throbber
Thirty-Fifth
`Annual Meetingof the
`AmericanSociety of Clinical Oncology
`May15-18, 1999
`Atlanta, Georgia
`Program/Proceedings
`
`
`
`Copyright 1999 American Society of Clinical Oncology
`
`| BET g
`
`3
`
`f 203)
`
`(cid:43)(cid:82)(cid:86)(cid:83)(cid:76)(cid:85)(cid:68)(cid:3)(cid:89)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:42)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:75)
`Hospira v. Genentech
`(cid:44)(cid:51)(cid:53)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:26)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:27)(cid:19)(cid:24)(cid:3)
`IPR2017-00805
`(cid:42)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:75)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:22)(cid:20)
`Genentech Exhibit 2031
`
`1
`
`

`

`126a
`
`*479
`
`BREAST CANCER
`
`Sentinel Node Biopsy Using a Non-Blue Dye Technique: Results in 148 Patients
`with Melanoma and Breast Cancer. Thomas J. Miner, Craig D. Shriver, Mary
`E. Maniscaico-Theberge, Robert J. Christie. Oncology Service, Walter Reed
`Army Medical Center, Washington, D.C.
`Sentinel node biopsy (SLN) can identify the first-draining lymph node in
`melanoma and breast cancer. Duetoits tattooing effects, use of a blue dye
`technique mandates removal of injected tissues and precludes SLN in
`patients who present to the Surgical Oncologist having already had their
`WLE or jumpectomy. In addition, previous authors have suggested that
`wide local excision (WLE) prior to SLN disrupts the lymphatic system,
`thereby making the procedure problematic. We perform sentinel node
`biopsy using a non-blue dye technique, injecting clear unfiltered Tc-99m
`sulfur colloid alone in the perimeter of
`the tumor or prior biopsy.
`Lymphoscintigraphy and intra-operative gamma probe are used to identify
`the sentine! node. Between December 1995 and October 1998, 148
`patients entered into IRB-approved sentinel node protocols (melanoma
`n=91, breast cancer n=57). 67/148 patients (47%) had a prior melanoma
`site excision or breast lumpectomy: the sentinel node was localized in
`65/67 (97%), no difference vs. patients with biopsy alone (p=.73, NS,
`logistic regression). Per study protocol, breast cancer patients went on to
`have full axillary dissection at the same operation after sentinel node
`removal: the breast sentinel node negative and positive predictive values
`were 98% and 100% respectively. We conclude that this non-biue dye
`technique is accurate for identifying the sentinel node, and expands the
`application of SLN to include patients regardless of prior biopsy type.
`
`*481
`
`Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlied, Multicenter Study of 6% Miltefosine Sofu-
`tion, a Topical Chemotherapy for Cutaneous Metastases from Breast Cancer. R.
`Leonard, J. Hardy, G. Van Tienhoven, S. Houston, P. Simmonds, J. Mansi,
`C. Rowland, M. David, M.B. Mac Iltmurray, J. Barret, M. Moriarty, C.
`Vernon, P. Mac Leod. Western General Hospital, Edinburgh. Royal Marsden
`Hospital, London. Academisch Medisch Centrum, Amsterdam. Saint Tho-
`mas’ Hospital, London. Royal Hants Hospital, Southampton. Saint George's
`Hospital, London. Royal Devon Hospital, Devon. Laboratoire ASTA Medica,
`Mérignac. Lancaster Royal Infirmary, Lancaster. Royal Berkshire Hospital,
`Reading. Saint Luke's Hospital, Dublin. Hammersmith Hospital, London.
`Patients and Methods: Miltefosine belongs to a new therapeutic class of
`cytostatic agents whichare related to phospholipids. Cytotoxic activity was
`demonstrated on a wide range of turnors. Thesite of activity seemsto be the
`cell membrane. In a double-blind placebo-controlled, multicenter phase lil
`study, a total of 52 patients with inoperable progressive skin lesions from
`histologically or cytologically confirmed breast cancer, not manageable by
`radiotherapy or systemic treatment, with superficial or “flat” skin lesions
`(estimated depth of invasion < 1 cm) were randomized to receive either
`6% miltefosine solution (MIL), or placebo (PLA). The solution was applied
`at the dose of 2 drops/10 cm?, once daily during the first week and twice
`daily thereafter until treatment failure. Results: Treatment groups were well
`balanced for inclusion/exciusion criteria. In term of both intention to treat
`(ITT) and per protocol (PP) analysis, time to treatment failure (TTF), the
`primary parameterof this study, showed a significant superiority of MIL
`group compared to PLA group: Median TTF in MIL group is nearly three
`times longer than in PLA group (56 days compared to 21 days: p = 0.004).
`Rate of response for MIL was 42.1% (PP analysis) and 33.3% (ITT
`analysis) against 4.2% and 3.7% respectively for PLA (p = 0.006).
`Objective cutaneousreactions (erythema, skin dryness, desquamation) and
`subjective cutaneous reactions (burning, itching, local pain) were mainly
`seen in the MIL group with frequency ratessimilar than those observed with
`MIL in phase I} studies. Conclusion: MIL is confirmed as an effective
`palliative option for cutaneous metastases from breast cancer where no
`other treatment is appropriate. Skin reactions, when present, are well
`tolerated and rarely require treatment modifications.
`
`Proceedings of ASCO Volume 18 1999
`
`*480
`
`A Large PhaseI! Trial of Paclitaxel Administered as a Weekly One HourInfusion
`in Patients with Metastatic Breast Cancer. £.A. Perez, D.H. Irwin, R. Patel,
`C.L. Vogel, J. Kirshner. Mayo Clinic Jacksonville, Jacksonville, FL. Alta
`Bates Comprehensive Cancer Center, Berkeley, CA. Comprehensive Blood
`and Cancer Center, Bakersfield, CA. Columbia Cancer Research Network,
`Aventura, FL. Hematology/Oncology Associates, Syracuse, NY.
`Small phase1/I1 clinical trials have demonstrated the activity and tolerabil-
`ity profile of weekly paclitaxel for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer
`(MBC). With the goal of confirming these preliminary data, we designed a
`prospective phase II
`trial to determine the response rate,
`toxicity, and
`tolerability in a large cohort of patients (pts) with MBC. The study includes
`200 pts [receiving 1st, 2nd or 3rd line chemotherapy, prior or no prior
`taxanes, prior or no prior high dose chemotherapywith transplant (HD/stem
`cell)] encompassing the heterogeneity of MBC. Pts received 80 mg/m? of
`paclitaxel weekly as a one hour infusion along with dexamethasone 20mg,
`an H-2 antagonist and diphenhydramine 50mg IV 30 minutesprior to each
`dose. One cycle equaled 4 weeks. Response assessments were doneevery 3
`months and the FACT-Breast and FACT-Taxane questionnaires were com-
`pleted each month. 187 pts have been enrolled; 130 pts have been
`evaluated for response to date. Pt characteristics for the first 130 are: Mean
`age 59.4, ECOG performancestatus 0/1/2:52/60/18. The mean numberof
`
`cycles given has been 4.1 (range 1-14). Subsets of patients are defined as:
`HD/Stem cell Rx
`Prior taxane Rx
`Prior metastatic Rx
`
`YES
`
`NO
`
`YES
`
`NO
`
`NONE
`
`ONE
`
`Two
`
`
`N=14 N=116 N=45 N=85 N=23 N=73 N=34
`
`8 pts developed Gr 3/4 anemia and 22 experienced Gr 3/4 myelosuppression.
`There have been no Gr 3/4 infectious episodes. 58 pts experienced Gr 1/2
`peripheral neuropathy (PN). 10 pts who had Gr 3 PN (no episodes of Gr 4 were
`documented) were removed from study after receiving a mean of 4.3 cycles; 3 of
`these had not had recommended dose reduction after Gr 2 PN. 27 pts developed
`Gr 1/2 musculoskeletal events and 2 had Gr 3/4 musculoskeletal toxicity.
`Overall, the toxicities have been well tolerated by this pt population.To date, the
`mean delivered dose is 77.5 mg/m?/week. Best response to therapy was 6 CR,
`21 PR, 46 SD, 38 PD and 19 NE.Thisis a preliminary report for this ongoing
`study whichwill finish accrual in January 1999, Detailed response, toxicity and
`quality of life data for the 200 pt cohort, and all the subset groups will be
`available by May 1999.Grant support provided by Bristol-Myers Squibb.
`*482
`
`(T): Phase Il Study in HER2
`Weekly (W) Herceptin (H) + 1 Hour Taxol
`Overexpressing (H2+) and Non-Overexpressing (H2—) Metastatic Breast
`Cancer (MBC). M Fornier, AD Seidman, FJ Esteva, M Theodoulou, M
`Moynahan, V Currie, M Moasser, N Sklarin, T Gilewski, A Surbone, C
`Denton, D Bacotti, J Willey, A Bach, V Reuter, G Hortobagyi, L Norton, C
`Hudis. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, NY, NY. M.D. Anderson
`Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
`Successful translation of preclinical synergy (Baselga et al. Cancer Res
`58:2825-2831, 1998) to clinical benefit (Stamon et al. Proc ASCO °98)
`has been demonstrated for T (q 3 W) + H (W). Dose-dense W LhrT is active
`and well tolerated (Seidmanet al. J Clin Oncol 16:3353-3361, 1998). We
`treated 42 pts with MBC with W lhr T + H. After dexamethasone 10 mg.,
`diphenhydramine 50 mg., and cimetidine 300 mg, T 90 mg/m?is given
`over lhr., foliowed by H 2 mg/kg. over 30 min., all i.v. (H loading dose 4
`mg/kg over 90 min., week 1). Median (M) age: 50 yrs (33-67), M Karnofsky
`Performance Status 90% (70-100), M organ systems with MBC: 3 (1-5);
`86% of pts had visceral dominant disease. Pts had 0 (7%), 1 (71%), 2
`(17%), or 3 (5%) prior regimens: 17% prior (>1 yr) taxane, 79% prior
`anthracycline (A); 21% were A-refractory. 607 infusions have been given,
`M 16/pt (1-25). M delivered dose intensity to date is 82 mg/m2/wk
`(57-90). Peripheral neuropathy is the major dose-limiting toxicity (grade
`2:35%, grade 3:8%); grade 34 neutropenia: 10% of pts, with 2 episodes of
`febrile neutropenia (0.3% of infusions). Other grade 34 toxicity: Diarrhea
`(7%), onycholysis with infection (7%). Serial ventriculography shows no
`significant decline in LVEF at week 8 (n = 35) or 16 (n = 25). One cardiac
`event: A pt completing a cumulative A dose of 615 mg/m? 4 weeksprior to T
`+ H had transient CHF. 23/36 evaluable pts have responded (64%; 95% Cl
`42-76%), 3 with CR (skin + nodes, lung, liver). Responses among H2+
`pts: 20/28 (71%; 95% Cl 52-81%), H2— pts: 3/8 (37.5%; 95% Cl
`14-66%). WT + H is active and safe in MBC. Accrual continues to better
`characterize efficacy, particularly for H2— pts. H is integrated into CALGB
`9840, comparing W T(1h) + H to q 3W T(3h) + H. Support: Genentech.
`
`2
`
`

`

`*480
`
`A Large PhaseIl Trial of Paclitaxel Administered as a Weekly One Hour Infusion
`in Patients with Metastatic Breast Cancer. £.A. Perez, D.H. Irwin, R. Patei,
`C.L. Vogel, J. Kirshner. Mayo Clinic Jacksonville, Jacksonville, FL. Alta
`Bates Comprehensive Cancer Center, Berkeley, CA. Comprehensive Blood
`and Cancer Center, Bakersfield, CA. Columbia Cancer Research Network,
`Aventura, FL. Hematology/Oncology Associates, Syracuse, NY.
`Small phase I/II clinical trials have demonstrated the activity and tolerabil-
`ity profile of weekly paclitaxel for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer
`(MBC). With the goal of confirming these preliminary data, we designed a
`prospective phase I! trial to determine the response rate,
`toxicity, and
`tolerability in a large cohort of patients (pts) with MBC. The study includes
`200 pts [receiving Ist, 2nd or 3rd line chemotherapy, prior or no prior
`taxanes, prior or no prior high dose chemotherapy with transplant (HD/stem
`cell)] encompassing the heterogeneity of MBC. Pts received 80 mg/m? of
`paclitaxel weekly as a one hour infusion along with dexamethasone 20mg,
`an H-2 antagonist and diphenhydramine 50mg lV 30 minutes prior to each
`dose. One cycle equaled 4 weeks. Response assessments were done every 3
`months and the FACT-Breast and FACT-Taxane questionnaires were com-
`pleted each month. 187 pts have been enrolled; 130 pts have been
`evaluated for response to date. Pt characteristics for the first 130 are: Mean
`age 59.4, ECOG performance status 0/1/2:52/60/18. The mean numberof
`cycles given has been 4.1 (range 1-14). Subsets of patients are defined as:
`
`HD/Stem cell Rx
`
`Prior taxane Rx
`
`Prior metastatic Rx
`
`YES
`
`NO
`
`YES
`
`NO
`
`NONE
`
`ONE
`
`TWO
`
`N=14 N=116 N=45 N=85 N=23 N=73 N= 34
`
`8 pts developed Gr 3/4 anemia and 22 experienced Gr 3/4 myelosuppression.
`There have been no Gr 3/4 infectious episodes. 58 pts experienced Gr 1/2
`peripheral neuropathy (PN). 10 pts who had Gr 3 PN (no episodes of Gr 4 were
`documented) were removed from study after receiving a mean of 4.3 cycles; 3 of
`these had not had recommended dose reduction after Gr 2 PN. 27 pts developed
`Gr 1/2 musculoskeletal events and 2 had Gr 3/4 musculoskeletal
`toxicity.
`Overall, the toxicities have been well tolerated by this pt population. To date, the
`mean delivered dose is 77.5 mg/m*Aweek. Best response to therapy was 6 CR,
`21 PR, 46 SD, 38 PD and 19 NE.Thisis a preliminary report for this ongoing
`study whichwill finish accrual in January 1999, Detailed response, toxicity and
`quality of life data for the 200 pt cohort, and all the subset groups will be
`available by May 1999. Grant support provided by Bristol-Myers Squibb.
`
`3
`
`

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