed 12
`cycles; and one patient completed six cycles and went to
`observation with stable disease. The other nine patients
`who achieved PR received a mean of six cycles (median,
`6.5; range, 3 to 10). One patient with a PR remains on
`treatment;
`the other eight patients with PR stopped
`drug before 12 cycles for various reasons: progression
`on temsirolimus (two patients), adverse events (three
`patients), and refusal of further treatment (three patients).
`
`Table 1. Patient Characteristics
`Characteristic
`No. of Patients
`
`Age, years
`Median
`Range
`Sex, male
`Performance status
`0
`1
`2
`Tumor stage
`1
`2
`3
`4
`Bone marrow involvement
`‘‘B’’ symptoms
`No. of extranodal sites
`0
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`0-1
`$ 2
`Disease status
`Relapsed
`Refractory
`No. of prior therapy treatments
`Mean
`Median
`Range
`Type of prior therapy
`Rituximab
`Alkylator
`Anthracycline
`Purine nucleoside analog
`Platinum analog
`Radiotherapy
`Stem-cell transplantation
`
`70
`38-89
`
`4
`3
`1-11
`
`26
`
`19
`12
`4
`
`1
`1
`1
`32
`27
`5
`
`3
`8
`12
`8
`3
`0
`1
`11
`24
`
`16
`19
`
`31
`33
`29
`20
`10
`8
`4
`
`%
`
`74
`
`54
`34
`12
`
`3
`3
`3
`91
`77
`14
`
`9
`23
`34
`23
`9
`0
`3
`31
`69
`
`46
`54
`
`89
`94
`83
`57
`29
`23
`11
`
`5350
`
`JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
`
`Downloaded from ascopubs.org by 66.28.38.188 on July 25, 2017 from 066.028.038.188
`
`Copyright © 2017 American Society of Clinical Oncology. All rights reserved.
`
`Ex. 1118-0004
`
`

`

`Temsirolimus for Mantle Cell Lymphoma
`
`A
`
`Pre-CCl779
`
`After One Cycle
`
`B
`
`Fig 2. Computed tomography scans
`from two patients who had marked
`tumor response after one cycle (four
`doses) of temsirolimus (CCI779). (A)
`Patient with a large perigastric lym-
`phomatous mass;
`(B) patient with
`bulky paratracheal and left axillary
`adenopathy.
`
`(range, 6.7 to 24.6⫹). Overall, 30 patients have had disease
`progression, and 22 patients have died. No patients have
`had documented death without disease progression.
`
`Safety and Tolerability
`All 35 patients were included in the analysis of safety
`and tolerability. Patients tolerated the 30-minute infusion
`of temsirolimus without significant toxicity. All severe
`(grade 3 or greater) toxicities experienced by these patients
`
`3
`6
`9
`12
`15
`18
`Months From Study Registration
`
`21
`
`100
`
`80
`
`60
`
`40
`
`20
`
`0
`
`% Progression-Free
`
`Fig 3. Time to progression after temsirolimus in all 34 patients.
`
`Fourteen additional patients progressed on temsirolimus
`without ever achieving a response. Six patients went off
`study without tumor response or progression due to ad-
`verse reactions (three patients), refusal of further treat-
`ment (one patient), treatment with alternative therapy
`for MCL (one patient), and other medical problems
`(one patient). Those patients who refused further treat-
`ment or who went off for other medical problems discon-
`tinued this treatment regimen largely due to low-grade
`adverse events and a perceived decline in quality of life.
`The median time to discontinuation of treatment was
`3.7 months (95% CI, 3 to 6.2 months).
`Dose reductions were necessary in all but four pa-
`tients. Overall, nine patients were able to receive 250
`mg weekly for at least the first cycle of treatment, with
`a median of 2.5 cycles at this full dose (range, 1 to 8
`cycles); the other patients required dose reductions in
`the first cycle. Of the six patients who received more
`than one cycle at the full dose level, two eventually re-
`quired a dose reduction in subsequent cycles. Across
`all patients, the median dose received per month on
`study was 525 mg, with 564 mg in responding patients
`and 525 mg in nonresponders.
`The median time to progression (Fig 3) was 6.5
`months (95% CI, 2.9 to 8.3 months). The median overall
`survival was 12 months (95% CI, 6.7 months to not yet
`reached). The median duration of response for the 13 re-
`sponders was 6.9 months (95% CI, 5.2 to 12.4 months).
`The median follow-up on living patients was 11 months
`
`www.jco.org
`
`5351
`
`Downloaded from ascopubs.org by 66.28.38.188 on July 25, 2017 from 066.028.038.188
`
`Copyright © 2017 American Society of Clinical Oncology. All rights reserved.
`
`Ex. 1118-0005
`
`

`

`Witzig et al
`
`that were considered at least possibly related to temsiroli-
`mus are presented in Table 2. Thrombocytopenia was the
`cause of most dose reductions and was rapidly reversible
`with drug delays of typically only 1 week. Only three patients
`required platelet transfusions, and four patients required
`RBC transfusions. Thirteen patients experienced grade 3
`infections without concomitant neutropenia, two patients
`had febrile neutropenia, and three had infection (grade 3)
`with neutropenia. One patient developed a right lower
`motor neuron facial palsy (Bell’s palsy), and mental status
`changes and underwent a magnetic resonance imaging
`scan and cerebral spinal fluid analysis that did not reveal ev-
`idence of involvement with MCL. The conclusion was that
`this was idiopathic Bell’s palsy, and it eventually resolved.
`A possible relationship to temsirolimus could neither be
`established nor eliminated. The patient who experienced
`blurred vision was diagnosed with retinitis due to reacti-
`vation of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection. The patient
`
`Table 2. Grade 3 and 4 Toxicity (adverse events considered
`at least possibly related to temsirolimus) Was Observed
`in 91% (32 of 35) of Patients
`No. of Patients
`
`Toxicity type
`
`Grade 3
`
`Grade 4
`
`General
`Fatigue
`Weight loss
`Hematologic
`Thrombocytopenia
`Neutropenia
`Lymphopenia
`Anemia
`Infection
`Infection — no ANC
`Infection with ANC
`Febrile neutropenia
`Gastrointestinal
`Abdominal pain
`Diarrhea
`Anorexia
`Mucositis
`Dysphagia
`Metabolic
`Hypercholesterolemia
`Hypertriglyceridemia
`Hyperglycemia
`Hypokalemia
`Creatinine
`Hypertension
`Neurologic
`Muscle weakness
`Low consciousness
`Motor neuropathy
`Cranial neuropathy
`Blurred vision
`Headache
`Pulmonary
`Pneumonitis
`Hypoxia
`Dermatologic
`Rash
`Pruritis
`Maximum overall toxicity grade
`
`4
`3
`
`22
`8
`2
`9
`
`6
`2
`1
`
`1
`4
`0
`2
`1
`
`1
`1
`3
`1
`1
`1
`
`1
`0
`1
`1
`1
`1
`
`1
`1
`
`3
`1
`26
`
`0
`0
`
`1
`2
`0
`0
`
`0
`0
`1
`
`0
`0
`1
`0
`0
`
`0
`0
`0
`0
`0
`0
`
`0
`1
`0
`0
`0
`0
`
`0
`0
`
`0
`0
`6
`
`NOTE. Maximal overall toxicity grade refers to the number of patients
`that had the respective grade toxicity across all toxicity types.
`Abbreviation: ANC, absolute neutrophil count.
`
`had a history of CMV retinitis before enrollment onto this
`study, but the infection was not evident at the time of study
`entry. One 70-year-old female patient achieved a PR after 8
`months of temsirolimus. Throughout the last several months
`of temsirolimus therapy, she developed micrographia, de-
`creased arm swing with walking, and difficulty initiating
`gait consistent with Parkinson’s disease. She had a family
`history of Parkinson’s disease, but no symptoms before
`study participation. Four months after discontinuing tem-
`sirolimus, her symptoms were stable, and after neurologic
`consultation, the diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease versus
`Parkinsonism secondary to medication was obtained. She
`has responded well to carbidopa/levodopa.
`The most common adverse events of all grades were
`thrombocytopenia (100%), hyperglycemia (91%), anemia
`(66%), neutropenia (77%), increased triglycerides (77%),
`mucositis (71%), fatigue (66%), infection without concom-
`itant neutropenia (63%), rash (51%), nausea (49%), weight
`loss (46%), AST elevations (43%), abnormal sense of taste
`(43%), loss of appetite (40%), hypercholesterolemia (40%),
`and sensory neuropathy (37%). No grade 5 events (ie,
`deaths on treatment) were reported. One patient with
`a PR had weight loss due to the dysgeusia that was consid-
`ered grade 3, and could not restart temsirolimus. Although
`mucositis was common, all but two cases were grade 1 or 2.
`
`Pharmacodynamics
`To develop an assay for mTOR inhibition that could
`be applied in clinical MCL samples, we initially treated
`MO258 cells with varying concentrations of rapamycin
`in vitro and probed whole cell lysates for phosphorylation
`of substrates downstream of mTOR using commercially
`available antiphosphoepitope antibodies. Blotting for
`phospho–4E-BP1 in this cell line and others proved dif-
`ficult (data not shown). In contrast, as reported by
`others,37,38 we observed that phospho-S6 (Fig 4A) and,
`with somewhat more difficulty, phospho-p70S6 kinase
`could be demonstrated. Moreover, inhibition of S6 phos-
`phorylation was readily detectable at 0.1 nmol/L rapamy-
`cin and essentially complete at 1 nmol/L (Fig 4A).
`When this assay was applied to MCL samples from
`the blood of patients receiving temsirolimus, phosphory-
`lation of S6 was more readily detectable than phosphory-
`lation of p70S6K. Examination of serial samples revealed
`two distinct patterns. First, as illustrated in Figure 4B for
`one patient, S6 phosphorylation was inhibited after tem-
`sirolimus treatment in three patients (compare, lanes 2
`and 3 with lane 1). Of these three patients, one responded
`to therapy, one was stable, and one progressed without
`ever responding. In contrast, as illustrated in Figure 4C
`for one patient, there was no evidence that S6 phosphor-
`ylation was inhibited in circulating MCL cells from two
`other patients. One of these patients had a PR; the other
`progressed on therapy.
`
`5352
`
`JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
`
`Downloaded from ascopubs.org by 66.28.38.188 on July 25, 2017 from 066.028.038.188
`
`Copyright © 2017 American Society of Clinical Oncology. All rights reserved.
`
`Ex. 1118-0006
`
`

`

`Temsirolimus for Mantle Cell Lymphoma
`
`B
`Time (days)
`36
`
`29
`
`0
`
`1
`
`2 38 89
`
`P S6
`
`Hsp90
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`P p70S6K
`
`p70S6K6
`
`P S6
`
`S6
`
`HSP90
`
`A
`Rapamycin
`
`36
`
`29
`
`29
`24
`
`97
`
`85
`66
`
`Fig 4. Effect of treatment on down-
`stream phosphorylations in vitro and
`in vivo. (A) MO258 cells were treated
`for 24 hours with diluent (0.1% etha-
`nol, lane 1) or, 0.1, 0.3, 1, or 3 nmol/L
`rapamycin (lanes 2 to 5). Dotted line
`indicates location at which irrelevant
`lanes have been spliced from the
`blots. (B, C) Circulating mantle cells
`from two patients were subjected to
`immunoblotting for phosphorylated S6
`or, as a loading control, HSP90. Lane 1,
`pretreatment;
`lanes 2 to 5, post-
`treatment.
`In B, S6 phosphorylation
`was inhibited after a single dose of
`temsirolimus; the d38 sample showed
`S6 phosphorylation and the d89
`sample inhibition. In C, the signal for
`S6 phosphorylation, albeit weaker at
`baseline,
`is not abolished by tem-
`sirolimus treatment.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`C
`Time (days)
`36
`
`0
`
`1
`
`2 28
`
`29
`
`116
`97
`85
`66
`
`P S6
`
`Hsp90
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`The treatment of MCL has remained problematic despite
`the availability of
`standard chemotherapy,
`stem-cell
`transplantation, and monoclonal antibody therapy with
`rituximab. Each of these modalities can produce tumor
`responses in MCL, but the disease typically recurs and
`requires additional therapy. There is no treatment regimen
`that can be considered the definitive treatment of choice
`at this time for patients with new, untreated MCL. Most
`patients are treated with combinations of rituximab and
`chemotherapy—often HyperCVAD (rituximab, hyper-
`fractionated cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin,
`and dexamethasone),17 R-CHOP (cyclophosphamide,
`doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone, and rituximab),16
`or a purine nucleoside analogue and rituximab. Patients
`who are eligible for high-dose therapy with stem-cell sup-
`port are increasingly transplanted in first remission.39,40
`Mantle-cell lymphoma remains a difficult disease to treat
`once it has relapsed, and patients are typically treated with
`multiple regimens because of the short time to progression
`between treatments. An improved understanding of the
`biology of MCL and the availability of new classes of
`chemotherapy agents led us to hypothesize that drugs
`
`that target the machinery that controls cyclin D1 expres-
`sion might have antitumor activity in MCL. In the study
`reported herein, temsirolimus was tested as a single agent
`in a cohort of heavily pretreated patients with MCL to learn
`if inhibition of mTOR would produce tumor responses.
`The study demonstrated an ORR of 38% (13 of 34 patients),
`with a median duration of response of 6.9 months and a me-
`dian TTP for all patients of 6.5 months. Tumor responses
`tended to occur rapidly, with most patients demonstrating
`a response by 3 months. Only two of the 13 responders had
`their initial response documented beyond 3 months.
`Consistent with previous studies showing that tem-
`sirolimus can cause thrombocytopenia,41 this toxicity
`was the most common side effect in the present trial.
`Several features of the trial design may have predisposed
`patients to this side effect. First, patients could enter the
`protocol with grade 1 thrombocytopenia ($ 75,000)
`and could receive 100% of the temsirolimus dose if the
`platelet count was $ 50,000 (grade 2). Second, the patients
`enrolled on this study were heavily pretreated. Third, most
`patients had marrow infiltrated with MCL cells, reducing
`marrow reserve.
`Because of the inability to obtain serial biopsies, we
`studied serial samples of circulating mantle cells from
`
`www.jco.org
`
`5353
`
`Downloaded from ascopubs.org by 66.28.38.1

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