throbber
Thirty-Fifth
`Annual Meeting of the
`American Society of Clinical Oncology
`May 15-18, 1999
`Atlanta, Georgia
`Program/Proceedings
`
`
`
`Copyright 1999 American Society of Clinical Oncology
`
`a BH 3
`
`(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)(cid:3)
`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:23)(cid:28)
`Genentech Exhibit 2049
`
`1
`
`

`

`Proceedings of ASCO Volume 18 1999
`
`BREAST CANCER
`
`135a
`
`515
`
`516
`
`A Promising Second Line Treatment with Weekly Taxol (T) in Anthracycline
`Recurrent, Advanced Breast Cancer (ABC) Patients (PTS). Mickiewicz E.,
`Alvarez A.M., Brosio C., Giglio R., Cinat G., Rodger J., Nicolas, C. instituto
`de Oncologia Angel H. Roffo, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Argentina.
`The expected responserate with taxanes as second line treatment has been
`reported to be around 22-42%. We have previously shown our experience
`with weekly T (ASCO 96, ASCO 98, EORTC-UICC 98), and taking into
`account the good response rates obtained, we decided to apply this
`schedule in heavily pretreated pts with ABC. Objective: Evaluation of
`response, response duration andtoxicity, in ABC pts receiving WT. Material
`and methods: Between July 95' and July 98’, 49 pts with ABC andat least
`one previous treatment with anthracyclines, were included. Median age: 47
`years (range: 32-74). Thirty six of the 49 pts had received prior treatment
`with T. Previous lines: 1: 15 pts (30.65%), 2: 21 pts (42.9%), 3: 12 pts
`(24.5%), and 4: 1 pt (2%). Disease extension included: 1 site only: 26 pts,
`2 sites: 19 pts and 3 sites: 4 pts. Fourteen pts had visceral metastases (4
`hepatic metastases). Treatment schedule: 39 pts received Taxol 100
`mg/m?/w for 24 weeks and 10 pts Taxol 80 mg/m?/w for 3 weeksof a 4 wk
`cycle for a total of 8 cycles. All of them were premedicated with: ranitidine
`150 mg + diphenhydramine 50 mg, without dexamethasone.
`Results: CR: 8 pts. (16.32%), PR: 22 pts. (44.89%), overall responses: 30
`pts (61.21%), stable disease: 15 pts. (30.61%), progression: 4 pts.
`(8.16%). Response duration for CR was: 17, 10,7, 9+, 6,6, 4+, and 2+
`months, while duration for PR varied from 2+ to 9+ months.
`
`Toxicity: With a total of 656 weeks only 1 pt had leukopenia G3, 2 pts. with
`paresthesia G3, subungual mycosis in 6 pts. There was neither delay nor
`suspension of treatment due to toxicity. Conclusions: 1) The overall
`response was 61.21%, with mild and moderate toxicity. 2) Both treatment
`schedules of WT seem to be promising as second line therapy for ABC, but
`pts were glad to have a week ofrest.
`
`Primary Chemotherapy in Operable or Locally Advanced Breast Cancer (OLABC)
`Using a Regimen Containing Vinorelbine (V), Cisplatin (P) and Continuous
`Infusion of Fluorouracil (FUci).
`/da Minchella, Marco Colleoni, Franco Nole,
`Manuela Sarti, Chiara Catania, Bettina Ullrich, Carlo Greco, Giulia Peruz-
`zotti, Maria Giulia Zampino, Emanuela Marrocco, Aron Goldhirsch. Dept. of
`Medicine and Radiation Oncology, European Institute of Oncology, Milan,
`Italy.
`Protracted FUci has been shown to be extremely effective together with
`epidoxorubicin and P (Smith et al, JCO, 95). Based on previously observed
`results in metastatic disease (VIFuP Regimen-Noléet al, ASCO 98), we
`evaluated efficacy and tolerance of the combination in patients (pts) with
`OLABC. Thirty-five pts with invasive carcinoma and a median age of 47
`years (range 31-70) were treated with FUci (200 mg/m?) P (60 mg/ m? i.v.
`on day 1) and V (20 mg/ dose i.v. on day 1 and 3) for three 21-day cycles.
`Partial or complete remitters (PR/CR)} received 3 more courses before
`surgery. Twenty-seven pts had 72 disease, 3 pts-T3 and 5-T4d. Clinical
`axillary-node status was NO in 15 pts, N1 in 15 and N2 in 5 pts. This
`preliminary analysis includes data on 23 pts assessable for response (12
`too early). Results: We observed cPR in 18 pts (72%), cCR in 2 pts (8%),
`cSD in 2 pts (8%), with an overall response rate (RR) of 80%. Complete
`pathologic response (pCR) was observedin 1 out of 23 pts (4%). Subjective
`tolerance was excellent. Side effects in 114 administered cycles included:
`grade 1-2 nausea (55% of cycles), grade 1 constipation (16%), grade 1
`mucositis (14%) grade 1 hand-foot syndrome (21%), grade 1 asthenia
`(18%). Grade 3 hand-foot syndrome, nausea and diarrhea were registered
`only in 1% of cycles. No grade 4 hematological toxicity was observed.
`Preliminary results show a significant efficacy of the ViFuP regimen. RR
`wasidentical in operable and locally advanced breast cancer. The combina-
`tion was subjectively well tolerated and the jack of significant alopecia has
`been appreciated by the pts. This regimen is a reasonable primary
`treatment option for OLABC.
`
`517
`
`518
`
`Prevention of Breast Cancer Relapse by Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: Studies on
`the Mechanisms. Satya M. Murthy, Stephen E. Reid, Edward F. Scanion,
`Janardan D. Khandekar. Surgery and Medicine Evanston, Northwestern
`Healthcare, Evanston, Illinois.
`An important cause for cancer recurrence is reseeding of cells released
`during surgery. Neoadjuvant chemotherapyinterferes with this process and
`reduces recurrence. These postulates are tested in a mouse model using
`the mammary tumor line, TA3Ha. Peripheral blood collected from TA3Ha
`tumorbearing mice wasinjected i.p. into naive mice. 7/8 mice developed
`lethal ascites tumor. Blood collected from comparable mice treated 4 days
`previously with doxorubicin failed to induce tumor developmentin 4 naive
`mice, suggesting that doxorubicin interfered with the reseeding ofcells. In
`a clinically relevant model, TA3Ha tumors grown orthotopicaily were
`treated with doxorubicin 4 days before or 4 days after surgical removal of
`the tumor. Cure rates in these groups were 70% and 38%, respectively (J
`Surg Oncol 61:273, 1996). Similar results were obtained in our liver
`wound modet (Cancer 64: 2035, 1989). Mice subjected to liver wedge
`resection and werei.v. injected with TASHa cells immediately after surgery.
`Groups of mice were treated with doxorubicin one day before or 5 days after
`surgery and tumorinjection: Tumor at the woundsites in these mice were
`0% (0/10), and 50% (5/10), respectively. These results suggest that
`doxorubicin may aiso modulate the host environmentto prevent tumorcell
`migration. A biodistribution study on the i.v. injected 14C-BrdU labeled
`TA3Ha cells showed that doxorubicin (given one day earlier) reduced the
`numberof cells reaching the liver woundsites. Cell numbers (radioactivity
`nCi/g mean+s.d) in the test and the control mice were 0.4+0.2 and
`0.9+0.2, respectively. Furthermore, doxorubicin reduced the production/
`secretion of chemotactic proinflammatory cytokines (pg) at the wound
`sites. IFN-g 24+0.4 vs. 71+0.2, TGF-b 0+0 vs. 3.3+1.2, and TNF-a
`39+ 3 vs. 51+ 5. Supported by Julia Michel’s Fund, Carol Gollob
`Foundation, and Marvin and Lori Gollob.
`
`Cisplatinum and Vinorelbine (CV) in Metastatic Breast Cancer (MBC) After
`Anthracycline Failure. G/orgio Mustacchi, Rita Ceccherini, Michela Muggia,
`Silvia Milani, Vito Amoroso, Vinicio Fosser. Divisione Oncologia medica,
`Ospedale Civile, Vicenza,Italy.
`CV is an effective combination in MBC (Mustacchi, San Antonio Meet-
`ing1991; Audhuy, ASCO 1998).
`In the present study 23 MBC patients (mean age 55 yrs, range 33-75), who
`relapsed after anthracycline chemotherapy, were treated with CV (C: 100
`mgs/sqm d 1, V: 25 mgs/sqm dd 1& 8; q 3 weeks) for a maximum of 6
`cycles. Previous anthracycline treatment was adjuvant in 8/23 pts,first line
`for metastatic disease in 12/23 and both in 3/23. Metastatic sites were
`bone (2/23), soft tissue (4/23), visceral (10/23) and multiple (7/23).
`Antiemetics for acute and delayed emesis and prophylactic G-CSF (5
`megs/kg dd 13-15) were used. Toxicity was mild: 5 G3 (4 emesis,
`1
`asthenia); 6 patients needed blood transfusions (13 units); none suffered
`alopecia; 51/110 cycles in 20/23 patients were delayed for ANC<1000 at
`day 20. The Overall RR was 65.2% (17.4% CR, all visceral). Median TTP
`was 7.5 months and median Overall Survival was 14 months (8-56).
`According to previous anthracycline chemotherapy response, RR was 59%
`in ‘resistant patients and 68.7% in ‘non resistant’. At 12 months 55.2% of
`patients werestill alive and at 24 months 31.1%.
`In conclusion, CV seemsto be a highly effective second line treatmentfor
`MBC, anthracycline cross not resistant.
`it
`is easy to menage on an
`outpatient basis. The absenceof alopecia is very importantfor the patients.
`Our results confirm previous reports and are consistent with data recently
`reported in the same setting with several multidrug combinations including
`taxanes. The CV schedule is not expensive and well tolerated. A short
`treatment with prophylactic G-CSF does not avoid delays but reduces
`hematologic toxicity at nadir.
`
`2
`
`

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