Report
`
`Toremifene and tamoxifen in advanced breast cancer ~ a double-blind cross-
`overtrial
`
`Lars E. Stenbygaard,’ Jorn Herrstedt,’ Jane F. Thomsen,” Karsten R. Svendsen,' Svend Aa. Engelholm' and
`Per Dombernowsky'
`' Department of Oncology, Herlev Hospital, University of Copenhagen DK-2730, Herlev, Denmark;
`? Department of Internal Medicine C, Bispebjerg Hospital, University of Copenhagen, DK-2400 Copenhagen,
`Denmark
`
`Key words: endocrine therapy, toremifene, tamoxifen,clinical cross-resistance, advanced breast cancer,
`antiestrogens
`
`Summary
`
`Toremifene (TOR)is a triphenylethylene derivative related to tamoxifen (TAM). TOR has antitumoractiv-
`ity, not dependenton estrogen receptors, and responses with TOR have been observed in patients with pro-
`gressive disease during TAM-treatment. To elucidate possible cross-resistance between these twoantiestro-
`gens, we comparedtheir anti-tumoractivity in a randomized, double-blind, cross-overstudy.
`66 postmenopausal women with advanced estrogen receptor positive or unknown breast cancer and a
`median age of 63 years (range 38-82) were included. Patients were randomized to TAM 40mg/day or TOR
`240me/day. Treatment continued until progressive disease, when cross-over to the alternative treatment was
`done. The responserate with first line TOR was 29% (95% confidence limits 10-41%) and with TAM 42%
`(95% confidencelimits 25-61% ). Response rates and response durations, survival andtoxicity were notsig-
`nificantly different between the two treatments. 44 patients progressing on first line TAM or TOR were
`evaluable for second line TOR or TAM treatment. As no responses were observed,the possibility of over-
`looking a response rate of 20% or moreis less than 1%.
`In conclusion,this study strongly indicates that TOR and TAMareclinically cross-resistant in patients with
`advancedbreast cancer.
`
`Introduction
`
`Toremifene (TOR) is a triphenylethylene deriva-
`tive related to tamoxifen (TAM). TORhas a high
`affinity for the estrogen receptor (ER) in breast
`cancertissue andis active against the MCF-7 breast
`cancercell line [1]. Furthermore, TOR inhibits the
`growth of rat mammary carcinomas induced bydi-
`methylbenzanthracene and causes regression of
`such tumors(2]. TOR appearsto haveless estrogen-
`
`ic effect than TAM at equivalent antiestrogenic
`doses[1]. In ER-negative murine uterine sarcomas,
`high doses of TOR (100 and 200mg/kg) had cyto-
`toxic activity, an effect not observed with high doses
`of TAM [2]. It has been proposedthat this is inde-
`pendent of ERs and mediatedby specific antiestro-
`gen bindingsites [2] or by stimulation of transform-
`ing growth factor beta-1 [3].
`In phase I studies, TOR has been well tolerated in
`doses up to 460m¢/day [1, 4]. In phase ITtrials in-
`
`Address for offprints: LE. Stenbygaard, Department of Oncology, University of Copenhagen DK-2730, Herlev, Denmark
`
`AstraZeneca Exhibit 2070 p. |
`InnoPharma Licensing LLC v. AstraZeneca AB IPR2017-00904
`Fresenius-Kabi USA LLC v. AstraZeneca AB IPR2017-01910
`
`

`

`58
`
`LE Stenbygaardetal.
`
`cluding previously untreated patients with ER-pos-
`itive advanced breast cancer, response rates be-
`tween 48 and 68% have been observed [5-8]. These
`results are comparable to those obtained with
`TAM.
`Anti-tumor activity of TOR has been described
`in patients previously treated with TAM. Ebbsetal.
`[3] treated 16 patients with locally advanced breast
`cancer who had progressed on TAM treatmentwith
`TOR200mgdaily. Partial responses were observed
`in 4 patients with a median duration of 10 months
`(range 4-11). In another small study, activity of
`TORwasalso observedafter progression on TAM-
`treatment [9].
`The dose of TAM hasbeen prospectively tested
`over a range of 2-100 mg/m’ bodysurfacearea twice
`daily. No clear benefit of using doses higher than
`20-40mg a day was shown[10]. As a few cases of
`remission have been reported after escalating the
`daily dose of TAM from 20 to 40 mg[11], we used the
`40mg daily dose. Based on the proposed different
`mechanisms of action, when TORis given in high
`doses compared with low doses, and on the unex-
`pected responses obtained with high-dose TOR in
`patients previously treated with TAM,wedesigned
`a double-blind crossover study to further elucidate
`whether TOR and TAMareclinically cross-resist-
`ant.
`
`Methods
`
`Patients
`
`Patient inclusion criteria were: histologically veri-
`fied inoperable primary, metastatic, or recurrent
`breast cancer, measurable or evaluable disease ac-
`cording to WHO criteria
`[12], ER-positive
`(>10fmol/mg protein) or unknown tumors,at least
`6 monthssince termination of any adjuvant endo-
`crine therapy, a performancestatus of <2 (WHO),
`and postmenopausalstage defined as: 1) more than
`one year since last menstruation or 2) surgical or
`radiation castration or 3) =55 years if a hysterecto-
`my had been performed. Patients previously treat-
`ed with TAM for advancedbreast canceror patients
`receiving corticosteroids were noteligible.
`
`Patients were randomized to TAM (40mgorally
`o.d.) or TOR (120mgorally b.i.d.). To ensure blind-
`ing of the trial, patients receiving TOR were given
`identical placebo tablets of TAM (andvice versa).
`Treatment was continued until progressive disease
`(PD) when patients were crossed overto thealter-
`native treatment.
`Clinical examination, tumor measurements, and
`blood tests (hemoglobin,
`leukocytes,
`thrombo-
`cytes,
`sodium, potassium, creatinine, calcium,
`LDH,alkaline phosphatase,bilirubin, albumin, and
`ASAT)were done before inclusion and then every
`4 weeks. Chest X-rays and X-ray and/or ultrasound
`of suspicious areas were performed before inclu-
`sion and then every 8 weeks or whenclinically in-
`dicated.
`
`Responsecriteria
`
`WHOresponse criteria were applied [12]. Com-
`plete response (CR) was defined as disappearance
`of all evidenceof disease for at least 4 weeks. In pa-
`tients with bone metastases, complete disappear-
`anceofall lesions on X-ray was required. The dura-
`tion of CR wasdefinedaslasting from the day CR
`wasfirstrecorded until the day of PD.
`Partial response (PR) was determined by 2 ob-
`servations notless than 4 weeks apart and required
`a decrease of 50% or more in total measured tumor
`size; additionally, no new lesions or increase of
`225%of any lesion should be observed. In case of
`bone metastases, decreasein size of lytic lesions or
`recalcification were considered PR. The duration of
`PR wasdefinedas lasting from the first day of treat-
`ment until PD. No change (NC) was only applied
`after at least 4 weeks (in case of bone metastases
`after at least 8 weeks) from start of treatment. PD
`was defined as appearance of any new lesion or an
`increase of >25%in any existing lesion.
`
`Estrogen receptor analysis
`
`Estrogen receptors were measured biochemically
`or on paraffin-embedded, formalin-fixed speci-
`mens as previously described [13, 14]. In the bio-
`
`
`AstraZeneca Exhibit 2070 p. 2
`
`
`
`

`

`Toremifene and tamoxifen in advanced breast cancer
`
`59
`
`chemicalanalysis, tumors were considered ER-pos-
`itive when at least 10fmol/mg cytosol protein were
`present.
`
`Results
`
`Ethics
`
`Statistics
`
`All tests were two-tailed with a significance level of
`5%. For comparison between groups, the Mann-
`Whitney U-test was applied. For overall toxicity,
`the Chi-square test was used. Survival distributions
`were estimated by the method of Kaplan and Meier
`and comparedbythe log ranktest [15].
`
`
`
`From September 1987 to March 1989, 66 patients
`were included. One patient was excluded due to ad-
`verse reactions and wasevaluable for toxicity only,
`one did not have histologically verified breast can-
`cer, one received irradiation of the only evaluable
`parameter, and one had previously received TAM
`The study was carried out in accordance with the
`for advanced breast cancer, leaving 62 patients eva-
`Helsinki IT Declaration and was approved by the
`luable for responseto first line treatment.
`Scientific Ethics Committee of Copenhagen Coun-
`Patient characteristics are shown in Table 1. Nine
`ty and by The Danish Medical Health Authorities.
`patients starting treatment with TORand1starting
`with TAM had liver metastases (p= 0.01). None of
`the other patient characteristics including perform-
`ance status showedanystatistically significant dif-
`ference (Mann-Whitney U-test, Chi-square test).
`Asof June 1992, the median observation period was
`19 months (range 1-56+).
`
`Responses
`
`The response rate with first line TOR was 29%
`
`Table J. Patient characteristics
`
`
`
`
` TOR(n= 31) TAM (n= 31)
`
`Age (years) median (range)
`
`ERpositive/unknown
`Prior treatment
`None
`Adjuvant TAM
`Adjuvant CMF
`Adjuvant CMF+ TAM
`Chemotherapy for advanced disease
`Site of metastases
`Soft tissue
`
`Lung
`Liver
`Bone
`Numberof metastatic sites
`1
`2
`23
`
`64
`(42-82)
`20/11
`
`61
`(38~75)
`22/9
`
`15
`8
`2
`3
`3
`
`14
`
`9
`15
`
`15
`11
`5
`
`14
`4
`4
`3
`6
`
`18
`
`7
`1
`13
`
`21
`7
`3
`
`Disease free interval (months)
`Median (range)
`
`33
`28
`(0-154)
`(0-264)
`
`
`C= cyclophosphamide, M= methotrexate, F = 5-fluorouracil, TAM= tamoxifen, TOR = toremifene.
`
`
`AstraZeneca Exhibit 2070 p. 3
`
`

`

`60
`
`LE Stenbygaardetal.
`
`Table 2. Responserate (%) in 62 patients receiving TAM or TOR
`for advanced breast cancer
`
`
`CR
`PR
`NC
`PD
`
`
`TOR(n= 31)
`TAM (n= 31)
`
`3
`16
`
`26
`26
`
`23
`26
`
`48
`32
`
`
`
`10 26 24Total (n= 62) 40
`
`weeks after start of treatment and 4 patients died
`after more than 8 weeksoffirst line treatment due
`to progressive disease. Five patients refused to com-
`plete the cross-over. Two patients are still being
`treated in the first period, leaving 44 patients who
`have completed the cross-over and are evaluable
`for response to secondline treatment. Of these pa-
`tients, 21 initially received TOR andcrossedoverto
`TAM=tamoxifen, TOR = toremifene.
`TAMand23 initially received TAM andcrossed to
`TOR.Patient characteristics are given in Table 3.
`Prognostic factors did not differ significantly be-
`tween the two groups. Seventeen patients receiving
`TORafter the cross-over (74%) and 11 receiving
`TAM (52%) were ER-positive (p= 0.24, Chi-square
`test) and three patients in each group hadliver me-
`tastases. Seven of the 44 patients died due to PD
`within 8 weeks after the cross-over. No responses
`were observed (Table4) in the 37 patients who com-
`pleted at lcast 8 weeks trcatment aftcr the cross-
`over. Twelve patients (27%) had NC with a median
`duration of 6 months (range 2~28(+)); 7 of these pa-
`tients received TOR, 5 received TAM.
`Figure 1 showssurvival curves for patients initial-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(95% confidence limits 10-41%) and with TAM
`42% (95% confidence limits 25-61% ). The median
`duration of CR was 18 months (range 4-56+) and
`for PR 11 months (range 3-26). The combined re-
`sponserates are shownin Table 2. Five patients are
`still on-study. Two patients treated with TAM as
`first line treatment continue in CR after 46+ and
`56+ months, respectively. Three patients with PD
`afterfirst linc treatment continuc in NC after cross-
`over to second line treatment, with the following
`durations of NC: TAM: 24+, 28+ and TOR: 28+
`months.
`Of the 62 evaluable patients, 7 died within 8
`
`Table 3. Patient characteristics among 44 patients after cross-over from TOR to TAM (orvice versa)
`Treatmentafter cross-over
`
`
`
`
` TOR (n= 23) TAM (n= 21)
`
`Age (years) median (range)
`
`ERpositive/unknown
`Prior treatment
`
`Adjuvant TAM
`Adjuvant CMF
`Adjuvant CMF+ TAM
`Chemotherapy for advanced disease
`TAM or TORasthe only previous treatment for advanced disease
`Site of metastases
`Soft tissue
`
`59
`(38-75)
`17/6
`
`4
`4
`2
`5
`9
`
`17
`
`66
`(43-82)
`11/10
`
`3
`1
`1
`1
`14
`
`iW
`
`Lung
`Liver
`Bone
`Numberof metastatic sites
`1
`2
`23
`Disease free interval (months)
`28
`34
`Median(range)
`
`(0-154) (0-180)
`
`3
`13
`
`9
`7
`5
`
`11
`3
`11
`
`11
`7
`5
`
`C= cyclophosphamide, M= methotrexate, F= 5-fluorouracil, TAM= tamoxifen, TOR = toremifene.
`
`AstraZeneca Exhibit 2070 p. 4
`
`

`

`Toremifene and tamoxifen in advanced breast cancer
`
`61
`
`ly treated with TAM and TOR,respectively. There
`wasno significant difference betweenthe twotreat-
`ment groups (p= 0.16).
`
`Toxicity
`
`Adverse reactions were few and generally mild.
`One patient receiving TOR was excluded due to
`nausea, vomiting, and headache. Overall, 8 patients
`treated with TOR and 5 with TAM asfirstline treat-
`ment reported one or more adverse reactions con-
`sisting of mild to moderate flushing, headache, or
`nausea. The toxicity was most pronounced during
`the first months of treatment. Noneof the patients
`reported adverse reactions when receiving TAM or
`TORas secondline treatment.
`
`Discussion
`
`This study wasdesignedto investigate possible non-
`cross resistance between TAM and TORin patients
`with advanced breast cancer. The combined re-
`sponse rate with first line TOR or TAM was 36%
`(95% confidence limits 21-46%) and is comparable
`to other studies with antiestrogens [5, 16]. However,
`due to the limited numberof patients included, the
`study was not designed to compare TOR and TAM
`as first line endocrine treatment for metastatic dis-
`ease.
`
`Whenthis study was planned, no blinded com-
`parative phase III trials with these two antiestro-
`gens had beeninitiated, and the previously report-
`ed response rates were therefore based on open
`trials [17]. In our blinded cross-over trial, no re-
`sponses were observed among 21 patients crossing
`
`Table 4. Responserate (%) in 44 patients receiving TOR or TAM
`as second line endocrine treatment for advanced breast cancer
`
`
`CR
`PR
`NC
`PD
`
`
`TOR (n= 23)
`TAM (n= 21)
`
`0
`0
`
`0
`0
`
`30
`24
`
`70
`76
`
`Probability of survival
`
`1 p=0.16, log-rank test
`
`0
`
`200
`
`400
`
`600
`
`800
`
`1000
`
`1200
`
`1400
`
`1600 Days
`
`Fig. 1. Survival curves (Kaplan-Meierplot) for 31 patients treat-
`ed with TAM and 3] patients treated with TOR asfirst line en-
`docrine therapy for advanced breast cancer (p= 0.16).
`
`from TOR to TAM, or among 23 crossing from
`TAM to TOR.This meansthat the possibility is less
`than 1% for overlooking a response rate of >20%
`with TAM or TOR assecondline endocrinetreat-
`ment for metastatic disease [18]. The fact that no
`responses were observed after cross-over from
`either of the twofirst line antiestrogens strongly in-
`dicates clinical cross-resistance between TOR and
`TAM.
`Amongthe 22 patients who responded to TOR or
`TAMasfirst line endocrine treatment for advanced
`disease, 15 crossed overto the alternative treatment
`after PD.In this selected group, no responses were
`observed with second line treatment, as 8 patients
`had NC and 7 PD. Our study wasinitiated based on
`the proposed different mechanism of action of
`TOR [2] and the promising results from the study
`by Ebbset al. [3]. Other studies have also demon-
`strated a low response rate with TOR, ranging from
`0-7%, in patients who 1) did not respond to tamoxi-
`fen treatment, or 2) had progressive disease after
`initial response on TAM,or 3) had progressive dis-
`ease during adjuvant TAM [15, 19-22]. On the other
`hand, response to TAM hasbeenreportedafter re-
`treatment with TAM following an observationperi-
`od without treatment [23]. This phenomenon could
`explain the few responses reported with TORafter
`PD following TAM treatment.
`The (non-significant) difference in the survival
`curvesafterfirst line treatment with TOR and TAM
`is probably dueto the fact that 9 of 10 patients with
`liver metastases, whom of which 5S died within a few
`weeks and 16 of 26 with 2 or more metastatic sites
`
`AstraZeneca Exhibit 2070 p. 5
`
`0 Q 27Total n= 44) 73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TAM= tamoxifen, TOR= toremifene.
`
`

`

`62
`
`LE Stenbygaardetal.
`
`(Table 1) were randomized tofirst line TORtreat-
`ment. Furthermore, more TOR-treated patients
`had been exposed to adjuvant TAM (11 vs. 7 pa-
`tients). In patients with advanced breast cancer and
`progression on TAM-treatment, response rates of
`5-10% have been obtained with megestrol acetate
`or aminoglutethimide [24, 25]. In patients with pre-
`vious response to TAM the responserate is from 30
`to 40% [24]. For secondline treatment, therefore,it
`seems reasonable to recommend oneof these other
`endocrine therapies[25].
`In conclusion, this study was not designedto in-
`vestigate differences in response rates of TAM and
`TOR asfirst line endocrine treatment for advanced
`disease, but rather to examine the potentialclinical
`non-cross-resistance between TAM and TOR. Our
`cross-over data strongly indicate clinical cross-re-
`sistance between the two drugs. Second-line treat-
`ment with TORafter treatment with TAM (orvice
`versa) in patients with advanced breast canceris
`thus not meaningful.
`
`References
`
`1. Kallio S, Kangas L, Blanco G, Johansson R, Karjalainen A,
`Perili M, Piippo I, Sundquist H, Sédervall M, Toivola R: A
`new triphenylethylene compound, Fe-1157a. 1. Hormonal
`effects. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 17: 103-108, 1986
`2. Kangas L, Nieminen AL, Blanco G, Grénroos M, Kallio S,
`Karjalainen A, Perila M, Sédervall M, Toivola R: A newtri-
`phenylethylene compound,Fe-1157a. II. Antitumoreffects.
`Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 17: 109-113, 1986
`3. Ebbs SR, Roberts JV, Baum M: Alternative mechanism of
`action of ‘antiestrogens’ in breast cancer. Lancetii: 621, 1987
`4, Kivinen S, Maepaa J: Effect of toremifene on clinical, he-
`matological and hormonal parametersin different dose lev-
`els: phase I study. Proc 14th International Cancer Congress
`Budapest, 778 (A 2994), 1986
`5. Valavaara R, PyrhénenS, Heikkinen M, Rissanen P, Blanco
`G, Tholix E, Nordman E, Taskinen P, Holsti L, Hajba A:
`Toremifene, a new antiestrogenic compound,for treatment
`of advancedbreast cancer. Phase II] study. Eur J Cancer Clin
`Oncol 24: 785-790, 1988
`6. Modig H, Borgstrém S, Nilsson I, Westman G: PhaseII clin-
`ical study of Toremifene in patients with metastatic breast
`cancer. J Steroid Biochem 36: 235-236, 1990
`7. Gundersen S: Toremifene, a new antiestrogenic compound
`in the treatment of metastatic mammarycancer. A phase II
`study. J Steroid Biochem 36: 233-234, 1990
`8. Hietanen T, Baltina D, Johansson R, NumminenS, Hakala
`
`10.
`
`M1.
`
`12,
`
`13.
`
`T, Helle L, Valavaara R: High dose toremifene (240mgdai-
`ly) is effective as first line hormonal treatment in advanced
`breast cancer. An ongoing phase IJ multicenter Finnish-Lat-
`vian cooperative study. Breast Cancer Res Treat 16 (suppl 1):
`S$ 37-40, 1990
`. Pyrhénen S, Valavaara R, Hajba A: High dose toremifene
`therapy in tamoxifen failed patients with breast cancer.
`Breast Cancer Res Treat 14: 138 (A 21), 1989
`Tormey DC, Simon RM,Lippman ME,etal.: Evaluation of
`tamoxifen dose in advanced breast cancer. A progress re-
`port. Cancer Treat Rep 60: 1451-1459, 1976
`Manni A, Arafah BM: Tamoxifen-induced remission in
`breast cancer by escalating the dose to 40mg daily after pro-
`gression on 20mg daily. Cancer 48: 873-875, 1981
`WHOHandbook for Reporting Results of Cancer Treat-
`ment, WHO,Geneva,1979
`Andersen J, @rntoft TF, Poulsen HS: Immunohistochemical
`demonstration of estrogen receptors in formalin-fixed, par-
`affin-embedded human breast cancer tissue by use of a
`monoclonal antibody to ER. J Histochem Cytochem 36:
`1553-1560, 1988
`Thorpe SM, Poulsen HS, Pedersen KO, Rose C: Impact of
`standardization of estrogen and progesterone receptor as-
`says of breast cancer biopsies in Denmark. Eur J Cancer
`Clin Oncol 24: 1263-1269, 1988
`Peto R, Pike MC, Armitage P, Breslow NE, Cox DR, Ho-
`ward SV, Mantel N, McPherson K,Peto J, Smith PG: Design
`and analysis of randomized clinical trials requiring pro-
`longed observation of each patient. IH. Analysis and exam-
`ples. Br J Cancer 35: 1-39, 1977
`PyrhénenS, Valavaara R, Hajba A: High dose toremifene in
`advancedbreast cancerresistant to or relapsed with tamoxi-
`fen treatment. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 16: 396, 1990
`Pyrhénen S: Phase III studies of toremifene in metastatic
`breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 16 (Suppl): $4146,
`1990
`
`14.
`
`15.
`
`16.
`
`17.
`
`18.
`
`19.
`
`20.
`
`21.
`
`22.
`
`23.
`
`24.
`
`Mehta CR, Cain KC: Charts for the early stopping ofpilot
`studies. J Clin Oncol 2: 676-682, 1984
`Modig H,Borgstrém S, Nilsson I, Westman G: PhaseII clin-
`ical study of high-dose toremifenein patients with advanced
`breast cancer. J Steroid Biochem 36: 237-238, 1990
`Vogel CL, Green MR,Jones SE, Harry D, Shemano I: Phase
`II trial of toremifene, a new anti-estrogen,in patientsfailing
`tamoxifen. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 10: 72, 1991
`Jénsson PE, Malmberg M,Bergljung L, Ingvar C, Ericsson
`M, Ryden S,NilssonI, Terje IJ: Phase II study of high dose
`toremifene in advancedbreast cancer progressing duringta-
`moxifen treatment. Anticancer Res 11: 873-76, 1991
`Hamm JT, Tormey DC, Kohler PC, Haller D, Green M,She-
`manoI: Phase I study of toremifene in patients with ad-
`vanced cancer. J Clin Oncol 9: 2036-2041, 1991
`Fletcher WS: Endocrine manipulation in advanced breast
`cancer. Advances in Breast and Endocrine Surgery. Year
`Book Medical Publishers, Chicago, 1986, pp 193-204
`Muss HB, Wells HB, Paschold EH, Black WR, Cooper MR,
`Capizzi RL, Christian R, Cruz JM, Jackson DV, Powell BL,
`
`AstraZeneca Exhibit 2070 p. 6
`
`

`

`Toremifene and tamoxifen in advanced breast cancer
`
`63
`
`Richards JI K White DR, Zekan PJ, Spurr CL, Pope E, Case
`D, Morgan TM: Megestrol acetate versus tamoxifen in ad-
`vanced breast cancer: 5-year analysis. A phaseIII trial of the
`
`Piedmont Oncology Association. J Clin Oncol7: 1098-1106,
`1988
`25. Rose C, Mouridsen HT: Endocrine therapy of advanced
`breast cancer. Acta Oncol 27: 721-728, 1988
`
`AstraZeneca Exhibit 2070 p. 7
`
`