`
`Annals of Oncology 21: 2342-2347, 2010
`doi:10,1093/annone/mdq249
`Published online 21 May 2010
`
`Three dose regimensof fulvestrant in postmenopausal
`Japanese women with advanced breast cancer:
`results from a double-blind, phase II comparative
`study (FINDER1)
`S. Ohno", Y. Rai*, H.
`lwata®, N. Yamamoto*, M. Yoshida®, H. lwase®, N. Masuda’,
`S. Nakamura®, H. Taniguchi’, S. Kamigaki'® & S. Noguchi""
`"Division of Breast Oncology, National Kyushu Cancer Center, Fukuoka; “Department of Breast Surgery, Sagara Hospital, Kagoshima: “Department of Breast Oncology,
`Aichi Cancer Center Hospital, Nagoya; “Department of Breast Surgery, Chiba Cancer Center, Chiba; “Dapartment of Breast Surgery, Seirei Hamamatsu General
`Hospital, Shizuoka; “Department of Breast and Endocrine Surgery, Kumamoto University Hospital, Kumamoto; ‘Department of Surgery, National Hospital Organization
`Osaka National Hospital, Osaka; ®Department of Breast Surgical Oncology; St Luke’s International Hospital, Tokyo; "Department of Surgery, The Japanese Red Cross
`Nagasaki Atomic Bomb Hospital, Nagasaki; '°Departmentof Surgery, Sakai Municipal Hospital, Osaka; ™Department of Oncology, Osaka University Graduate School
`of Medicine, Osaka, Japan
`
`Received 25 January 2010; revised 30 March 2010; accepted 30 March 2010
`
`
`Background: FINDER1 compared efficacy, tolerability and pharmacokinetics (PK) of three fulvestrant dose regimens
`
`in postmenopausal Japanese women with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive locally advanced/metastatic breast cancer
`recurring or progressing after prior endocrine therapy.
`Patients and methods: The primary end point of this randomised, multicentre, phase II study was objective
`response rate (ORR) and the secondary end points included time to progression (TTP), clinical benefit rate (CBR),
`
`PK profiles and tolerability. Postmenopausal women with ER-positive advanced breast cancer were randomised to 28-
`day cycles of fulvestrant approved dose (AD), loading dose (LD) or high dose (HD) until disease progression.
`Results: Hundred and forty-three patients (median age 61 years) received fulvestrant AD (n = 45), LD (9 = 51) or HD
`(9 = 47). ORR wassimilar across dose regimens: 11.1%, 17.6% and 10.6% for AD, LD and HD, respectively, with
`overlapping confidence intervals. TTP and CBR were also similar between groups (median TTP: 6.0, 7.5 and
`6.0 months, respectively; CBR: 42.2%, 54.9% and 46.8% for AD, LD and HD, respectively). Cina, and area under the
`plasma concentration-time curve were cose proportional and PK steady state was reached earlier with LD and HD
`than with AD. All three doses were well tolerated, with a similar adverse-event profile and no emerging safety
`Concerns.
`
`
`
`Conclusion: Fulvestrant AD, LD and HD had similar efficacy and tolerability profiles in postmenopausal Japanese
`
`women with ER-positive advanced breast cancer.
`Key words: advanced breast cancer, endocrine, Faslodex, fulvestrant, high dose, loading dose
`
`introduction
`
`Fulvestrant (Faslodex™) is an estrogen receptor (ER)
`antagonist that is devoid of agonist activity [1]. The mechanism
`of action of fulvestrant differs from that of other endocrine
`therapies; on binding to the ER, fulvestrant induces a rapid
`degradation and loss of the ER and the progesterone receptor
`(PgR) [2-4]. Fulvestrant has demonstrated efficacy in several
`phase II clinical trials in postmenopausal women with
`advanced breast cancer [5-8]. Notably, the different
`mechanism of action of fulvestrant compared with other
`endocrine therapies affords a lack of cross-resistance with other
`
`“Correspondence to: Dr S. Ohno, Department of Breast Surgery, National Kyushu
`Cancer Center, 3-1-1 Notame, Minami-ku, Fukuoka 811-1895, Japan.
`Tel: 81-90-551-4585; Fax: 81-90-541-3231; E-mail: sohno@nk-cc.go.jo
`
`endocrine therapies, and, consequently, fulvestrant has
`demonstrated efficacy in patients with recurrent disease
`following prior tamoxifen [6, 8] and nonsteroidal aromatase
`inhibitor (AI) therapy [5].
`Fulvestrant is currently licensed in Europe and the United
`States for the treatment of postmenopausal women with
`advanced breast cancer who have progressed or recurred after
`previous endocrine (antiestrogen) treatment [9]. Theefficacy of
`fulvestrant at the approved dose (AD, 250 mg/month) is well
`established [7, 8], but there is evidence to indicate that the
`efficacy of fulvestrant could be further improved by increasing
`the dose [3, 6, 10]. It has been hypothesised that greater efficacy
`may be achieved by using a loading dose (LD) to achieve steady
`state more quickly or by using a high-dose (HD) fulvestrant
`regimen to achieve higher mean plasma fulvestrantlevels,
`
`© The Author 2010. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology.
`All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org
`
`
`
`
`
`C10Z“hzArenigauojsansAq/S10-speusnolpsoyxoououue//:dyyWoypapropumog
`
`AstraZeneca Exhibit 2006 p. 1
`InnoPharma Licensing LLC v. AstraZeneca AB IPR2017-00904
`Fresenius-Kabi USA LLC v. AstraZeneca AB IPR2017-01910
`
`s)
`
`=c
`=9
`
`wyS)
`
`iim
`2)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`143 postmenopausal women with ER-positive advanced breast
`cancer, progressing or relapsing after prior endocrine therapy
`
`
`
`
`
`Randomisation 1:1:1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Fulvestrant AD*
`Fulvestrant LD®
`Fulvestrant HD*
`(n=45)
`(n=51)
`(n=47)
`
`
`
`
`
`Follow-up visits
`(study treament)
`
`
`
`Annals. of Oncology
`
`without affecting tolerability [11]. Two recent studies have
`confirmed the feasibility of this approach. A small, pilot study
`in Japanese women (nm = 20) showed fulvestrant HD to have
`good clinical activity and a favourable tolerability profile in the
`treatment of advanced or recurrent breast cancer [12].
`Furthermore, pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis demonstrated. that
`fulvestrant HD achieved plasma levels approximately double
`those seen with fulvestrant AD. Pharmacodynamic evaluation
`in a neoadjuvant study comparing fulvestrant AD and HD
`regimens ( = 211) reported significantly greater Ki67 and ER
`down-regulation with fulvestrant HD than AD and that both
`doses were similarly well tolerated [13].
`The FINDERI (Faslodex INvestigation of Dose evaluation in
`Estrogen Receptor-positive advanced breast cancer) study
`evaluates the efficacy, tolerability and PK profile ofthree different
`fulvestrant dose regimens (AD, LD and HD) in postmenopausal
`Japanese women with ER-positive advanced breast cancer
`recurring or progressing after previous endocrine therapy.
`
`patients and methods
`
`FINDER1 (92381L/0066; NCT00305448) is a randomised, double-blind,
`parallel-group, multicentre, phase II study conducted in Japan. The primary
`objective of the study was to evaluate the objective response rate (ORR) of
`patients treated with fulvestrant AD, LD or HD, and secondary end points
`included determination of time to progression (TTP), clinical benefit rate
`(CBR), PK profiles and tolerability.
`
`patients
`Eligible patients were postmenopausal women with locally advanced/
`metastatic breast cancer who had demonstrated a positive ER status of
`primary or metastatic tumourtissue (210%positive staining by
`immunchistochemistry by local laboratory testing). Patients were required
`to have relapsed during, or <12 months after completion of, adjuvant
`endocrine therapy; be progressing on an endocrine therapy which was
`started 212 months after prior adjuvant endocrine therapy or be
`progressing on an endocrine therapy administered for de novo advanced
`disease. In addition, patients had to have measurable disease as per
`modified RECIST.
`
`All patients provided written informed consent and the study was carried
`out in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration and was consistent with
`International Conference on Harmonisation Good Clinical Practice. The
`
`study protocol was approved by the review boards of participating
`institutions.
`
`study treatment
`Patients were randomised 1: 1: 1 to fulvestrant AD (250 mg fulvestrant
`on days 0 and 28 and every 28 daysthereafter, with two placebo injections
`given on day 14), fulvestrant LD (after an initial dose of 500 mg at day
`0 and 250 mgfulvestrant on day 14 and 28 and every 28 days thereafter)
`or fulvestrant HD (500 mgfulvestrant on days 0, 14 and 28 and every 28
`days thereafter) (Figure 1). Treatment with fulvestrant was continued
`until disease progression or until any other discontinuation criterion was
`met.
`
`
`
`
`
`10Z‘pzAreniqayuosensAq/S10-s[eusmnolpsoyxoououue//:dyyWoypapropumoq¢
`
`
`
`
`
`Disease progression
`
`"AD (approved dase) = 250 mg (1 fulvestrant injection and 1 placebo injection) on Days 0, 28 (4:3) and
`every 28 (+3) days thereafter, and 2 additional placebo injections on Day 14 (+3).
`‘LD (loading dase) = afteraninitial dose of 500 mg at Day0 (2 fulvestrant injections), 250 mg fulvestrant
`(1 fulvestrantinjection and 1 placebo injection) on Days 14 (4:3), 28 (43) arid every 28 (+3) days thereafter.
`‘HD(high dose) = 500 mgfulvestrant(2 fulvestrant injections) on Days 0, 14 (+3), 26 (£3) and every
`28 (+3) days thereafter.
`ER, oestrogen receptor,
`
`Figure 1. FINDERI study design.
`
`84. Two additional PK samples were collected between days 5 and 10 and
`between days 33 and 38.
`Tolerability was evaluated by assessment of adverse events (AEs)
`classified according to the National Cancer Institute—Common Toxicity
`Criteria for AEs (version 3.0) at baseline and at 4-weekly intervals
`thereafter. The primary analysis was carried out when all ongoing patients
`had been followed up for at least 24 weeks.
`
`statistical analysis
`Asthe aim of the study was selection of a dose regimen, sample size was
`calculated based on selection formulation [14], stead of hypothesis testing
`formulation. Overall, 43 patients per group were required for 90% probability
`that the best dose regimen by response rate be correctly selected [assuming
`that the smallest response rate was 19.2%(based on the result ofAD in previous
`studies) andthe difference in response rate between the best and next best dose
`regimen was 15%]. To allowfor dropout, a total of 135 patients were to be
`recruited to this study (45 patients per group). The point estimate and the
`corresponding two-sided 95% confidenceinterval (CI) were calculated for
`ORR and CBRfor each treatment group. Kaplan—Meierplots were produced
`for TTP for each treatment group and subgroup. Drug concentration—time
`data were analysed with NONMEMv5.0 using a nonlinear mixed-effects model
`approach,and the PK parameters[clearance (CL/F) and volumeofdistribution
`at steady state (Vdss/F), Cac Tmax Cmins area under the plasma
`concenttation-time curve from time 0 to the last measurable concentration
`
`(AUCo_,) and #,] were determined.
`
`results
`
`study assessments
`Efficacy was assessed by ORR, TTP and CBR (complete response, partial
`response or stable disease lasting =24 weeks, according to RECIST). All
`patients were followed up every 12 weeks for progression.
`PK samples were collected from a cohort of 70 patients in total, with
`sample collection at baseline and just before injection on days 14, 28,56 and
`
`In total, 143 patients were recruited from 40 centres in Japan
`and randomised to receive fulvestrant AD (7m = 45), fulvestrant
`LD (m= 51) or fulvestrant HD (m = 47). All randomised patients
`were included in the main analysis (full analysis set population),
`but one patient received no randomised treatment and was
`excluded from the safety population. Overall, 70 patients were
`
`Volume 21 | No. 12| December 2010
`
`doi:10.1098/annone/mdg249 | 2343
`
`AstraZeneca Exhibit 2006 p. 2
`
`
`
`Annals. of Oncology
`
`Table 1. Patient baseline demographics and disease characteristics
`
`
`
`
`
`HD
`(n= 47)
`61 (45-83)
`
`40 (85.1)
`7 (14.9)
`0
`
`62. (43-86)
`
`44 (86.3)
`6 (11.8)
`1 (2.0)
`
`61 (50-77)
`Median age, years (range)
`WHOperformance status, 1 (%)
`39 (86.7)
`6 (13.3)
`
`0 1 2
`
`30 (719)
`
`36 (70.6)
`
`30 (63.8)
`
`13 (28.9)
`
`15 (29.4)
`
`17 (36.2)
`
`6 (13.3)
`36 (80.0)
`3. (6.7)
`
`1 (2.2)
`44 (97.8
`26 (57.8
`
`1 (2.0)
`50 (90.8)
`0
`
`2 (3.9)
`49 (96.1)
`28 (54,9)
`
`7 (14.9)
`AO (85.1)
`0
`
`47 (100.0)
`27 (57.4)
`
`4l (91.1)
`
`50 (98.0)
`
`44 (93.6)
`
`1 (22)
`
`1 (2.0)
`
`2 (4.3)
`
`3. (6.7)
`
`6 (13.3
`20 (44.4
`7 (15.6
`12 (26.7
`
`HRstatus
`
`ER positive, PgR
`positive, n (%)
`ER positive, PgR
`negative, 1 (%)
`HER? status, # (%)
`Positive
`
`Negative
`Unknown
`
`Disease stage, n (%)
`Locally advanced only
`Metastatic
`
`Visceral involvement, n (%)
`Tumourhistology, (%)
`Infiltrating ductal
`carcinoma
`
`Infiltrating lobular
`carcinoma
`Other
`
`Tumour grade, n (%)
`ik
`
`23 U
`
`nevaluable/
`unknown
`
`Prior therapy, n (%)
`Radiotherapy
`Chemotherapy
`Endocrine therapy*
`Anastrozole
`Tamoxifen
`Exemestane
`
`12 (23.5
`15 (33.3
`37 (722.5
`25 (55.6
`51 (100)
`45 (100)
`28 (54.9
`26 (57.8
`19 (37.3
`19 (42.2
`9 (20.0
`10 (19.6
`Time of relapse in relation to endocrine therapy
`18 (40.0
`17 (33.3
`During adjuvant therapy
`0-12 monthsafter
`5 (111
`2 (3.9)
`
`completion of adjuvant
`therapy
`>12 months after
`
`10 (22.2
`
`12 (26.7
`
`completion of
`adjuvant therapy
`During therapy
`for de novo
`advanced disease
`0
`0
`Other
`
`
`15 (29.4)
`
`6 (12.8)
`
`17 (33.3)
`
`12 (25.5)
`
`
`
`
`
`10Z‘pzAreniqayuosensAq/S10-s[eusmnolpsoyxoououue//:dyyWoypapropumoq
`
`¢
`
`0
`
`1 (2.1)
`
`5 (9.8)
`19 (37.3
`12 (23.5
`15 (29.4
`
`
`
`3 (6.4)
`18 (38.3
`13 (27.7
`13 O77
`
`8 (17.0
`
`21 (44.7
`33 (70.2
`47 (100)
`27 (57.4
`23 (48.9
`
`28 (59.6
`0
`
`
`
`included in the PK analysis set (25, 21 and 24 patients in the
`AD, LD and HD treatment arms, respectively).
`Baseline characteristics were generally well balanced across
`the treatment groups (Table 1). Median age was 61 years. All
`patients were ER positive and approximately two-thirds of
`patients (68.5%) were PgR positive as well as ER positive. The
`majority of patients (97.9%) had metastatic disease and more
`than half (56.6%) had visceral involvement.In total, 33.6% and
`66.4% of patients had received prior radiotherapy and/or
`chemotherapy, respectively, as well as prior endocrine therapy.
`The majority of patients (72.8%) had progressed during
`adjuvant endocrine therapy (44.1%) or endocrine therapy for
`de novo metastatic disease (28.7%). Patients received fulvestrant
`therapy for a median of 197, 225 and 213 days in the AD, LD
`and HD groups, respectively.
`
`primary end point
`The ORRs with the different fulvestrant dose regimens were
`similar: 11.1% (95% CI 3.7-24.1), 17.6% (95% CI 8.4-30.9)
`and 10.6% (95% CI 3.5—23.1) for fulvestrant AD, LD and HD,
`respectively (Table 2). The ORR was numerically higher in the
`fulvestrant LD regimen, but the Clsofall three treatment arms
`overlapped. The limited numbers of responders in each of the
`predefined subgroups meant that further subgroup analyses for
`efficacy parameters were not useful.
`
`secondary end points
`Median TTP was similar across the dose regimens: 6.0, 7.5 and
`6.0 months for fulvestrant AD, LD and HD,respectively, with
`a similar number of events observed between groups:
`30, 31 and 31 events, respectively (Figure 2). CBRs were similar
`across the dose regimens: 42.2% (95% CI 27.7-57.8), 54.9%
`(95% CI 40.3-68.9) and 46.8% (95% CI 32.1-61.9) for
`fulvestrant AD, LD and HD,respectively (Table 2).
`
`PK parameters
`A two-compartment model, withfirst-order absorption and
`first-order elimination, was fitted to the fulvestrant
`concentration—time data. CL/F was estimated at a mean of
`35.4 l/h and varied between individuals by ~31%, and the
`mean estimate of Vdss/F (=Vd1/F + Vd2/F) was 35300 |, with
`variation of Vd1/F among individuals by ~42%. Residual
`variability was proportional in nature [coefficient of variation
`(CV): 25%] and parameters were generally well estimated. The
`secondary parameters derived from the model are shown in
`Table 3. In the fulvestrant AD regimen, Coins Caray and AUCg_,
`values were higher in month 3 compared with month1, but the
`values for fulvestrant LD and HD were similar or decreased in
`month 3 compared with month 1. These data indicate that
`steady-state exposures were reached in the first month of
`dosing with the LD and HD regimens andthis wasthe result of
`an additional dose of fulvestrant given around day 14. Mean
`t,, was similar among the treatment regimens at ~29 days,
`indicating that 90% of steady-state exposure should be achieved
`in ~3 months with the AD regimen. Theestimates of exposure
`at month 3 with the AD regimen were similar to that with
`the LD regimen and were close to half of that with HD,
`indicating linear PK. The secondary PK parameters obtained in
`this study were similar to those previously reported [15-17].
`
`“Use of more than one endocrineagentin the adjuvant setting was acceptable.
`Endocrine therapies with 210% incidence in total are givenin thetable.
`AD,approved dose; ER, estrogen receptor; HD, high dose; HER2, human
`epidermal growthfactor receptor 2; HR, hormone receptor; LD, loading
`dose; PgR, progesterone receptor; WHO, World Health Organization.
`
`2344 | Ohnoetal.
`
`Volume 21 |No. 12| December 2010
`
`AstraZeneca Exhibit 2006 p. 3
`
`
`
`Annals. of Oncology
`
`Table 2. Summary ofbest objective response
`
`
`Fulvestrant regimen
`AD (n= 45)
`
`ID (n=51)
`0
`
`HD(7 = 47)
`0
`
`Complete response, m (%)
`Partial response, n (%)
`Stable disease >24 weeks, n (%)
`
`Stable disease <24 weeks
`
`2 (4.4)
`3 (6.7)
`4 (31.1)
`
`9ens
`
`5 (106)
`9 (17.6)
`17 (362)
`19 (37.3)
`10 (21.3)
`5 (9.8)
`14 (29.8)
`7 (33.3)
`17 (37.8)
`Progression, m (%)
`0
`Not assessable, 1 (%)
`1 (2.1)
`1 (2.0)
`5 (10.6) [3.5-23.1]
`9 (17.6) [8-4—30.9]
`5 (11.1) [3.7241]
`Objective response rate, 1 (%) [95% CI]
`
`28 (54.9) [40.3-68.9] 2 (46.8) [32.1-61.9]
`19 (42.2) [27.7-57.8]
`Clinical benefit rate, (%) [95%CI]
`
`AD, approved dose; CI, confidence interval; HD, high dose; LD, loading dose.
`
`Fulvestrant regimen
`— AD
`~ LD
`---- HD
`
`
`
`
`Proportionnotprogressed
`
`21
`
`24
`
`No.of patients atrisk
`Fulvestrant AD
`45
`Fulvestrant LD
`51
`Fulvestrant HD
`47
`
`36
`42
`36
`
`22
`29
`24
`
`13
`16
`15
`
`6
`7
`8
`
`2
`3
`5
`
`2
`0
`2
`
`0
`0
`1
`
`0
`0
`0
`
`Time (months)
`
`AD, approved dose; HD,high dose;LD, loading dose.
`Tick marks indicate censored observations.
`
`Figure 2. Kaplan—Meierplot of time to progression.
`
`tolerability
`A total of 765 AEs were reported by 137 (96.5%) of the 142
`patients, including 8 patients (5.6%) who experienced a serious
`adverse event (SAE). The incidence of AEs was similar among
`the three treatment arms. There were few SAEs and noclinically
`important differences in SAE profiles among the three
`treatment arms. The majority of AEs were of mild or moderate
`intensity, with only 16.2% of patients experiencing
`AEs 2grade 3. AEs required treatment discontinuation in three
`patients overall (2.1%); one patient discontinued from each
`treatment group. There were no deaths attributable to AEs.
`AEs observed in 210% of patients were nasopharyngitis
`(33.8%), injection-site pain (27.5%), hot flushes (18.3%),
`nausea (18.3%), injection-site induration (17.6%), fatigue
`(14.8%), constipation (11.3%) and headache (10.6%) (Table 4).
`Notably, all injection-site AEs were <grade 2 intensity, with the
`majority grade 1, and there were no dose-dependentdifferences
`in frequency or intensity between the treatment arms. There
`were notable changes in neither haematology and. clinical
`chemistry nor vital signs and electrocardiogram.
`
`discussion
`
`The phase II FINDER]study evaluatedthe relative efficacy and
`tolerability of three different fulvestrant dose regimens in
`
`Table 3. Secondary pharmacokinetic parameters for months 1 and 3
`
`
`Fulvestrant regimen
`AD
`LD
`
`HD
`
`25
`30.5 (3.4)
`Month 1 (visit 4)
`25
`11.1 (35.9)
`
`21
`28.4 (2.1)
`
`24
`29.2 (2.3)
`
`20
`17.0 (29.6)
`
`24
`28.7 (27.0)
`
`45 (38-52)
`
`3.5(32-38)
`
`3.9 (3644)
`
`3.02 (16.4)
`
`10.7 (22.2)
`
`17.8 (19.2)
`
`4370 (27.7)
`
`9260 (29.4)
`
`13000 (25.9)
`
`Number of patients
`Mean ty, days (SD)
`
`Number of patients
`Mean Cmars
`ng/ml (CV)
`Median Tinaxs days
`(minimum—
`maximum)
`Mean Cinins
`ng/ml (CV)
`Mean AUCy+,
`ng h/ml (CV)
`
`Month 3 (visit 7)
`20
`15.5 (30.3)
`
`20
`14.1 (30.0)
`
`20
`29.4 (23.8)
`
`A.2 (3.7-4.6)
`
`4.2 (39-44)
`
`4.2 (3,9-4,5)
`
`Numberof patients
`Mean Cyraxs
`ng/ml (CV)
`Median Tyas, days
`(minimum—
`maximum)
`Mean Comins
`ng/ml (CV)
`13300 (20.6)
`6600 (26.6)
`6630 (24.7)
`Mean AUGg_5
`ng h/ml (CV)
`
`5.39 (20.1)
`
`5,87 (23.9)
`
`11.4 (18.2)
`
`AD, approved dose; CV, coefficient of variation; HD, high dose; LD,
`loading dose, SD, standard deviation.
`
`postmenopausal Japanese women with ER-positive advanced
`breast cancer. The study was initiated because previousclinical
`and biological studies had indicated that there was a dose—
`responseto fulvestrant and that the efficacy of 250 mg might be
`improved by increasing the dose [3, 6, 10]. In a presurgicaltrial
`in which postmenopausal womenreceived a single injection of
`fulvestrant, dose-dependent reductions in Ki67, ER and PgR
`were observed, with no evidence of a plateau effect up to the
`maximum dose tested (250 mg/month) [3]. Clinical evidence
`supporting further dose increases emerged from a combined
`interim analysis of two phase ITI studies (trials 0020 and 0021)
`comparing two doses of fulvestrant (125 and 250 mg/month)
`
`
`
`
`
`10Z‘pzAreniqayuosensAq/S10-s[eusmnolpsoyxoououue//:dyyWoypapropumoq¢
`
`Volume 21 | No. 12| December 2010
`
`doi:10.1098/annone/mdg249 | 2345
`
`AstraZeneca Exhibit 2006 p. 4
`
`
`
`Adverseevent,
`
`n (%)
`
`Table 4. Most commonly reported adverse events (25%in total)
`
`
`Fulvestrantregimen
`HD
`AD
`LD
`(n = 46)
`(m= 45)
`(7 = 51)
`16 (34,8)
`17 (37.8)
`15 (29.4)
`Nasopharyngitis
`14 (30.4)
`14 31.1)
`11 (21.6)
`Injection-site pain
`6 (13.0)
`11 (24.4)
`9 (17.6)
`Nausea
`7 (15.2)
`8 (17.8)
`11 (21.6)
`Hot flush
`10 (21.7)
`9 (20.0)
`6 (11.8)
`Injection-site induration
`7 (15.2)
`7 (15.6)
`71132)
`Fatigue
`5 (10.9)
`4 (8.9)
`7 (13.7)
`Constipation
`4 (8.7)
`3 (6.7)
`8 (15.7)
`Headache
`3 (6.5)
`3 (6.7)
`6 (11.8)
`Back pain
`2 (4.3)
`2 (4.4)
`7 (13.7)
`Arthralgia
`5 (10.9)
`2 (4.4)
`4 (7.8)
`Pyrexia
`4 (8.7)
`4 (8.9)
`2 (3.9)
`Injection-site pruritis
`5 (10.9)
`2 (4.4)
`3 (5.9)
`Stomatitis
`3 (6.5)
`2 (4.4)
`4 (7.8)
`Anorexia
`4 (8.7)
`2 (4.4)
`5 (3.9)
`Pruritis
`
`Insomnia 1 (2.2) 4 (8.9) 3 (5.9)
`
`
`
`AD, approved dose; HD, high dose; LD, loading dose.
`
`with anastrozole (1 mg/day) in postmenopausal women with
`advanced breast cancer [6, 10]. This analysis demonstrated
`insufficient clinical activity with fulvestrant 125 mg/month
`compared with the 250 mg/month arm or the comparator,
`anastrozole, which prompted closure of this treatment arm.
`In the current study, two fulvestrant dose regimen
`modifications were employed that differed from the approved
`fulvestrant regimen. The total doses administered in the first
`month were 500, 1000 and 1500 mg for AD, LD and HD,
`respectively.
`Although the ORR and CBR were numerically higher for
`the fulvestrant LD compared with AD and HD regimen, the
`95% CIs overlapped substantially amongall three
`treatment regimens. Furthermore, the Kaplan—Meier plots
`were similar between the three treatment regimens, although
`the median TTP was numerically higher for the fulvestrant
`LD compared with AD and HD regimens. Somepotential
`difference in efficacy may have been missed due to the
`relatively small size of the present dose selection phase I
`study and thus any definitive conclusions could not be drawn
`regarding the recommended fulvestrant dose regimen in this
`population. A far greater sample size would be required to
`achieve statistical significance for each of the study end
`points.
`Phase III data were recently reported for fulvestrant LD in
`postmenopausal women with ER-positive advanced breast
`cancer progressing or recurring after nonsteroidal AI therapy
`[5]. In this setting, fulvestrant LD and exemestane were equally
`efficacious and well tolerated.
`The phase II NEWEST (Neoadjuvant Endocrine Therapy for
`Women with Estrogen-Sensitive Tumors) study was thefirst
`study designed to evaluate fulvestrant HD and fulvestrant AD
`as neoadjuvant endocrine therapy in postmenopausal women
`with locally advanced breast cancer [13]. In NEWEST,
`fulvestrant HD reduced the mean Ki67labelling index to
`
`Annals. of Oncology
`
`a significantly greater extent than AD at week 4, and this
`correspondedto a significantly greater reduction in ER
`expression at week 4 for HD versus AD. Furthermore, recent
`findings from the phase II FIRST (Fulvestrant fIRst-line Study
`comparing endocrine Treatments) study demonstrated that
`fulvestrant HD wasat least as effective as anastrozole in terms
`of CBR and ORR andwas associated with significantly longer
`TTP in the first-line advanced breast cancer setting [18].
`Fulvestrant HD has also been further investigated in the
`advanced disease setting. The CONFIRM (COmparisoN of
`Fulvestrant In Recurrent or Metastatic breast cancer) study was
`a large, randomised, double-blind phase III study designed to
`elucidate fully any benefit of fulvestrant HD versus AD in
`postmenopausal women with metastatic disease. The primary
`study end point of TTP was significantly longer for fulvestrant
`HD compared with fulvestrant AD (6.5 versus 5.5 months;
`hazard ratio 0.80; 95% CI 0.68—0.94; P = 0.006), a difference
`that corresponds to a 20% reduction in the risk of progression.
`Numerical advantages were also observed in CBR (45.6% versus
`39.6%), duration of clinical benefit (16.6 versus 13.9 months)
`and overall survival (25.1 versus 22.8 months) for patients
`treated with HD versus AD. Together with a favourable
`tolerability profile and no evidence of dose-related AEs, this
`equated to an improved benefit—risk profile for HD compared
`with AD [19].
`The mean population clearance seen in this study (35.4 + 4.9
`Wh, CV 31%) was similar to that determined for Japanese
`patients in a phase I study (28.4 + 5.4 I/h) [12] and for western
`patients in phase III studies (33.2 + 1.1 I/h) [17], and the phase
`Il NEWESTstudy (34.5 l/h, CV 30%) [15]. The estimate of
`Vdss/F (35300 1, CV 42% for Vd1/F) was also similar between
`this study and the phase IT NEWEST study (34400 1, CV up to
`72%). As expected, PK steady state was achieved earlier with
`fulvestrant HD and LD than with fulvestrant AD. Furthermore,
`the steady-state levels achieved were higher with fulvestrant HD
`than with fulvestrant AD and LD. The current results for
`fulvestrant LD are also consistent with the recently reported
`Evaluation of Faslodex versus Exemestane Clinical Trial
`(EFECT) PK data [16].
`In line with the findings of other fulvestrant studies in the
`advanced andearly breast cancer settings [5, 13, 18], all three
`fulvestrant dose regimens (AD, LD and HD) were well
`tolerated, with no emerging safety concerns, and no differences
`were observed between the regimens. As expected, the most
`frequently reported treatment-related AEs were injection-site
`reactions, butall injection-site AEs were of <grade 2 intensity,
`with the majority being grade 1. None of the AEsat the
`injection site led to discontinuation of study treatment.
`A parallel study is being undertaken in Caucasian patients
`(FINDER2) and it is anticipated that evaluation of data from
`both these studies will help to determine any ethnic differences
`in the efficacy, tolerability and PK profiles of fulvestrant in ER-
`positive postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer.
`
`conclusion
`
`While the current data alone do not allow determination of the
`optimum fulvestrant dose regimen, they confirm theclinical
`feasibility of the fulvestrant HD and LD regimens and add to
`
`2346 | Ohno etal.
`
`Volume 21 |No. 12| December 2010
`
`
`
`
`
`10Z‘pzAreniqayuosensAq/S10-s[eusmnolpsoyxoououue//:dyyWoypapropumoq¢
`
`AstraZeneca Exhibit 2006 p. 5
`
`
`
`. Chia S, Gradishar W, Mauriac L et al. Double-blind, randomized placebo
`controlled trial of fulvestrant compared with exemestaneafter prior nonsteroidal
`aromataseinhibitor therapy in postmenopausal women with hormone
`receptor-positive, advanced breast cancer: results from EFECT. J Clin Oncol
`2008; 26: 1664-1670.
`. Howell A, Robertson JFR, Quaresma Albano J et al. Fulvestrant, formerly ICI
`182,780,
`is as effective as anastrozole in postmenopausal women with
`advanced breast cancer progressing after prior endocrine treatment. J Clin Oncol
`2002; 20: 3396-3403.
`. Howell A, Pippen J, Elledge RM et al. Fulvestrant versus anastrozole for
`the treatment of advanced breast carcinoma: a prospectively planned
`combined survival analysis of two multicenter trials. Cancer 2005; 104:
`236-239.
`. Robertson JF, Osborne CK, Howell A et al. Fulvestrant versus anastrozole for the
`treatment of advanced breast carcinoma in postmenopausal women:
`a prospective combined analysis of two multicentertrials. Cancer 2003; 98:
`229-238.
`
`
`
`Annals. of Oncology
`
`the data supporting theclinical efficacy and favourable
`tolerability of fulvestrant and its potential to overcome tumour
`resistance to previous endocrine agents, including Als, in
`patients with advanced breast cancer. However, together with
`the findings of the phase II] CONFIRM study, which has since
`definitively clarified the tolerability and efficacy profiles of
`fulvestrant HD and AD, these data indicate that fulvestrant HD
`mayreplace AD for treatment of postmenopausal women
`with ER-positive advanced breast cancer.
`
`funding
`
`AstraZeneca (for the conduct of the study, data collection and
`project management).
`
`acknowledgements
`
`Wethankall the patients and investigators who participated in
`the FINDER1 study. We also thank Katrina de Saram, PhD,
`from Complete Medical Communications, who provided
`medical writing support funded by AstraZeneca.
`
`disclosures
`
`Hiroji Iwata has received honoraria form AstraZeneca.
`Masayuki Yoshidahas received honoraria from AstraZeneca,
`Nippon Kayaku, Novartis. Hirotaka Iwase has received
`honoraria from AstraZeneca and research funding from
`AstraZeneca, Chugai-Roche. Seigo Nakamura has received
`honoraria from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, Jaonson &
`Jhonson. Shinzaburo Noguchi has received honoraria from
`AstraZeneca, Taiho, Chugai, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda, Bristol-
`Myers Squibb.
`
`references
`
`1. Addo S, Yates RA, Laight A. A phase| trial to assess the pharmacology of the
`new oestrogen receptor antagonist fulvestrant on the endometrium in healthy
`postmenopausal volunteers. Br J Cancer 2002; 87: 1354-1359,
`2. DeFriend DJ, Howell A, Nicholson RI et al. Investigation of a new pure
`antiestrogen (ICI 182780) in women with primary breast cancer. Cancer Res
`1994: 54: 408-414,
`3. Robertson JF, Nicholson Rl, Bundred NJ et al. Comparison of the short-term
`biological effects of 7alpha-[9-(4,4,5,5,5-pentafluoropentylsulfiny|}-
`nonyllestra-1,3,5, (10)-triene-3,17beta-diol (Faslodex) versus tamoxifen in
`postmenopausal women with primary breast cancer. Cancer Res 2001; 61:
`8739-6746.
`
`4, Wakeling AE. Similarities and distinctions in the mode of action of different
`classes of antioestrogens. Endocr Relat Cancer 2000; 7: 17-28.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[Ome=z
`
`
`
`. Howell A. Fulvestrant (‘Faslodex’}: current and future role in breast cancer
`management. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2006; 57: 265-273.
`. Osborne CK, Pippen J, Jones SE et al. Double-blind,
`randomizedtrial
`comparing the efficacy and tolerability of fulvestrant versus anastrozole in
`postmenopausal women with acvanced breast cancer progressing on prior
`endocrine therapy: results of a North American trial. J Clin Oncol 2002; 20:
`3386-3395.
`
`
`
`
`
`10Z‘pzAreniqayuosensAq/S10-s[eusmnolpsoyxoououue//:dyyWoypapropumoq¢
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`trials. Cancer
`
`. Robertson JFR. Fulvestrant (Faslodex}—how to make a good drug better.
`Oncologist 2007; 12: 774-784.
`. Fujiwara Y, Ohno S, Iwata H et al. Tolerability of fulvestrant high-dose (HD) in
`postmenopausal Japanese women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+)
`advanced (ABC} or
`recurrent breast cancer (RBC} 2007 Abstract presented at the
`ASCO Breast Cancer Symposium, San Francisco, CA, USA, September 7-8,
`(Abstr 192).
`ter |, Hegg R, Singer CF et al. Fulvestrant 500 mg vs 250 mg; first results from
`EWEST, a randomized, phase II neoadjuvanttrial in postmenopausal women
`ith locally advanced, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. Breast Cancer
`‘es Treat 2007; 106: (Suppl 1): S7 (Abstr 23}.
`mon R, Wittes RE, Ellenberg SS. Randomized phase |l clinical
`eat Rep 1985; 69: 1375-1381.
`Kuter |, Sapunar F, McCormack P. Pharmacokinetic profile of fulvestrant
`500 mg vs 250 mg: results from the NEWEST study. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26:
`(Abstr 579).
`Cormack P, Sapunar F. Pharmacokinetic profile of the fulvestrant loading dose
`egimen in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive advanced
`breast cancer. Clin Breast Cancer 2008; 8: 347-351.
`Robertson JF, Erikstein B, Osborne KC et al. Pharmacokinetic profile of
`intramuscular fulvestrant in advanced breast cancer. Clin Pharmacokinet 2004:
`43: 529-528.
`Robertson JFR, Llombart A, Rolski J et al. Activity of fulvestrant 500 mg versus
`anastrozole 1 mg asfirst-line treatment for advanced breast cancer: results from
`he FIRST study. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: 4530-4535.
`Di Leo A, Jerusalem G, Petruzelka L et al. CONFIRM: a phaseIll, randomized,
`parallel-group trial comparing fulvestrant 250 mg vs fulvestrant 500mg in
`postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive advanced breast
`cancer. Breast Cancer Res 2009; 69: 491s (Abstr 25).
`
`Volume 21 | No. 12| December 2010
`
`doi:10.