throbber
V O L U M E 2 3 䡠 N U M B E R 4 䡠 F E B R U A R Y 1 2 0 0 5
`
`JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
`
`E D I T O R I A L
`
`Mantle Cell Lymphoma: At Last, Some Hope for
`Successful Innovative Treatment Strategies
`
`Richard I. Fisher, James P. Wilmot Cancer Center, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY
`
`While it is quite unusual for totally new types of cancer to
`develop, it is not unusual for new and distinct forms of cancer
`to be recognized among what were previously thought to be
`well-defined homogeneous diseases. Such is the case with
`mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). Originally recognized in Eu-
`rope and subsequently called many different names, the uni-
`fying term MCL was proposed by an international consensus
`conference in 1992.1 Morphology alone was not sufficient to
`accurately separate these cases from other “small round cell”
`lymphomas. However, morphology plus an immunopheno-
`type consisting of CD20⫹, CD22⫹, IgM⫹, IgD⫹, and
`CD5⫹, as well as either detection of the characteristic chromo-
`somal translocation t(11;14) or overexpression of the resultant
`gene product cyclin D1, result in an accurate diagnosis.2 Fur-
`thermore, the previously unrecognized entity of MCL was not
`rare and actually represented 6% of all non-Hodgkin’s lym-
`phomas. A retrospective review of 375 patients enrolled on
`Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) indolent lymphoma
`clinical trials demonstrated that these cases did not have an
`indolent course: the median progression-free survival follow-
`ing initial treatment was only 20 months, the median survival
`was only 36 months, and no patients were cured of their
`disease.3 A subsequent review of 524 patients treated on 12
`different clinical trials revealed amazing uniformity in the
`treatment results.4 Thus, in comparison with the indolent lym-
`phomas, which were incurable but had a median survival of 7
`to 10 years, and the aggressive lymphomas, which could be cured
`in 40% to 50% of all cases, patients with MCL could be viewed as
`havingtheworstprognosisofallformsoflymphoma.Thatmanu-
`scriptconcludedthatpatientswithMCL“arecandidatesforinno-
`vative (and hopefully more successful) therapy.”3
`Clinical trials conducted in the intervening years have
`generally yielded disappointing results. Although there is no
`established standard of care for patients with MCL, combina-
`tion chemotherapy with CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxoru-
`bicin, vincristine, and prednisone) remained the most
`
`commonly used initial treatment, especially in the United
`States. There still remains some controversy over the value of
`doxorubicin. Fludarabine-based regimens are also utilized. Af-
`ter rituximab was shown to have an approximately 30% re-
`sponse rate in patients with relapsed MCL,5 Howard et al6
`conducted a phase II study of CHOP plus rituximab (R-
`CHOP) in untreated patients. Although they did note an in-
`creased complete remission rate compared with historical
`controls,
`there did not seem to be any difference in
`progression-free or overall survival. Hiddeman et al7 recently
`reported the initial results of a relatively small randomized trial
`in untreated MCL comparing CHOP and R-CHOP. Although
`there seemed to be some improvement in time to treatment
`failure from the addition of rituximab, the magnitude of the
`benefit was not great. The study also had a second randomiza-
`tion to interferon maintenance therapy or autologous stem-
`cell transplantation; those aspects of the study have not yet
`been analyzed. The only published trial that reported greatly
`improved results in MCL was a single-institution study by The
`M.D. Anderson Cancer Center group, with relatively short
`follow-up, utilizing HyperCVAD (fractionated cyclophos-
`phamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, dexamethasone) with or
`without stem-cell transplantation.8 However, allogeneic trans-
`plantation is not an option for most patients with MCL be-
`cause of their median age of 60 years; the vast majority of
`patients who undergo autologous stem-cell transplantation
`will relapse. Subsequently, the same group reported that the
`addition of rituximab to the HyperCVAD regimen eliminated
`the need for stem-cell transplantation. A national phase II trial
`of that same regimen is currently being conducted by SWOG.
`Thus, it is clear that new therapeutic approaches for the
`treatment of patients with MCL need to be developed. A series
`of new agents, including bortezomib, thalidomide, flavopiri-
`dol, pixantrone, m-TOR inhibitors, and others, has shown
`some initial activity in pretreated patients. In this issue of the
`Journal, O’Connor et al9 and Goy et al,10 report the results of
`
`Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol 23, No 4 (February 1), 2005: pp 657-658
`DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2005.10.980
`
`657
`
`Downloaded from ascopubs.org by 134.174.157.156 on March 29, 2018 from 134.174.157.156
`
`Copyright © 2018 American Society of Clinical Oncology. All rights reserved.
`
`IPR2018-00685
`Celgene Ex. 2005, Page 1
`
`

`

`Richard I. Fisher
`
`two separate phase II clinical trials conducted in relapsed or
`refractory indolent non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma with the novel
`proteasome inhibitor bortezomib. While it is beyond the scope
`of this Editorial to review in detail the ubiquitin-proteasome
`pathway, there is ample preclinical evidence to support trials of
`proteasome inhibition in hematologic malignancies, and par-
`ticularly in indolent lymphomas. Both studies used a dose of
`1.5 mg/m2, which is higher than the 1.3-mg/m2 dose currently
`recommended in multiple myeloma. However, the schedule of
`administration remains the same in all studies: twice-weekly
`intravenous injections administered during the first 2 weeks of
`a 3-week cycle. The median number of prior therapies ex-
`ceeded three in both studies. Although bortezomib is clearly
`active in follicular lymphoma, the results in follicular lym-
`phoma differ somewhat between the two studies and will need
`to be better defined in larger trials. In addition, there are many
`more active agents for patients with follicular lymphoma.
`However, the results in MCL patients are remarkably consis-
`tent and quite exciting. Five of the 10 assessable MCL patients
`in the O’Connor study achieved objective responses (50%; one
`complete response [CR], four partial response [PR]). Re-
`sponse durations were 6, 6⫹, 7⫹, 9⫹, and 19 months. The last
`patient has been re-treated and achieved a second PR that
`continues at 4 additional months. Of the 29 assessable MCL
`patients who were treated on the Goy et al study, there were six
`CR and six PR, for an objective response rate of 41% (95% CI,
`24% to 61%). The median time to progression for MCL has
`not been reached, and an estimated 80% are still in response at
`6 months, with a median follow-up of 9.3 months. In general,
`both studies report reasonably tolerable toxicity profiles, sim-
`ilar to those seen in patients with multiple myeloma. The
`National Cancer Institute of Canada is also conducting a phase
`II study of bortezomib in MCL using the 1.3-mg/m2 dose.11
`They initially reported an overall response rate of 39%.11 Thus,
`three separate phase II studies report an overall response rate of
`40% to 50%, with durations of response in the two published
`studies exceeding 6 months in heavily pretreated patients with
`MCL. This author is currently leading a large, multicenter,
`industry-sponsored phase II trial of bortezomib at a dose of 1.3
`mg/m2 to accurately define clinical benefit for patients with
`relapsed or refractory MCL. In an initial attempt to combine
`bortezomib with combination chemotherapy, the National
`Cancer Institute is conducting a phase I/II study of bort-
`ezomib combined with dose-adjusted EPOCH (etoposide,
`prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin)
`chemotherapy in relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell
`lymphoma. Preliminary results suggested that gastrointestinal
`toxicity, but not neurotoxicity, might be increased compared
`with historical controls; the authors concluded that bort-
`ezomib can be given with combination chemotherapy at full
`dose without significant overlapping toxicity.12 However, to
`date, there was only one PR among 13 enrolled patients with
`diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Currently, studies of bort-
`ezomib in combination with chemoimmunotherapy are being
`conducted in untreated patients with MCL. Until the value of
`
`adding bortezomib to the treatment of patients with MCL is
`fully evaluated, these patients should continue to be en-
`tered on clinical trials, which offer the best hope for
`changing the prognosis of patients with MCL.
`
`■ ■ ■
`
`Author’s Disclosures of Potential
`Conflicts of Interest
`The following author or their immediate family members
`have indicated a financial interest. No conflict exists for drugs
`or devices used in a study if they are not being evaluated as part
`of the investigation. Consultant/Advisory Role: Richard I.
`Fisher, Genentech, IDEC, Millennium Pharmaceuticals. Hon-
`oraria: Richard I. Fisher, Genentech, IDEC, Millennium Phar-
`maceuticals. For a detailed description of these categories, or
`for more information about ASCO’s conflict of interest policy,
`please refer to the Author Disclosure Declaration and the “Dis-
`closures of Potential Conflicts of Interest” section of Informa-
`tion for Contributors found in the front of every issue.
`
`© 2005 by American Society of Clinical Oncology
`
`REFERENCES
`1. Banks PM, Chan J, Cleary ML, et al: Mantle cell lymphoma: A proposal
`for unification of morphologic, immunologic, and molecular data. Am J Surg
`Pathol 16:637-640, 1992
`2. The Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Classification Project: A clinical evalu-
`ation of the International Lymphoma Study Group classification of non-
`Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Blood 89:3909-3918, 1997
`3. Fisher RI, Dahlberg S, Nathwani BN, et al: A clinical analysis of two
`indolent lymphoma entities: Mantle cell
`lymphoma and marginal zone
`lymphoma (including the mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue and monocy-
`toid B-cell subcategories)—A Southwest Oncology Group Study. Blood
`85:1075-1082, 1995
`4. Press OW, Grogan TM, Fisher RI: Evaluation and management of
`mantle cell lymphoma. Adv Leuk Lymph 6:3-11, 1996
`5. Foran JM, Rohatiner AZS, Cunningham D, et al: European Phase II
`study of Rituximab (chimeric anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody) for patients
`with newly diagnosed mantle-cell lymphoma and previously treated mantle-
`cell lymphoma, immunocytoma, and small B-cell lymphocytic lymphoma.
`J Clin Oncol 18:317-324, 2000
`6. Howard OM, Gribben JG, Neuberg D, et al: Rituximab and CHOP
`induction therapy for newly diagnosed mantle cell
`lymphoma: Molecular
`complete responses are not predictive of progression-free survival. J Clin
`Oncol 20:1288-1294, 2002
`7. Hiddemann W, Dreyling M, Unterhalt M, et al: Effect of the addition of
`rituximab to front line therapy with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincris-
`tine, and prednisone (CHOP) on the remission rate and time to treatment
`failure compared to CHOP alone in mantle cell
`lymphoma: Results of a
`prospective randomized trial of the German Low Grade Lymphoma Study
`Group. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 23:556, 2004 (abstr 6501)
`8. Khouri IF, Romaguera JE, Kantarjian H, et al: Hyper-CVAD and high-dose
`methotrexate/cytarabine followed by stem-cell transplantation: An active regi-
`men for aggressive mantle-cell lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 16:3803-3809, 1998
`9. O’Connor OA, Wright J, Moskowitz C, et al: Phase II clinical experience
`with the novel proteasome inhibitor bortezomib in patients with indolent
`non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and mantle cell lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 23:676-
`684, 2005
`10. Goy A, Younes A, McLaughlin P, et al: Phase II study of proteasome
`inhibitor bortezomib in relapsed or refractory B-cell non-Hodgkin’s lym-
`phoma. J Clin Oncol 23:667-675, 2005
`11. Assouline S, Belch A, Sehn L, et al: A phase II study of bortezomib in
`patients with mantle cell lymphoma. Blood 102:902a, 2003
`12. Dunleavy KM, Janik J, Grant N, et al: Phase I/II study of bortezomib
`combined with dose adjusted EPOCH chemotherapy in relapsed or refrac-
`tory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Blood 102:636a-637a, 2003
`
`658
`
`JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
`
`Downloaded from ascopubs.org by 134.174.157.156 on March 29, 2018 from 134.174.157.156
`
`Copyright © 2018 American Society of Clinical Oncology. All rights reserved.
`
`IPR2018-00685
`Celgene Ex. 2005, Page 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