throbber
Combinations of two, three, or more
`Chemotherapeutic agents are occasion-
`ally employed based onpreclinical data
`suggesting improved antitumor activity
`(ic, additive or synergistic effects),
`many ofthese combinations are derived
`empirically, however. Although com-
`bination regimens may sometimes yield
`higher response proportions than sin-
`gie-agenttherapy, this can occur at the
`cost of greater toxicity, perhaps result-
`ing in an overall lower therapeutic in-
`dex.[4] This issue was specifically
`addressed by two studies presented at
`High-Dose Chemotherapy.
`the 34th annual meeting of the Amen-
`With Stem-Cell Support
`can Society of Clinical Oncology
`Regarding dose escalation, the po-
`(ASCO)in 1998.
`teatial role of high-dose chemotherapy
`with stern-cell rescue still awaits defi-
`The first suady, conducted by the
`Finnish Breast Cancer Group, random-
`nition. Although some authors have re-
`ported S-ycar disease-free survival
`ized 303 breast cancerpatients with dis-
`lant metastases to one of two regimens:
`proportions of approximatcly 20% ia
`(1) single-agent chemotherapy with epi-
`selected patients treated with such regi-
`means,[9,10] to date there has been no
`rubicin (20 mg/m? weekly until disease
`progression or a cumulative dose of
`Teast canceris Lhe most frequent
`demonstration of clear supenonty of
`ly diagnosed cancer in Ameri-
`high-dose consolidation over other strat-
`1,000 mg/m"), followed by mitomycin
`can women, and the second most
`(8 mg/m? every 4 weeks) as second-line
`egies in the management of stage 1V
`breast cancer.
`Recent trials comparing single-agent vs combination therapy in meta-
`cammoa cause ofcancer death.{1] Over
`therapy; or (2) the CEF polychemother-
`static breast cancer suggest that it may be time to reconsider the beliefthat
`the past several decades, there has been
`Most studies of high-dose chemo-
`apy regimen, consisting of cyclophos-
`combination chemotherapy is the goldstandardoftreatment. Based on the
`phamide (500 mg/m), epirubicin (60
`a faitly steady increasein the incidence
`therapy have been uncontrolled phase |
`ofthe disease. Epidemiologic dasa from
`and II trials, often accompanied by the
`mg/m"), and fluorouracil (500 mg/m?)
`limited randomized trial data available to date, high-dose chemotherapy
`every 3 weeks, followed by mitomycin
`ihe United States analyzed between
`irresistible, but problematic and unfor-
`with stem-cell rescue should not be viewed as “state-of-the art” treatment
`1988 and 1990indicate that the lifetime
`tunate, comparisons with historicat con-
`(8 mg/m’) and vinblastine (6 mg/m’)
`for metastatic disease and should be used only in the context of clinical
`trols. Moreover, the inherent bias of
`tisk of developing breast cancer is
`every 4 weeks. Although responses to
`trials, Recent trials have explored the optimal dosing and scheduling of
`Patient selection for these trials has also
`CEFtended to last modestly longer than
`12.2%, or, stated in another way, one in
`the taxanes, as well as the possible role of these agents in combination
`vesponses to epirubicin alone (median
`cight women will developthe disease at
`been an issue. The first reported ran-
`regimens. Capecitabine (Xeloda), a new oralfluoropyrimidine, appears to
`domized trial of standard chemothera-
`duration, 12 vs 10.5 months; P = .07),
`Somcpoint during her life.{2}
`be comparable in efficacy to CMF (cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and
`
`IsMoreBetter?
`Although approximately 80% of
`no significam difference in time to pro-
`py vs high-dose chemotherapy with
`Sluorouracil), and preclinical data suggest possible synergy between this
`gression (P =.28) or overall survival (P
`breast cancer palicnis present with dis-
`either autologous bone marrow or pe-
`cease limited to the breast and/or axil-
`= .65) was found betweenthe two arms.
`agent and the taxanes. Other promising agents under study include lipo-
`ripheral blood stem-cell support, con-
`Moreover, no difference in survival
`Sonve-encopsulateddoxorubicin (TLCD-99), animmunoconfugate linking
`lary tymph nodes, almost half of these
`ducted by Bezwoda et al, showed that
`patients later develop metastatic dis-
`was seen when only the patients who
`a chimeric human/mouse monoclonalantibody to doxorubicin molecules;
`high-dose therapysignificantly extend-
`received both the first- and second-line
`ease and eventually succumbto it, Met-
`MTA (LY231514), a multitargeted antifolate; and marimistat, a broad-
`ed the durations of response and
`ueatments were compared (P = .96), or
`survival.{11] However, the median fol-
`astatic breast cancer represents a
`Spectrum matrix metalloproteinase inhibitor. Tamoxifen (Nolvadex) re-
`when survival was calculated from
`historically incurable condition despite
`low-up was only 72 wecks, the study
`mains the most important hormonal agent, but new antiestrogens and
`was small, and the standard-dose che-
`the judicious use of various hormonal
`the beginning of second-line therapy
`selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) mayprovide alternatives.
`manipulations, as well as surgical and
`(P = 56). Single-agent therapy was also
`motherapy arm has been criticized for
`Thepotentialroleofnewaromatase inhibitorsosfirst-line hormonalagents
`radiotherapeutic interventions, and the
`associated with less toxicity and better
`being suboptimal.
`requiresfurther study. Finally, the possible synergy between trastuzumab
`quality oflife.[5)
`application of active cytotoxic chemo-
`Atthe 1998 ASCO meeting, several
`(Herceptin), a recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody to the HER-
`presentations evaluated different trans-
`therapeutic agents for hormone-refrac-
`‘The second report, presented by the
`2/neu protein, andpaclitaxel (Taxol) is being studied in two clinical trials.
`tory disease. For most patients with
`Intemational Taxotere 304 Study Group,
`plant modalities, ie, single vs tandem
`
`Metastatic disease, treatment provides
`described the results of a phase I]
`high-dose chemotherapy, tandem vs tri-
`only temporary control of cancer
`study comparing single-ageat docetax-
`pie high-dose chemotherapy, and purg-
`¢l (Taxotere) therapy vs the combina-
`growth, Outside of experimental proto-
`ing oftumorcells from peripheral blood
`tion of mitomycin and vinblastine in
`cols, the goals of management, there-
`stem cells.(12,13] The exploratory na-
`patients with metastatic breast cancer
`Tore, arc to palliaie symptoms with as
`ture ofthese trials and preliminary re-
`little weatment-related toxicity as pos-
`whose disease had progressed fallow-
`sults underscore the need for large.
`
`prospective clinical
`trials to address
`ing an anthracycline-containing regi-
`‘One of two copies ofthis article for personal
`men. In this experience, single-agent
`these questions.
`of intercal use may be made at oo charge. Copies
`beyond that number require that 3 9¢ per page per
`capy fer be paid to the Copyright Clearance Cen-
`ter, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01970.
`Specify ISSN 0890-9091. For further infarma-
`Won, contact the CCC at 508-750-8400. Write
`publisher for bulk quantities.
`
`“intensified CEF” arm actually received
`“an 80% increase in dosc intensity com-
`pared to those in the standard CEF
`arm.[8] Quality oflife was also assessed,
`In the 15) randonuzed patients, no
`differcnces between the two arms were
`observed with respectto response rates
`or progression-free survival. However,
`the intensified regimen was associated
`with more toxicity. Grade 3 and 4 events
`were more frequent with intensified
`CEF than with the standard regimen
`(anemia, 18% vs 3%; leukopenia, 26%
`vs 6%; thrombocytopenia, 8% vs 2%:
`and mucositis, 13% vs 3%).
`
`docetaxel therapy proved more effec-
`tive than mitomycin plus vinblastine,
`not only with respect to response rate
`and time to treatmentfailure, but, most
`Bratifyingly, with regard 10 survival.
`Median survival duration was 11.4
`months in the docetaxel group vs 8.7
`months in the. mitomycin-vinblastine
`group (P = .0097).[6}
`In this context,
`the experience of
`Sledge and colleagues, reported at the
`1997 ASCO meeting, should be con-
`sidered(7) In that study, Eastern Coop-
`erative Oncology Group Study (ECOG)
`1193, single-agent therapy with either
`doxorubicin or paclitaxel (Taxol) was
`compared with the combination ofdoa-
`orubicin and paclitaxel as first-line
`therapy in 739 patients with metastatic
`breast cancer. Patients recciving single-
`agent therapy were crossed overto the
`other agent at the time of disease pro-
`gression.
`Monotherapy with cither doxorubi-
`cin of paclitaxel had equivalent thera-
`peutic activity; the combination of the
`two drugs resulted in superior overall
`response rate and Lime to treatmentfail-
`ure. Despite this, combination therapy
`was not superior to sequential single-
`agenttherapy with regard to overall sur-
`vival and quality oflife.
`Taken together, these tials should
`prompt a reconsideration of the con-
`ventional wisdom that combination
`chemotherapy is the “gold standard”
`for the treatment of metastatic breast
`cancer.
`
`Uluimately, the treatmentof stage IV
`breast cancer often represents an attempt
`to reach an equilibrium between the pal-
`liation conferred by response to thera-
`py. on the one hand. and treat-
`ment-related toxicity, on the other.
`Thus, the issue of the value of dose
`intensification is of utmost importance,
`since increased doses are commonly as-
`sociated with greater toxicity.
`
`Dose-Intensified Regimens
`A uial of the Italian group Gruppo
`Oncologico Nord-Ouest (GONQ), re-
`ported at ASCO 1998 by Lionettoet al,
`is insiructive in this regard. This trial
`randomized patients to receive either
`standard doses of CEF orthe same reg-
`imen in an intensified manner with
`growth factor suppor; patients in the
`
`648
`
`ONCOLOGY = VOLUME 13 + NUMBER $
`
`
`
`
`Update on the
`|
`Managementof
`Advanced Breast Cancer
`
`MONICA FORNIER, MD
`PAMELA MUNSTER, MD
`ANDREW D. SEIDMAN, MD
`Breast Cancer Medicine Service
`Memoria! Sioan-Kettering
`Cancer Center
`New York, New York
`
`
`ABSTRACT
`
`
`
`sible and to extend the duration ofhigh-
`quality life.
`Metastatic breast cancer is moder-
`ately sensitive to chemotherapy, with
`25% to 40% of patients achieving a
`partial or, tess commonly, complete re-
`sponse to single-agent therapy; the du-
`vation of such responses averages 6
`months.(3] Historically, the most com-
`monly used cytotoxic agents in the man-
`agement of metastatic breast cancer
`
`have been cyclophosphamide (Cytox-
`an, Neosar), methotrexate, fluorouracil,
`doxorubicin, and, more recendy,
`the
`taxanes, When the discase progresses
`further, vinorelbine (Navelbine) and
`other vinca alkaloids, mitomycin
`(Mutamycin), mitoxantrone (Novan-
`trone), gemcitabine (Gemzar), etopo-
`side, and cisplatin (Platinol) represent
`some ofthe other frequently used cyto-
`toxic drugs.
`
`MAY1999 * ONCOLOGY
`
`647
`
`AstraZeneca Exhibit 2010 p. 1
`InnoPharma Licensing LLC v. AstraZeneca AB IPR2017-00904
`Fresenius-Kabi USA LLC v. AstraZeneca AB IPR2017-01910
`
`

`

`eR
`Table 3
`
`Randomized Trials of High-Dose Chemotherapy/Autoiogous Stem-Celi Rescue (HDC/ASCR)
`for Metastatic Breast Cancer
`Trial Number/
`Sponaor(s)
`P8T-O1 (Philadelphia
`Group, ECOG. SWOG,
`NCCTG}
`Duke University
`
`Control Arm
`CMFICAF x 4-6 4
`CMF x 2y7
`
`* AFM s 2-4-»
`Alrelapse: CEF
`CEFx4
`
`Sample She
`AccrusP
`$87(standard dosa)
`S16 (high dose)
`
`Target
`Completion Date
`Winter 1997
`.
`
`BO
`
`180
`
`Continue A (to dose Smit) 192
`or Tx (9 cycles)
`
`palicnt required hematopoietic growth
`factor support.
`A possible explanation for the noted
`uncoupling of drug delivery from my-
`elotoxicity in weekly | -hour paclitaxel
`maybe found in the pharmacodynamic
`observation that, with this schedule,
`plasma paclitaxel concentrations remain
`above 0.) pmol/L. for a relatively brief
`period after a dose of 100 mg/m?deliv.
`ered over} hour. Huizing et al have,in
`fact, previously reported thatto achieve
`an 80% decline from baseline absolute
`neutrophil count, plasma paclitaxel con-
`centrauon would necd to remain above
`the threshold concentration of 0.1
`}moW/L for upproximately 20 hours.[26}
`This, considered together with the cy-
`clic kinetics of neutrophil matura-
`tion, may explain the relative lack of
`myelosuppression.
`
`|
`
`
`
` AST
`
`with metastatic breast cancer.{21}
`velopment. Whilethe clinical develop-
`Another randomizedclinical trial led
`ment of docetaxel has largely involved
`by M. D. Anderson Cancer Center de-
`asingle administration schedule (]-hour
`tected no significant difference in ob-
`infusion) and a naow dose range (60
`jective responses of survival with
`to 100 mgm’), the range of paclitaxel
`pactitaxel at either 140 mg/m? via a
`doses and schedules has been broader
`96-hour infusion or 250 mg/m? via a
`(varying from 80 to 250 mg/m’infused
`3-hour infusion—the maximally toler-
`over } hour weekly to 3-, 24-, or even
`ated doses at these schedules.{22]
`96-hour infusions every 3 weeks).
`Two other trials have addressed op-
`Paclitaxed
`timal paciitaach scheduling. The ran-
`domized Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS)
`© Optima! Dose and Schedule—Pre-
`O71 tial, in which women with meta-
`clinical data have suggested that
`the
`static breast cancer were treated with
`duration of paclitaxel exposure may be
`paclitaxel (175 mg/m’)infused overci-
`more important than dose for the cyio-
`ther 3 or 24 hours, allowing for intrapa-
`toxic activity of this drug. Depending
`ent dose escalation as tolerated, was
`an the duration of exposure, cellular
`AFM » 2-4 >
`conducted largely in Europe, Canada,
`cytotoxicity can be achieved at rela-
`HDG/ASCR: CBP
`and[srael. The two groups did not dif-
`tively low concentrations ofpaclitaxel,
`CEFx 4a +
`fer significantly with respect to response
`on the order of 0.01 pM_.[16,17} That
`rates (29% and 32%,respectively).{23)}
`HDGJASCA: CT
`duration of exposure can be an impor-
`Similar results were obtained by Na-
`tant element in the clinical activity of
`Avot Txx4—
`HOC/ASCR:
`¢@ Pactitaxel-Containing Combina-
`Uonal Surgical Adjuvant Breast and
`paclitaxel has also been demonstrated
`CMICb x 2
`Bowel Project (NSABP) wial B-26. In
`tion Regimens——Given the cavcats pre-
`by the activity of prolonged 96-hour
`continuous infusions in some patients
`this trial, response rates for paclitaxel
`viausly raised about combination
`
`
`iLENEEERIEIEEEEEEEeD
`with metastatic breast cancer soon after
`chemotherapy for metastatic breast can-
`(250 mg/m?) infused overeither 3 of 24
`Adapted trom Zujowshi J J Mat Cancer inst 90{3):200-209, 1998.
`their disease progressed during shorter
`hours were 40% and 56%,respectively,
`cer, at the 1998 ASCO meeting, Loesch
`A= Adriamycin; AFI « Adriamycin, ftuormuracil, methotrexate; CAF = Cyclophosphamide, Adnamycin,fuarouracit CBP = Cyclophosphamide, BCNU (car-
`infusions of the drug.[18,19) However,
`et al presented a phase {I study aimed at
`suggesting thal the more myclosuppres-
`mustine}, ciiptatin; CEF = Cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, fuorouracih CMF = Cyclophosphamide, methotraxate, Ruorouraci (CxinGb » Cyclophosphamide, m+
`sive 24-hour schedule does notresult in
`the administration of 96-hour continu-
`loxantrone, carboplatin: CT « Cyclophosphamide,thictapa; CTCb = Cyciophosphamida,thiotsps,,carboplatin; ECOG = Easiem Cooperative Oncotogy Group,
`determining the response rate anil safe-
`NCCTG = North Centra Cancer Treatmant Group; NCIC = Nationa! CancerInstinie of Canada; PBT = Philadetghia Transplant Group; PEGASE = Societe
`ous infusions of paclivaxel imposes a
`ty of a combination of paclitaxel (80
`a significant improvement in outcome
`Francaise De Gratte Ou Moelle, Federation Mational Oo Lute Corie Le Cancer, SWOG = Souttrrest Oncology Group: Tx » Taxol
`certain inconvenience for both the clin-
`mg/m? infused over | hour), fluorou-
`in the palliative setting.(24] The inctu-
`“asof June 1, 1997
`racil (425 mg/m’), and teucavorin (20
`ic and patient.
`sion of patients with stage {IB disease
`Manyclinical wials have addressed
`partly explains the higher response pro-
`mg/m’) administered weekly as first-
`the issue of both the optimal dosing and
`portions in the NSABP B-26 wial,
`line therapy in patients with metastatic
`breast cancer.{27] Full doses could be
`scheduling of the taxanes (Table 2).
`as compared to the aforementioned
`. Studies.
`administered in the fourth week to only
`With regard to dosing, the results of a
`randomized trial of paclitaxel doses of
`63% of patients, primarily due to diar-
`« Weekly Administration—Another
`rhea and neutropenia; a “3 week on,|
`135 vs 175 mg/m?on a 3-hourschedule
`method to provide extended curnula-
`week off" regimen subsequently over-
`in pretreated women with metastatic
`live drug exposure is frequent repeti-
`came this problem.
`breast cancer revealed no majordiffer-
`ences in response rates (22% and 29%,
`live drug administration, such as by a
`Thirtypatients were evaluated: The
`weekly schedule. Weekly dosing of
`overall response rate was 47%, with
`respectively) or median survival dura-
`10% compleie remissions and 37% par-
`Gens (10.5 and 11.7 months, respec-
`pactitaxel via a t-bour infusion has been
`demonsuated to be a welj-tolerated, fea-
`lial remissions. This activity is compa~
`tively). Progression-free survival was
`sible administration schedule.(25].
`table to other regimens in simitar
`slighly longer with the | 75-mg/m? dose
`patients.
`Weekly administration of paclitaxel is
`thanwith the lower dose (4.2 vs 3
`both dase-intense and dose-dense but
`months; P = .02), however{20}
`.
`Another abstract presented al ASCO
`1998 reported on the resulis of a ran-
`also has a favorable toxicity profite and
`in the Cancer and Leukemia Group
`domized trial comparing paclitaxel plus
`a remarkable degree of activity in pa-
`B (CALGB)trial 9342 reported at the
`ents with metasiatic breast cancer.
`losoxantrone, an anthrapycazole in
`1998 ASCO mecting, 450 patients were
`randomized to receive 175-, 210-, or
`clinical development, with structural
`In our experience at Memonial Sloan-
`similarities to both doxorubicin and mi-
`Kettering Cancer Center,the overall re-
`250-mg/m? doscs of paclitaxct on a
`toxantrone, vs paclitaxel alone.{28] In
`3-hour schedule. The three groups did
`MODACG
`sponse rate to a weekly administratian
`schedule was 53% (95% confidence in-
`.
`148 patients. a response rate of 54%
`not differ with respect to response rates
`was nated with the combination vs 15%
`terval [Cl], 34% to 72%), which com-
`of survival, but the higher doses were
`Docetaxel
`The taxanes,ic, paclitaxel and doce-
`with paclitaxe] alone (P < CQL}. Pro-
`pares favorably with the activity noted
`associated with greater toxicity, partic-
`taxel, are a relatively new addition to
`NA
`NA
`th
`100 mon?
`APR
`for 3-, 24-, and 96-hour regimens. In
`gression-free survival was significantly
`ularly peripheral neuropathy (26% rate
`the chemotherapeutic arsenal against
`75 mgfr
`contrast to these other regimens how-
`supenor with the combinalion regimen
`breast cancer. Their mechanism ofac-
`of grade 3 events). These data provided
`
`Lenene
`as well.
`litte compelling evidence to support
`ever, myclosuppression was insignifi-
`tua involves the formation of polymer-
`Toxicity was also higher with pacli-
`paclitaxel 3-hour infusion dosing of
`ized microtubulesandtheir stabilization
`BMS » Bristol-Myers Squibb; CALGB = Cancer and Leukemia Group 8; MDACC = 1. D. Anderson
`cant with weekly paclitaxcl, no febrile
`Cancer: Center, NA » Not applicable; NS = Nod rignificant; NSABP x National Adanert Surgical Breast
`taxel plus losoxantrone, however. Pa-
`greater than 175 mg/m?
`in women
`neutropenia was cncountered, and ao
`and Bowe! Project; RPA = Rhéne-Povienc Rorar
`against the forces that tead to depoly-
`merization. Proapoptouc effecis, as well
`as antiangiogenic actions, may also be
`clinically relevant.(14,15}
`The determination of optimal dos-
`ing and scheduling of taxancs has been
`an important objective during their de-
`
`HOC/ASCR Arm
`CMFICAF x 4-63
`HDG/ASCR: CTCb
`
`PEGASE
`
`NCIC
`
`.
`
`Onthe basis ofthe limited data avail-
`able to date frorn randomized, prospec-
`tive trials, high-dose chemotherapy
`cannotyet be considered “state-of-the-
`: ant”treatment for advanced breast can-
`cerand shouldbe offered only to patients
`in the setting ofclinical trials. The final
`results of such large prospective inals
`are eagerly awaited (Table 1).
`If multiagent chemotherapy and dose
`escalation prove to be suboptimal in
`conferring a consisient survival advan-
`tage in metastatic breast cancer, other
`strategies must be pursued. These in-
`clude the developmentof neweractive
`drugs, or the exploration of diffcrent
`aliematives, for example, biotogical
`therapies.
`
`Beyon
`
`Tabla 2
`Randomized Trials of Singie-Agent Taxanesin Metastatic
`Breast Cancer: Dose and Administration Schedule
`Dase
`Administration
`Response
`(gin?)
`Schedule (h})
`Rate (%)
`
`Study
`Paclitaxel
`BMS 048
`
`QMS 471
`
`,
`
`175 mom? -
`135 mg/m?
`175+ mgm"
`
`NSABP 8-26
`
`250 mg/m
`
`CALGB 9342
`
`175 mine
`210 magi?
`250 mom?
`140 mg/m?
`250 mg/m?
`
`3h
`
`ah
`24n
`3h
`24h
`3h
`
`96h
`an
`
`.
`
`.
`
`2%
`22%
`2%
`32%
`40%
`Sn
`21%
`20%
`22%
`29%
`23%
`
`P¥aiue
`
`108"
`
`NS
`
`02
`
`4
`
`NS
`
`650
`
`ONCOLOGY + VOLUME 13 + NUMBER 5
`
`MAY1999 + ONCOLOGY
`
`649
`
`AstraZeneca Exhibit 2010 p. 2
`
`

`

`
`
`Figure 1: Chemica! Structure and Mechanism of Action of Capecitabine—
`5'-DFCR = 5'-Deoxy-5-fluorocytidine; 5°-DFUR = S’-Deoxy-5-fluorouridine;
`dTHdPase = Thymidine phosphorylase; 5-FU = Fluorouracil
`
`|°
`
`
`
`tients treated wit the combination reg-
`imen had a 66% incidence of grade 3-4
`neutropenia, vs a rate of 32% with
`paclitaxel alone, and twocases of con-
`gestive heart failure occurred with the
`combination, vs one case with paclitax-
`et alone. Analysis of survival awaits
`longer follow-up, but these data are cer-
`lainly. provocative, if not surprising in
`light of the ECOG 1193 results with
`paclitaxel plus doxorubicia.(7)
`Doretaxel
`Regarding docetaxel, Loeffler et al
`reported their experience with weekly
`infusions in stage [V breast cancer pa-
`tients.{29}] Doses were escalated in in-
`crements of 5 mg‘m’ from 30 to 45
`me/m? weekly 6 with a 2-week break.
`The overall response rate was 50%, with
`15% complete remissions and 35% par-
`tial remissions, 38% ofpatients had sta-
`ble disease, Moreover,three out offive
`patients with a history of prior paclitax-
`el therapy responded to docetaxel. These
`investigators observed that weekly doc-
`etaxel has activity in chemotherapy-pre-
`treated breast cancerthat is comparable
`to 100 mg/m? of docetaxel every 3
`weeks, but with apparently less prade
`3-4 leukopenia.
`Another ASCO presentation by
`SjéstrSm et al focused on a phase II
`trial that compared docctaxel (100 mg/
`m*) every 3 weeks to methotrexate (200
`mg/m*) plus fluorouracil (600 mg/m?
`on days I and 8) every 3 weeks (MF
`regimen)in 199 patients with anthracy-
`cline-resistant breast cancer.(30) The
`overall response rate (partial and com-
`plete). was 42% in the docetaxel arm
`and 19% in the MF arm (P < .001);
`median time to progression was 6
`months in the docetaxel group and 3
`months in the MF group (P = .006).
`- These results thus demonstrated the su-
`periority ofsingle-agent docetaxel over
`MF forpatients with anthracycline-re-
`sistant metastatic breast cancer.
`
`taxanes, was evaluated in five mouse
`2 weeks, followed by 1 week of sest,
`and CMF was administered intravenous-
`xenograft models of humanbreast car-
`cinoma cells.(34) While the combina-
`ly on day | every 21 to 28 days.
`A total of 95 women were random-
`tion of fluorouracil and taxanes
`ized. Response rates were 25%in the
`demonstrated only additive efficacy,
`capecitabine-treated patients and 16%
`treatment with capecitabine and the tax-
`in the CMFrecipients, and time to pro-
`anes showed synergy and produced tu-
`gression was 132 days with capecitab-
`mor regression in some xenograft
`models. In fact, the taxanes increased
`ine vs 94 days with CMF.
`Regardingtoxicity, grade 3-4 clini-
`the tumorlevels of thymidine phospho-
`tylase by four- to eightfold within 4 to
`cal adverse events were reported by 44%
`of patients receiving capecitabine and
`10 days following the sitigte adminis-
`tration; the treatment did not increase
`20% patients treated with CMF. The
`the mouse enzyme levels in normal tis-
`difference between the two groups was
`sues (intestine and liver), however. Since
`due primarily to hand-foot syndrome
`(16% vs 0%) and diarrhea (8% vs 3%).
`tumoral thymidine phosphorylase lev-
`On the other hand, grade 3-4 hemato-
`els correlate with in vivo susceptibility
`to capecitabine, it is possible that the
`logic toxicity occurred more frequent-
`taxanes may enhance the efficacy of
`ly with CMF (479%) than with cape-
`citabine (20%).
`capecitabine by upregulating the en-
`Overall, within the constraints im-
`zyme ia human cancer cells.
`posed by relatively small sample sizes,
`Rei
`ing
`Old D
`it appears that home-based monothera-
`py with capecitabine appears to have at
`The continued search for newer
`least comparable efficacy to CMF com-
`New, Multitargeted Antifolate
`bination therapy in this older patient
`agents for coatrolof disease andpallia-
`MTA (LY231514) is a new, mulu-
`population.
`tion of symptoms in metastatic breast
`targeted antifolate that inhibits thymidy-
`cancerhas also led to the manipulation
`in a multicenter trial pre~
`Finally,
`sented by O'Reilly et al, the activity of
`late synthase and other folate-dependent
`of the more conventional drugs so as to
`capecitabine was compared to that of
`enzymes, inxluding dihydrofolate reduc-
`achieve equivalent or possibly greater
`paclitaxel
`in patients with advanced
`lase and glycinamide ribonucleotide
`activity with decreased toxicity.
`formyltransierase. It has potent antiw-
`breast cancer whase disease had pro-
`Liposamal Doxorubicin
`gressed following prior anthracycline
`mor activity in vitro and in vivo and
`therapy.(33] In this study, two sched-
`produced responses in phase 1 urials.
`One promising agentin this respect
`A phase [I study that evaluated the
`ules of capecitabine were planned:
`is liposome-encapsulated doxorubicin
`(1) 2,510 mp/m/dfar14 days, followed
`activity of MTA in 38 patients’ with
`(TLC D-99). A phase [I cial reported
`at ASCO 1998evaluated its use vs con-
`by 1 week of rest; or (2) a continuous
`locally recurrent or metastatic breast
`ventional doxorubicin, both at a dose of
`hand-foot syndrome (10%) were the
`converted to fluorouraci) by thiee cn-
`daily schedule of 1,331 mg/m. (The
`cancer was presented at the 1998 ASCO
`only ueatment-related adverse events
`75 mg/m? every 3 weeks.[35} This trial
`continuous arm ofcapecitabine was dis-
`meeting[37] Of the 38 patients, $ were
`zymes tocated in the liver and within
`that occured with a grade 3 or 4 inten-
`tumors, with the final conversion step to
`continued, however, after two patients
`randomized 69 patients who were stral-
`chemotherapy-naive, 14 had received
`were enrolled.[personal communication,
`sity in 2 10% of patients. Alopecia did
`ified on the basis of prior expasure to
`fluorouracil catalyzed by thymidine phos-
`adjuvant chemotherapy,|b had received
`Dr. Fabio Benedetti, Roche, Inc.. Feb-
`not occur and myelosuppression was
`chemotherapy for metastatic disease,
`doxorubicin. During the tial, patients
`phorylase, which is found preferendally
`minimal; there was 00 Ueatment-felat-
`Tuary 1999]) Paclitaxel was adminis-
`in breast cancer cells as compared to sur-
`underwent serial ventriculography at
`and 5 patients had had both. MTA was
`cumulative doses of 300, 400, and 500
`ed mortatity.
`:
`tered at a dosage of 175 mg/m? on
`rounding normal host tissues (Figure 1).
`administered at a dosage of 600 mg/m?
`Given these data and the historical
`day | of each 3-week cycle.
`mep/m? and then every cycle thereafter.
`every 2] days.
`An abswact presented by Blum et al
`context ofthe use of continuous intra-
`at the 1998 ASCO meeting described a
`Responses were documented in 11
`Patients were removed from the study
`With 4) evaluable patients, the in-
`venous infusions of fluorouracil as a
`termitient schedule of capecitabine
`if teft-ventricular ejection fraction
`patients (31%), with ! complete and 10
`_ phase II trial of twice-daily aral capecit-
`yielded a 36% response rate, as com-
`salvage therapy for metastalic breast
`(LVEF) declined by 2 20% from the
`abine (2,510 mg/m¥d) given for 2
`panial remissions. Of the [1 patients
`cancer, capecitabine was approved by
`baseline value (if this value was > 50%)
`pared with a 21% rate with paclitaxel.
`weeks, followed by a l-week rest peri-
`who responded, 5 had received prior
`the FDAfor use in patients with pacli-
`or by 2 10% from baseline (if < 50%),
`Median time to progression was 92 days
`taxane or amhracycline therapy. Medi-
`od, and repeated in 3-week cycles,
`taxel-refractory metastatic breast can-
`on the intermittent capecitabine sched-
`an duration of response was 8+ months.
`orif congestive bean failure developed.
`among patients with paclitaxel-refrac-
`cer in the spring of 1998. In summary,
`ule and 95 days on paclitaxel. Grade 3-
`Response cates were 33% in the
`Overall, 135 cyctes of MTA were de-
`tory metastatic breast cancer[31] A ta-
`TLC D-99 arm and 29% in the doxoru-
`livered with 28 dose reductions and 26
`4 events were reported in 22% of
`capecitabine can be considered an ac-
`tal of 163 patients were enrolled by 24
`tive drugin the treaumentof paclitaxel-
`delays. Reasons for reductions includ-
`bicin arm. Congestive heart failure de-
`centers; patents had received at least
`Patients eated with capecitabine and
`58% given paclitaxel.
`refractory advanced breast cancer with
`veloped in three patients (4%) weated
`two but no more than three prior che-
`ed neutropenia (39%), mucositis (18%),
`with doxorubicin but in none of those
`a relatively favorable toxicity profile.
`and ansaminase elevation (23%).
`motherapeutic regimens, one of which
`s Cspecitabine in Combination
`given TLC D-99. Also, TLC D-99
`Grade 2-3 nonhematologictoxicities
`contained pactitaxel as ueatment for
`NewerAgents
`
`metastatic disease.
`« Capecitabine vs Other Agents—A
`inctuded mucositis (34%), nausca and
`Regimens—lIn a relevant preclinical
`generally produced less emesis, stoma-
`second abstract reported at ASCO 1998
`vomiting (39%), and wansaminaseele-
`Japanese study,the efficacy of capecit-
`The primary study end point was
`litis, fever, and infection, suggesting
`Capecitabine
`abine and fluorouracil in combination
`that it may as effective as free doxoru-
`vation (88%). Also, a grade 2 skin rash
`tumor response in patients with mea-
`presented the results of a randomized
`Considering newer drugs for advanced
`surable disease. The response rate was
`with other cytostatic agents, including
`bicin but perhaps safer.
`developed in 50% ofpatients, a grade 3
`breast cancer, one of the most interesting
`phase II tial of capecitabine vs cyclo-
`phasphamide, methotrexate, and flucrou-
`20%, median response duration was 8.1
`agents is capecitabine (Xeloda). Capecit-
`racil (CMF) as first-line chemotherapy
`months, and median survival was 12.8
`abine is a novel, oral, selectively tumor-
`for advanced breast cancer in women
`months. Moreover,
`in patients with
`activated fluoropyrimidine carbamatethat
`> 55 yearsold (median age in both groups,
`baseline pain > 20 mm on a visual ana-
`has shown promising activity in breast
`69 years)[32] Capecitabine was given
`log scale, 47% showed a significant im-
`and colon cancers during phase ! and Il
`orally at a dosage of 2,510 mg/m?/d for
`provementin pain. Diarrhea (14%) and
`cvaluations. This agent
`is sequentially
`
`A Novel Immunoconjugate
`Tolcher et al described a phase II
`randomized tial in which a novel im-
`munoconjugate linking a chimeric hu-
`Man/mouse monoclonal antibody to
`approximately cight doxorubicin mole-
`cules was compared to doxorubicin.{36]
`This antibody is directed against the
`Lewis’ anugen, which is expressed in
`75% ofall breast cancers but has limit-
`ed expression in normal
`tissues, has
`shown promising antitumor activity in
`preclinical xenograft models.
`A total of 25 patients with metastat-
`ic breast cancer entered this trial. There
`was one partial remission in the [4
`patients (7%) on the immunoconjugate
`arm, showing thatits Clinical activity is
`limited. Also, two patients in this arm
`developed grade 3-4 toxicity with hem-
`omhagic gastritis, possibly reflecting the
`fact that the Lewis’ antigen unfortunate-
`ly is also expressed on some gastrointes-
`Unal mucosal cells.
`
`652
`
`ONCOLOGY + VOLUME 13 + NUMBER 5
`
`MAY 1999 » ONCOLOGY
`
`651
`
`AstraZeneca Exhibit 2010 p. 3
`
`

`

`ducted in Europe. Anastrozole was ad-|© Summary—lIt appears that the new-
`SERMs have shown very exciting pre-
`clinical and clinical results. One SERM,
`ministered at doses of either | or 10|e¢ aromutase inhibitors are as effective
`rafoxifene (Evista), approved for the
`me. Responses were seen in 34% of the|as megestro] acclate and perhaps tamox-
`treatment of osteoporosis in posimenc-
`patients in the 1-mg group, 33.9% in|ifen and are well tolerated. Theis role as
`the LO-mg group, and 32.8% in the}first-tine hormonal therapy,eitheralone
`pausal women, has also dramatically
`reduced the incidence of new breast can-
`Megestro} acetate-group.(63}
`or in combination with agents that mad-
`advantages. However,
`the patients
`cers,(61] with relatively short follow-
`These findings were confirmed

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