`
`All Dekker journals are online
`eto lesMes(lt tarime wettt li od
`
`aliGer
`investigation
`
`cl5
`
`ABSTRACTS
`
`CHEMOTHERAPY FOUNDATION SYMPOSIUM XXI
`INNOVATIVE CANCER THERAPY FOR TOMORROW
`
`Presented on
`November 12-15, 2003
`New York, NY, USA
`
`EBLING LIBRARY
`UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN
`
`JUN 23 2004
`
`750 Highland Avenue
`Madison, W153705
`
`This Supplement Is Sponsored by an Unrestricted Educational Grant from
`
`Genentech
`BIOG@]@NCOLOGY
`
`MARCEL
`
`The Official Journal of The Chemotherapy Foundation and The Inter-American Society for Chemotherapy (IASC)
`
`Volume 22
`
`Supplement 1
`
`DEKKER
`
`2004
`IPR2018-01509
`Exhibit 2028, Page 1
`
`
`
`
`
`CANCER INVESTIGATION
`
`Aims and Scope. Cancer Investigation is designed to provide workers in both the basic andclinical sciences who need
`to keep informed about the currentstate of progress in the cancer field with the broad backgroundofreliable informa-
`tion necessary for effective decision making. In addition to presenting original papers of fundamental significance,it also
`publishes reviews, essays, specialized presentations of controversies, considerations of new technologies and their appli-
`cations to specific laboratory problems, discussionsof public issues, miniseries on major topics, and letters to the editor.
`Sponsorship. Cancer Investigation is the Official Journal of the Chemotherapy Foundation and the Inter-American
`Society for Chemotherapy (IASC), Cancer Section.
`
`Identification Statement. CancerInvestigation is published to the web asarticles become available. The print version
`of the journalis published six times a year in February, April, June, August, October, and December by Marcel Dekker,
`Inc., P.O. Box 5005, 185 Cimarron Road, Monticello, NY 12701-5185. Periodicals postage paid at Monticello, NY.
`POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Cancer Investigation, P-O. Box 5005, Monticello, NY 12701-5185.
`
`Subscription Price (2004). Institutional online access to content is governed byasite license. Please e-mail
`
`sitelicenses@dekker.com for more information. Print or online subscription price: $1,495.00 in US. Combination(print
`and online) subscription price: $1,690.00 in US. For print orders, add $34.00 for surface mail outside the US.Forair-
`mail to Canada, add $38.00; to Europe and South America, add $42.00; to Asia, add $54.00.
`
`For individual prices, please contact the marketing departmentat journals @dekker.com. Subscriptions must be prepaid
`by personal check or may be charged to your MasterCard, VISA, or American Express card. Please mail payment with
`your order to: Marcel Dekker Journals, P.O. Box 5017, Monticello, New York 12701-5176. Telephone: 800-228-1160;
`Fax: 845-796-1772; E-mail: jrnlorders @dekker.com.
`
`Printed in the U.S.A.
`
`Print.
`
`CODEN: CINVD7 22(Suppl. 1), 1-112 (2004)
`ISSN: 0735-7907
`
`Electronic.
`
`ISSN: 1532-4192
`
`Online Information. Tables of Contents, Abstracts, Editorial Board listing, Timed Previews, and Instructions to Authors
`regarding manuscript preparation and submission for this publication may be accessedfree of charge at www.dekker.com/
`servlet/product/productid/CNV.
`CD-ROM.This journal is also available on CD-ROM through ADONIS™beginning with the 1991 volume year through
`the year 2000 inclusive. For information contact: ADONIS, Marketing Services, P.O. Box 17005, 1001 JA Amsterdam,
`The Netherlands, Telephone: +3 1-20-626-2629; Fax: +31-20-626-1437; Website: www.adonis.nl
`
`Microfilm. The journals of Marcel Dekker, Inc., are available in microform from: Bell & Howell Information and
`Learning, 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106-1346, Telephone: 800-521-0600; Fax: (313) 761-1203;
`Website: www.umi.com
`
`Photocopying. Authorization to photocopyitemsfor internal or personal use, or the internal or personaluse of specific clients,
`is granted by Marcel Dekker, Inc., for users registered with the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC)Transactional Reporting
`Service, provided that all necessary fees are paid through their website: www.copyright.com. For those organizations that
`have been granteda photocopylicense by CCC,a separate system of payment has been arranged. For quantities of 25 or more,
`professionally printed and boundreprints of any Dekkerarticle can be ordered at www.dekker.com.
`
`Indexing and Abstracting Services. Articles published in Cancer Investigation are selectively indexedor abstracted in:
`
`Adis International = BioSciences Information Service of Biological Abstracts (BIOSIS) = Chemical Abstracts =
`Current Contents/Clinical Medicine # Current Contents/Life Sciences s EMBASE/Excerpta Medica ™ Environment
`Abstracts m Health & Safety Science Abstracts m Index Medicus/MEDLINE @ INIST-Pascal/CNRS @ Leeds
`Medical Information =» PubSCIENCE # Oncogenes and Growth Factors Abstracts ™ Referativnyi Zhurnal/Russian
`Academy of Sciences = Reference Update m Research Alert m Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE)
`
`Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. v. Celgene Corp.
`IPR2018-01509
`Exhibit 2028, Page 2
`
`
`
`CANCERINVESTIGATION
`
`Manuscript Preparation and Submission. Go to www.dekker.com.
`
`Disclaimer. The materialin this publication is for general information only andis not intended to providespecific advice
`or recommendationsfor any individual. This publication is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged
`in rendering professional services. In such a case where medicalor other professional advice is needed, you should con-
`sult the appropriate health care or other professional for advice with regard to your individual situation. The publisher
`disclaimsall liability in connection with the use of information contained in this publication.
`
`Contributions to this journal are published free of charge.
`
`Copyright © 2004 by Marcel Dekker, Inc, All rights’ reserved. Neither this work nor any part may be reproduced or
`transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, microfilming and recording, or by any information
`storage and retrieval systems without permission in writing from the publisher.
`
`The appearance of any advertisement in Cancer Investigation does not constitute any endorsementby the publisher of
`the goodsor services advertised, or of claims made by the advertiser.
`
`www.dekker.com
`
`t
`
`Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. v. Celgene Corp.
`IPR2018-01509
`Exhibit 2028, Page 3
`
`
`
`Abstracts
`
`15
`
`10. Timmerman, J.M.; Czerwinski, D.; Taidi, B., etal.
`A phase I/II trial to evaluate the immunogenicity
`of recombinant idiotype protein vaccines for the
`treatment of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL).
`Blood 2000, 96, 578a.
`11. Osterroth, F.; Garbe, A.; Fisch, P.; Veelken, H.
`Stimulation of cytotoxic T cells against idiotype
`immunoglobulin of malignant
`lymphoma with
`protein-pulsed or
`idiotype-transduced dendritic
`cells. Blood 2000, 95, 1342-1349.
`12, McCormick, A.A.; Kumagai, M.H.; Hanley, K.,
`et al. Rapid production of specific vaccines for
`lymphoma by expression of the tumor-derived
`single-chain Fv epitopes in tobacco plants. Proc.
`Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 1999, 96, 703-708.
`13. King, C.A.; Spellerberg, M.B.; Zhu, D., et al. DNA
`vaccines with single-chain Fv fused to fragment C
`of tetanus toxin induce protective immunity
`against
`lymphoma and myeloma. Nat. Med.
`1998, 4, 1281-1286.
`
`9. ERYTHROPOIETIC REMITTING
`ACTIVITY OF THE IMMUNOMODULATORY
`THALIDOMIDE ANALOG CC5013
`(REVIMID™ ) IN PATIENTS WITH
`MYELODYSPLASTIC SYNDROME
`(MDS): RESULTS OF A PHASEI/II TRIAL
`
`Alan List, Sandy Kurtin, Betty Gibson, William Bel-
`lamy, Dorothy Waddelton, and Robert Knight The
`Arizona Cancer Center and the University of Arizona
`College of Medicine, Tucson, Arizona 85724; and
`Celgene Inc, Warren, New Jersey 07059
`
`Thalidomide improves erythropoiesis in approxi-
`mately 20% of patients with MDS, butis limited by cu-
`mulative neurologicaltoxicity,'"?! CC5013 (Revimid™)
`is an immunomodulatory (IMiD) derivative which dis-
`plays 100-fold greater suppression of TNFa generation,
`and lacks the neurologic effects of the parent com-
`pound.'*4! The pharmacologic effects of CC5013 derive
`from its multiple relevant biological targets including its
`action as an inhibitor of cellular response to receptor-
`initiated trophic signals (e.g., insulin-like growth fac-
`tor-I, vascular endothelial growth factor [VEGF], cy-
`clooxygenase-2), and blockade of constitutive NF-KB
`transactivation.“ As a result, CC5013 suppresses the
`generation of inflammatory cytokines, alters cell adhe-
`sion while suppressing apoptosis inhibitory proteins
`
`(e.g., CFLIP, cIAP) and promoting sensitivity to death-
`receptor initiated programmed cell death. We have
`shown that CC5013 abrogates mitogenic response to
`VEGF in AML cells by inhibiting ligand-induced acti-
`vation of phosphotidylinosito]-3’ kinase/Akt signaling
`and down-regulating VEGF genetranscription, and se-
`lectively promotes adhesion of MDS mononuclear and
`CD34* cells to bone marrow stroma while enhancing
`susceptibility to fas ligand induced cell death.! These
`findings indicate that CC5S013 selectively suppresses
`proliferation of MDS clones by inhibiting VEGF-in-
`duced autocrine signals, corresponding angiogenic re-
`sponse and restoring stromal cell adhesion.
`To evaluate the remitting potential of CC5013 in
`MDS,we performed a Phase VII trial in patients with
`red blood cell (RBC) transfusion-dependent (i.e., >4
`units/8 wks) or
`symptomatic anemia
`(hemoglobin
`{[Hgb]<9 g/dl) with neutropenia or thrombocytopenia
`less than NCI-CommonToxicity Criteria (CTC) defined
`grade 4. Patients received treatment with either 25 mg
`or 10 mg CC5013 in a continuous oral daily dosing
`schedule, or 10 mg/day x 21 days following by 1 week
`treatment hiatus (i.e.,
`‘Syncopated Schedule’). Drug
`tolerance was assessed at 4 week intervals and response
`was assessed according to the International Working
`Group (IWG)criteria after 16 weeks of study treatment.
`Forty-two patients have been registered for
`study
`treatment, and 25 are evaluable for response after
`completing 8 weeks or more of study treatment. Among
`non-evaluable patients, 10 are too early (i.e.,<8 weeks);
`5 discontinued treatment prematurely (<4 weeks) due to
`unrecognized autoimmune hemolytic anemia,
`[1] con-
`sent withdrawal [2] or myelosuppression [2]; and suc-
`cumbed to two infectious complications unrelated to
`study treatment. Median age is 74 years [range: 51-85}.
`FABtypes include RA [12], RARS [7], RAEB [5], and
`RAEB-t
`[1] with corresponding IPSS categories of
`Low/Intermediate (Int)-1, 21 patients;
`Int-2/High, 4
`patients. Eight patients (32%) failed prior treatment
`with thalidomide. Myelosuppression, characterized by
`>grade 3 NCI-CTC or 50% decrease in leukocyte and
`platelet counts [9 pts], or grade 3 fatigue [n=1] neces-
`sitated dose reduction in each of the ten subjects re-
`ceiving the 25 mg dose, compared to 9 of 13 patients
`receiving the continuous 10mg schedule. Interval
`to
`limiting myelosuppression was dose dependent, median
`number of weeks at 25 mg/d, 4+2 (range, 3-8); versus
`10 mg/d, 13+6 weeks (range 2-20). Grade 1 or 2 ad-
`verse effects were uncommon and limited to transient
`scalp pruritus [8 patients] or urticaria [2 patients], di-
`arrhea [6 patients], joint pain [4 patients], hypothyroid
`[1 patient], andfatigue [2 patients]. Sixteen (64%) of
`
`Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. v. Celgene Corp.
`IPR2018-01509
`Exhibit 2028, Page 4
`
`
`
`16
`
`Abstracts
`
`25 evaluable patients experienced an IWG-defined
`erythroid response,
`including major
`responses
`(i.e.,
`transfusion-independence or >2 g Hgb increase) in 12
`patients, and >50% decrease in RBC transfusions in 4
`patients. Response rate was greater in patients with RA
`or RARS(14/19, 75%), Low/Int-1 IPSS risk score (15/
`21, 71%), and 5q31—33 interstitial chromosomedeletion
`(8/8). Among 13 patients with an abnormal karyotype, 9
`(69%) experienced a major cytogenetic response,
`in-
`cluding restoration of a normal karyotype in 8 patients.
`Responses were associated with normalization of blast
`percentage in 2/6 patients (33%), reduced grade of bone
`marrow (BM) cytologic dysplasia, and 50% to >40-fold
`improvement in BM CFU-GEMM and BFU-E forma-
`tion. Bone marrow (BM)apoptotic index increased 2.5
`to 5-fold and microvessel density (MVD) and BM
`plasma VEGFdecreased in responding patients, whereas
`MVD increased in non-responders. The preliminary
`results of this study indicate that CC5013 has remark-
`able erythropoietic and cytogenetic remitting activity in
`patients with Low/Int-1 risk MDS. The increase in ap-
`optotic index, restoration of colony-forming capacity,
`and suppression of clonal karyotypic abnormalities
`suggest that CC5013 promotes extinction of sensitive
`myelodysplastic clones. Myelosuppression is common
`and directly related to dose and cumulative drug expo-
`sure. Two multicenter phase II studies are underway to
`define the erythroid response rate in patients with the
`5q-syndrome or non-5q- Low/Int-1 MDS.
`
`REFERENCES
`
`1. Raza, A.; Meyer, P.; Dutt, D., et al. Thalidomide
`produces transfusion independence in long-stand-
`ing refractory anemias of patients with myelodys-
`plastic syndromes. Blood 2001, 98, 958—965.
`2. Zorat, F.; Shetty, V.; Dutt, D., et al. The clinical
`and biological effects of thalidomide in patients
`with myelodysplastic syndrome. Br. J. Haematol.
`2001, 175, 881-894.
`3. Corral, L.G.; Haslett, P.A.; Muller, G.W., et al.
`Differential cytokine modulation and T cell
`activation by two distinct classes of thalidomide
`analoguesthat are potent inhibitors of TNF alpha.
`J. Immunol. 1999, 763, 380-386.
`4. Davies, F.E.; Raje, N.; Hideshima, T., et al.
`Thalidomide and immunomodulatory derivatives
`augmentnatural killer cell cytotoxicity in multiple
`myeloma. Blood 2001, 98, 210-216.
`5. List, A.F,; Tate, W.; Glinsmann-Gibson,B.J., et al.
`The immunomodulatory thalidomide analog,
`CC5013,
`inhibits trophic response to VEGF in
`
`AMLcells by abolishing cytokine-induced PI3-
`kinase/Akt activation. Blood 2002, /00 (Suppl. 1),
`139a.
`
`10. FUTURE DIRECTIONSIN THE
`TREATMENT OF TRANSFUSIONAL
`IRON OVERLOAD IN MYELODYPLASTIC
`SYNDROMES: FOCUS ON ICL670
`
`‘Division of
`Jason Gotlib’ and Peter L. Greenberg’
`Hematology, Stanford University School of Medicine,
`Stanford, California 94305; "Palo Alto VeteransAffairs
`Health Care System, Palo Alto, California 94304
`
`Approximately 80% of myelodysplastic syndromes
`(MDS) patients develop anemia, and many develop
`iron overload from chronic red blood cell
`(RBC)
`transfusion dependence. Evidence-based recommenda-
`tions for iron chelation in MDS are limited and are
`primarily derived from uncontrolled studies of patients
`with other forms of acquired anemia and transfusional
`iron overload. The advanced age of the MDS popula-
`tion, limitations on survival due to disease evolution or
`co-morbidities, and the presence of organ damage re-
`lated to secondary hemochromatosis weigh heavily in
`the decision by both doctors and patients to initiate
`chelation. In MDS patients, desferrioxamine (DFO) can
`reduce iron body stores as measured by serum ferritin
`or MRI-imaging of liver iron concentration, and may
`improve cytopenias in selected patients with prolonged
`treatment.” However, subcutaneous continuous infu-
`sion of the drug using a portable pump is demanding
`and may adversely impact compliance and long-term
`efficacy. One study of 11 patients showed that twice
`daily subcutaneous bolus injection of DFO elicited
`levels of urinary iron excretion that were not statisti-
`cally different from a subcutaneous infusion of 2 grams
`over 12 hours.) In an extension phase ofthis study, 9
`MDSpatients with ongoing RBC transfusion require-
`ments exhibited declining serum ferritin levels over 20
`months of follow-up.”! Although bolus DFO may be
`an option for poorly compliant individuals with MDS,
`more data are needed to evaluate efficacy in this group.
`The oral iron chelator deferiprone (L1), approved for
`use in Europe,is generally recommendedinthe setting of
`clinical trials for patients with intolerance or an unsa-
`tisfactory response to DFO."! Potential adverse effects
`of L1 therapy include nausea/vomiting, fluctuating liver
`enzymes, arthralgias, agranulocytosis, and zinc defi-
`ciency. L1 was evaluated in a subset of patients with
`
`Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. v. Celgene Corp.
`IPR2018-01509
`Exhibit 2028, Page 5
`
`