throbber
J. Steroid Biochem. Mulec. Biol. Vol. 43, No. 1-3, pp. 173—l77, 1992
`Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
`
`0960-0760/92 $5.00 + 0.00
`Copyright © 1992 Pergamon Press Ltd
`
`ICI 182,780, A NEW ANTIOESTROGEN WITH CLINICAL
`POTENTIAL
`
`ALAN E. WAKELING‘ and JEAN Bowman
`
`Bioscience I and Chemistry 1, [Cl Pharmaceuticals, Mereside Laboratories, Alderley Park,
`Macclesfield, Cheshire SKl0 4'l"G, England
`
`Summary-Previous studies in this laboratory identified a series of 7:1-alkylamide analogues
`of 1719 -oestradiol which are pure antioestrogens. Among this initial lead series of compounds,
`exemplified by ICI 164,384, none was of sufficient in viva potency to merit serious consider-
`ation as a candidate for clinical evaluation. Further structure—activity studies identified a new
`compound, ICI 182,780, 7a-[9-(4,4,5,5,5-pentafluoro-pentylsulphinyl)nonyl]oestra-l,3,5(l0)-
`triene-3,l7[i-diol, with significantly increased antioestrogenic potency. The antiuterotrophic
`potency of [CI 182,780 is more than 10-fold greater than that of ICI 164,384. ICI 182,780 has
`no oestrogen-like trophic activity and,
`like ICI 164,384 is peripherally selective in its
`antioestrogenic efiects. The increased in viva potency of ICI 182,780 was also reflected, in part,
`by intrinsic activity at the oestrogen receptor and in the growth inhibitory potency of ICI
`182,780 in MCF-7 human breast cancer cells. ICI 182,780 was a more efiective inhibitor of
`MCF-7 growth than 4’-hydroxytamoxifen, producing an 80% reduction of cell number under
`conditions where 4’-hydroxytamoxifen achieved a maximum of 50% inhibition. Sustained
`antioestrogenic effects of ICI 182,780, following a single parenteral dose of ICI 182,780 in oil
`suspension, were apparent in both rats and pigtail monkeys. In vivo, the antitumour activity
`of ICI 182,780 was demonstrated with xenografts of MCF-7 and Brl0 human breast cancers
`in athymic mice where, over a 1 month period, a single injection of ICI 182,780 in oil
`suspension achieved effects comparable with those of daily tamoxifen treatment. Thus, ICI
`182,780 provides the opportunity to evaluate clinically the potential therapeutic benefits of
`complete blockade of oestrogen effects in endocrine-responsive human breast cancer.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`antioestrogens
`partial-agonist
`Nonsteroidal
`like
`tamoxifen
`(ICI
`46,474: Nolvadexi)
`provide excellent palliative treatment for breast
`cancer [1, 2]. However, the diversity of the bio-
`logical actions of such compounds which range
`between full agonist, oestrogen-like trophic
`effects,
`through partial agonism to complete
`blockade of oestrogen action [3], raises the issue
`of whether their clinical efiicacy is in any way
`limited, compared with that which might be
`achieved by complete oestrogen ablation. None
`of the endocrine treatments currently available
`for breast cancer can remove completely the
`trophic influences of endogenous or exogenous
`(e.g. of dietary origin) oestrogens. Potentially,
`antagonist molecules which bind to oestrogen
`
`Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress on
`Hormones and Cancer, Amsterdam, The Netherlands,
`September 1991.
`‘To whom correspondence should be addressed.
`TNo1vadex is a Trade Mark,
`the property of Imperial
`Chemical Industries Plc.
`
`SIM! 43/I-3—M
`
`173
`
`receptors (ER) with high affinity without acti-
`vating any of
`the normal
`transcriptional
`hormone responses, would offer
`the chance
`of achieving complete blockade of oestrogen
`action, whatever the source of the oestrogenic
`stimulus. Such pure antioestrogen molecules
`would be distinctively ditferent from tamoxifen-
`like ligands. The first examples of such com-
`pounds have been described elsewhere [4-6].
`The prototype pure antioestrogen, ICI 164,384,
`N-n-butyl-N-methyl-1 1-(3, 17/3 -dihydroxyoestra-
`1,3,5(l0)-triene-7a-yl)undecanarnide (Fig.
`1),
`is devoid of stimulatory activity and completely
`blocks
`the
`trophic actions of oestrogens,
`and of the partial-agonist antioestrogens,
`in
`all
`oestrogen-responsive
`cell
`and
`animal
`models examined to date (see Ref. [7] for a
`review).
`Here, we describe a new pure antioestrogen,
`ICI 182,780, 7a-[9-(4,4,5,5,5-pentafluoro-pentyl-
`sulphinyl)nonyl]oestra—1,3,5(10)-triene-3,17/3 diol
`(Fig. 1), with a profile of activity which makes
`it a prime candidate for clinical eflicacy studies
`in oestrogen-responsive breast cancer.
`
`|nnoPharma Exhibit 1040.0001
`
`

`

`I74
`
`ALAN E. WAKELING and JEAN Bowman
`
`tage of ICI 182,780, compared with ICI 164,384
`is shown in Fig. 3. Complete blockade of oestro-
`gen action was achieved with a dose of 0.5 mg
`ICI 182,780/kg/day s.c. The uterotrophic action
`of tamoxifen was also blocked in a dose-
`
`dependent manner by co-adminstration of ICI
`182,780 [8].
`In adult female rats increasing daily doses of
`ICI 182,780 reduced the weight of the uterus in
`a dose-dependent fashion (Table 1). At
`the
`highest dose in this study, 1 mg/kg/day, involu-
`tion of the uterus after 14 days was comparable
`with that
`following ovariectomy. Cyclical
`vaginal cornification was blocked partially
`(0.1 mg/kg/day) or completely (0.3 mg/kg/day)
`but body weight gain, serum LH (Table 1), FSH
`and prolactin concentrations [8] were largely
`unaffected,
`indicating a peripherally selective
`action of ICI 182,780.
`A comparison of the oral and parenteral
`antiuterotrophic potency of ICI 182,780 indi-
`cated that the oral bioavailability of the com-
`pound is relatively poor [8]. It is known that
`many steroids administered orally are subject to
`rapid metabolism by the liver and subsequent
`excretion. A well-established procedure to miti-
`gate such effects is to administer steroids par-
`enterally in oil. Such formulations often have a
`sustained duration of action. This procedure
`was elfective in the case of ICI 182,780 where a
`bolus dose in arachis oil sustained antioestro—
`
`genie activity for in excess of 1 month in both
`rats and monkeys [8].
`
`ER INTERACFION
`
`The competitive inhibition, by ICI 182,780, of
`oestrogen and tamoxifen uterotrophic effects is
`
`.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\s
`
`
`
`g
`
`E g
`
`E
`
`...
`
`OH
`
`
`
`(CH2l1oC°l|4(C“2)aGHa
`CH3
`
`H0
`
`not 164,384
`
`OH
`
`HO
`
`""'(cH,),so(cH2)3cF2ci=3
`
`ICI 182,780
`Fig. 1. Structure of pure antioestrogens.
`
`OESTROGENIC AND ANTIOESTROGENIC
`ACTIVITY
`
`In rats and mice, ICI 182,780 was devoid of
`uterotrophic activity and, when co-administered
`with oestradiol, completely blocked the mere-
`trophic action of oestradiol in a dose-dependent
`manner (see[8} for rat and Fig. 2 for mouse
`data). The order of magnitude potency advan-
`
`Utedmweight(m3)888
`
`40
`
`20
`
`0
`
`r-:'fi—?r'*'-r*--1
`0.1
`0.3
`1.0
`3.0
`10
`Dosernolkoltoaeenlel
`
`Fig. 2. Efiects of ICI 182,780 on uterine weight of ovari-
`ectomized mice. Groups of 5 adult mice ovariectomized 2
`weeks before treatment received daily, a single dose of
`arachis oil vehicle alone (open bar). 0.5 ug 1713-oestradiol
`benzoate s.c. alone (hatched bar), or the indicated doses of
`ICI 182,780 s.c. together with oestradiol (continuous line),
`for 3 days. The effect of 3mg/kg ICI 182,780 alone is
`indicated by s-.
`
`Dose memo
`
`{Lou scab]
`
`Fig. 3. Comparative antiuterotrophic activity of ICI 164,384
`(A) and ICI 182,780 (0). Experimental procedure as
`described for Fig. 2 except that immature rats were used.
`
`|nnoPharma Exhibit 1040.0002
`
`

`

`Pure antioestrogens
`
`175
`
` Parameter Intact control OVX control 0.03 0.1 0.3 1.0
`
`
`
`
`
`Table 1. Effect of ovanectomy or 14 days’ treatment with ICI 182,780 on uterine and body weight and plasma 1.11 of adult female rats
`182,780 mg/kg/day, s.c.
`
`
`
`Uterine weight (3)
`292.2 3; 33.7
`75.6 :1; 4.2‘
`253.4 -_t 21.2
`180.41 21 1’
`132.2 i 10.8‘
`98.0 :t 6.1‘
`Body weight (g)
`40.0 3‘; 2.5
`64.8 1 1.9‘
`43 6 1 2.5
`44.6 1 1 7
`45.8 1 2.0
`42.6 1 2.1
`
`19.7 -1; 2.2-2.4 10.6L1-I (ng/ml) 2.3 1 0.3 2.1 i 0.2 1.2 1 11.1 1.0 3; 0.1
`
`
`
`
`
`Values are mean :1; SEM, r1 = 5 ‘P < 0.001 cf intact control.
`
`
`
`182,780 with that of other antioestrogens on the
`growth of MCF-7 cells (Fig. 4) showed that it
`was significantly more potent than ICI 164,384
`(XCSO = 0.29 and 1.3 nM, respectively) or 4’-
`hydroxytamoxifen. Also, like ICI 164,384, the
`maximum growth inhibitory effect of ICI
`182,780 exceeded that of 4'-hydroxytamoxifen
`(approx. 80% cf 50%, Fig. 4).
`Flow cytometric analysis of cell cycle and
`population distribution of MCF-7 cells treated
`with tamoxifen or ICI 182,780 showed that both
`antioestrogens caused accumulation of cells in
`Go/G, and also reduced the proportion of cells
`capable of continued DNA synthesis. However,
`the maximal efficacy of ICI 182,780 compared
`with that of tamoxifen, when both compounds
`were used at optimum antioestrogenic (but not
`cytotoxic) concentrations, was much greater.
`Thus, only 7% of cells were still potentially
`capable of division after 3-5 days of treatment
`with 10 nM ICI 182,780 compared with 37% in
`cultures treated with 4 11M tamoxifen [8].
`
`ANTITUMOUR EFFICACY
`
`The growth of xenografts of MCF-7 human
`breast cancer cells, supported by continuous
`treatment with ethynyl oestradiol, was blocked
`completely for at least 4 weeks by a single s.c.
`injection of 5 mg ICI 182,780 in oil suspension.
`The magnitude of this effect was comparable
`with that in animals treated continuously with a
`high dose of tamoxifen. Similarly, the growth of
`transplants of the Br10 solid human breast
`tumour was also suppressed effectively by ICI
`182,780 [8].
`
`CONCLUSIONS
`
`In comparison with the first reported pure
`antioestrogen ICI 164,384, ICI 182,780 demon-
`strates substantially increased potency. This
`is clearly manifest
`in viva where,
`in anti-
`uterotrophic assays, ICI 182,780 was at least an
`order of magnitude more potent
`than ICI
`164,384 (ED,.,s=0.06 and 0.9 mg/kg, respect-
`ively). In vitro, the intrinsic potency difference
`appears somewhat
`less, for example there is
`
`|nnoPharma Exhibit 1040.0003
`
`consistent with each class of ligand acting
`through an ER-mediated pathway. Formal
`proof of this is provided by the capacity of ICI
`182,780 to compete with [31-I]oestradiol
`for
`binding to rat uterine ER in a concentration-
`dependent manner [8]. IC50 values of 0.83, 0.94
`and 4.8 x 10“M were recorded for oestradiol,
`ICI 182,780 and ICI 164,384, respectively with
`equivalent relative binding affinities of 0.89 and
`0.19 for ICI 182,780 and ICI 164,384, respect-
`ively, compared with oestradiol = 1.
`
`BREAST CANCER CELL GROWTH INHIBITION
`
`ICI 182,780 inhibited the growth of ER-
`positive, MCF-7 human breast cancer cells but
`was without effect on the growth of ER-negative
`BT-20 human breast cancer cells. The growth
`inhibitory action of ICI 182,780 on MCF-7 cells
`was reversed in a competitive manner by oestro-
`diol [8]. A comparison of the effect of ICI
`
`o 1c11a2,73o
`A lG|164.384
`
`
`
`I 4-hydroxytamoxiten
`
`‘°°
`
`2 so
`
`so
`
`40
`
`20
`
`E3
`
`éC

`8
`
`lC':""""l"'——'-|'_j|
`-10
`-9
`~B
`-7
`-6
`
`[Antioestrogen] log 10
`
`Fig. 4. Effects of ICI 164,384, ICI 182,780 and 4’-hydroxy-
`tamoxifen on the proliferation of MCF-7 human breast
`cancer ails. Cells were plated in 24-well dishes (4 x 10‘/well)
`and cultured for 2 days in MEM with 5% charcoal stripped
`foetal calf serum containing phenol red and insulin but no
`additional oestrogen. One dish was assayed for total protein
`(Lowry) as day 0 control. Remaining dishes received fresh
`medium with (treated) or without (control) the indicated
`concentrations of antioestrogens added in ethanol (1 pl/ml
`medium). Cells were grown for a further 5 days with fresh
`mediumaddedafter 3days. Cell growthisrepnesentedas the
`difierence between the increase of total protein in control
`and treated wells between day 0 and 5. Points are the mean
`of quadruplicate observations where SEM was <5"/o.
`
`

`

`176
`
`ALAN E. WAKELXNG and JEAN Bowux
`
`only a 4- to 5-fold advantage for ICI 182,780 in
`terms of affinity for ER. The apparent 2-fold
`difference in potency ratio improvement be-
`tween in vitro and in viva assays for the two
`compounds is probably a reflection of differ-
`ences in their distribution and metabolism. The
`
`order of magnitude lower potency between the
`oral and parenteral routes of administration
`suggests strongly that the oral bioavailability of
`ICI 182,780 is relatively low. A common means
`of circumventing the practical constraints con-
`sequent on the poor oral bioavailability of
`steroids is to use parenteral depot formulations
`with an extended duration of action. The utility
`of this approach was demonstrated with ICI
`182,780 dispersed in arachis oil. Thus, tumour
`growth ceased for at least 1 month after a single
`injection of ICI 182,780 [8].
`Of particular relevance to the therapeutic
`potential of ICI 182,780 are the enhanced
`efficacy compared with 4’-hydroxytamoxifen (or
`tamoxifen) on breast tumour cells and the excel-
`lent antiuterotrophic action achieved without
`affecting body weight and gonadotrophin se-
`cretion. The castration-like uterine involution
`achieved in intact animals in the absence of an
`
`effect on the latter indices of hypothalamic—
`pituitary function indicates that ICI 182,780
`might be differentially active against peripheral
`and central targets of oestrogen action, a prop-
`erty shared with ICI 164,384 [9]. If translated to
`the clinical setting, this peripheral selectivity of
`action would obviate blockade of central nega-
`tive oestrogen feedback and consequent
`in-
`creases of oestrogen
`production
`in
`the
`premenopausal patient. Also, such selectivity
`would be particularly advantageous in the treat-
`ment of benign uterine and breast pathologies in
`premenopausal patients.
`In respect of the enhanced efficacy of pure
`antioestrogens against
`tumour
`cell growth
`in vitra, fewer of the cells remain in the actively
`proliferating fraction than is the case when
`partial agonists like tamoxifen, 4’-hydroxy-
`tamoxifen or hydroxyclomiphene are used. This
`has been attributed to a residual oestrogenic
`effect of the partial agonists which, although
`small [10, 11], is amplified synergistically by the
`concurrent presence of other breast cell mito-
`gens like insulin [1 1] and IGF-l [12]. The pure
`antioestrogens obviate such effects. The corol-
`lary of these data in the clinical setting is the
`possibility that
`differences of antitumour
`efficacy between tamoxifen and pure antioestro-
`gens may be greater than otherwise anticipated.
`
`In summary, ICI 182,780 offers significant
`advantages compared with pure antioestrogens
`reported previously, particularly with respect to
`in viva potency. Although oral potency appears
`to be limited, probably as a result of poor
`absorption, this disadvantage is offset by the
`sustained antioestrogenic and antitumour ac-
`tivity following parenteral administration of ICI
`182,780 in oil suspension. The data available to
`date for ICI 182,780 presented here, and for ICI
`164,384 [7, 13-15] indicate that pure antioestro—
`gens may find a valuable place in the treatment
`of breast cancer. ICI 182,780 will be used to test
`this proposition.
`
`thank B. Curry, L. Green,
`Acknawledgementswwe
`E. Monk, J. Morrell, E. Newboult, J. Pittam, S. Peters,
`R Stevenson, J. Tattershall and L Yarwood for their
`assistance with these studies.
`
`REFERENCES
`
`l Litherland S. and Jackson I M: Antioestrogens in the
`management of hormone-dependent breast cancer.
`Cancer Treat. Rev. 15 (1983) 183-194.
`2. Early Breast Cancer Tnallists’ Collaborative Group.
`Treatment of Early Breast Cancer. Worldwide Evidence
`1985-1990. Oxford University Press, Oxford, Vol.
`1
`(1990).
`3 Jordan V. C. and Murphy C. S.. Endocrine pharma-
`cology of antiestrogens as antituinour agents Endocrine
`Rev. 11 (1990) 578-610.
`4 Wakeling A. E and Bowler J‘ Steroidal pure anti-
`oestrogens. J. Endorr 112 (1987) R7—Rl0
`5. Wakeling A E. and Bowler J.: Biology and mode of
`action of pure antioestrogens. J. Steroid Bzochem. 30
`(1988) 141-147.
`6. Bowler J., Lilley T. J , Pittam J. D and Wakeling A. E '
`Novel steroidal pure antiestrogens. Steroids 54 (1989)
`71-99
`In
`7. Wakeling A. E- Steroidal pure antiestrogens.
`Regulatory Mechanisms in Breast Cancer (Edited by
`M. Lippman and R. Dickson). Kluwer Academic
`Publishers, Boston (1990) pp. 239-257.
`8. Wakeling A. E., Dukes M. and Bowler J." A potent
`specific antiestrogen with clinical potential. Cancer Res
`51 (1991) 3867-3873.
`9. Walceling A. E and Bowler J ' Novel antioestrogens
`without partial agonist activity. J. Steroid Biochem. 31
`(1988) 645-653
`10 Katzenellenbogen B S., Kendra K. L, Norman
`M. J and Berthois Y.: Proliferation, hormonal respon-
`siveness, and estrogen receptor content of MCF—7
`human breast cancer cells grown in the short-term and
`long-term absence of estrogens. Cancer Res. 47 (1987)
`4355-4360.
`11. Wakeling A. E., Newboult E. and Peters S. 13.: Effect of
`aiitioestrogens on the proliferation of MCF-7 human
`breast cancer cells. J. Malec. Endocr. 2 (1989) 225-234.
`12. Stewart A. J., Johnson M. D., May F. E. B. and Westley
`B. R.: Role of insulin-like growth factors and the type
`I insulin-like growth factor receptor in the estrogen-
`stimulated proliferation of human breast cancer cells.
`J. Biol. Chem. 265 (I990) 21172-—2ll78.
`13. Gottardis M. M., Jiang S.-Y., Jeng M.-H. and Jordan
`V. C.: Inhibition of tamoxifen-stimulated growth of an
`
`|nnoPharma Exhibit 1040.0004
`
`

`

`Pure antioestrogens
`
`177
`
`in athymic IIIICB by novel
`MCF-7 tumour variant
`steroidal
`antiestrogens. Cancer Res.
`49
`(1989)
`4090-4093.
`.Gottardis M. M., Riechio M. E., Satyaswaroop
`P. G. and Jordan V. C.: Effect of steroidal and
`nonsteroidal
`antiestrogens on the growth of
`a
`tamoxifen-stimulated human endometrial carcinoma
`
`(EnCal0l) in athymic mice. Cancer Res. 50 (1990)
`3189-3192.
`. Nicholson R. 1., Walker K. J., Bouzubar N., Wills R. J.,
`Gee J. M. W., Rushmere N. K. and Davies P.: Estrogen
`deprivation in breast cancer. Clinical, experimental and
`biological aspects. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 595 (1990)
`316-327.
`
`|nnoPharma Exhibit 1040.0005
`
`

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