Clinical Oncology News - February 2010 - Digital Edition

What news was all the rage at the recent meeting of the American

Society of Hematology (ASH)? On page 26, Richard Stone, MD, discuss-es the important news on the random-ized up-front trial comparing nilo-tinib (Tasigna, Novartis) with imatinib (Gleevec, Novartis) (abstract LBA1). In this article, Dr. Stone highlights other news from the meeting on acute leuke-mias, chronic myelogenous leukemia and myelofibrosis. Dr. Stone is director of the Adult Leukemia Program, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

Hematology News Sparks Excitement

New Orleans—A large two-part study has outlined a potential new standard for the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) in elderly patients. The results of the first part reaffirmed the pre-viously demonstrated efficacy of the induction combination of bortezomib (Velcade, Millennium), melphalan (Alk-eran, Celgene) and prednisone (VMP), while demonstrating that a modifica-tion to the bortezomib dosing schedule improved tolerability. The second part demonstrated that a bortezomib and thalidomide (VT) maintenance regimen following induction almost doubled the proportion of patients who achieved a complete response (CR) and substan-tially extended progression-free surviv-al (PFS). On the basis of the study, VMP induction followed by VT maintenance appears to provide the best treatment sequence for MM in older patients.

New Standard Suggested for Elderly MM Patients

The 2010 regulatory changes from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid

Services (CMS) have been released, and once again, oncology practices will be

adversely impacted. Reimbursement trends continue their downward spiral for oncology. The major changes include elim-ination of consulting codes by Medicare, revision of total code relative value units and practice expenses, payment delays

that started in January 2010 and a limit-ed sustained growth rate (SGR) reprieve of two months.

Problematic Changes

In an effort to boost payment for eval-uation and management (E&M) services for all physicians and to put a halt to fraud and waste, the CMS has eliminated the use of consultation codes. It has moved some of the funds that were distributed through these codes and they will now be doled out through E&M codes for new and established patients. This change and the shortfall it creates are predicted to result in significant payment decreases

San Antonio—The first study to evalu-ate the addition of bevacizumab (Avastin,

Genentech) to chemo-therapy as

second-line therapy for patients with

metastatic breast cancer (MBC) has revealed that the combination improves progression-free survival (PFS).

“This is the first Phase III study to show that bevacizumab plus chemotherapy is effective as second-line therapy for meta-static breast cancer. These results are clin-ically meaningful. We have few options for

second-line chemotherapy in meta-static disease,” said Adam Brufsky,

MD, co-director of the Comprehensive Breast Cancer Center and medical direc-tor at the Magee-Womens Hospital, Uni-versity of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute.

Second-line Bevacizumab Plus Chemo Works in MBC

Another Year of Belt Tightening

Advances in Cancer CareCLINICALONCOLOGY.COM • February 2010 • Vol. 5, No. 2

see ASH NEWS, page 8 �

see NEW STANDARD, page 28 �

HEMATOLOGIC DISEASE

7 Can nilotinib replace imatinib in first-line treatment of CML?

10 FCR solidified as standard of care for patients with CLL.

POLICY & MANAGEMENT

12 Environmental movement eyes regenerative hospitals.

PRN

29 Around the Water Cooler brings you news about people and places in oncology.

30 Tips on optimizing your nonverbal communication.

EDUCATIONAL REVIEW

Evolving Treatment

Paradigms in Non-Small Cell

Lung CancerAfter page 16.

CLINICAL TRIALS

18 A list of all Phase II and III trials initiated within the past 30 days.

see SECOND LINE, page 24 �

POLICY & MANAGEMENT

see TIGHTENING, page 14 �

Skin Cancer Management: A Practical Approach

Deborah F. MacFarlane

For more information, see inside back cover of the Educational Review

following page 14.

McMahonMedicalBooks.com

PRSRT STDU.S. POSTAGE

PAIDEASTON, PAPERMIT #117

SOLID TUMORS

16

Andrew Seidman, MD, and Maura Dickler, MD, discuss practice-changing breast cancer news from SABCS.

Colon cancer awareness month,see page 24.

RIBBON-2 trial yields results. Above: A stain of human metastatic breast

cancer cells superimposed on a ribbon.

McMahon Publishing

ALIMTA® is a registered trademark of Eli Lilly and Company. PM58001 0709 PRINTED IN USA © 2009, Lilly USA, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Indications and Important Safety Information for ALIMTA

Indications ALIMTA is indicated in combination with cisplatin therapy for the initial treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer.

ALIMTA is indicated for the maintenance treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer whose disease has not progressed after four cycles of platinum-based fi rst-line chemotherapy.

ALIMTA is indicated as a single agent for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer after prior chemotherapy.

Limitations of Use: ALIMTA is not indicated for the treatment of patients with squamous cell non-small cell lung cancer.

Important Safety Information Myelosuppression is usually the dose-limiting toxicity with ALIMTA therapy.Contraindication: ALIMTA is contraindicated in patients who have a history of severe hypersensitivity reaction to pemetrexed or to any other ingredient used in the formulation.

Warnings and Precautions: Patients must be instructed to take folic acid and vitamin B12 with ALIMTA as a prophylaxis to reduce treatment-related hematologic and GI toxicities.

Pretreatment with dexamethasone or its equivalent has been reported to reduce the incidence and severity of skin rash.

ALIMTA can suppress bone marrow function, as manifested by neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and anemia (or pancytopenia). Reduce doses for subsequent cycles based on hematologic and nonhematologic toxicities.

ALIMTA should not be administered to patients with a creatinine clearance <45 mL/min. One patient with severe renal impairment (creatinine clearance 19 mL/min) who did not receive folic acid and vitamin B12 died of drug-related toxicity following administration of ALIMTA alone.

Caution should be used when administering ibuprofen concurrently with ALIMTA to patients with mild to moderate renal insuffi ciency (creatinine clearance from 45 to 79 mL/min). Patients with mild to moderate renal insuffi ciency should avoid taking NSAIDs with short elimination half-lives for a period of 2 days before, the day of, and 2 days following administration of ALIMTA. In the absence of data regarding potential interaction between ALIMTA and NSAIDs with longer half-lives, all patients taking these NSAIDs should interrupt dosing for at least 5 days before, the day of, and 2 days following ALIMTA administration. If concomitant administration of an NSAID is necessary, patients should be monitored closely for toxicity, especially myelosuppression, renal, and gastrointestinal toxicities.

Patients should not begin a new cycle of treatment unless the ANC is ≥1500 cells/mm3, the platelet count is ≥100,000 cells/mm3, and creatinine clearance is ≥45 mL/min.

Pregnancy Category D—ALIMTA may cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman. Women should be apprised of the potential hazard to the fetus and should be advised to use effective contraceptive measures to prevent pregnancy during treatment with ALIMTA.

The effect of third space fl uid, such as pleural effusion and ascites, on ALIMTA is unknown. In patients with clinically signifi cant third space fl uid, consideration should be given to draining the effusion prior to ALIMTA administration.

Drug Interactions: Concomitant administration of nephrotoxic drugs or substances that are tubularly secreted could result in delayed clearance of ALIMTA.

See Warnings and Precautions for specifi c information regarding ibuprofen administration.

38355_elonps_maint2p_con10_fa.indd 1 9/24/09 2:51:35 PM

Approved for the 1st-line treatment of advanced nonsquamous NSCLC and now approved for the maintenance treatment of advanced nonsquamous NSCLC.

ALIMTA is not indicated for the treatment of patients with squamous cell NSCLC.

Myelosuppression is usually the dose-limiting toxicity with ALIMTA therapy.

Within the ALIMTA maintenance trial design, ALIMTA/cisplatin was not included as an induction therapy.

For more information, visit www.ALIMTA.com

Use in Specifi c Patient Populations: It is recommended that nursing be discontinued if the mother is being treated with ALIMTA or discontinue the drug, taking into account the importance of the drug for the mother.

The safety and effectiveness of ALIMTA in pediatric patients have not been established.

Dose adjustments may be necessary in patients with hepatic insuffi ciency.

Dosage and Administration Guidelines: Complete blood cell counts, including platelet counts and periodic chemistry tests, should be performed on all patients receiving ALIMTA.

Dose adjustments at the start of a subsequent cycle should be based on nadir hematologic counts or maximum nonhematologic toxicity from the preceding cycle of therapy. Modify or suspend therapy according to the Dosage Reduction Guidelines in the full Prescribing Information.

Abbreviated Adverse Reactions (% incidence) for NSCLC 1st-line: The most severe adverse reactions (Grades 3/4) with ALIMTA in combination with cisplatin versus gemcitabine in combination with cisplatin, respectively, for the 1st-line treatment of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were neutropenia (15 vs 27); leukopenia (5 vs 8); thrombocytopenia (4 vs 13); anemia (6 vs 10); fatigue (7 vs 5); nausea (7 vs 4); vomiting (6 vs 6); anorexia (2 vs 1); and creatinine elevation (1 vs 1). Common adverse reactions (all Grades) with ALIMTA in combination with cisplatin versus gemcitabine in combination with cisplatin, respectively, were nausea (56 vs 53); fatigue (43 vs 45); vomiting (40 vs 36); anemia (33 vs 46); neutropenia (29 vs 38); anorexia (27 vs 24); constipation (21 vs 20); leukopenia (18 vs 21); stomatitis/pharyngitis (14 vs 12); alopecia (12 vs 21); diarrhea (12 vs 13); thrombocytopenia (10 vs 27); neuropathy/sensory (9 vs 12); taste disturbance (8 vs 9); rash/desquamation (7 vs 8); and dyspepsia/heartburn (5 vs 6).

Abbreviated Adverse Reactions (% incidence) for NSCLC Maintenance: The most severe adverse reactions (Grades 3/4) with ALIMTA as a single agent versus placebo, respectively, for the maintenance treatment of patients with locally advanced nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were anemia (3 vs 1); neutropenia (3 vs 0); leukopenia (2 vs 1); fatigue (5 vs 1); nausea (1 vs 1); anorexia (2 vs 0); mucositis/stomatitis (1 vs 0); diarrhea (1 vs 0); infection (2 vs 0); neuropathy-sensory (1 vs 0). Common adverse reactions (all Grades) with ALIMTA as a single agent versus placebo, respectively, were anemia (15 vs 6); neutropenia (6 vs 0); leukopenia (6 vs 1); increased ALT (10 vs 4); increased AST (8 vs 4); fatigue (25 vs 11); nausea (19 vs 6); anorexia (19 vs 5); vomiting (9 vs 1); mucositis/stomatitis (7 vs 2); diarrhea (5 vs 3); infection (5 vs 2); neuropathy-sensory (9 vs 4); and rash/desquamation (10 vs 3).

Abbreviated Adverse Reactions (% incidence) for NSCLC 2nd-line: The most severe adverse reactions (Grades 3/4) with ALIMTA as a single agent versus docetaxel, respectively, for the 2nd-line treatment of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were neutropenia (5 vs 40); leukopenia (4 vs 27); thrombocytopenia (2 vs 0); anemia (4 vs 4); fatigue (5 vs 5); nausea (3 vs 2); anorexia (2 vs 3); vomiting (2 vs 1); increased ALT (2 vs 0); increased AST (1 vs 0); and stomatitis/pharyngitis (1 vs 1). Common adverse reactions (all Grades) with ALIMTA as a single agent versus docetaxel, respectively, were fatigue (34 vs 36); nausea (31 vs 17); anorexia (22 vs 24); anemia (19 vs 22); vomiting (16 vs 12); stomatitis/pharyngitis (15 vs 17); rash (14 vs 6); diarrhea (13 vs 24); leukopenia (12 vs 34); and neutropenia (11 vs 45).

For additional safety and dosing guidelines, please see brief summary of Prescribing Information on adjacent page.

Histology Matters with ALIMTA because EXTENDED SURVIVAL MATTERS.


ALIMTA� (pemetrexed for injection)BRIEF SUMMARY. For complete safety, please consult the full Prescribing Information.1 INDICATIONS AND USAGE1.1 Nonsquamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer—Combination with Cisplatin

ALIMTA is indicated in combination with cisplatin therapy for the initial treatment of patients with locally advanced ormetastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer.1.2 Nonsquamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer—Maintenance

ALIMTA is indicated for the maintenance treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic nonsquamous non-smallcell lung cancer whose disease has not progressed after four cycles of platinum-based first-line chemotherapy.1.3 Nonsquamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer—After Prior Chemotherapy

ALIMTA is indicated as a single agent for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer after prior chemotherapy.1.4 Mesothelioma

ALIMTA in combination with cisplatin is indicated for the treatment of patients with malignant pleural mesotheliomawhose disease is unresectable or who are otherwise not candidates for curative surgery.1.5 Limitations of Use

ALIMTA is not indicated for the treatment of patients with squamous cell non-small cell lung cancer. [see Clinical Studies(14.1, 14.2, and 14.3)]2 DOSAGE AND ADMINISTRATION2.1 Combination Use with Cisplatin

Nonsquamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer and Malignant Pleural MesotheliomaThe recommended dose of ALIMTA is 500 mg/m2 administered as an intravenous infusion over 10 minutes on Day 1 of

each 21-day cycle. The recommended dose of cisplatin is 75 mg/m2 infused over 2 hours beginning approximately 30 minutesafter the end of ALIMTA administration. Patients should receive appropriate hydration prior to and/or after receiving cisplatin.See cisplatin package insert for more information.2.2 Single-Agent Use

Nonsquamous Non-Small Cell Lung CancerThe recommended dose of ALIMTA is 500 mg/m2 administered as an intravenous infusion over 10 minutes on Day 1 of

each 21-day cycle.2.3 Premedication Regimen

Vitamin SupplementationTo reduce toxicity, patients treated with ALIMTA must be instructed to take a low-dose oral folic acid preparation or

multivitamin with folic acid on a daily basis. At least 5 daily doses of folic acid must be taken during the 7-day period precedingthe first dose of ALIMTA; and dosing should continue during the full course of therapy and for 21 days after the last dose of ALIMTA. Patients must also receive one (1) intramuscular injection of vitamin B12 during the week preceding the first dose ofALIMTA and every 3 cycles thereafter. Subsequent vitamin B12 injections may be given the same day as ALIMTA. In clinical trials,the dose of folic acid studied ranged from 350 to 1000 mcg, and the dose of vitamin B12 was 1000 mcg. The most commonlyused dose of oral folic acid in clinical trials was 400 mcg [see Warnings and Precautions (5.1)].

CorticosteroidSkin rash has been reported more frequently in patients not pretreated with a corticosteroid. Pretreatment with dexamethasone

(or equivalent) reduces the incidence and severity of cutaneous reaction. In clinical trials, dexamethasone 4 mg was given bymouth twice daily the day before, the day of, and the day after ALIMTA administration [see Warnings and Precautions (5.1)].2.4 Laboratory Monitoring and Dose Reduction/Discontinuation Recommendations

MonitoringComplete blood cell counts, including platelet counts, should be performed on all patients receiving ALIMTA. Patients

should be monitored for nadir and recovery, which were tested in the clinical study before each dose and on days 8 and 15 ofeach cycle. Patients should not begin a new cycle of treatment unless the ANC is ≥1500 cells/mm3, the platelet count is≥100,000 cells/ mm3, and creatinine clearance is ≥45 mL/min. Periodic chemistry tests should be performed to evaluate renaland hepatic function [see Warnings and Precautions (5.5)].

Dose Reduction Recommendations Dose adjustments at the start of a subsequent cycle should be based on nadir hematologic counts or maximum

nonhematologic toxicity from the preceding cycle of therapy. Treatment may be delayed to allow sufficient time for recovery.Upon recovery, patients should be retreated using the guidelines in Tables 1-3, which are suitable for using ALIMTA as a single-agentor in combination with cisplatin.

If patients develop nonhematologic toxicities (excluding neurotoxicity) ≥Grade 3, treatment should be withheld untilresolution to less than or equal to the patient’s pre-therapy value. Treatment should be resumed according to guidelines in Table 2.

In the event of neurotoxicity, the recommended dose adjustments for ALIMTA and cisplatin are described in Table 3.Patients should discontinue therapy if Grade 3 or 4 neurotoxicity is experienced.

Discontinuation RecommendationALIMTA therapy should be discontinued if a patient experiences any hematologic or nonhematologic Grade 3 or 4 toxicity

after 2 dose reductions or immediately if Grade 3 or 4 neurotoxicity is observed.Renally Impaired PatientsIn clinical studies, patients with creatinine clearance ≥45 mL/min required no dose adjustments other than those recommended

for all patients. Insufficient numbers of patients with creatinine clearance below 45 mL/min have been treated to make dosagerecommendations for this group of patients [see Clinical Pharmacology (12.3) in the full Prescribing Information].3 DOSAGE FORMS AND STRENGTHS

ALIMTA, pemetrexed for injection, is a white to either light-yellow or green-yellow lyophilized powder available in sterilesingle-use vials containing 100 mg or 500 mg pemetrexed.4 CONTRAINDICATIONS

ALIMTA is contraindicated in patients who have a history of severe hypersensitivity reaction to pemetrexed or to any otheringredient used in the formulation.

5 WARNINGS AND PRECAUTIONS5.1 Premedication Regimen

Need for Folate and Vitamin B12 SupplementationPatients treated with ALIMTA must be instructed to take folic acid and vitamin B12 as a prophylactic measure to reduce

treatment-related hematologic and GI toxicity [see Dosage and Administration (2.3)]. In clinical studies, less overall toxicity and reductions in Grade 3/4 hematologic and nonhematologic toxicities such as neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, and infectionwith Grade 3/4 neutropenia were reported when pretreatment with folic acid and vitamin B12 was administered.

Corticosteroid SupplementationSkin rash has been reported more frequently in patients not pretreated with a corticosteroid in clinical trials. Pretreatment

with dexamethasone (or equivalent) reduces the incidence and severity of cutaneous reaction [see Dosage and Administration (2.3)].5.2 Bone Marrow Suppression

ALIMTA can suppress bone marrow function, as manifested by neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and anemia (or pancytopenia)[see Adverse Reactions (6.1)]; myelosuppression is usually the dose-limiting toxicity. Dose reductions for subsequent cycles arebased on nadir ANC, platelet count, and maximum nonhematologic toxicity seen in the previous cycle [see Dosage andAdministration (2.4)].5.3 Decreased Renal Function

ALIMTA is primarily eliminated unchanged by renal excretion. No dosage adjustment is needed in patients with creatinineclearance ≥45 mL/min. Insufficient numbers of patients have been studied with creatinine clearance <45 mL/min to give a dose recommendation. Therefore, ALIMTA should not be administered to patients whose creatinine clearance is <45 mL/min[see Dosage and Administration (2.4)].

One patient with severe renal impairment (creatinine clearance 19 mL/min) who did not receive folic acid and vitamin B12died of drug-related toxicity following administration of ALIMTA alone.5.4 Use with Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs with Mild to Moderate Renal Insufficiency

Caution should be used when administering ibuprofen concurrently with ALIMTA to patients with mild to moderate renalinsufficiency (creatinine clearance from 45 to 79 mL/min). Other NSAIDs should also be used with caution [see DrugInteractions (7.1)].5.5 Required Laboratory Monitoring

Patients should not begin a new cycle of treatment unless the ANC is ≥1500 cells/mm3, the platelet count is ≥100,000cells/mm3, and creatinine clearance is ≥45 mL/min [see Dosage and Administration (2.4)].5.6 Pregnancy Category D

Based on its mechanism of action, ALIMTA can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman. Pemetrexedadministered intraperitoneally to mice during organogenesis was embryotoxic, fetotoxic and teratogenic in mice at greater than1/833rd the recommended human dose. If ALIMTA is used during pregnancy, or if the patient becomes pregnant while takingthis drug, the patient should be apprised of the potential hazard to the fetus. Women of childbearing potential should be advisedto avoid becoming pregnant. Women should be advised to use effective contraceptive measures to prevent pregnancy duringtreatment with ALIMTA. [see Use in Specific Populations (8.1)]5.7 Third Space Fluid

The effect of third space fluid, such as pleural effusion and ascites, on ALIMTA is unknown. In patients with clinicallysignificant third space fluid, consideration should be given to draining the effusion prior to ALIMTA administration.6 ADVERSE REACTIONS6.1 Clinical Trials Experience

Because clinical trials are conducted under widely varying conditions, adverse reactions rates cannot be directlycompared to rates in other clinical trials and may not reflect the rates observed in clinical practice.

In clinical trials, the most common adverse reactions (incidence ≥20%) during therapy with ALIMTA as a single-agentwere fatigue, nausea, and anorexia. Additional common adverse reactions (incidence ≥20%) during therapy with ALIMTA whenused in combination with cisplatin included vomiting, neutropenia, leukopenia, anemia, stomatitis/pharyngitis, thrombocytopenia,and constipation.

Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC)—Combination with CisplatinTable 4 provides the frequency and severity of adverse reactions that have been reported in >5% of 839 patients with

NSCLC who were randomized to study and received ALIMTA plus cisplatin and 830 patients with NSCLC who were randomizedto study and received gemcitabine plus cisplatin. All patients received study therapy as initial treatment for locally advanced ormetastatic NSCLC and patients in both treatment groups were fully supplemented with folic acid and vitamin B12.

No clinically relevant differences in adverse reactions were seen in patients based on histology.In addition to the lower incidence of hematologic toxicity on the ALIMTA and cisplatin arm, use of transfusions (RBC

and platelet) and hematopoietic growth factors was lower in the ALIMTA and cisplatin arm compared to the gemcitabine andcisplatin arm.

The following additional adverse reactions were observed in patients with non-small cell lung cancer randomly assignedto receive ALIMTA plus cisplatin.

Incidence 1% to 5%Body as a Whole—febrile neutropenia, infection, pyrexiaGeneral Disorders—dehydrationMetabolism and Nutrition—increased AST, increased ALTRenal—creatinine clearance decrease, renal failureSpecial Senses—conjunctivitis

ALIMTA� (pemetrexed for injection) PV 5206 AMP ALIMTA� (pemetrexed for injection) PV 5206 AMP

a These criteria meet the CTC version 2.0 (NCI 1998) definition of ≥CTC Grade 2 bleeding.

Nadir ANC <500/mm3 and nadir platelets ≥50,000/mm3 75% of previous dose(pemetrexed and cisplatin)

Nadir platelets <50,000/mm3 without bleeding regardless of nadir ANC 75% of previous dose(pemetrexed and cisplatin)

Nadir platelets <50,000/mm3 with bleedinga, regardless of nadir ANC 50% of previous dose(pemetrexed and cisplatin)

Table 1: Dose Reduction for ALIMTA (single-agent or in combination) and Cisplatin—Hematologic Toxicities

Dose of ALIMTA Dose of Cisplatin(mg/m2) (mg/m2)

Any Grade 3 or 4 toxicities except mucositis 75% of previous dose 75% of previous doseAny diarrhea requiring hospitalization (irrespective of Grade) or Grade 3 or 4 diarrhea 75% of previous dose 75% of previous doseGrade 3 or 4 mucositis 50% of previous dose 100% of previous dose

Table 2: Dose Reduction for ALIMTA (single-agent or in combination) and Cisplatin—Nonhematologic Toxicitiesa,b

a NCI Common Toxicity Criteria (CTC).b Excluding neurotoxicity (see Table 3).

Dose of ALIMTA Dose of CisplatinCTC Grade (mg/m2) (mg/m2)0-1 100% of previous dose 100% of previous dose2 100% of previous dose 50% of previous dose

Table 3: Dose Reduction for ALIMTA (single-agent or in combination) and Cisplatin—Neurotoxicity

ALIMTA/cisplatin Gemcitabine/cisplatinReactionb (N=839) (N=830)

All Grades Grade 3-4 All Grades Grade 3-4Toxicity (%) Toxicity (%) Toxicity (%) Toxicity (%)

All Adverse Reactions 90 37 91 53LaboratoryHematologic

Anemia 33 6 46 10Neutropenia 29 15 38 27Leukopenia 18 5 21 8Thrombocytopenia 10 4 27 13

RenalCreatinine elevation 10 1 7 1

ClinicalConstitutional Symptoms

Fatigue 43 7 45 5Gastrointestinal

Nausea 56 7 53 4Vomiting 40 6 36 6Anorexia 27 2 24 1Constipation 21 1 20 0Stomatitis/Pharyngitis 14 1 12 0Diarrhea 12 1 13 2Dyspepsia/Heartburn 5 0 6 0

NeurologyNeuropathy-sensory 9 0 12 1Taste disturbance 8 0c 9 0c

Dermatology/SkinAlopecia 12 0c 21 1c

Rash/Desquamation 7 0 8 1

Table 4: Adverse Reactions in Fully Supplemented Patients Receiving ALIMTA plus Cisplatin in NSCLCa

a For the purpose of this table a cut off of 5% was used for inclusion of all events where the reporter considered a possiblerelationship to ALIMTA.

b Refer to NCI CTC Criteria version 2.0 for each Grade of toxicity.c According to NCI CTC Criteria version 2.0, this adverse event term should only be reported as Grade 1 or 2.


Incidence Less than 1%Cardiovascular—arrhythmiaGeneral Disorders—chest painMetabolism and Nutrition—increased GGTNeurology—motor neuropathy

Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) - MaintenanceTable 5 provides the frequency and severity of adverse reactions that have been reported in >5% of 438 patients with

NSCLC who received ALIMTA and 218 patients with NSCLC who received placebo. All patients received study therapyimmediately following 4 cycles of platinum-based treatment for locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC. Patients in both studyarms were fully supplemented with folic acid and vitamin B12.

No clinically relevant differences in Grade 3/4 adverse reactions were seen in patients based on age, gender, ethnic origin,or histology except a higher incidence of Grade 3/4 fatigue for Caucasian patients compared to non-Caucasian patients (6.5%versus 0.6%).

Safety was assessed by exposure for patients who received at least one dose of ALIMTA (N=438). The incidence of adverse reactions was evaluated for patients who received ≤6 cycles of ALIMTA, and compared to patients who received >6 cycles of ALIMTA. Increases in adverse reactions (all grades) were observed with longer exposure; however no clinicallyrelevant differences in Grade 3/4 adverse reactions were seen.

Consistent with the higher incidence of anemia (all grades) on the ALIMTA arm, use of transfusions (mainly RBC) anderythropoiesis stimulating agents (ESAs; erythropoietin and darbepoetin) were higher in the ALIMTA arm compared to theplacebo arm (transfusions 9.5% versus 3.2%, ESAs 5.9% versus 1.8%).

The following additional adverse reactions were observed in patients with non-small cell lung cancer who received ALIMTA.Incidence 1% to 5%

Dermatology/Skin—alopecia, pruritis/itchingGastrointestinal—constipationGeneral Disorders—edema, fever (in the absence of neutropenia)Hematologic—thrombocytopeniaRenal—decreased creatinine clearance, increased creatinine, decreased glomerular filtration rateSpecial Senses—ocular surface disease (including conjunctivitis), increased lacrimation

Incidence Less than 1%Cardiovascular—supraventricular arrhythmiaDermatology/Skin—erythema multiformeGeneral Disorders—febrile neutropenia, allergic reaction/hypersensitivityNeurology—motor neuropathyRenal—renal failure

Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC)—After Prior ChemotherapyTable 6 provides the frequency and severity of adverse reactions that have been reported in >5% of 265 patients randomly

assigned to receive single-agent ALIMTA with folic acid and vitamin B12 supplementation and 276 patients randomly assigned toreceive single-agent docetaxel. All patients were diagnosed with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC and received priorchemotherapy.

No clinically relevant differences in adverse reactions were seen in patients based on histology.Clinically relevant adverse reactions occurring in <5% of patients that received ALIMTA treatment but >5% of patients that

received docetaxel include CTC Grade 3/4 febrile neutropenia (1.9% ALIMTA, 12.7% docetaxel).The following additional adverse reactions were observed in patients with non-small cell lung cancer randomly assigned

to receive ALIMTA.Incidence 1% to 5%Body as a Whole—abdominal pain, allergic reaction/hypersensitivity, febrile neutropenia, infectionDermatology/Skin—erythema multiformeNeurology—motor neuropathy, sensory neuropathyRenal—increased creatinineIncidence Less than 1%Cardiovascular—supraventricular arrhythmiasMalignant Pleural Mesothelioma (MPM)Table 7 provides the frequency and severity of adverse reactions that have been reported in >5% of 168 patients with

mesothelioma who were randomly assigned to receive cisplatin and ALIMTA and 163 patients with mesothelioma randomlyassigned to receive single-agent cisplatin. In both treatment arms, these chemonaive patients were fully supplemented with folicacid and vitamin B12.

The following additional adverse reactions were observed in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma randomlyassigned to receive ALIMTA plus cisplatin.

Incidence 1% to 5%Body as a Whole—febrile neutropenia, infection, pyrexiaDermatology/Skin—urticariaGeneral Disorders—chest painMetabolism and Nutrition—increased AST, increased ALT, increased GGTRenal—renal failureIncidence Less than 1%Cardiovascular—arrhythmiaNeurology—motor neuropathyEffects of Vitamin SupplementationsTable 8 compares the incidence (percentage of patients) of CTC Grade 3/4 toxicities in patients who received vitamin

supplementation with daily folic acid and vitamin B12 from the time of enrollment in the study (fully supplemented) with theincidence in patients who never received vitamin supplementation (never supplemented) during the study in the ALIMTA pluscisplatin arm.

The following adverse events were greater in the fully supplemented group compared to the never supplemented group:hypertension (11%, 3%), chest pain (8%, 6%), and thrombosis/embolism (6%, 3%).

SubpopulationsNo relevant effect for ALIMTA safety due to gender or race was identified, except an increased incidence of rash in men

(24%) compared to women (16%).6.2 Post-Marketing Experience

The following adverse reactions have been identified during post-approval use of ALIMTA. Because these reactions arereported voluntarily from a population of uncertain size, it is not always possible to reliably estimate their frequency or establisha causal relationship to drug exposure.

These reactions have occurred with ALIMTA when used as a single-agent and in combination therapies.Gastrointestinal—colitisGeneral Disorders and Administration Site Conditions—edemaInjury, poisoning, and procedural complications—Radiation recall has been reported in patients who have previously

received radiotherapyRespiratory—interstitial pneumonitis


ALIMTA PlaceboReactionb (N=438) (N=218)


All Adverse Reactions 66 16 37 4LaboratoryHematologic

Anemia 15 3 6 1Neutropenia 6 3 0 0Leukopenia 6 2 1 1

HepaticIncreased ALT 10 0 4 0Increased AST 8 0 4 0

ClinicalConstitutional Symptoms

Fatigue 25 5 11 1Gastrointestinal

Nausea 19 1 6 1Anorexia 19 2 5 0Vomiting 9 0 1 0Mucositis/stomatitis 7 1 2 0Diarrhea 5 1 3 0

Infection 5 2 2 0Neurology

Neuropathy-sensory 9 1 4 0Dermatology/Skin

Rash/Desquamation 10 0 3 0

Table 5: Adverse Reactions in Patients Receiving ALIMTA versus Placebo in NSCLCa


b Refer to NCI CTCAE Criteria version 3.0 for each Grade of toxicity.

ALIMTA DocetaxelReactionb (N=265) (N=276)


LaboratoryHematologic

Anemia 19 4 22 4Leukopenia 12 4 34 27Neutropenia 11 5 45 40Thrombocytopenia 8 2 1 0

HepaticIncreased ALT 8 2 1 0Increased AST 7 1 1 0

ClinicalGastrointestinal

Nausea 31 3 17 2Anorexia 22 2 24 3Vomiting 16 2 12 1Stomatitis/Pharyngitis 15 1 17 1Diarrhea 13 0 24 3Constipation 6 0 4 0

Constitutional SymptomsFatigue 34 5 36 5Fever 8 0 8 0

Dermatology/SkinRash/Desquamation 14 0 6 0Pruritis 7 0 2 0Alopecia 6 1c 38 2c

Table 6: Adverse Reactions in Fully Supplemented Patients Receiving ALIMTA versus Docetaxel in NSCLCa


b Refer to NCI CTC Criteria for lab values for each Grade of toxicity (version 2.0).c According to NCI CTC Criteria version 2.0, this adverse event term should only be reported as Grade 1 or 2.

ALIMTA/cisplatin CisplatinReactionb (N=168) (N=163)


LaboratoryHematologic

Neutropenia 56 23 13 3Leukopenia 53 15 17 1Anemia 26 4 10 0Thrombocytopenia 23 5 9 0

RenalCreatinine elevation 11 1 10 1Creatinine clearance decreased 16 1 18 2

ClinicalEye Disorder

Conjunctivitis 5 0 1 0Gastrointestinal

Nausea 82 12 77 6Vomiting 57 11 50 4Stomatitis/Pharyngitis 23 3 6 0Anorexia 20 1 14 1Diarrhea 17 4 8 0Constipation 12 1 7 1Dyspepsia 5 1 1 0

Constitutional SymptomsFatigue 48 10 42 9

Metabolism and NutritionDehydration 7 4 1 1

NeurologyNeuropathy-sensory 10 0 10 1Taste Disturbance 8 0c 6 0c

Dermatology/SkinRash 16 1 5 0Alopecia 11 0c 6 0c

Table 7: Adverse Reactions in Fully Supplemented Patients Receiving ALIMTA plus Cisplatin in MPMa


b Refer to NCI CTC Criteria version 2.0 for each Grade of toxicity except the term “creatinine clearance decreased” which isderived from the CTC term “renal/genitourinary-other”.

c According to NCI CTC Criteria version 2.0, this adverse event term should only be reported as Grade 1 or 2.

Fully Supplemented Never SupplementedPatients Patients

Adverse Eventa (%) (N=168) (N=32)Neutropenia/granulocytopenia 23 38Thrombocytopenia 5 9Vomiting 11 31Febrile neutropenia 1 9Infection with Grade 3/4 neutropenia 0 6Diarrhea 4 9

Table 8: Selected Grade 3/4 Adverse Events Comparing Fully Supplemented versus Never Supplemented Patients in the ALIMTA plus Cisplatin arm (% incidence)

a Refer to NCI CTC criteria for lab and non-laboratory values for each grade of toxicity (Version 2.0).


7 DRUG INTERACTIONS

7.1 Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs (NSAIDs)IbuprofenAlthough ibuprofen (400 mg four times a day) can decrease the clearance of pemetrexed, it can be administered with

ALIMTA in patients with normal renal function (creatinine clearance ≥80 mL/min). Caution should be used when administeringibuprofen concurrently with ALIMTA to patients with mild to moderate renal insufficiency (creatinine clearance from 45 to 79 mL/min)[see Clinical Pharmacology (12.3) in the full Prescribing Information].

Other NSAIDsPatients with mild to moderate renal insufficiency should avoid taking NSAIDs with short elimination half-lives for a

period of 2 days before, the day of, and 2 days following administration of ALIMTA.In the absence of data regarding potential interaction between ALIMTA and NSAIDs with longer half-lives, all patients

taking these NSAIDs should interrupt dosing for at least 5 days before, the day of, and 2 days following ALIMTA administration.If concomitant administration of an NSAID is necessary, patients should be monitored closely for toxicity, especiallymyelosuppression, renal, and gastrointestinal toxicity.

7.2 Nephrotoxic DrugsALIMTA is primarily eliminated unchanged renally as a result of glomerular filtration and tubular secretion. Concomitant

administration of nephrotoxic drugs could result in delayed clearance of ALIMTA. Concomitant administration of substances thatare also tubularly secreted (e.g., probenecid) could potentially result in delayed clearance of ALIMTA.

8 USE IN SPECIFIC POPULATIONS

8.1 PregnancyTeratogenic Effects—Pregnancy Category D [see Warnings and Precautions (5.6)]Based on its mechanism of action, ALIMTA can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman. There are no

adequate and well controlled studies of ALIMTA in pregnant women. Pemetrexed was embryotoxic, fetotoxic, and teratogenic inmice. In mice, repeated intraperitoneal doses of pemetrexed when given during organogenesis caused fetal malformations(incomplete ossification of talus and skull bone; about 1/833rd the recommended intravenous human dose on a mg/m2 basis),and cleft palate (1/33rd the recommended intravenous human dose on a mg/m2 basis). Embryotoxicity was characterized byincreased embryo-fetal deaths and reduced litter sizes. If ALIMTA is used during pregnancy, or if the patient becomes pregnantwhile taking this drug, the patient should be apprised of the potential hazard to the fetus. Women of childbearing potential shouldbe advised to use effective contraceptive measures to prevent pregnancy during the treatment with ALIMTA.

8.3 Nursing MothersIt is not known whether ALIMTA or its metabolites are excreted in human milk. Because many drugs are excreted in

human milk, and because of the potential for serious adverse reactions in nursing infants from ALIMTA, a decision should bemade to discontinue nursing or discontinue the drug, taking into account the importance of the drug for the mother.

8.4 Pediatric UseThe safety and effectiveness of ALIMTA in pediatric patients have not been established.

8.5 Geriatric UseALIMTA is known to be substantially excreted by the kidney, and the risk of adverse reactions to this drug may be greater

in patients with impaired renal function. Because elderly patients are more likely to have decreased renal function, care should betaken in dose selection. Renal function monitoring is recommended with administration of ALIMTA. No dose reductions otherthan those recommended for all patients are necessary for patients 65 years of age or older [see Dosage and Administration (2.4)].

In the initial treatment non-small cell lung cancer clinical trial, 37.7% of patients treated with ALIMTA plus cisplatin were ≥65 years and Grade 3/4 neutropenia was greater as compared to patients <65 years (19.9% versus 12.2%). For patients<65 years, the HR for overall survival was 0.96 (95% CI: 0.83, 1.10) and for patients ≥65 years the HR was 0.88 (95% CI: 0.74,1.06) in the intent-to-treat population.

In the maintenance non-small cell lung cancer trial, 33.3% of patients treated with ALIMTA were ≥65 years and no differenceswere seen in Grade 3/4 adverse reactions as compared to patients <65 years. For patients <65 years, the HR for overall survivalwas 0.74 (95% CI: 0.58, 0.93) and for patients ≥65 years the HR was 0.88 (95% CI: 0.65, 1.21) in the intent-to-treat population.

In the non-small cell lung cancer trial after prior chemotherapy, 29.7% patients treated with ALIMTA were ≥65 years andGrade 3/4 hypertension was greater as compared to patients <65 years. For patients <65 years, the HR for overall survival was0.95 (95% CI: 0.76, 1.19), and for patients ≥65 years the HR was 1.15 (95% CI: 0.79, 1.68) in the intent-to-treat population.

The mesothelioma trial included 36.7% patients treated with ALIMTA plus cisplatin that were ≥65 years, and Grade 3/4fatigue, leukopenia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia were greater as compared to patients <65 years. For patients <65 years,the HR for overall survival was 0.71 (95% CI: 0.53, 0.96) and for patients ≥65 years, the HR was 0.85 (95% CI: 0.59, 1.22) in theintent-to-treat population.

8.6 Patients with Hepatic ImpairmentThere was no effect of elevated AST, ALT, or total bilirubin on the pharmacokinetics of pemetrexed [see Clinical

Pharmacology (12.3) in the full Prescribing Information].Dose adjustments based on hepatic impairment experienced during treatment with ALIMTA are provided in Table 2 [see

Dosage and Administration (2.4)].8.7 Patients with Renal Impairment

ALIMTA is known to be primarily excreted by the kidneys. Decreased renal function will result in reduced clearance andgreater exposure (AUC) to ALIMTA compared with patients with normal renal function [see Dosage and Administration (2.4)and Clinical Pharmacology (12.3) in the full Prescribing Information]. Cisplatin coadministration with ALIMTA has not beenstudied in patients with moderate renal impairment.

8.8 GenderIn the initial treatment non-small cell lung cancer trial, 70% of patients were males and 30% females. For males the HR

for overall survival was 0.97 (95% CI: 0.85, 1.10) and for females the HR was 0.86 (95% CI: 0.70, 1.06) in the intent-to-treatpopulation.

In the maintenance non-small cell lung cancer trial, 73% of patients were males and 27% females. For males the HR foroverall survival was 0.78 (95% CI: 0.63, 0.96) and for females the HR was 0.83 (95% CI: 0.56, 1.21) in the intent-to-treatpopulation.

In the non-small cell lung cancer trial after prior chemotherapy, 72% of patients were males and 28% females. For malesthe HR for overall survival was 0.95 (95% CI: 0.76, 1.19) and for females the HR was 1.28 (95% CI: 0.86, 1.91) in the intent-to-treat population.

In the mesothelioma trial, 82% of patients were males and 18% females. For males the HR for overall survival was 0.85 (95% CI: 0.66, 1.09) and for females the HR was 0.48 (95% CI: 0.27, 0.85) in the intent-to-treat population.

8.9 RaceIn the initial treatment non-small cell lung cancer trial, 78% of patients were Caucasians, 13% East/Southeast Asians, and

9% others. For Caucasians, the HR for overall survival was 0.92 (95% CI: 0.82, 1.04), for East/Southeast Asians the HR was0.86 (95% CI: 0.61, 1.21), and for others the HR was 1.24 (95% CI: 0.84, 1.84) in the intent-to-treat population.

In the maintenance non-small cell lung cancer trial, 65% of patients were Caucasians, 23% East Asian, and 12% others.For Caucasians the HR for overall survival was 0.77 (95% CI: 0.62, 0.97), for East Asians was 1.05 (95% CI: 0.70, 1.59) and for others the HR was 0.46 (95% CI: 0.26, 0.79) in the intent-to-treat population.

In the non-small cell lung cancer trial after prior chemotherapy, 71% of patients were Caucasians and 29% others. ForCaucasians the HR for overall survival was 0.91 (95% CI: 0.73, 1.15) and for others the HR was 1.27 (95% CI: 0.87, 1.87) in the intent-to-treat population.

In the mesothelioma trial, 92% of patients were Caucasians and 8% others. For Caucasians, the HR for overall survivalwas 0.77 (95% CI: 0.61, 0.97) and for others the HR was 0.86 (95% CI: 0.39, 1.90) in the intent-to-treat population.

10 OVERDOSAGEThere have been few cases of ALIMTA overdose. Reported toxicities included neutropenia, anemia, thrombocytopenia,

mucositis, and rash. Anticipated complications of overdose include bone marrow suppression as manifested by neutropenia,thrombocytopenia, and anemia. In addition, infection with or without fever, diarrhea, and mucositis may be seen. If an overdoseoccurs, general supportive measures should be instituted as deemed necessary by the treating physician.

In clinical trials, leucovorin was permitted for CTC Grade 4 leukopenia lasting ≥3 days, CTC Grade 4 neutropenia lasting≥3 days, and immediately for CTC Grade 4 thrombocytopenia, bleeding associated with Grade 3 thrombocytopenia, or Grade 3or 4 mucositis. The following intravenous doses and schedules of leucovorin were recommended for intravenous use: 100 mg/m2, intravenously once, followed by leucovorin, 50 mg/m2, intravenously every 6 hours for 8 days.

The ability of ALIMTA to be dialyzed is unknown.

13 NONCLINICAL TOXICOLOGY13.1 Carcinogenesis, Mutagenesis, Impairment of Fertility

No carcinogenicity studies have been conducted with pemetrexed. Pemetrexed was clastogenic in the in vivo micronucleusassay in mouse bone marrow but was not mutagenic in multiple in vitro tests (Ames assay, CHO cell assay). Pemetrexedadministered at i.v. doses of 0.1 mg/kg/day or greater to male mice (about 1/1666 the recommended human dose on a mg/m2

basis) resulted in reduced fertility, hypospermia, and testicular atrophy.

17 PATIENT COUNSELING INFORMATIONSee FDA-Approved Patient Labeling.Patients should be instructed to read the patient package insert carefully.

17.1 Need for Folic Acid and Vitamin B12

Patients treated with ALIMTA must be instructed to take folic acid and vitamin B12 as a prophylactic measure to reducetreatment-related hematologic and gastrointestinal toxicity [see Dosage and Administration (2.3)].17.2 Low Blood Cell Counts

Patients should be adequately informed of the risk of low blood cell counts and instructed to immediately contact theirphysician should any sign of infection develop including fever. Patients should also contact their physician if bleeding orsymptoms of anemia occur.

17.3 Gastrointestinal EffectsPatients should be instructed to contact their physician if persistent vomiting, diarrhea, or signs of dehydration appear.

17.4 Concomitant MedicationsPatients should be instructed to inform the physician if they are taking any concomitant prescription or over-the-counter

medications including those for pain or inflammation such as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [see Drug Interactions (7.1)].17.5 FDA-Approved Patient Labeling

Patients should be instructed to read the patient package insert carefully.

To report SUSPECTED ADVERSE REACTIONS, contact Eli Lilly and Company at 1-800-LillyRx (1-800-545-5979) or FDA at 1-800-FDA-1088, or www.fda.gov/medwatch.

Literature revised July 2, 2009

Eli Lilly and CompanyIndianapolis, IN 46285, USA

Copyright © 2004, 2009, Eli Lilly and Company. All rights reserved.

PV 5206 AMP PRINTED IN USA



More patients achieved the primary end point of a major molecular response (MMR) and fewer patients had disease progression. Nilotinib was at least as well tolerated as imatinib, and the advantage of nilotinib over imatinib was consistent across Sokal risk strat-ifications, a common scoring system for predicting survival in patients with CML.

“Based on these results, we strongly believe that nilotinib may become the new standard of care in newly diagnosed CML,” said Giuseppe Saglio, MD, a researcher at the University of Turin’s San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital in Orbassano, Italy. Dr. Saglio, lead investigator of the study, presented these results at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology (abstract LBA1). He indicated that the greater efficacy of nilo-tinib compared with imatinib is consistent with its greater inhibition of BCR-ABL, a defining molecular defect in CML.

In the trial, at 12 months, roughly 20% more patients achieved an MMR with nilotinib compared with ima-tinib. Less than 1% of patients in each of the two arms that received nilotinib entered accelerated phase (AP) or blast crisis (BC) in the 12-month period compared with 3.9% of patients in the imatinib arm.

Study DetailsIn the study, which included 217 participating cen-

ters in 35 countries, 846 previously untreated patients with CML were randomized to the standard once-daily (qd) 400-mg dose of imatinib, 300-mg twice daily (bid) of nilotinib or 400-mg bid of nilotinib. Although the study protocol allowed imatinib patients to increase the dose to 400 mg bid (16% did so), dose escalation was not permitted in either of the nilotinib arms. The primary end point was MMR at 12 months. Complete cytogenetic response (CCyR) at 12 months was a secondary end point. Other end points included duration of MMR and CCyR, progression-free surviv-al (PFS) and overall survival (OS).

The MMR rates were achieved more quickly at every time point by the nilotinib group starting at three months. At 12 months, the rates of MMR were 44% in the 300 mg bid and 43% in the 400 mg bid nilotinib arms compared with 22% in the imatinib arm (P<0.0001 for either nilotinib arm relative to ima-tinib). The CCyR rates at 12 months were 80% for 300 mg bid nilotinib (P<0.0001 vs. imatinib), 78% for 400 mg bid nilotinib (P=0.0005 vs. imatinib) and 65% for imatinib. Only two patients (0.7%) in the 300-mg nilo-tinib arm (P<0.001 vs. imatinib) and only one patient

(0.4%) in the 400-mg nilotinib arm (P<0.004 vs. ima-tinib) entered AP or BC within 12 months compared with 11 patients (3.9%) in the imatinib arm.

Both nilotinib and imatinib were relatively well tol-erated, but there were differences in the types of side effects. Whereas grade 3 or 4 myelosuppression was generally low overall, imatinib was associated with higher rates of grade 3/4 neutropenia (20% vs. 12% and 10% for the 300- and 400-mg bid doses of nilo-tinib, respectively). Grade 3 or 4 nonhematologic side effects were uncommon in all groups, but when ima-

tinib was compared with 300- or 400-mg bid nilo-tinib for specific side effects of any grade, rates were higher for imatinib for nausea (31% vs. 12% and 20%), muscle spasm (24% vs. 7% and 6%), diarrhea (21% vs. 8% and 7%) and vomiting (14% vs. 5% and 9%). In contrast, rash (11% vs. 31% and 26%) and headache (8% vs. 14% and 21%) were more frequently reported

Nilotinib May Best Imatinib in 1st-line Treatment of CMLNew Orleans—In a large, multinational Phase III study, nilotinib (Tasigna, Novartis) demonstrated compelling superiority to imatinib (Gleevec, Novartis) as first-line therapy for chronic myeloid leukemia (CML).

see NILOTINIB, page 26 �

ADVISORY BOARD

BioethicsJoseph P. DeMarco, PhD

Paul J. Ford, PhD

Community OncologyMichael J. Fisch, MD, MPH

John W. Finnie, MD

Hematologic MalignanciesJennifer R. Brown, MD, PhD

Agnes Y.Y. Lee, MSc, MD

Richard Stone, MD

Oncology Nursing Betty Ferrell, RN, PhD

PharmacyPolly E. Kintzel, PharmD

Melvin E. Liter, MS, PharmD

Policy and ManagementMary Lou Bowers, MBA

Barbara Constable, RN, MBA

Rhonda M. Gold, RN, MSN

Solid Tumors Bone Metastases

Allan Lipton, MD

Breast Cancer

Andrew Seidman, MD

Maura N. Dickler, MD

Gastrointestinal Cancer

Edward Chu, MD

Cathy Eng, MD

Leonard Saltz, MD

Gastrointestinal Cancer and Sarcoma

Ephraim Casper, MD

Genitourinary Cancer

Ronald M. Bukowski, MD

Gynecologic Cancer

Maurie Markman, MD

Lung, and Head and Neck Cancers

Edward S. Kim, MD

Lung Cancer, Emesis

Richard J. Gralla, MD

Infection ControlSusan K. Seo, MD, Director

Symptom Control and Palliative CareWilliam S. Breitbart, MD

Steven D. Passik, PhD

Joseph V. Pergolizzi Jr., MD

Russell K. Portenoy, MD

Charles F. von Gunten, MD

EDITORIAL STAFF

Kate O’Rourke, [email protected]

Sarah Tilyou, Senior [email protected]

James Prudden, Group Editorial Director

David Bronstein, Editorial Director, Hospital Group

Robin B. Weisberg, Manager, Copyediting Services

Elizabeth Zhong, Associate Copy Chief

SALES STAFF

Thomas Ciriacks, Group Publication [email protected]

Julianna Dawson, Publication [email protected]

Nancy Parker, Executive Manager/Classified Advertising, [email protected]

ART AND PRODUCTION STAFF

Michele McMahon Velle, Creative Director, MAX Graphics

Frank Tagarello, Senior Art Director/Managing Director, MAX Graphics

Dan Radebaugh, Director of Production and Technical Operations

Mark Neufeld, Production Manager

MCMAHON PUBLISHING

Raymond E. McMahon, Publisher & CEO, Managing Partner

Van Velle, President, Partner

Thomas Ciriacks, Vice President, Medical Education

Matthew McMahon, General Manager, Partner

Lauren Smith, Michael McMahon, Michele McMahon Velle, Rosanne C. McMahon, Partners

McMahon Publishing is a 38-year-old, family-owned medical publishing and medical education company. McMahon publishes seven clinical newspapers, seven special editions, and continuing medical education and custom publications.

Copyright © 2010 by McMahon Publishing, New York, NY 10036. All rights reserved. Clinical Oncology News (ISSN 1933-0677) is published monthly for $70.00 per year by McMahon Publishing. Postage paid at New York, NY, and at additional mailing offices.

www.mcmahonmed.com

POSTMASTER: Please send address changes to Clinical Oncology News, 545 W. 45th St., 8th Floor, New York, NY 10036.

Would you like to receive Clinical Oncology News or change your delivery address?All U.S. oncologists, hematologist/oncologists, surgical oncologists, oncology nurses and oncology pharmacists should re ceive Clinical Oncology News free of charge. If you are changing your address or name, you must notify the AMA at (800) 262-3211 or the AOA (if appropriate) at (800) 621-1773. To contin-ue receiving Clinical Oncology News, you need not be a member of either organization; however, they main-tain the ultimate source of our mailing addresses. For added assurance of uninterrupted receipt, you may also mail or fax a copy of your current mailing label along with your change of address and signature to:

Circulation Manager, Clinical Oncology News, 545 W. 45th St., 8th Floor, New York, NY 10036. Fax: (212) 977-3645.

If you are not a member of the groups listed above and would like to subscribe, please send a check pay-able to Clinical Oncology News. Please allow 8-12 weeks for delivery of the first issue. Subscription: $70.00 domestic, $90.00 international. Single copies $7.00 domestic, $10.00 international.

TM

‘Based on these results, we strongly believe that nilotinib may become the new standard of care in newly diagnosed CML.’

—Giuseppe Saglio, MD

CLINICAL ONCOLOGY NEWS • FEBRUARY 2010 7HEMATOLOGIC DISEASE

CML

8 CLINICAL ONCOLOGY NEWS • FEBRUARY 2010

JAK2 Inhibitors in Myeloproliferative Diseases: Are We Getting Someplace?

At the ASH meeting, several studies showed varying results with inhibitors of the Janus kinase 2 (JAK2) gene in patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs). Further studies are needed to elucidate the role these agents will play in these diseases.

The MPNs (polycythemia vera, essential throm-bocytosis and agnogenic myeloid metaplasia with myelofibrosis), characterized by overproduction of normal bone marrow elements, were defined on clin-ical grounds alone. In recent years, the discovery that almost all patients with polycythemia vera and approximately 60% of patients with essential throm-bocytosis and myelofibrosis have an activating muta-tion in the JAK2 tyrosine kinase (V617F) led investiga-tors to believe that targeting this mutation might lead to a new, specific therapeutic approach.

Since the identification of this mutation, the clini-cal development of JAK2 inhibitors in MPNs has pro-ceeded relatively rapidly. Preclinical studies revealed that JAK2 inhibitors reduced proliferation of rele-vant cell lines and mitigated disease manifestations in murine disease models. At prior ASH meetings, abstracts detailing results from Phase I and II stud-ies with JAK2 inhibitors have been presented. One of the compounds (XL109) is no longer being developed as a result of neurologic toxicities. We have previous-ly heard that the JAK2 inhibitors from the TargeGen (TG101348) and Incyte Corporations (INCB018424) are capable of reducing spleen size and ameliorating systemic symptoms in patients with myelofibrosis. The inhibitors were used first in patients with myelo-fibrosis in part because the presumed need for chron-ic therapy in less aggressive MPNs (essential throm-bocytosis and polycythemia vera) meant that it was important to establish safety. Two of the most inter-esting features that have emerged in this early peri-od are that 1) even patients with no detectable V671F JAK2 mutation may benefit, potentially because of the ability of these agents to inhibit other enzymes besides JAK2, including those with anti-inflammatory prop-erties; and 2) clinical benefit in terms of spleen reduc-tion is fairly common.

Updates on two of these compounds used in patients with myelofibrosis were presented at the ASH meet-ing. In a Phase I trial involving 59 patients, TG101348

led to a spleen size reduction of at least 50% in 67% of patients, a decreased white blood cell (WBC) count in all the patients in whom WBC was elevated at base-line, and a 50% reduction in the V617F allelic burden in 44% of patients with a mutation (abstract 755) (Fig-ure 1). In another study, 155 patients with myelofibro-sis received INCB018424 in a patient-optimized dosing regimen based on initial platelet count scheme (abstract 766). The study revealed that 48% of patients receiv-ing INCB018424 had significant spleen size reduc-tion and 58% of patients had a 50% reduction in over-all symptoms at six months (Figure 2). Patients also had improved exercise capacity. Lestaurtinib (Cephalon), primarily developed as an FMS-like tyrosine kinase 3 (FLT3) inhibitor, was recently tested in myelofibrosis; preliminary results also showed that this agent could reduce spleen size and mutant allelic burden (abstract 754). The updated results continued to show that these drugs might have some beneficial effect on myelofibro-sis; whether or not this effect is of a great enough mag-nitude to justify approval remains to be seen.

Lestaurtinib also was tested in patients with “advanced” polycythemia vera and essential thrombo-cytosis and was found to reduce the spleen size in some patients, but a significant drop in JAK2 V617F allele burden was not common by the six-month mark and there were problems with drug tolerability (abstract 755). However, the results presented by Verstovsek et al with the INCB018424 Phase II trial in patients with hydroxyurea-refractory polycythemia vera (n=34) and essential thrombocytosis (n=39) were more encourag-ing (abstract 311). In patients with polycythemia vera, pruritis and need for phlebotomy decreased with nor-malization of complete blood count being common. In patients with essential thrombocytosis, similar improvements were noted. The path to common use of JAK2 inhibitors in MPNs remains somewhat unclear, but it is certainly an effort that bears watching.

FLT3 Inhibitors in AML: “Good and Bad News”

At the ASH meeting, a number of abstracts detailed

results from studies involving FLT3 inhibitors in acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Although some of the stud-ies had disappointing results, FLT3 inhibitors will con-tinue to be pursued in AML either (if potent enough) as single agents, or in combination with chemothera-py in the up-front setting.

The finding that blasts from 30% of patients with AML harbored an activating mutation in the FLT3 tyrosine kinase oncogene promoted an intense search for FLT3 inhibitors that could cause remissions analo-gous to those seen with BCR-ABL inhibitors in chron-ic myelogenous leukemia (CML). Approximately 25% of patients with AML have a length or internal tandem duplication (ITD, poor prognosis) mutation. Anoth-er 5% to 10% have an activating point mutation in the tyrosine kinase domain. Either of these two mutations can cause factor-independent growth in cell lines and a myeloproliferative disease in murine models. JAK2 inhibitors such as midostaurin (PKC412, Ambit Bio-sciences), lestaurtinib (CEP701) or AC220 (Ambit Bio-sciences) result in amelioration of disease in murine

models and can specifically kill cell lines transformed by one of the activating constructs of FLT3. To date, however, the results of using FLT3 inhibitors as single agents in AML have been, perhaps not surprisingly, disappointing. Full-blown clinical AML likely repre-sents a multitude of leukemogenic mutations, only one of which, and perhaps a late one at that, is the FLT3 activating mutation.

Single-agent studies with FLT3 inhibitors have shown a frequent, but transient and usually not clini-cally significant reduction in peripheral blood blasts. Several reasons for the lack of activity of JAK2 as a sin-gle agent in AML have been postulated. These include pharmacokinetic problems in which the active inhib-itory molecule is not present in high enough levels for a long enough time, the elaboration of survival factors in a protected stem cell niche, and the acquisition of addition leukemogenic mutations not dealt with by the inhibitor.

Data presented at this meeting gave cause for both optimism and concern. AC220, a potent and selective

HEMATOLOGIC DISEASE

Multiple Cancers

ASH NEWScontinued from page 1 �

Single-agent studies with FLT3 inhibitors have shown a frequent, but transient and usually not clinically signifi cant reduction in peripheral blood blasts.

3030

20

10

0

Pati

en

ts, %

Completeresponse

Figure 4. Patients with AML treated with lenalidomide.

56

12 14

60

40

20

0

Pati

en

ts, %

Patients Complete Partial who remission remission responded

Figure 3. Effects of AC220 on patients with AML.

48

5860

40

20

0

Pati

en

ts, %

Significant 50% reduction spleen size in overall reduction symptoms

Figure 2. Effects of INCB018424 on patients with myelofibrosis.

67

44

80

60

40

20

0

Pati

en

ts, %

50% spleen 50% reduction size reduction in V617F allelic burden

Figure 1. Effects of TG101348 on patients with myelofibrosis.

CLINICAL ONCOLOGY NEWS • FEBRUARY 2010 9

FLT3 inhibitor, tested as a single agent in AML (N=76), is associated with a significant complete remission (CR) (12%, including those with incomplete blood count recovery) and partial remission (14%) rates; 56% of FLT3 ITD patients responded (abstract 636) (Figure 3). Whether the apparently high response rate compared with other single-agent FLT3 inhibitors is because of potency or a longer period of drug exposure is unclear, but it certainly warrants further development.

When it was recognized that single-agent FLT3inhibitors would not represent a straightforward therapeutic development pathway in AML, the notion that they should be combined with chemo-therapy was based on general consideration, as well as in vitro data that suggested that these agents would synergistically kill leukemic cells. Using the drug in combination with chemotherapy early in the disease might obviate the role of secondary mutations pre-sumptively present in relapsed patients. As such, a Phase IB trial of midostaurin plus chemotherapy was completed a few years ago that demonstrated tolera-bility of oral midostaurin 50 mg twice daily plus che-motherapy in patients (<60 years) newly diagnosed with AML. Updated data from that trial showed that patients with FLT3 mutations surprisingly survived just as long as those with wild-type FLT3, perhaps yielding some hope that chemotherapy in combina-tion with an FLT3 inhibitor in the up-front setting might be beneficial (abstract 634). A large up-front, double-blind randomized trial involving midostau-rin compared with placebo plus induction and post-remission chemotherapy (CALGB 10603) for patients with AML and FLT3 mutations is under way.

The mature results of an important trial involving relapsed FLT3 ITD-mutant patients was presented by Mark Levis, MD, PhD, (abstract 788) at this meet-ing. Patients with relapsed FLT3 ITD AML were

randomized either to chemotherapy alone or chemo-therapy plus the FLT3 inhibitor lestaurtinib. Unfor-tunately, there was no improvement in the CR rate in patients who were randomized to lestaurtinib. Dr. Levis indicated that the lack of overall benefit might have been the failure to achieve high enough levels for a long enough time.

Further studies will tease out just how these agents may be used in therapy.

Lessons Learned From MDS Applicable to AML

One of the most important recent developments in the therapeutics of disease considered largely med-ically refractory, myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) has been the use of lenalidomide (Revlimid, Celgene) in the subset of patients with a 5q- cytogenetic abnor-mality. Approximately two-thirds of patients with low-risk MDS who have a 5q- cytogenetic abnormality alone or in combination with others will experience transfu-sion independence when given 10 mg of lenalidomide daily. What was particularly striking was that most patients who experienced a clinical improvement also lost cytogenetic evidence of the malignant clone; there-fore, it was thought that patients with AML, particular-ly those with 5q- abnormalities, also might respond to

lenalidomide even though no patients with even high-risk MDS were given this agent in the original stud-ies. Abstracts presented from Ohio State Universi-ty (abstract 841) and Washington University (abstract 842) indicated that at least some patients with full-blown AML might respond to lenalidomide.

A Phase I trial of lenalidomide in relapsed or refrac-tory acute leukemia was conducted (abstract 841). In this group of 35 heavily pretreated patients, the rec-ommended Phase II dose was 50 mg per day. High-er doses produced intolerable fatigue. Life-threaten-ing thromboembolism did not occur. Five of 31 patients with AML achieved a CR, including three patients with abnormal cytogenetics at pretreatment who achieved complete cytogenetic responses. Responses took about two months, so patience was required. None of those who responded had a 5q- abnormality; one had tri-somy 13. Two patients responded after post-alloge-neic transplant relapses, suggesting the possibility of immune augmentation induced by lenalidomide. Vij et al (abstract 842) treated 33 untreated adults with AML who were aged 60 years or older and not deemed candidates for chemotherapy with lenalidomide (50 mg/d for one month, then 10 mg/d for 12 months). Of these patients, 30% achieved a CR, including 50% of those with a low WBC count at presentation (Figure 4). Responses usually were seen during the first month of therapy. Most of the patients who achieved CR and who had a clonal cytogenetic abnormality at diagnosis became cytogenetically normal.

Additional studies clearly are required to capitalize on these findings. Investigators will need to determine the mechanism of response, confirm the sensitivity of patients with trisomy 13, and consider whether only those with lower WBC counts at the start will respond. Optimal dosing (50 mg/d continuously “v” stepping down to a lower dose from maintenance) is not yet clear. However, just as DNA hypomethylating agents, so successfully employed in MDS, are now being used in patients with poor-risk AML, lenalidomide also may someday be added to the currently meager therapeutic armamentarium in older adults with AML.

—Richard Stone, MD

HEMATOLOGIC DISEASE

Multiple Cancers

Approximately 60% of patients with essential thrombocytosis and myelofi brosis have an activating mutation in the JAK2 tyrosine kinase (V617F).

Richard Stone, MD, provides these highlights from the ASH meeting.

Janus kinase 2

Where do you go ...... if you recall reading an educational

supplement, but no longer have a hard copy?

... if you heard about an interesting piece from a colleague, and would like to obtain a copy

CLINICALONCOLOGY.COM

“This is the first time a randomized trial has shown that a choice of a specific first-line treatment for CLL could improve overall survival,” said Michael Hallek, MD, University of Cologne in Germa-ny. He presented the study at the recent annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology (ASH; abstract 535).

The news solidifies the combination of rituximab, cyclophosphamide and fludar-abine (FCR) as a first-line treatment for CLL. During the December 2008 ASH meeting, researchers from the same tri-al deemed FCR as a new standard of care

after analysis of results revealed that add-ing rituximab to FC nearly doubled com-plete response rates and lengthened pro-gression-free survival (PFS) by 10 months. “[The news from this trial] was probably practice changing last year, with the ben-efit in PFS reported then, but now with the OS benefit, it is that much more con-vincing. OS benefits are hard to come by in indolent diseases,” said Jennifer Brown, MD, an attending physician with the CLL & Lymphoma Program, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

The study, conducted by the German CLL Study Group, involved 817 patients with previously untreated but advanced CLL who were randomized to six courses of FC or FCR. Overall survival three years post-randomization was 87.2% in patients receiving FCR and 82.5% in patients receiving FC (P=0.012; Figure). As of June 2009, the median observation time was 37.7 months and at this time point, OS was 84.1% in the FCR arm compared with

79% in the FC arm (P=0.01). Only patients in Binet stages A and B showed a superior OS after FCR treatment (Binet A: hazard ratio [HR], 0.19; 95% confidence inter-val [CI], 0.023-1.613; P=0.09; Binet B: HR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.296-0.689; P<0.001; Binet C: HR, 1.4; 95% CI, 0.843-2.620; P=0.168).

The median OS has not been reached in either arm. The median PFS was 51.8 months in the FCR arm and 32.8 months in the FC arm.

The investigators say that the par-tial failure to demonstrate a benefit for FCR in Binet stage C patients may be

related to insufficient treatment intensity in these patients with higher tumor load. Patients in Binet stages A and B received more treatment cycles (5.31) than Binet C patients (4.52; P<0.001). Only 57.1% (FC) and 60.3% (FCR) of patients with Binet C stage CLL received six cycles.

The investigators concluded that the presence of a deletion of 17p, FC ver-sus FCR therapy and an elevated serum β2-microglobulin level were the strongest predictors for treatment failure. Results

FCR Solidified as Standard of Care for CLLNew Orleans—The addition of rituximab (Rituxan, Genentech/Idec) to cyclophosphamide and fludarabine (FC) improves overall survival (OS) in physically fit patients with advanced chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), according to a recent study.

‘OS benefi ts are hard to come by in

indolent diseases.’

—Jennifer Brown, MD

Clinical Oncology News would like your

feedback.Please send opinions, criticism,

ideas and suggestions to

Kate O’Rourke, Editor,

Clinical Oncology News, at

[email protected]

ERBITUX® (cetuximab): FOR PATIENTS WITH HEAD AND NECK CANCER*

Important Safety Information Including Boxed WARNINGSInfusion Reactions■ Grade 3/4 infusion reactions occurred in approximately 3% of patients receiving ERBITUX® (cetuximab) in clinical trials, with fatal outcome reported in less

than 1 in 1000— Serious infusion reactions, requiring medical intervention and immediate, permanent discontinuation of ERBITUX, included rapid onset of airway

obstruction (bronchospasm, stridor, hoarseness), hypotension, shock, loss of consciousness, myocardial infarction, and/or cardiac arrest— Immediately interrupt and permanently discontinue ERBITUX infusions for serious infusion reactions

■ Most (90%) of the severe infusion reactions were associated with the first infusion of ERBITUX despite premedication with antihistamines— Caution must be exercised with every ERBITUX infusion, as there were patients who experienced their first severe infusion reaction during later infusions— Monitor patients for 1 hour following ERBITUX infusions in a setting with resuscitation equipment and other agents necessary to treat anaphylaxis

(eg, epinephrine, corticosteroids, intravenous antihistamines, bronchodilators, and oxygen). Longer observation periods may be required in patientswho require treatment for infusion reactions

Cardiopulmonary Arrest■ Cardiopulmonary arrest and/or sudden death occurred in 4 (2%) of 208 patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck treated with radiation

therapy and ERBITUX, as compared to none of 212 patients treated with radiation therapy alone. Fatal events occurred within 1 to 43 days after the last ERBITUX treatment— Carefully consider the use of ERBITUX in combination with radiation therapy in head and neck cancer patients with a history of coronary artery disease,

congestive heart failure or arrhythmias in light of these risks— Closely monitor serum electrolytes including serum magnesium, potassium, and calcium during and after ERBITUX therapy

Pulmonary Toxicity■ Interstitial lung disease (ILD), which was fatal in one case, occurred in 4 of 1570 (<0.5%) patients receiving ERBITUX in clinical trials. Interrupt ERBITUX for acute

onset or worsening of pulmonary symptoms. Permanently discontinue ERBITUX where ILD is confirmed

Dermatologic Toxicities■ In clinical studies of ERBITUX, dermatologic toxicities, including acneform rash, skin drying and fissuring, paronychial inflammation, infectious sequelae

(eg, S. aureus sepsis, abscess formation, cellulitis, blepharitis, conjunctivitis, keratitis, cheilitis), and hypertrichosis, occurred in patients receiving ERBITUX therapy. Acneform rash occurred in 76-88% of 1373 patients receiving ERBITUX in clinical trials. Severe acneform rash occurred in 1-17% of patients— Acneform rash usually developed within the first two weeks of therapy and resolved in a majority of the patients after cessation of treatment, although

in nearly half, the event continued beyond 28 days— Monitor patients receiving ERBITUX for dermatologic toxicities and infectious sequelae— Sun exposure may exacerbate these effects

ERBITUX Plus Radiation Therapy and Cisplatin■ The safety of ERBITUX in combination with radiation therapy and cisplatin has not been established

— Death and serious cardiotoxicity were observed in a single-arm trial with ERBITUX, radiation therapy, and cisplatin (100 mg/m2) in patients with locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck

— Two of 21 patients died, one as a result of pneumonia and one of an unknown cause— Four patients discontinued treatment due to adverse events. Two of these discontinuations were due to cardiac events

ERBITUX + RT: 26% reduction in

Risk of Death from SCCHN1,2

ERBITUX® (cetuximab): FOR PATIENTS WITH HEAD AND NECK CANCER*

Important Safety Information Including Boxed WARNINGSInfusion Reactions■ Grade 3/4 infusion reactions occurred in approximately 3% of patients receiving ERBITUX® (cetuximab) in clinical trials, with fatal outcome reported in less

than 1 in 1000— Serious infusion reactions, requiring medical intervention and immediate, permanent discontinuation of ERBITUX, included rapid onset of airway

obstruction (bronchospasm, stridor, hoarseness), hypotension, shock, loss of consciousness, myocardial infarction, and/or cardiac arrest— Immediately interrupt and permanently discontinue ERBITUX infusions for serious infusion reactions

■ Most (90%) of the severe infusion reactions were associated with the first infusion of ERBITUX despite premedication with antihistamines— Caution must be exercised with every ERBITUX infusion, as there were patients who experienced their first severe infusion reaction during later infusions— Monitor patients for 1 hour following ERBITUX infusions in a setting with resuscitation equipment and other agents necessary to treat anaphylaxis

(eg, epinephrine, corticosteroids, intravenous antihistamines, bronchodilators, and oxygen). Longer observation periods may be required in patientswho require treatment for infusion reactions

Cardiopulmonary Arrest■ Cardiopulmonary arrest and/or sudden death occurred in 4 (2%) of 208 patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck treated with radiation

therapy and ERBITUX, as compared to none of 212 patients treated with radiation therapy alone. Fatal events occurred within 1 to 43 days after the last ERBITUX treatment— Carefully consider the use of ERBITUX in combination with radiation therapy in head and neck cancer patients with a history of coronary artery disease,

congestive heart failure or arrhythmias in light of these risks— Closely monitor serum electrolytes including serum magnesium, potassium, and calcium during and after ERBITUX therapy

Pulmonary Toxicity■ Interstitial lung disease (ILD), which was fatal in one case, occurred in 4 of 1570 (<0.5%) patients receiving ERBITUX in clinical trials. Interrupt ERBITUX for acute

onset or worsening of pulmonary symptoms. Permanently discontinue ERBITUX where ILD is confirmed

Dermatologic Toxicities■ In clinical studies of ERBITUX, dermatologic toxicities, including acneform rash, skin drying and fissuring, paronychial inflammation, infectious sequelae

(eg, S. aureus sepsis, abscess formation, cellulitis, blepharitis, conjunctivitis, keratitis, cheilitis), and hypertrichosis, occurred in patients receiving ERBITUX therapy. Acneform rash occurred in 76-88% of 1373 patients receiving ERBITUX in clinical trials. Severe acneform rash occurred in 1-17% of patients— Acneform rash usually developed within the first two weeks of therapy and resolved in a majority of the patients after cessation of treatment, although

in nearly half, the event continued beyond 28 days— Monitor patients receiving ERBITUX for dermatologic toxicities and infectious sequelae— Sun exposure may exacerbate these effects

ERBITUX Plus Radiation Therapy and Cisplatin■ The safety of ERBITUX in combination with radiation therapy and cisplatin has not been established

— Death and serious cardiotoxicity were observed in a single-arm trial with ERBITUX, radiation therapy, and cisplatin (100 mg/m2) in patients with locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck

— Two of 21 patients died, one as a result of pneumonia and one of an unknown cause— Four patients discontinued treatment due to adverse events. Two of these discontinuations were due to cardiac events

ERBITUX + RT: 26% reduction in

Risk of Death from SCCHN1,2

10 CLINICAL ONCOLOGY NEWS • FEBRUARY 2010HEMATOLOGIC DISEASE

Multiple Myeloma


from the trial reveal that clinicians may have a new way of personalizing thera-py for patients with CLL. “We are start-ing to see a way of personalizing thera-py,” Dr. Hallek said. “FCR is particularly effective in some genetically defined sub-groups such as deletions of 11q, deletions

of 13q and trisomy 12. FCR is not effec-tive to prevent early relapse and death of patients with deletions of 17p.”

In the study, the doses of fludarabi-ne (25 mg/m2) and cyclophosphamide (250 mg/m2), administered on days 1 and 3 of each 28-day cycle, were the

same in both study arms. In the FCR arm, rituximab was administered in a dose of 375 mg/m2 on day 0 of the first cycle and then in a dose of 500 mg/m2 on day 1 of the five subsequent cycles. Both treatment arms were well bal-anced with regard to sex, age, stage, genomic aberrations and immunoglob-ulin variable heavy chain (IgVH) gene status. The median age was 61 years. As previously reported, more hematologic adverse events, particularly neutrope-nia, were observed with FCR treatment, but this did not result in an increased infection rate.

—Kate O’Rourke

HEMATOLOGIC DISEASE

Multiple Myeloma

‘We are starting to see a way of personalizing therapy. FCR is not effective to prevent early relapse and death of patients with deletions of 17p.’

—Michael Hallek, MD

100

80

60

40

20

0

Ove

rall

Su

rviv

al, %

FCR

FC

82.5 87.2

Figure. Comparison of overall survival at three years.FC, cyclophosphamide and fludarabine; FCR, rituximab, cyclophosphamide and fludarabine

693US09AB15316 7/09

© 2009, ImClone LLC, New York, New York 10014, U.S.A. and Bristol-Myers Squibb,Princeton, New Jersey 08543, U.S.A. All rights reserved. ERBITUX is a registered trademark of ImClone LLC.

References: 1. ERBITUX® (cetuximab) Package Insert. ImClone LLC, New York, NY 10014 and Bristol-Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ 08543; July 2009. 2. Bonner JA, Harari PM, Giralt J, et al.Radiotherapy plus cetuximab for squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck. N Engl J Med.2006;354:567-578. 3. Data on file, Bristol-Myers Squibb, ERBI 001.

Electrolyte Depletion■ Hypomagnesemia occurred in 55% (199/365) of patients receiving ERBITUX® (cetuximab) and was severe (NCI CTC grades 3 & 4) in 6-17%. The onset of hypomagnesemia

and accompanying electrolyte abnormalities occurred days to months after initiation of ERBITUX therapy — Monitor patients periodically for hypomagnesemia, hypocalcemia and hypokalemia, during, and for at least 8 weeks following the completion of, ERBITUX therapy — Replete electrolytes as necessary

Late Radiation Toxicities■ The overall incidence of late radiation toxicities (any grade) was higher with ERBITUX in combination with radiation therapy compared with radiation therapy alone.

The following sites were affected: salivary glands (65%/56%), larynx (52%/36%), subcutaneous tissue (49%/45%), mucous membranes (48%/39%),esophagus (44%/35%), and skin (42%/33%) in the ERBITUX and radiation versus radiation alone arms, respectively— The incidence of grade 3 or 4 late radiation toxicities were similar between the radiation therapy alone and the ERBITUX plus radiation therapy arms

Pregnancy■ In women of childbearing potential, appropriate contraceptive measures must be used during treatment with ERBITUX and for 6 months following the last dose of

ERBITUX. ERBITUX may be transmitted from the mother to the developing fetus, and has the potential to cause fetal harm when administered to pregnant women.ERBITUX should only be used during pregnancy if the potential benefit justifies the potential risk to the fetus

Adverse Events■ The most serious adverse reactions associated with ERBITUX across all studies were infusion reactions, cardiopulmonary arrest, dermatologic toxicity and radiation

dermatitis, sepsis, renal failure, interstitial lung disease, and pulmonary embolus■ The most common adverse reactions associated with ERBITUX (incidence ≥25%) are cutaneous adverse reactions (including rash, pruritus, and nail changes),

headache, diarrhea, and infection■ The most frequent adverse events seen in patients with carcinomas of the head and neck receiving ERBITUX in combination with radiation therapy (n=208) versus

radiation alone (n=212) (incidence ≥50%) were acneform rash (87%/10%), radiation dermatitis (86%/90%), weight loss (84%/72%), and asthenia (56%/49%). The most common grade 3/4 adverse events for ERBITUX in combination with radiation therapy (≥10%) included: radiation dermatitis (23%), acneform rash (17%), and weight loss (11%)

For more information, please visit www.ERBITUX.com or call 1-888-ERBITUX (372-4889).

Please see brief summary of Full Prescribing Information includingBoxed WARNINGS regarding infusion reactions and

cardiopulmonary arrest on adjacent page.

ERBITUX + RT (%) RT Alone (%)(n = 208) (n = 212)

Grades Grade Grades Grade1-4 3/4 1-4 3/4

Mucositis/stomatitis 93 56 94 52

Dysphagia 65 26 63 30

Xerostomia 72 5 71 3

Radiation dermatitis 86 23 90 18

*INDICATIONS■ ERBITUX® (cetuximab), in combination with radiation therapy, is indicated for the initial treatment of locally or regionally advanced

squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck■ERBITUX, as a single agent, is indicated for the treatment of patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the

head and neck for whom prior platinum-based therapy has failedSCCHN = squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck; RT = radiation therapy.

† No difference in radiation dose delivered between the 2 treatment groups in a randomized trial comparing ERBITUX + RT versus RT alone in patients with locally or regionally advanced SCCHN.2

■ The incidences of grades 3/4 xerostomia, mucositis/stomatitis, and radiation dermatitis were more frequent in the ERBITUX plus RT arm

No. (%) of Patients

ERBITUX + RT RT Alone(n = 211) (n = 213)

Delivery of planned RT dose

Adequate delivery per protocol 184 (87.2) 187 (87.8)

Inadequate delivery per protocol 27 (12.8) 26 (12.2)

693US09AB15316 7/09

© 2009, ImClone LLC, New York, New York 10014, U.S.A. and Bristol-Myers Squibb,Princeton, New Jersey 08543, U.S.A. All rights reserved. ERBITUX is a registered trademark of ImClone LLC.

References: 1. ERBITUX® (cetuximab) Package Insert. ImClone LLC, New York, NY 10014 and Bristol-Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ 08543; July 2009. 2. Bonner JA, Harari PM, Giralt J, et al.Radiotherapy plus cetuximab for squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck. N Engl J Med.2006;354:567-578. 3. Data on file, Bristol-Myers Squibb, ERBI 001.

Electrolyte Depletion■ Hypomagnesemia occurred in 55% (199/365) of patients receiving ERBITUX® (cetuximab) and was severe (NCI CTC grades 3 & 4) in 6-17%. The onset of hypomagnesemia

and accompanying electrolyte abnormalities occurred days to months after initiation of ERBITUX therapy — Monitor patients periodically for hypomagnesemia, hypocalcemia and hypokalemia, during, and for at least 8 weeks following the completion of, ERBITUX therapy — Replete electrolytes as necessary

Late Radiation Toxicities■ The overall incidence of late radiation toxicities (any grade) was higher with ERBITUX in combination with radiation therapy compared with radiation therapy alone.

The following sites were affected: salivary glands (65%/56%), larynx (52%/36%), subcutaneous tissue (49%/45%), mucous membranes (48%/39%),esophagus (44%/35%), and skin (42%/33%) in the ERBITUX and radiation versus radiation alone arms, respectively— The incidence of grade 3 or 4 late radiation toxicities were similar between the radiation therapy alone and the ERBITUX plus radiation therapy arms

Pregnancy■ In women of childbearing potential, appropriate contraceptive measures must be used during treatment with ERBITUX and for 6 months following the last dose of

ERBITUX. ERBITUX may be transmitted from the mother to the developing fetus, and has the potential to cause fetal harm when administered to pregnant women.ERBITUX should only be used during pregnancy if the potential benefit justifies the potential risk to the fetus

Adverse Events■ The most serious adverse reactions associated with ERBITUX across all studies were infusion reactions, cardiopulmonary arrest, dermatologic toxicity and radiation

dermatitis, sepsis, renal failure, interstitial lung disease, and pulmonary embolus■ The most common adverse reactions associated with ERBITUX (incidence ≥25%) are cutaneous adverse reactions (including rash, pruritus, and nail changes),

headache, diarrhea, and infection■ The most frequent adverse events seen in patients with carcinomas of the head and neck receiving ERBITUX in combination with radiation therapy (n=208) versus

radiation alone (n=212) (incidence ≥50%) were acneform rash (87%/10%), radiation dermatitis (86%/90%), weight loss (84%/72%), and asthenia (56%/49%). The most common grade 3/4 adverse events for ERBITUX in combination with radiation therapy (≥10%) included: radiation dermatitis (23%), acneform rash (17%), and weight loss (11%)

For more information, please visit www.ERBITUX.com or call 1-888-ERBITUX (372-4889).

Please see brief summary of Full Prescribing Information includingBoxed WARNINGS regarding infusion reactions and

cardiopulmonary arrest on adjacent page.

ERBITUX + RT (%) RT Alone (%)(n = 208) (n = 212)

Grades Grade Grades Grade1-4 3/4 1-4 3/4

Mucositis/stomatitis 93 56 94 52

Dysphagia 65 26 63 30

Xerostomia 72 5 71 3

Radiation dermatitis 86 23 90 18

*INDICATIONS■ ERBITUX® (cetuximab), in combination with radiation therapy, is indicated for the initial treatment of locally or regionally advanced

squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck■ERBITUX, as a single agent, is indicated for the treatment of patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the

head and neck for whom prior platinum-based therapy has failedSCCHN = squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck; RT = radiation therapy.

† No difference in radiation dose delivered between the 2 treatment groups in a randomized trial comparing ERBITUX + RT versus RT alone in patients with locally or regionally advanced SCCHN.2

■ The incidences of grades 3/4 xerostomia, mucositis/stomatitis, and radiation dermatitis were more frequent in the ERBITUX plus RT arm

No. (%) of Patients

ERBITUX + RT RT Alone(n = 211) (n = 213)

Delivery of planned RT dose

Adequate delivery per protocol 184 (87.2) 187 (87.8)

Inadequate delivery per protocol 27 (12.8) 26 (12.2)


Gail Vittori, co-coordinator of the Green Guide for Health Care, stood and addressed the audience. “This is about health care as the intersection between the environment and the human

experience,” Ms. Vittori announced. The workshop, Designing the Regen-

erative Hospital: An Imperative for the 21st Century, will serve as the blueprint for the new Green Guide for Health

Care. The guide (available at www.gghc.org) offers a toolkit of environ-mentally sustainable practices for hos-pitals and health care facilities. It was launched in 2003, when a collection of

leaders concerned with green health care decided to create a document to assist the greening of American med-icine. Now they have a new target—“regenerative” hospitals.

“We need to restore and play a part in healing the ecosystem. We need to have buildings that restore, that regenerate,” said Robin Guenther, co-coordinator of the guide. “There is a perfect alliance

Clinicians, Heal Thy Planet Eco movement eyes ‘regenerative’ hospitals

Chicago—As vendors scurried around the Hyatt Regency in preparation for the start of CleanMed 2009, a collection of noted architects, engineers, designers and health care professionals huddled in a subterranean room of the hotel.

POLICY & MANAGEMENT

Sustainable Practices

ERBITUX® (cetuximab)Solution for intravenous infusionBrief Summary of Prescribing Information. For complete prescribing information consult official package insert.

INDICATIONS AND USAGESquamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck (SCCHN)Erbitux® (cetuximab) is indicated in combination with radiation therapy for the initial treatment of locally orregionally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. [See Clinical Studies (14.1) in FullPrescribing Information.]Erbitux, as a single agent, is indicated for the treatment of patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous cellcarcinoma of the head and neck for whom prior platinum-based therapy has failed. [See Clinical Studies (14.1)in Full Prescribing Information.]Colorectal CancerErbitux, as a single agent, is indicated for the treatment of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-expressingmetastatic colorectal cancer after failure of both irinotecan- and oxaliplatin-based regimens. Erbitux, as a singleagent, is also indicated for the treatment of EGFR-expressing metastatic colorectal cancer in patients who areintolerant to irinotecan-based regimens. [See Clinical Studies (14.2) in Full Prescribing Information and Warningsand Precautions.]Erbitux, in combination with irinotecan, is indicated for the treatment of EGFR-expressing metastatic colorectalcarcinoma in patients who are refractory to irinotecan-based chemotherapy. The effectiveness of Erbitux incombination with irinotecan is based on objective response rates. Currently, no data are available thatdemonstrate an improvement in disease-related symptoms or increased survival with Erbitux in combinationwith irinotecan for the treatment of EGFR-expressing, metastatic colorectal carcinoma. [See Clinical Studies(14.2) in Full Prescribing Information and Warnings and Precautions.]Retrospective subset analyses of metastatic or advanced colorectal cancer trials have not shown a treatmentbenefit for Erbitux in patients whose tumors had KRAS mutations in codon 12 or 13. Use of Erbitux is notrecommended for the treatment of colorectal cancer with these mutations [see Clinical Studies (14.2) andClinical Pharmacology (12.1) in Full Prescribing Information].

CONTRAINDICATIONSNone.

WARNINGS AND PRECAUTIONSInfusion ReactionsSerious infusion reactions, requiring medical intervention and immediate, permanent discontinuation of Erbitux,included rapid onset of airway obstruction (bronchospasm, stridor, hoarseness), hypotension, shock, loss ofconsciousness, myocardial infarction, and/or cardiac arrest. Severe (NCI CTC Grades 3 and 4) infusion reactionsoccurred in 2–5% of 1373 patients in clinical trials, with fatal outcome in 1 patient. Approximately 90% of severe infusion reactions occurred with the first infusion despite premedication withantihistamines. Monitor patients for 1 hour following Erbitux infusions in a setting with resuscitation equipment and other agentsnecessary to treat anaphylaxis (eg, epinephrine, corticosteroids, intravenous antihistamines, bronchodilators,and oxygen). Monitor longer to confirm resolution of the event in patients requiring treatment for infusionreactions. Immediately and permanently discontinue Erbitux in patients with serious infusion reactions. [See Boxed Warningand Dosage and Administration (2.4) in Full Prescribing Information.]Cardiopulmonary ArrestCardiopulmonary arrest and/or sudden death occurred in 4 (2%) of 208 patients treated with radiation therapyand Erbitux as compared to none of 212 patients treated with radiation therapy alone in a randomized, controlledtrial in patients with SCCHN. Three patients with prior history of coronary artery disease died at home, withmyocardial infarction as the presumed cause of death. One of these patients had arrhythmia and one hadcongestive heart failure. Death occurred 27, 32, and 43 days after the last dose of Erbitux. One patient with noprior history of coronary artery disease died one day after the last dose of Erbitux. Carefully consider use ofErbitux in combination with radiation therapy in head and neck cancer patients with a history of coronary arterydisease, congestive heart failure, or arrhythmias in light of these risks. Closely monitor serum electrolytes,including serum magnesium, potassium, and calcium, during and after Erbitux. [See Boxed Warning andWarnings and Precautions.]Pulmonary ToxicityInterstitial lung disease (ILD), including 1 fatality, occurred in 4 of 1570 (<0.5%) patients receiving Erbitux inclinical trials. Interrupt Erbitux for acute onset or worsening of pulmonary symptoms. Permanently discontinueErbitux for confirmed ILD. Dermatologic ToxicityDermatologic toxicities, including acneform rash, skin drying and fissuring, paronychial inflammation, infectioussequelae (for example S. aureus sepsis, abscess formation, cellulitis, blepharitis, conjunctivitis, keratitis,cheilitis), and hypertrichosis occurred in patients receiving Erbitux therapy. Acneform rash occurred in 76–88%of 1373 patients receiving Erbitux in clinical trials. Severe acneform rash occurred in 1–17%of patients. Acneform rash usually developed within the first two weeks of therapy and resolved in a majority of the patientsafter cessation of treatment, although in nearly half, the event continued beyond 28 days. Monitor patientsreceiving Erbitux for dermatologic toxicities and infectious sequelae. Instruct patients to limit sun exposureduring Erbitux therapy. [See Dose Modifications (2.4) in Full Prescribing Information.]Use of Erbitux in Combination With Radiation and CisplatinThe safety of Erbitux in combination with radiation therapy and cisplatin has not been established. Death andserious cardiotoxicity were observed in a single-arm trial with Erbitux, radiation therapy, and cisplatin(100 mg/m2) in patients with locally advanced SCCHN. Two of 21 patients died, one as a result of pneumoniaand one of an unknown cause. Four patients discontinued treatment due to adverse events. Two of thesediscontinuations were due to cardiac events.Hypomagnesemia and Electrolyte AbnormalitiesIn patients evaluated during clinical trials, hypomagnesemia occurred in 55% of patients (199/365) receivingErbitux and was severe (NCI CTC Grades 3 and 4) in 6–17%. The onset of hypomagnesemia and accompanyingelectrolyte abnormalities occurred days to months after initiation of Erbitux. Periodically monitor patients forhypomagnesemia, hypocalcemia, and hypokalemia, during and for at least 8 weeks following the completion ofErbitux. Replete electrolytes as necessary.

Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) Expression and Response Because expression of EGFR has been detected in nearly all SCCHN tumor specimens, patients enrolled in thehead and neck cancer clinical studies were not required to have immunohistochemical evidence of EGFR tumorexpression prior to study entry.Patients enrolled in the colorectal cancer clinical studies were required to have immunohistochemical evidenceof EGFR tumor expression. Primary tumor or tumor from a metastatic site was tested with the DakoCytomationEGFR pharmDx™ test kit. Specimens were scored based on the percentage of cells expressing EGFR andintensity (barely/faint, weak-to-moderate, and strong). Response rate did not correlate with either the percentageof positive cells or the intensity of EGFR expression.

ADVERSE REACTIONSThe following adverse reactions are discussed in greater detail in other sections of the label:• Infusion reactions [See Boxed Warning and Warnings and Precautions.]• Cardiopulmonary arrest [See Boxed Warning and Warnings and Precautions.]• Pulmonary toxicity [See Warnings and Precautions.]• Dermatologic toxicity [See Warnings and Precautions.]• Hypomagnesemia and Electrolyte Abnormalities [See Warnings and Precautions.]The most common adverse reactions with Erbitux (cetuximab) (incidence ≥25%) are cutaneous adverse reac-tions (including rash, pruritus, and nail changes), headache, diarrhea, and infection. The most serious adverse reactions with Erbitux are infusion reactions, cardiopulmonary arrest, dermatologictoxicity and radiation dermatitis, sepsis, renal failure, interstitial lung disease, and pulmonary embolus. Across all studies, Erbitux was discontinued in 3–10% of patients because of adverse reactions.

Clinical Trials ExperienceBecause clinical trials are conducted under widely varying conditions, adverse reaction rates observed in theclinical trials of a drug cannot be directly compared to rates in the clinical trials of another drug and may notreflect the rates observed in practice. The data below reflect exposure to Erbitux in 1373 patients with colorectal cancer or SCCHN in randomizedPhase 3 (Studies 1 and 3) or Phase 2 (Studies 2 and 4) trials treated at the recommended dose and schedulefor a median of 7 to 14 weeks. [See Clinical Studies (14) in Full Prescribing Information.]Infusion reactions: Infusion reactions, which included pyrexia, chills, rigors, dyspnea, bronchospasm,angioedema, urticaria, hypertension, and hypotension occurred in 15–21% of patients across studies. Grades 3and 4 infusion reactions occurred in 2–5% of patients; infusion reactions were fatal in 1 patient.Infections: The incidence of infection was variable across studies, ranging from 13–35%. Sepsis occurred in1–4% of patients. Renal: Renal failure occurred in 1% of patients with colorectal cancer. Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck Table 1 contains selected adverse events in 420 patients receiving radiation therapy either alone or with Erbituxfor locally or regionally advanced SCCHN in Study 1. Erbitux was administered at the recommended dose andschedule (400 mg/m2 initial dose, followed by 250 mg/m2 weekly). Patients received a median of 8 infusions(range 1–11).

Table 1: Incidence of Selected Adverse Events (≥10%) in Patients with LocoregionallyAdvanced SCCHN

Erbitux plus Radiation Radiation Therapy Alone (n=208) (n=212)

Body System Grades Grades Grades GradesPreferred Term 1–4 3 and 4 1–4 3 and 4

% of PatientsBody as a WholeAsthenia 56 4 49 5Fever1 29 1 13 1Headache 19 <1 8 <1Infusion Reaction2 15 3 2 0Infection 13 1 9 1Chills1 16 0 5 0DigestiveNausea 49 2 37 2Emesis 29 2 23 4Diarrhea 19 2 13 1Dyspepsia 14 0 9 1Metabolic/NutritionalWeight Loss 84 11 72 7Dehydration 25 6 19 8Alanine Transaminase, high3 43 2 21 1Aspartate Transaminase, high3 38 1 24 1Alkaline Phosphatase, high3 33 <1 24 0RespiratoryPharyngitis 26 3 19 4Skin/AppendagesAcneform Rash4 87 17 10 1Radiation Dermatitis 86 23 90 18Application Site Reaction 18 0 12 1Pruritus 16 0 4 0

1 Includes cases also reported as infusion reaction. 2 Infusion reaction is defined as any event described at any time during the clinical study as “allergic

reaction” or “anaphylactoid reaction”, or any event occurring on the first day of dosing described as“allergic reaction”, “anaphylactoid reaction”, “fever”, “chills”, “chills and fever”, or “dyspnea”.

3 Based on laboratory measurements, not on reported adverse events, the number of subjects with testedsamples varied from 205–206 for Erbitux plus Radiation arm; 209–210 for Radiation alone.

4 Acneform rash is defined as any event described as “acne”, “rash”, “maculopapular rash”, “pustularrash”, “dry skin”, or “exfoliative dermatitis”.

The incidence and severity of mucositis, stomatitis, and xerostomia were similar in both arms of the study.

Late Radiation ToxicityThe overall incidence of late radiation toxicities (any grade) was higher in Erbitux in combination with radiationtherapy compared with radiation therapy alone. The following sites were affected: salivary glands (65% versus56%), larynx (52% versus 36%), subcutaneous tissue (49% versus 45%), mucous membrane (48% versus 39%),esophagus (44% versus 35%), skin (42% versus 33%). The incidence of Grade 3 or 4 late radiation toxicitieswas similar between the radiation therapy alone and the Erbitux plus radiation treatment groups.

WARNING: SERIOUS INFUSION REACTIONS and CARDIOPULMONARY ARRESTInfusion Reactions: Serious infusion reactions occurred with the administration of Erbitux in approximately3% of patients in clinical trials, with fatal outcome reported in less than 1 in 1000. [See Warnings andPrecautions and Adverse Reactions.] Immediately interrupt and permanently discontinue Erbitux infusion forserious infusion reactions. [See Warnings and Precautions and Dosage and Administration (2.4) in FullPrescribing Information.]Cardiopulmonary Arrest: Cardiopulmonary arrest and/or sudden death occurred in 2% of 208 patients withsquamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck treated with radiation therapy and Erbitux. Closely monitorserum electrolytes, including serum magnesium, potassium, and calcium, during and after Erbitux. [SeeWarnings and Precautions.]


between the idea of regenerative build-ings and health care; the missions of healing connect.”

But the call goes beyond fields of native plantings. According to workshop presenters, regenerative hospitals would not only help the environment, but could improve recovery times, increase prof-its, reduce nursing turnover, assist in recruitment and put natural foods onto the menus of hospital cafeterias.

But to become a reality, regenera-tive hospitals will require change, cau-tioned Kim E. Shinn, director of sus-tainable design at TLC Engineering for Architecture in Nashville, Tenn. “And

people would rather speak in public than change.”

See No Evil

Hospitals are huge consumers of water and energy, sprawling campus-es of impervious surfaces, producers of copious amounts of waste. They often

comprise scores of buildings devoid of natural air flow, natural light and natu-ral materials. In short, they’re ecologi-cal nightmares.

For decades, hospital administrators haven’t particularly worried about this.

“They held an understanding and belief that ‘health care is about saving lives,

not the environment. We support it, but it’s not our problem,’ ” said Jerry Smith, director of health care and sustainable initiatives at MSI Design in Columbus, Ohio. “That attitude is changing.”

Mr. Shinn went further. “If you look at the income statement for a hospital, the utility costs are fractional. They are very minor when compared to labor costs and litigation, insurance and risk management. If a director of facili-ties management says, ‘Hey, Mr. CFO, if you give me $1 million, I can save us $250,000 in a year on utilities,’ the CFO will say, ‘Where do I get $1 million, and will that get me more patients? Will it improve reimbursement? Will it help me attract docs?’ ”

Surprising Benefits

According to Kumkum M. Dilwali, senior director of the Green Guide for Health Care, for at least some of these questions the answer may be yes.

Last March, Rick Fedrizzi, founder and chief executive officer of the U.S. Green Building Council, designated Dell Chil-dren’s Medical Center of Central Tex-as, in Austin, as the world’s first Leader-ship in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Platinum hospital.

Constructed on the brownfield site of a former municipal airport, the facility—part of Seton Health System—incorporates a wide range of sustainable practices. The building was designed to maximize access to daylight, which reduces energy use. It includes six courtyards with natural plantings that use less water and give patients and staff access to natural settings. The medical center has a natural gas–fired power plant from which it gets its energy.

But something else happened after Dell Children’s opened, Ms. Dilwali said. When the Seton Health System com-pared staff turnover and recruitment at the new hospital to its old facility, “their retention was much higher.”

Ms. Guenther said staffing benefits have been seen at green hospitals across the United States and Canada. When a green-certified hospital opened in Ontario, it received applications from nurses across the country. When a survey on staff hap-piness was conducted at Oregon’s Prov-idence Newberg Medical Center, “the results were off the charts,” she said.

If hospital operators ask why they should go green, they should “pick up the phone and talk to any of the own-ers of the first 43 LEED-certified hospi-tals and have a conversation about what it’s meant to their image in the commu-nity, what it’s meant to their ability to attract qualified staff and the response of their staff,” Ms. Guenther said. “They aren’t doing this once and saying, ‘that was fun but I wouldn’t do that again’; they’re moving forward faster with their other projects.”

POLICY & MANAGEMENT


see ECO MOVEMENT, page 25 �

Hospitals are huge consumers of water and energy, sprawling campuses of impervious surfaces, producers of copious amounts of waste.

Colorectal CancerTable 2 contains selected adverse events in 562 patients receiving best supportive care (BSC) alone or withErbitux (cetuximab) monotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer in Study 3. Erbitux was administered at therecommended dose and schedule (400 mg/m2 initial dose, followed by 250 mg/m2 weekly).

Table 2: Incidence of Selected Adverse Events Occurring in ≥10% of Patients with AdvancedColorectal Carcinoma1 Treated with Erbitux Monotherapy

Erbitux plus BSC BSC alone(n=288) (n=274)

Body System Any Grades Any GradesPreferred Term Grades2 3 and 4 Grades 3 and 4

% of Patients

DermatologyRash/Desquamation 89 12 16 <1Dry Skin 49 0 11 0Pruritus 40 2 8 0Other-Dermatology 27 1 6 1Nail Changes 21 0 4 0Body as a WholeFatigue 89 33 76 26Fever 30 1 18 <1Infusion Reactions3 20 5Rigors, Chills 13 <1 4 0PainAbdominal Pain 59 14 52 16Pain-Other 51 16 34 7Headache 33 4 11 0Bone Pain 15 3 7 2PulmonaryDyspnea 48 16 43 12Cough 29 2 19 1GastrointestinalConstipation 46 4 38 5Diarrhea 39 2 20 2Vomiting 37 6 29 6Stomatitis 25 1 10 <1Other-Gastrointestinal 23 10 18 8Mouth Dryness 11 0 4 0InfectionInfection without neutropenia 35 13 17 6NeurologyInsomnia 30 1 15 1Confusion 15 6 9 2Anxiety 14 2 8 1Depression 13 1 6 <1

1 Adverse reactions occurring more frequently in Erbitux-treated patients compared with controls.2 Adverse events were graded using the NCI CTC, V 2.0. 3 Infusion reaction is defined as any event (chills, rigors, dyspnea, tachycardia, bronchospasm, chest

tightness, swelling, urticaria, hypotension, flushing, rash, hypertension, nausea, angioedema, pain, pruritus,sweating, tremors, shaking, cough, visual disturbances, or other) recorded by the investigator as infusion-related.

BSC = best supportive care

The most frequently reported adverse events in 354 patients treated with Erbitux plus irinotecan in clinical trialswere acneform rash (88%), asthenia/malaise (73%), diarrhea (72%), and nausea (55%). The most commonGrades 3–4 adverse events included diarrhea (22%), leukopenia (17%), asthenia/malaise (16%), and acneformrash (14%). ImmunogenicityAs with all therapeutic proteins, there is potential for immunogenicity. Immunogenic responses to cetuximabwere assessed using either a double antigen radiometric assay or an ELISA assay. Due to limitations in assayperformance and sampling timing, the incidence of antibody development in patients receiving Erbitux has notbeen adequately determined. Non-neutralizing anti-cetuximab antibodies were detected in 5% (49 of 1001) ofevaluable patients without apparent effect on the safety or antitumor activity of Erbitux.The incidence of antibody formation is highly dependent on the sensitivity and specificity of the assay.Additionally, the observed incidence of antibody (including neutralizing antibody) positivity in an assay may beinfluenced by several factors including assay methodology, sample handling, timing of sample collection,concomitant medications, and underlying disease. For these reasons, comparison of the incidence of antibodiesto Erbitux with the incidence of antibodies to other products may be misleading.

DRUG INTERACTIONSA drug interaction study was performed in which Erbitux was administered in combination with irinotecan. Therewas no evidence of any pharmacokinetic interactions between Erbitux and irinotecan.

USE IN SPECIFIC POPULATIONSPregnancyPregnancy Category CThere are no adequate and well-controlled studies of Erbitux (cetuximab) in pregnant women. Based on animalmodels, EGFR has been implicated in the control of prenatal development and may be essential for normalorganogenesis, proliferation, and differentiation in the developing embryo. Human IgG is known to cross theplacental barrier; therefore, Erbitux may be transmitted from the mother to the developing fetus, and has thepotential to cause fetal harm when administered to pregnant women. Erbitux should be used during pregnancyonly if the potential benefit justifies the potential risk to the fetus.Pregnant cynomolgus monkeys were treated weekly with 0.4 to 4 times the recommended human dose ofcetuximab (based on body surface area) during the period of organogenesis (gestation day [GD] 20–48).Cetuximab was detected in the amniotic fluid and in the serum of embryos from treated dams at GD 49. No fetalmalformations or other teratogenic effects occurred in offspring. However, significant increases inembryolethality and abortions occurred at doses of approximately 1.6 to 4 times the recommended human doseof cetuximab (based on total body surface area).Nursing MothersIt is not known whether Erbitux is secreted in human milk. IgG antibodies, such as Erbitux, can be excreted inhuman milk. Because many drugs are excreted in human milk and because of the potential for serious adversereactions in nursing infants from Erbitux, a decision should be made whether to discontinue nursing or todiscontinue the drug, taking into account the importance of the drug to the mother. If nursing is interrupted,based on the mean half-life of cetuximab [see Clinical Pharmacology (12.3) in Full Prescribing Information],nursing should not be resumed earlier than 60 days following the last dose of Erbitux.Pediatric UseThe safety and effectiveness of Erbitux in pediatric patients have not been established. The pharmacokinetics ofcetuximab have not been studied in pediatric populations. Geriatric UseOf the 1062 patients who received Erbitux with irinotecan or Erbitux monotherapy in five studies of advancedcolorectal cancer, 363 patients were 65 years of age or older. No overall differences in safety or efficacy wereobserved between these patients and younger patients.Clinical studies of Erbitux conducted in patients with head and neck cancer did not include sufficient number ofsubjects aged 65 and over to determine whether they respond differently from younger subjects. Of the 208patients with head and neck cancer who received Erbitux with radiation therapy, 45 patients were 65 years ofage or older.

OVERDOSAGEThe maximum single dose of Erbitux administered is 1000 mg/m2 in one patient. No adverse events werereported for this patient.

NONCLINICAL TOXICOLOGYCarcinogenesis, Mutagenesis, Impairment of FertilityLong-term animal studies have not been performed to test cetuximab for carcinogenic potential, and nomutagenic or clastogenic potential of cetuximab was observed in the Salmonella-Escherichia coli (Ames) assayor in the in vivo rat micronucleus test. Menstrual cyclicity was impaired in female cynomolgus monkeys receivingweekly doses of 0.4 to 4 times the human dose of cetuximab (based on total body surface area).Cetuximab-treated animals exhibited increased incidences of irregular or absent cycles, as compared to controlanimals. These effects were initially noted beginning week 25 of cetuximab treatment and continued through the6-week recovery period. In this same study, there were no effects of cetuximab treatment on measured malefertility parameters (ie, serum testosterone levels and analysis of sperm counts, viability, and motility) ascompared to control male monkeys. It is not known if cetuximab can impair fertility in humans.Animal Pharmacology and/or Toxicology In cynomolgus monkeys, cetuximab, when administered at doses of approximately 0.4 to 4 times the weeklyhuman exposure (based on total body surface area), resulted in dermatologic findings, including inflammation atthe injection site and desquamation of the external integument. At the highest dose level, the epithelial mucosaof the nasal passage, esophagus, and tongue were similarly affected, and degenerative changes in the renaltubular epithelium occurred. Deaths due to sepsis were observed in 50% (5/10) of the animals at the highestdose level beginning after approximately 13 weeks of treatment.

PATIENT COUNSELING INFORMATIONAdvise patients:• To report signs and symptoms of infusion reactions such as fever, chills, or breathing problems.• Of the potential risks of using Erbitux during pregnancy or nursing and of the need to use adequate

contraception in both males and females during and for 6 months following the last dose of Erbitux therapy. • That nursing is not recommended during, and for 2 months following the last dose of Erbitux therapy. • To limit sun exposure (use sunscreen, wear hats) while receiving and for 2 months following the last dose

of Erbitux.

Erbitux® is a registered trademark of ImClone Systems Incorporated.Manufactured by ImClone Systems Incorporated, Branchburg, NJ 08876Distributed and Marketed by Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Princeton, NJ 08543

Copyright ©2009 by ImClone Systems Incorporated and Bristol-Myers Squibb Company. All rights reserved.

1236886A5ER-B0001A-07-09 Rev July 2009


for both medical and radiation oncolo-gy. Many CMS audits have uncovered the misuse of consultation codes, and many rules related to code uses have been established in recent years. So, it should come as no surprise that Medi-care has viewed the consultation codes as problematic. The fix, however, seems a bit overreaching. Oncology reimburse-ment estimates show a decrease in rev-enue of 15% to 28% for the total E&M component of practices or a 1% to 4%

decrease to the net revenue.This is perhaps the biggest impact

oncology will face this year. It is impor-tant that billers and coders are vigilant, so that every visit is captured appro-priately. It appears that confusion still exists in the field about exact coding

equivalents, thus we recommend that every practice obtain direction from its Medicare administrative contractor or carrier. Modified instructions that were implemented for hospital vis-its should be checked carefully as they will help ensure appropriate payment.

CMS is trying to clear up the confu-sion and it abounds. General practitio-ners and internists have reported that some private insurers are implement-ing similar policies. It will be impor-tant to know exactly how this change has affected the practice and to clear-ly state what that will mean. CMS has been bombarded with physician com-ments regarding the modification to this rule and only hard data will change this situation. The next change that will significantly impact reimburse-ment for oncology comes from revi-sions made by the CMS in the develop-ment of a payment structure for each code. CMS updates to practice pay-ment information negatively impacts medical oncology. Some adjustments have been made and there is still con-cern that medical oncology practice expense is misrepresented, resulting in an expected net revenue reduction of 1%. Radiation oncology was impacted more than other areas. Resource Utili-zation Committee changes, agreed to by the CMS, were not calculated prop-erly for radiation oncology, specifical-ly high-dose-rate brachytherapy which resulted in a huge decrease. Additional-ly, malpractice expense calculations for technical codes totally ignored the high malpractice risk of physicists’ work and physician oversight of this work. When physician work was deemed to be zero, CMS placed the malpractice costs at zero, but this isn’t the case in most technical radiation codes because physicians oversee these codes and the codes impact malpractice costs.

Radiation was helped greatly by a rescinding of the planned equipment utilization ratio change from 50% to 90%. It appears that radiation will be looking at a small decrease in technical revenue rather than the monumental one that originally was proposed. These small decreases are nothing new. Physi-cian professional fees (consultation code

POLICY & MANAGEMENT

Reimbursement

TIGHTENINGcontinued from page 1 �

Oncology reimbursement estimates show a decrease in revenue of 15% to 28% for the total E&M component of practices or a 1% to 4% decrease in the net revenue.

What’s Your View?

What do you think of the changes to reimbursement? How will they

impact your clinic? Do you partici-pate in the PQRI? Why or why not?

Send replies [email protected]


issues) and technical fees (drug admin-istration/radiation technical component codes) have been under assault for at least 10 years. It is time to turn the tide. Lowering health care costs is a nation-al mandate. We cannot keep doing the same things while expecting different results—Einstein called that the defini-tion of insanity! We keep objecting and we keep accommodating. We must find a different way.

Getting Your 2% or 4%

While we wait for more action from Congress to fix the SGR, which hov-ers over us every year because it is too expensive to fix (estimates are in the billions of dollars), we can appre-ciate that quality and safety are being rewarded and perhaps find in that a way out of the continual battle for more appropriate payment. Drug payments remain unchanged. Payments from the Physician Quality Reporting Initiative

(PQRI) continue and have the poten-tial to add 2% to net revenue. Nearly 50% of physicians failed to successful-ly file PQRI data. It may be wise to look at using a registry to file. Many indica-tions relevant for cancer practices only can be reported through registries. Tra-ditionally, CMS adds new indications or conditions to the PQRI list each year; in 2010 there is one new oncology indica-tion: cancer stage documentation.

Payment supplements continue for electronic prescription writing as well. Another 2% may be earned for hav-ing electronic prescriptions. The rules have been simplified this year so prac-tices qualify with 25 encounters versus 50% of eligible claims. In other words, if a practice has 25 patients with enough e-prescribing to meet the rule, it is eli-gible to participate, no matter what percentage that is of the practice. The code has been changed to G8443. By the time this issue of Clinical Oncology News arrives in your mailbox, it is like-ly that Congress will have once again addressed the SGR issue. It is likely that there will be another temporary roll-back of the scheduled decrease in pay-ment to no increase in payment. There is agreement that the SGR is broken.

The problem is figuring out how to fix it for the long term. A health reform

plan might result in a permanent fix. In the meantime, physicians should focus

on getting their January claims paid as soon as possible. They should contin-ue with all of the efficiencies previous-ly put in place and collect data on their outcomes so they can use their medical knowledge to pursue innovation and the best results for their patients. The reputation that physicians build with good patient care will keep them afloat in the bad times.

—Mary Lou Bowers, MBA, President & CEO

of The Pritchard Group, LLCRockville, Md.

www.thepritchardgroup.net

POLICY & MANAGEMENT

Reimbursement

Physician professional fees (consultation code

issues) and technical fees (drug administra-

tion/radiation technical component codes) have

been under assault for at least 10 years.


What does the community oncologist need to know from the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS)?The following highlights, provided by Andrew D. Seidman, MD, and Maura Dickler, MD, advisory board members of Clinical Oncology News, will keep you in the loop. Drs. Seidman and Dickler are attending physicians at the Breast Cancer Medicine Service, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC), in New York City.

Practice-Changing News From SABCS

Andrew D. Seidman, MD, attending

physician, Breast Cancer Medicine Service,

MSKCC

Lapatinib Plus Trastuzumab Packs a Punch

The clinical util-ity of using tras-

tuzumab (Herceptin, Genentech) after patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer have progressed on tras-tuzumab has been a pressing clinical question for years. The study report-ed by Blackwell et al (abstract 61) is the first trial to show that dually tar-geting the HER2 pathway can lead to a survival benefit in patients with tras-tuzumab-refractory metastatic breast cancer (MBC).

At the 2008 SABCS, investigators from this trial showed that continuing trastuzumab beyond progression and adding the dual HER1/HER2 tyrosine kinase inhibitor lapatinib (Tykerb, GlaxoSmithKline) 1,000 mg orally daily prolonged time to disease progression by four weeks compared with discontinuing trastuzumab and using lapatinib 1,500 mg orally daily alone. In an update of this trial, in which 298 women with heavily

pretreated MBC were randomized, researchers now describe a 4.5-month overall survival (OS) advantage for the combination treatment over lapatinib alone (14 vs. 9.5 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; P=0.026) (Figure 1).

Of note, von Minckwitz et al have demonstrated the utility of continuing trastu-zumab beyond progression in combination with capecitabine (Xeloda, Roche) in

women with trastuzumab-refractory MBC in a randomized, prospective clinical trial (J Clin Oncol 2009;27:1999-2006, PMID: 19289619). In this tri-al, an advantage was noted in time to progression (TTP), but not in OS.

High Dose of Fulvestrant Offers Benefits

The CONFIRM trial reported by DiLeo et al (abstract 25) shows there is a modest clinical advantage in using a higher dose of fulvestrant (Faslodex, AstraZeneca). This randomized Phase III trial compared ful-vestrant 250 mg with fulvestrant 500 mg in postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor–positive advanced breast cancer.

In this trial, 736 women were stratified by response to prior hormon-al therapy, and ran-domized to standard or double-dose selec-tive estrogen receptor downregulation with fulvestrant. The medi-an age of the patients was 61 years; approx-imately two-thirds of the patients in both arms had visceral dis-

ease. The primary end point was TTP, and the study met its primary end point statistically: The higher-

Maura Dickler, MD, attending physician,

Breast Cancer Medicine

Service, MSKCC

Bevacizumab in Second-line Therapy

Based on results from the RIB-BON-2 trial, clinicians may con-

sider bevacizumab (Avastin, Genentech) in combina-tion with their choice of chemotherapy as second-line therapy for patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) who have not received bevacizumab in the first-line setting (Brufsky et al, abstract 42).

In the RIBBON-2 trial, investigators showed that adding bevacizumab at a dose of 15 mg/kg every three weeks or 10 mg/kg every two weeks to second-line chemotherapy (investigator’s choice of taxanes, gemcitabine [Gemzar, Eli Lilly], capecitabine [Xeloda, Roche] or vinorelbine) improved response rates and progression-free survival (PFS) compared with che-motherapy alone in patients with MBC. The PFS increased from approximately five to seven months, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.78 (P=0.0072) (Figure 3). As demonstrated in other bevacizumab-containing studies, there was no impact on overall survival (OS).

Of interest, the AVADO study, initially presented at ASCO 2008, was updated at SABCS 2009 (Miles et al, abstract 41). Similar to the ECOG trial E2100 of

paclitaxel with or without bevacizumab, the AVA-DO study did not show a benefit in OS from the addi-tion of bevacizumab after a median follow-up of 25 months, although the drug did improve PFS.

Sorafenib Shows Promise

Two randomized, placebo-controlled Phase II tri-als were presented this year investigating the effects of sorafenib (Nexavar, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceu-ticals) in combination with chemotherapy in patients with locally recurrent breast cancer or MBC (Gradishar et al, abstract 44; Baselga et al, SOLTI-0701, abstract

45). Sorafenib is a tyrosine kinase inhibitor that targets the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor, plate-let derived growth factor receptor and RAF kinase.

The first trial presented by Gradishar et al, looked at the benefits of weekly paclitaxel plus sorafenib in the first-line setting. There was a trend toward improvement in PFS (the primary end point) in favor of sorafenib plus paclitaxel compared with paclitaxel alone (6.9 vs. 5.6 months; P=0.0857), supported by a statistically significant improvement in the second-ary end points of time to progression and response. However, the combination of paclitaxel plus sorafenib resulted in a high rate of grade 3 hand–foot syndrome (30%) and more serious adverse events

SOLID TUMORS

Breast

% o

f P

ati

en

ts

Patients receiving capecitabine plus sorafenib

Patients receiving capecitabine only

45

13

45

13

50

40

30

20

10

0

Figure 4. Comparison of grade 3 hand–foot syndrome in SOLTI trial.

Mo

nth

s

Chemotherapy

Chemotherapy plus bevacizumab

P=0.0072

5.1

7.2

5.1

7.28

6

4

2

0

Figure 3. Comparison of progression-free survival.

10

8

6

4

2

0Tim

e t

o P

rog

ress

ion

, m

o Fulvestrant 250 mg

Fulvestrant 500 mg

6.5

5.55.5

6.5

Figure 2. Comparison of fulvestrant doses.

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Su

rviv

al, w

k

Patients receiving lapatinib plus trastuzumab

Patients receiving lapatinib

60.7

41.441.4

60.7

Figure 1. Comparison of overall survival.

Patients had HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer and had progressed on trastuzumab-containing regimens.


dose regimen was associated with a 6.5-month median TTP compared with the lower dose, 5.5 months (HR, 0.8; P=0.006) (Figure 2). There were no differences in response rates, clinical benefit rates or adverse events between groups.

FACT Finds No Benefit for Fulvestrant Plus Anastrozole

The FACT trial reported by Bergh et al (abstract 23) shows that clinicians should not use the combination of fulvestrant and anastrozole (Arimidex, Astra-Zeneca) in patients with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer after first relapse. In this open-label, Phase III trial, 512 women were randomized to either anastrozole monotherapy or the combination of anastrozole plus fulvestrant (loading dose 500 mg, then 250 mg two weeks later and then 250 mg monthly).

Despite promising preclinical data supporting the combined strategy, there was no signal of improved efficacy for the combination of an aromatase inhibi-tor and an elective estrogen receptor downregulator. For the primary end point, median TTP was 10.8 months for the combination compared with 10.2 months for anastrozole (HR, 0.99). The clinical benefit rate was 55% for both arms, and the OS was 38 months for both arms. This combined strategy has no role in the clinical care of cancer patients.

Update on the NCCTG 9831 Trial

At SABCS, Perez et al (abstract 80) reported results of chemotherapy alone, with sequential or concurrent addition of 52 weeks of trastuzumab in the NCCTG 9831 HER2-positive adjuvant breast cancer trial. It is the only Phase III trial comparing the addition of trastuzumab (H) to doxorubicin and cyclophos-phamide, then paclitaxel [Taxol, Bristol-Myers Squibb] (Arm A: AC→T) either following (Arm B: AC→T→H) or starting concurrently with paclitaxel (Arm C: AC→T+H→H) for women with resected stage I-III invasive HER2-positive breast cancer. The trial demonstrated superior outcomes for patients with HER2-posi-tive early-stage breast cancer receiving concurrent (with paclitaxel) and sequen-tial trastuzumab over the arm in which patients received trastuzumab only sequentially, after the completion of chemotherapy.

It was already known from a previous report of this trial, and the NSABP B-31, that the addition of trastuzumab to anthracycline and taxane-containing chemotherapy reduces recurrence and death from HER2-positive early-stage breast cancer (N Engl J Med 2005; 353:1673-1684, PMID: 16236738).

In the most recent results from the NCCTG 9831 trial, disease-free survival (DFS) with 50% of planned events (recurrences) were analyzed for the 1,903 patients in arms “B” (sequential) and “C” (concurrent). Median follow-up was 5.3 years. There was a 4.4% reduction in the likelihood of recurrence favoring arm C (concurrent trastuzumab with paclitaxel) compared with arm B (sequential use of trastuzumab after chemotherapy; HR, 0.77; logrank P=0.0190). Given that the

NSABP B-31 trial also employed concurrent use of trastuzumab plus paclitaxel, Dr. Perez showed the combined results of arm C with the NSABP experimental group, compared with both non–trastuzumab-containing arms (i.e., AC-T alone)—with three-year median follow-up, there was a 52% reduction in the annual odds of recurrence with the concurrent approach compared with not using trastuzumab (HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.41-0.57; P<0.00001). There was a 35% reduction in death as well (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.51-0.84; P=0.0007).

Previous trials of weekly paclitaxel plus trastuzumab in HER2-positive MBC provided a foundation of data on the efficacy and cardiac safety of this approach from Seidman et al (J Clin Oncol 2001;19:2587-2595, PMID: 11352950, and J Clin Oncol 2008;26:1642-1649, PMID: 18375893). Indeed, despite tempo-rary closure of accrual to arm C during the course of this trial, the incidence of significant cardiac events was 2.8% in arm B and 3.3% in arm C. The risk–ben-efit analysis, according to Dr. Perez, clearly favors the concurrent use of pacli-taxel plus trastuzumab. Notably, this approach is being explored in an iteration of the current ALTTO trial. This trial is testing four treatment options: trastuzum-ab alone for 52 weeks; lapatinib alone for 52 weeks; trastuzumab for 12 weeks, followed by a six-week break, then lapatinib for 34 weeks; or lapatinib in combi-nation with trastuzumab for 52 weeks.

Denosumab Bests Zoledronic Acid

Results from a double-blind, randomized Phase III trial comparing denosumab (Prolia, Amgen) to zoledronic acid (Zometa, Novartis) for the prevention of skeletal-related events (SREs) in MBC reveal that denosumab is supe-rior. It is anticipated that the results of this tri-al presented by Stopeck et al (abstract 22), when mature, will support an FDA application for drug approval for denosumab.

This large trial randomized 2,046 patients with MBC to receive either the RANK-ligand monoclonal antibody denosumab 120 mg subcutaneously every four weeks (with IV placebo) or IV zoledronate 4 mg every four weeks (with subcutaneous placebo) in a double-blinded fashion. The primary end point was time to first SRE; 45% of patients still remain on study.

There was an 18% reduction in SREs asso-ciated with the use of denosumab (HR, 0.82; P=0.01). The median time to first SRE was 26.5 months for zoledronic acid; it has not yet been reached for denosumab. There were no differences in DFS or OS, or in the incidence of osteonecrosis of the jaw (denosumab, 2.0%; zoledronic acid, 1.4%) between groups. Whereas there were fewer acute reactions with denosumab (fever, chills and bone pain), overall there was no difference in the frequency of adverse events, serious or not, between groups.

BCIRG 006 Update

The BCIRG 006 update provided by Slamon et al (abstract 62) was the third report for this still-unpublished important trial examining the use of trastuzum-ab with doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide and docetaxel [Taxotere, Sanofi-Aventis] (AC-DH) versus docetaxel/carboplatin (DCH) versus doxorubicin/cyclophosph-amide and docetaxel alone. It represents a planned analysis after 650 events. The main results have not changed: Both trastuzumab-containing arms are significant-ly superior to the non–trastuzumab-containing arm in terms of both DFS and OS.

The two arms are not statistically significantly different from each other with respect to these end points. One case of secondary acute leukemia was noted in each trastuzumab-containing arm. There were numerically more instances of congestive heart failure with AC-DH compared with DCH (21 vs. seven patients). There were also numerically more deaths from breast cancer for patients on DCH compared with AC-DH. Indeed, the difference in the number of deaths attribut-able to MBC was greater for patients receiving DCH than for AC-DH, and this difference exceeded the difference in significant cardiac events, which are rarely fatal.

than paclitaxel alone.

The SOLTI trial of capecitabine plus sorafenib

reported by Baselga et al, demonstrated an improve-

ment in the primary end point of PFS (6.4 vs. 4.1

months; P=0.006), but this combination of dose and

schedule led to a 45% rate of grade 3 hand–foot syn-

drome (Figure 4). In this study, patients received

capecitabine 1,000 mg/m2 for 14 of every 21 days and

sorafenib 400 mg twice daily continuously or the

same dose and schedule of capecitabine plus placebo.

The dose of capecitabine in this trial is lower than the

approved dose of 1,250 mg/m2.

Although promise is demonstrated for sorafenib-

based chemotherapy combinations based on these

studies, additional study is needed to maximize effi-

cacy and reduce toxicity.

Exemestane Versus Tamoxifen

An update of the TEAM trial at a median follow-up of

five years demonstrated a similar disease-free survival

between five years of up-front exemestane (Aromasin,

Pfizer) and tamoxifen followed by exemestane (total of

five years), according to Rea et al (abstract 11). These

data suggest that a sequencing strategy that includes

both an aromatase inhibitor (AI) and tamoxifen may

be a reasonable alternative to five years of an AI alone.

This study supports sequencing of these therapies for

patients experiencing intolerable side effects or poor

compliance related to cost.

SOLID TUMORS

Breast

The trial demonstrated superior outcomes for patients with HER2-positive early-stage breast cancer receiving concurrent (with paclitaxel) and sequential trastuzumab over the arm in which patients received trastuzumab only sequentially, after the completion of chemotherapy.

Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography image depicting bone metastases in a patient with inflammatory breast cancer.


New Phase II and III Clinical TrialsTrials added to the National Cancer Institute’s list of clinical trials in the 30 days prior to January 21, 2010. For eligibility criteria and additional information, visit www.cancer.gov/clinicaltrials, click on the advanced link and enter the protocol ID.

Protocol Type Age Protocol ID Trial Sites

So

lid T

um

ors

Effects of Selected Vegetable and Herb Mix (SV) on Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC), Phase III 18 and over SV-001 NY

Erlotinib and Chemotherapy for Patients With Stage IB-IIIA NSCLC With EGFR Mutations (ECON), Phase II 18 and over 07-103 NY

Study of Dichloroacetate in Patients With Previously Treated Metastatic Breast Cancer (MBC) or NSCLC, Phase II 18 and over DCA Breast NSCLC CA

Multi-Media Imagery Program for Breast Cancer Patients, Phase II 18 and over MMR-117597 WA

Study of EZN-2208 in Patients With MBC, Phase II 18 and over EZN-2208-03 AZ, CO, FL, IN, MN, MO, NC, NV, NY, OR, PA, SC, TX, VA

A Study of YM155 Plus Docetaxel in Subjects With HER2-Negative MBC, Phase II 18 and over 155-CL-36 OH

Trial of Amrubicin as Treatment for Patients With HER2-Negative MBC, Phase I/II 18 and over SCRI BRE 161 FL, TX

Temozolomide Plus Bevacizumab in Patients With Metastatic Melanoma Involving the Central Nervous System, Phase II 18 to 90 MEL0107 FL

Clinical Trial of Purified Isoflavones in Prostate Cancer: Comparing Safety, Effectiveness, Phase II 30 to 80 MCC-15835 FL

CyberKnife Radiosurgery for Localized Prostatic Carcinoma, Phase II 18 and over Virtual HDR CK Radiosurgery

CA

Ketoconazole and Dexamethasone in Prostate Cancer, Phase II 18 and over CC # 09553 CA

Docetaxel, Androgen Deprivation and Proton Therapy for High-Risk Prostate Cancer, Phase II 18 and over UFPTI 0703 - PR05 FL

A Study to Compare Tivozanib (AV-951) to Sorafenib in Subjects With Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma, Phase III 18 and over AV-951-09-301 FL

Interleukin-2, Aldesleukin and Entinostat for Kidney Cancer, Phase I/II 18 and over RPCI I 145208 NY

PD 0332991 in Treating Patients With Refractory Solid Tumors, Phase II 18 and over UPCC 03909 PA

Study of RAD001 in Soft Tissue Extremity and/or Retroperitoneal Sarcomas, Phase II 18 and over MCC-15962 FL

A Study Evaluating STA-9090 in Patients With Metastatic and/or Unresectable Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor, Phase II 18 and over 9090-05 MA

Trial of Sorafenib in Combination With Capecitabine for the Treatment of Patients With Measurable Hepatocellular Carcinoma, Phase II

18 and over INST 0820 NM

A Trial Exploring the Efficacy of EMD 1201081 in Combination With Cetuximab in Second-Line Cetuximab-Naïve Subjects With Recurrent or Metastatic Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck, Phase II

18 and over EMR 200068-006 IL, KY, MA, NY, PA

Capecitabine and Lapatinib Ditosylate in Treating Patients With Squamous Cell Cancer of the Head and Neck, Phase II 18 and over UPCC 15309 PA

A Single-Arm Study Evaluating Carboplatin/Gemcitabine in Combination With BSI-201 in Patients With Platinum-Sensi-tive Recurrent Ovarian Cancer, Phase II

18 and over 20090207 and 20090208

MA

Radiation Therapy Sandwiched Between Paclitaxel and Carboplatin in Patients With High-risk Endometrial Cancer, Phase II

18 and over MMC-08-03-060 NY

Multi-Media Imagery Program for Breast Cancer Patients, Phase II 18 and over MMR-117597 WA

Hem

ato

log

ic M

alig

nan

cies

Mature B-Cell Lymphoma And Leukemia Study, Phase III 0 to 21 SJBC3 TN

Lenalidomide And Rituximab as Maintenance Therapy in Treating Patients With B-Cell Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma, Phase I/II

18 and over CASE2409 OH

Lenalidomide as Maintenance Therapy After Combination Chemotherapy With or Without Rituximab and Stem Cell Transplant in Treating Patients With Persistent or Recurrent Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma That is Resistant to Chemothera-py, Phase I/II

19 and over 446-08 NE

5-Azacytidine With Lenalidomide in Patients With High-Risk Myelodysplastic Syndrome (MDS) and Acute Myelogenous Leukemia

Any age 2009-0467 TX

A Study of Withdrawal of Immunosuppression and Donor Lymphocyte Infusions Following Allogeneic Transplant for Pediatric Hematologic Malignancies, Phase II

6 months to 25 years

CC# 09082 CA

Study of 5-Fluoro-2-deoxycytidine With Tetrahydrouridine (FdCyd + THU) in Myeloid Leukemia and MDS, Phase II 18 and over 09045 CA

Su

pp

ort

ive Rituximab in Preventing Acute Graft-Versus-Host Disease in Patients Undergoing a Donor Stem Cell Transplant for

Hematologic Cancer, Phase II19 to 75 083-09 NE

Curcumin for the Prevention of Radiation-induced Dermatitis in Breast Cancer Patients, Phase II 21 and over URCC116 NY

Vitamin D3 and Early-Stage Prostate Cancer in Active Surveillance, Phase II 18 to 90 CTRF #P-06-068 SC

see CLINICAL TRIALS, page 25

CLINICAL TRIALS

APPROVED in combination with paclitaxel first lineAPPROVED in combination with paclitaxel first line

IndicationAvastin is indicated for the treatment of patients who have not receivedchemotherapy for metastatic HER2-negative breast cancer in combinationwith paclitaxel.

The effectiveness of Avastin in metastatic breast cancer is based on an improvement in progression free survival. There are no data demonstrating an improvement in disease-related symptoms or increased survival with Avastin.

Avastin is not indicated for patients with breast cancer that has progressed following anthracycline and taxane chemotherapy administered formetastatic disease.

Please see the next page and following brief summary of Prescribing Information, including Boxed WARNINGS, for additional safety information.

First and only biologicfor HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer

First and only biologicfor HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer

69876ha 1 1/22/10 4:18:04 PM

Boxed WARNINGS and additional important safety informationGastrointestinal (GI) perforation: Serious and sometimes fatal GI perforation occurs at a higher incidence in Avastin-treated patients compared to controls. The incidences of GI perforation ranged from 0.3% to 2.4% across clinical studies. Discontinue Avastin in patients with GI perforation

Surgery and wound healing complications: The incidence of wound healing and surgical complications, including serious and fatal complications, is increased in Avastin-treated patients. Do not initiate Avastin for at least 28 days after surgery and until the surgical wound is fully healed. The appropriate interval between termination of Avastin and subsequent elective surgery required to reduce the risks of impaired wound healing/wound dehiscence has not been determined. Discontinue Avastin at least 28 days prior to elective surgery and in patients with wound dehiscence requiring medical intervention

Hemorrhage: Severe or fatal hemorrhage, including hemoptysis, GI bleeding, hematemesis, central nervous system hemorrhage, epistaxis, and vaginal bleeding, occurred up to 5-fold more frequently in patients receiving Avastin. Across indications, the incidence of grade ≥3 hemorrhagic events among patients receiving Avastin ranged from 1.2% to 4.6%. Do not administer Avastin to patients with serious hemorrhage or recent hemoptysis (≥1/2 tsp of red blood). Discontinue Avastin in patients with serious hemorrhage (ie, requiring medical intervention)

Additional serious and sometimes fatal adverse events for which the incidence was increased in the Avastin-treated arm vs control included non-GI fistula formation (≤0.3%), arterial thromboembolic events (grade ≥3, 2.4%), and proteinuria including nephrotic syndrome (<1%). Additional serious adverse events for which the incidence was increased in the Avastin-treated arm vs control included hypertension (grade 3–4, 5%–18%) and reversible posterior leukoencephalopathy syndrome (RPLS) (<0.1%). Infusion reactions with the first dose of Avastin were uncommon (<3%), and severe reactions occurred in 0.2% of patients

The most common adverse reactions observed in Avastin patients at a rate >10% and at least twice the control arm rate were epistaxis, headache, hypertension, rhinitis, proteinuria, taste alteration, dry skin, rectal hemorrhage, lacrimation disorder, back pain, and exfoliative dermatitis. Across all studies, Avastin was discontinued in 8.4% to 21% of patients because of adverse reactions

Grade 3–5 (nonhematologic) and 4–5 (hematologic) events in Study E2100 increased by 20.5% in the Avastin plus paclitaxel vs paclitaxel groups. Grade 1–2 adverse events were not collected in Study E2100, and common adverse events of Avastin in combination with paclitaxel for metastatic breast cancer are not known. The most common grade 3–5 (nonhematologic) and 4–5 (hematologic) events in Study E2100, which occurred at a higher absolute incidence (≥5%) in the Avastin plus paclitaxel vs paclitaxel groups, were sensory neuropathy (24% vs 18%), hypertension (16% vs 1%), and fatigue (11% vs 5%). The rate of CHF (defined as NCI-CTC grade 3–4) in the Avastin plus paclitaxel arm was 2.2% vs 0.3% in the control arm. Among patients receiving anthracyclines, the rate of CHF was 3.8% for Avastin-treated patients and 0.6% for patients receiving paclitaxel alone. Fatal adverse reactions occurred in 1.7% (6/363) of patients who received Avastin plus paclitaxel in Study E2100. Causes of death were GI perforation (2), myocardial infarction (2), and diarrhea/abdominal pain/weakness/hypotension (2)

References: 1. Avastin Prescribing Information. Genentech, Inc. July 2009. 2. Data on file. Genentech, Inc. 3. Kirkwood BR, Sterne JAC. Essential Medical Statistics. 2nd ed. Malden, MA: Blackwell Science Ltd; 2003.

Provide more time without progression

Provide more time without progression

Avastin plus paclitaxel in first-line HER2-negative MBC*Avastin plus paclitaxel in first-line HER2-negative MBC*

©2009 Genentech USA, Inc. All rights reserved. 9046202 Printed in USA. (10/09)

69583ha 2 11/18/09 3:50:59 AM

Significant PFS† benefit achievedAvastin is indicated for the treatment of patients who have not received chemotherapy for metastatic HER2-negative breast cancer in combination with paclitaxel. The effectiveness of Avastin in metastatic breast cancer is based on an improvement in progression free survival. There are no data demonstrating an improvement in disease-related symptoms or increased survival with Avastin. Avastin is not indicated for patients with breast cancer that has progressed following anthracycline and taxane chemotherapy administered for metastatic disease.

PFS nearly doubled vs paclitaxel alone —11.3 vs 5.8 months (HR=0.48, P<0.0001) (95% CI: 10.5, 13.3 vs 5.4, 8.2)1

On average during study follow-up, there was a 52% reduction in the risk of disease progression (HR=0.48, P<0.0001)1,3

Important treatment considerations—Dose modificationsDiscontinue Avastin in patients with GI perforations (GI perforations, fistula formation in the GI tract, intra-abdominal abscess), fistula formation involving an internal organ, wound dehiscence and wound healing complications requiring medical intervention, serious hemorrhage (ie, requiring medical intervention), severe ATE, hypertensive crisis or hypertensive encephalopathy, RPLS (symptoms usually resolve or improve within days, although some patients have experienced ongoing neurologic sequelae), and nephrotic syndrome. Temporarily suspend Avastin for at least 4 weeks prior to elective surgery, severe hypertension not controlled with medical management, moderate to severe proteinuria pending further evaluation, and severe infusion reactions. The safety of resumption of Avastin therapy in patients that experienced RPLS, ATE, and moderate to severe proteinuria is unknown.

Please see following brief summary of Prescribing Information, including Boxed WARNINGS, for additional safety information.

*MBC=metastatic breast cancer. † Primary analysis of progression-free survival (PFS) was based on the retrospective blinded review of tumor data by an independent review facility.2

www.avastin.com

100

80

60

40

20

Median PFS1,2

11.3 vs 5.8 mo52% Reduced risk

of progression

(HR=0.48, P<0.0001)

Avastin + paclitaxel (n=368)

Paclitaxel (n=354)

0 6 12 18 24 30 36

Perc

enta

ge P

rogr

essi

on F

ree

Progression-free Survival (Months)

69583ha 2 11/18/09 3:50:59 AM

Solution for intravenous infusion Initial U.S. Approval: 2004

WARNING: GASTROINTESTINAL PERFORATIONS, SURGERY AND WOUND HEALING COMPLICATIONS, and HEMORRHAGEGastrointestinal PerforationsThe incidence of gastrointestinal perforation, some fatal, in Avastin-treated patients ranges from 0.3 to 2.4%. Discontinue Avastin in patients with gastrointestinal perforation. [See Dosageand Administration (2.4), Warnings and Precautions (5.1).]Surgery and Wound Healing ComplicationsThe incidence of wound healing and surgical complications,including serious and fatal complications, is increased inAvastin-treated patients. Discontinue Avastin in patients withwound dehiscence. The appropriate interval between termination of Avastin and subsequent elective surgeryrequired to reduce the risks of impaired wound healing/wounddehiscence has not been determined. Discontinue at least 28 days prior to elective surgery. Do not initiate Avastin for atleast 28 days after surgery and until the surgical wound is fully healed. [See Dosage and Administration (2.4), Warnings and Precautions(5.2), and Adverse Reactions (6.1).]HemorrhageSevere or fatal hemorrhage, including hemoptysis, gastrointestinal bleeding, central nervous systems (CNS) hemorrhage, epistaxis, and vaginal bleeding occurred up to five-fold more frequently in patients receiving Avastin. Do not administer Avastin to patients with serious hemorrhage or recent hemoptysis. [See Dosage and Administration (2.4),Warnings and Precautions (5.3), and Adverse Reactions (6.1).]

1 INDICATIONS AND USAGE1.1 Metastatic Colorectal Cancer (mCRC)Avastin is indicated for the first- or second-line treatment of patients with metastatic carcinoma of the colon or rectum in combination with intravenous 5-fluorouracil–based chemotherapy.1.2 Non-Squamous Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC)Avastin is indicated for the first-line treatment of unresectable, locally advanced, recurrent or metastatic non–squamous non–small cell lung cancer in combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel.1.3 Metastatic Breast Cancer (MBC)Avastin is indicated for the treatment of patients who have not received chemotherapy for metastatic HER2-negative breast cancer in combination with paclitaxel.The effectiveness of Avastin in MBC is based on an improvement in progression free survival. There are no data demonstrating an improvement in disease-related symptoms or increased survival with Avastin. [See Clinical Studies (14.3).]Avastin is not indicated for patients with breast cancer that has progressed following anthracycline and taxane chemotherapy administered for metastatic disease.1.4 GlioblastomaAvastin is indicated for the treatment of glioblastoma with progressive disease following prior therapy as a single agent.The effectiveness of Avastin in glioblastoma is based on an improvement in objective response rate. There are no data demonstrating an improvement in disease-related symptoms or increased survival withAvastin. [See Clinical Studies (14.4).]1.5 Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma (mRCC)Avastin is indicated for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma in combination with interferon alfa.

4 CONTRAINDICATIONSNone.

5 WARNINGS AND PRECAUTIONS5.1 Gastrointestinal PerforationsSerious and sometimes fatal gastrointestinal perforation occurs at a higher incidence in Avastin treated patients compared to controls. The incidence of gastrointestinal perforation ranged from 0.3 to 2.4% across clinical studies. [See Adverse Reactions (6.1).]The typical presentation may include abdominal pain, nausea, emesis,constipation, and fever. Perforation can be complicated by intra-abdominal abscess and fistula formation. The majority of cases occurred within the first 50 days of initiation of Avastin.Discontinue Avastin in patients with gastrointestinal perforation. [See Boxed Warning, Dosage and Administration (2.4).]5.2 Surgery and Wound Healing ComplicationsAvastin impairs wound healing in animal models. [See NonclinicalToxicology (13.2).] In clinical trials, administration of Avastin was notallowed until at least 28 days after surgery. In a controlled clinical trial,the incidence of wound healing complications, including serious and fatal complications, in patients with mCRC who underwent surgery during the course of Avastin treatment was 15% and in patients whodid not receive Avastin, was 4%. [See Adverse Reactions (6.1).]Avastin should not be initiated for at least 28 days following surgery and until the surgical wound is fully healed. Discontinue Avastin in patients with wound healing complications requiring medical intervention.The appropriate interval between the last dose of Avastin and elective surgery is unknown; however, the half-life of Avastin is estimated to be20 days. Suspend Avastin for at least 28 days prior to elective surgery. Do not administer Avastin until the wound is fully healed. [See Boxed Warning,Dosage and Administration (2.4).]5.3 HemorrhageAvastin can result in two distinct patterns of bleeding: minor hemorrhage,most commonly Grade 1 epistaxis; and serious, and in some cases fatal,hemorrhagic events. Severe or fatal hemorrhage, including hemoptysis,gastrointestinal bleeding, hematemesis, CNS hemorrhage, epistaxis, and vaginal bleeding occurred up to five-fold more frequently in patientsreceiving Avastin compared to patients receiving only chemotherapy.Acrossindications, the incidence of Grade ≥ 3 hemorrhagic events among patients receiving Avastin ranged from 1.2 to 4.6%. [See Adverse Reactions (6.1).]Serious or fatal pulmonary hemorrhage occurred in four of 13 (31%) patients with squamous cell histology and two of 53 (4%) patients with non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer receiving Avastin and chemotherapy compared to none of the 32 (0%) patients receiving chemotherapy alone.

In clinical studies in non–small cell lung cancer where patients with CNS metastases who completed radiation and surgery more than 4 weeks prior to the start of Avastin were evaluated with serial CNS imaging,symptomatic Grade 2 CNS hemorrhage was documented in one of 83 Avastin-treated patients (rate 1.2%, 95% CI 0.06%–5.93%).Intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 8 of 163 patients with previously treated glioblastoma; two patients had Grade 3–4 hemorrhage.Do not administer Avastin to patients with recent history of hemoptysis of ≥1/2 teaspoon of red blood. Discontinue Avastin in patients with hemorrhage. [See Boxed Warning, Dosage and Administration (2.4).]5.4 Non-Gastrointestinal Fistula FormationSerious and sometimes fatal non-gastrointestinal fistula formation involving tracheo-esophageal, bronchopleural, biliary, vaginal, renal and bladder sites occurs at a higher incidence in Avastin-treated patients compared to controls. The incidence of non-gastrointestinal perforation was ≤0.3% in clinical studies. Most events occurred within the first 6 months of Avastin therapy.Discontinue Avastin in patients with fistula formation involving an internal organ. [See Dosage and Administration (2.4).]5.5 Arterial Thromboembolic EventsSerious, sometimes fatal, arterial thromboembolic events (ATE) including cerebral infarction, transient ischemic attacks, myocardial infarction, angina,and a variety of otherATE occurred at a higher incidence in patients receiving Avastin compared to those in the control arm. Across indications, the incidence of Grade ≥ 3 ATE in the Avastin containing arms was 2.4% compared to 0.7% in the control arms. Among patients receiving Avastin in combination with chemotherapy, the risk of developing ATE during therapy was increased in patients with a history of arterial thromboembolism, or age greater than 65 years. [See Use in Specific Populations (8.5).]The safety of resumption of Avastin therapy after resolution of an ATE has not been studied. Discontinue Avastin in patients who experience a severe ATE. [See Dosage and Administration (2.4).]5.6 HypertensionThe incidence of severe hypertension is increased in patients receiving Avastin as compared to controls. Across clinical studies the incidence of Grade 3 or 4 hypertension ranged from 5-18%.Monitor blood pressure every two to three weeks during treatment with Avastin. Treat with appropriate anti-hypertensive therapy and monitor blood pressure regularly. Continue to monitor blood pressure at regular intervals in patients with Avastin-induced or -exacerbated hypertension after discontinuation of Avastin.Temporarily suspend Avastin in patients with severe hypertension that is not controlled with medical management. Discontinue Avastin in patients with hypertensive crisis or hypertensive encephalopathy. [See Dosage and Administration (2.4).]5.7 Reversible Posterior Leukoencephalopathy Syndrome (RPLS)RPLS has been reported with an incidence of <0.1% in clinical studies. The onset of symptoms occurred from 16 hours to 1 year after initiation of Avastin. RPLS is a neurological disorder which can present with headache,seizure, lethargy, confusion, blindness and other visual and neurologic disturbances. Mild to severe hypertension may be present. Magneticresonance imaging (MRI) is necessary to confirm the diagnosis of RPLS.Discontinue Avastin in patients developing RPLS. Symptoms usually resolve orimprove within days,although some patients have experienced ongoing neurologicsequelae. The safety of reinitiating Avastin therapy in patients previously experiencing RPLS is not known. [See Dosage and Administration (2.4).]5.8 ProteinuriaThe incidence and severity of proteinuria is increased in patients receiving Avastin as compared to controls. Nephrotic syndrome occurred in < 1% of patients receiving Avastin in clinical trials, in some instances with fatal outcome. [See Adverse Reactions (6.1).] In a published case series, kidneybiopsy of six patients with proteinuria showed findings consistent with thrombotic microangiopathy.Monitor proteinuria by dipstick urine analysis for the development or worsening of proteinuria with serial urinalyses during Avastin therapy.Patients with a 2 + or greater urine dipstick reading should undergo further assessment with a 24-hour urine collection.Suspend Avastin administration for ≥ 2 grams of proteinuria/24 hours andresume when proteinuria is <2 gm/24 hours. Discontinue Avastin in patients with nephrotic syndrome. Data from a postmarketing safety studyshowed poor correlation between UPCR (Urine Protein/Creatinine Ratio) and 24 hour urine protein (Pearson Correlation 0.39 (95% CI 0.17, 0.57).[See Use in Specific Populations (8.5).] The safety of continued Avastin treatment in patients with moderate to severe proteinuria has not been evaluated. [See Dosage and Administration (2.4).]5.9 Infusion ReactionsInfusion reactions reported in the clinical trials and post-marketing experience include hypertension, hypertensive crises associated withneurologic signs and symptoms, wheezing, oxygen desaturation, Grade 3 hypersensitivity, chest pain, headaches, rigors, and diaphoresis. In clinicalstudies, infusion reactions with the first dose of Avastin were uncommon(< 3%) and severe reactions occurred in 0.2% of patients.Stop infusion if a severe infusion reaction occurs and administer appropriate medical therapy. [See Dosage and Administration (2.4).]

6 ADVERSE REACTIONSThe following serious adverse reactions are discussed in greater detail in other sections of the label:

[See Boxed Warning, Dosage and Administration (2.4), Warnings and Precautions (5.1).]

[See Boxed Warning,Dosage and Administration (2.4), Warnings and Precautions (5.2).]

[See Boxed Warning, Dosage and Administration (2.4),Warnings and Precautions (5.3).]

[See Dosage and Administration (2.4), Warnings and Precautions (5.4).]





The most common adverse reactions observed in Avastin patients at a rate> 10% and at least twice the control arm rate, are epistaxis, headache,hypertension, rhinitis, proteinuria, taste alteration, dry skin, rectal

hemorrhage, lacrimation disorder, back pain and exfoliative dermatitis.Across all studies, Avastin was discontinued in 8.4 to 21% of patients because of adverse reactions.

6.1 Clinical Trial ExperienceBecause clinical trials are conducted under widely varying conditions,adverse reaction rates observed in the clinical trials of a drug cannot be directly compared to rates in the clinical trials of another drug andmay not reflect the rates observed in practice.The data below reflect exposure to Avastin in 2661 patients with mCRC,non-squamous NSCLC, MBC, glioblastoma, or mRCC in controlled (Studies 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 9) or uncontrolled, single arm (Study 7) trials treated at the recommended dose and schedule for a median of 8 to 16 doses of Avastin.[See Clinical Studies (14).] The population was aged 21-88 years (median 59), 46.0% male and 84.1% white.The population included 1089 first- and second-line mCRC patients who received a median of 11 doses of Avastin,480 first-line metastatic NSCLC patients who received a median of 8 dosesof Avastin, 592 MBC patients who had not received chemotherapy formetastatic disease received a median of 8 doses of Avastin, 163 glioblastoma patients who received a median of 9 doses of Avastin, and 337 mRCC patients who received a median of 16 doses of Avastin.Surgery and Wound Healing ComplicationsThe incidence of post-operative wound healing and/or bleeding complications was increased in patients with mCRC receiving Avastin as compared topatients receiving only chemotherapy.Among patients requiring surgery on or within 60 days of receiving study treatment, wound healing and/or bleeding

In Study 7, events of post-operative wound healing complications (craniotomy site wound dehiscence and cerebrospinal fluid leak) occurred inpatients with previously treated glioblastoma: 3/84 patients in the Avastin alone arm and 1/79 patients in the Avastin plus irinotecan arm. [See Boxed Warning, Dosage and Administration (2.4),Warnings and Precautions (5.2).]HemorrhageThe incidence of epistaxis was higher (35% vs. 10%) in patients with

and resolved without medical intervention. Grade 1 or 2 hemorrhagic

gastrointestinal hemorrhage (24% vs. 6%), minor gum bleeding (2% vs. 0),and vaginal hemorrhage (4% vs. 2%). [See Boxed Warning, Dosage and Administration (2.4), Warnings and Precautions (5.3).]Venous Thromboembolic EventsThe incidence of Grade 3–4 venous thromboembolic events was higher inpatients with mCRC or NSCLC receiving Avastin with chemotherapy as comparedto those receiving chemotherapy alone. The risk of developing a secondsubsequent thromboembolic event in mCRC patients receiving Avastin andchemotherapy was increased compared to patients receiving chemotherapy

following a venous thromboembolic event.Among these patients, an additional

The overall incidence of Grade 3–4 venous thromboembolic events in

following Grade 3–4 venous thromboembolic events was higher in

intra-abdominal venous thrombosis (10 vs. 5 patients).Neutropenia and InfectionThe incidences of neutropenia and febrile neutropenia are increased in patientsreceiving Avastin plus chemotherapy compared to chemotherapy alone. In Study 1,the incidence of Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia was increased in mCRC patients

Study 4, the incidence of Grade 4 neutropenia was increased in NSCLC patientsreceiving paclitaxel/carboplatin (PC) plus Avastin (26.2%) compared with patients

plus Avastin vs. 1.8% for PC alone). There were 19 (4.5%) infections with Grade 3or 4 neutropenia in the PC plus Avastin arm of which 3 were fatal compared to 9(2%) neutropenic infections in patients receiving PC alone, of which none werefatal. During the first 6 cycles of treatment, the incidence of serious infectionsincluding pneumonia, febrile neutropenia, catheter infections and wound infectionswas increased in the PC plus Avastin arm [58 patients (13.6%)] compared to the PCalone arm [29 patients (6.6%)].In Study 7, one fatal event of neutropenic infection occurred in a patient with previously treated glioblastoma receiving Avastin alone. The incidence of any grade of infection in patients receiving Avastin alone was 55% and the incidence of Grade 3-5 infection was 10%.ProteinuriaGrade 3-4 proteinuria ranged from 0.7 to 7.4% in Studies 1, 2, 4 and 9. The overall incidence of proteinuria (all grades) was only adequately assessed in Study 9, in which the incidence was 20%. Median onset of proteinuria was 5.6 months (range 15 days to 37 months) after initiation of Avastin. Median time to resolution was 6.1 months (95% CI 2.8 months, 11.3 months). Proteinuria did not resolve in 40% of patients after median follow up of 11.2 months and required permanent discontinuation of Avastin in 30% of the patients who developed proteinuria (Study 9). [See Warnings and Precautions (5.8).] Congestive Heart FailureThe incidence of Grade ≥ 3 left ventricular dysfunction was 1.0% in patients receiving Avastin compared to 0.6% in the control arm across indications. In

increased in patients in the Avastin plus paclitaxel arm (2.2%) as compared to the control arm (0.3%). Among patients receiving prior anthracyclines for MBC,

patients receiving paclitaxel alone. The safety of continuation or resumption of Avastin in patients with cardiac dysfunction has not been studied.Metastatic Colorectal Cancer (mCRC)The data in Table 1 and Table 2 were obtained in Study 1, a randomized,double-blind, controlled trial comparing chemotherapy plus Avastin with chemotherapy plus placebo. Avastin was administered at 5 mg/kg every 2 weeks.All Grade 3–4 adverse events and selected Grade 1–2 adverse events (hypertension, proteinuria, thromboembolic events) were collected in the entire study population. Severe and life-threatening (Grade 3–4) adverse events, which occurred at a higher incidence (≥ 2%) in patients receiving

presented in Table 1.

AVASTIN® (bevacizumab) AVASTIN® (bevacizumab) AVASTIN® (bevacizumab)

23

Moderate to heavy consumption of alcoholic beverages (at least three

to four drinks per week) is associated with a 34% increase in the risk for breast cancer recurrence, according to a study presented at the San Antonio Breast Can-cer Symposium (abstract 17). Increased risk was greater among women who were postmenopausal, had estrogen receptor-negative tumors or were overweight.

“Women previously diagnosed with breast cancer should consider limiting their consumption of alcohol to less than three drinks per week,” said Marilyn L. Kwan, PhD, staff scientist in the Division of Research at Kaiser Permanente, Oak-land, Calif., who presented the study.

Previous studies have shown that con-sumption of alcohol is associated with an increased risk for breast cancer, but few studies have examined its role in breast cancer survival. To remedy this, investi-gators examined the impact of alcohol on breast cancer recurrence and mortal-ity in the LACE (Life After Cancer Epide-miology) study. LACE is a prospective cohort study of 1,897 breast cancer sur-vivors diagnosed with early-stage inva-sive breast cancer between 1997 and 2000. The researchers recruited partici-pants from the Kaiser Permanente North-ern California Cancer Registry. Wine, beer and liquor consumption was documented via questionnaire. Participants provided information on health outcomes, including recurrence of breast cancer, which was then verified by their medical records.

After eight years of follow-up, there were 349 breast cancer recurrences and 332 deaths. Compared with little (no more than 0.5 g/d) or no alcohol con-sumption, consuming at least 6 g per day was associated with an increased risk for recurrence (hazard ratio [HR], 1.34; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.82). Among drinkers (50% of the study popu-lation), wine was the most popular choice of alcohol (90%), followed by liquor (43%) and beer (36%). Risk for overall death also was increased among moder-ate and heavy drinkers (HR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.00-2.28) compared with nondrinkers.

Researchers not involved in the study urged caution in drawing conclusions. “Although this was a large prospec-tive cohort study, the conclusions from this epidemiologic study may be con-founded by the other activities that these women may have participated in. In this study, compared to nondrinkers, wom-en who drank alcohol were younger, pre-dominantly white, had more education, were of normal weight and were more likely to be former or current smokers. These and other confounding factors may have impacted these results,” said Mau-ra Dickler, MD, an attending physician in the Breast Cancer Medicine Service at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. “Although these kinds of studies try to control for these factors, it is impossible to control for all of them. Therefore, we are careful to counsel women that these results are not conclusive, but moderation in everything is important.”

Alcohol Ups Breast Cancer Recurrence Risk

SOLID TUMORS

Breast

Table 1NCI-CTC Grade 3−4 Adverse Events in Study 1

(Occurring at Higher Incidence [≥ 2%] Avastin vs. Control)

Arm 1 Arm 2

(n = 396) (n = 392)NCI-CTC Grade 3-4 Events 74% 87%

Asthenia 7% 10%Abdominal Pain 5% 8%Pain 5% 8%

CardiovascularHypertension 2% 12%Deep Vein Thrombosis 5% 9%Intra-Abdominal Thrombosis 1% 3%Syncope 1% 3%

DigestiveDiarrhea 25% 34%Constipation 2% 4%

Hemic/LymphaticLeukopenia 31% 37%Neutropeniaa 14% 21%

aCentral laboratories were collected on Days 1 and 21 of each cycle. Neutrophil counts are available in 303 patients in Arm 1 and 276 in Arm 2.

Grade 1–4 adverse events which occurred at a higher incidence (≥ 5%) in

placebo arm are presented in Table 2. Grade 1–4 adverse events were collected for the first approximately 100 patients in each of the three treatment arms who

Table 2NCI-CTC Grade 1-4 Adverse Events in Study 1

Arm 1 Arm 2 Arm 3

(n = 98) (n = 102) (n = 109)

Pain 55% 61% 62%Abdominal Pain 55% 61% 50%Headache 19% 26% 26%

CardiovascularHypertension 14% 23% 34%Hypotension 7% 15% 7%Deep Vein Thrombosis 3% 9% 6%

DigestiveVomiting 47% 52% 47%Anorexia 30% 43% 35%Constipation 29% 40% 29%Stomatitis 18% 32% 30%Dyspepsia 15% 24% 17%GI Hemorrhage 6% 24% 19%

Dry Mouth 2% 7% 4%Colitis 1% 6% 1%

Hemic/LymphaticThrombocytopenia 0% 5% 5%

NervousDizziness 20% 26% 19%

RespiratoryUpper Respiratory Infection 39% 47% 40%Epistaxis 10% 35% 32%Dyspnea 15% 26% 25%Voice Alteration 2% 9% 6%

Skin/AppendagesAlopecia 26% 32% 6%Skin Ulcer 1% 6% 6%

Special SensesTaste Disorder 9% 14% 21%

UrogenitalProteinuria 24% 36% 36%

Avastin in Combination with FOLFOX4 in Second-line mCRCOnly Grade 3-5 non-hematologic and Grade 4–5 hematologic adverse events related totreatment were collected in Study 2. The most frequent adverse events (selectedGrade 3–5 non-hematologic and Grade 4–5 hematologic adverse events) occurring at

13%), sensory neuropathy (17% vs. 9%),nausea (12% vs. 5%), vomiting (11% vs. 4%),dehydration (10% vs. 5%), hypertension (9% vs. 2%), abdominal pain (8% vs. 5%),hemorrhage (5% vs. 1%), other neurological (5% vs. 3%), ileus (4% vs. 1%) andheadache (3% vs. 0%). These data are likely to under-estimate the true adverse eventrates due to the reporting mechanisms used in Study 2.Unresectable Non-Squamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC)Only Grade 3-5 non-hematologic and Grade 4-5 hematologic adverse events werecollected in Study 4. Grade 3–5 non-hematologic and Grade 4–5 hematologic adverseevents (occurring at a higher incidence (≥2%) in 427 patients receiving PC plus Avastincompared with 441 patients receiving PC alone were neutropenia (27% vs.17%), fatigue(16% vs. 13%), hypertension (8% vs. 0.7%), infection without neutropenia (7% vs. 3%),venous thrombus/embolism (5% vs. 3%), febrile neutropenia (5% vs. 2%), pneumonitis/pulmonary infiltrates (5% vs. 3%), infection with Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia (4% vs. 2%),hyponatremia (4% vs. 1%), headache (3% vs. 1%) and proteinuria (3% vs. 0%).Metastatic Breast Cancer (MBC)Only Grade 3–5 non-hematologic and Grade 4–5 hematologic adverse events werecollected in Study 5. Grade 3–4 adverse events occurring at a higher incidence (≥2%)in 363 patients receiving paclitaxel plus Avastin compared with 348 patients receivingpaclitaxel alone were sensory neuropathy (24% vs.18%),hypertension (16% vs.1%),fatigue (11% vs. 5%), infection without neutropenia (9% vs. 5%), neutrophils (6% vs.3%), vomiting (6% vs. 2%), diarrhea (5% vs. 1%), bone pain (4% vs. 2%), headache(4% vs. 1%), nausea (4% vs. 1%), cerebrovascular ischemia (3% vs. 0%), dehydration(3% vs. 1%), infection with unknown ANC (3% vs. 0.3%), rash/desquamation (3% vs.0.3%) and proteinuria (3% vs. 0%).Sensory neuropathy,hypertension,and fatigue were reported at a ≥ 5% higher absoluteincidence in the paclitaxel plus Avastin arm compared with the paclitaxel alone arm.

plus Avastin. Causes of death were gastrointestinal perforation (2), myocardial infarction (2), diarrhea/abdominal, and pain/weakness/hypotension (2).Avastin is not approved for use in combination with capecitabine or for use in secondor third line treatment of MBC.The data below are presented to provide information onthe overall safety profile of Avastin in women with breast cancer since Study 6 is theonly randomized, controlled study in which all adverse events were collected for all

patients. All patients in Study 6 received prior anthracycline and taxane therapy in theadjuvant setting or for metastatic disease.Grade 1– 4 events which occurred at a higherincidence (≥5%) in patients receiving capecitabine plus Avastin compared to thecapecitabine alone arm are presented in Table 3.

Table 3NCI-CTC Grade 1−4 Adverse Events in Study 6 (Occurring at Higher Incidence [≥5%] in Capecitabine + Avastin vs. Capecitabine Alone)

CapecitabineCapecitabine + Avastin

(n = 215) (n = 229)

Asthenia 47% 57%Headache 13% 33%Pain 25% 31%

CardiovascularHypertension 2% 24%

DigestiveStomatitis 19% 25%

Metabolic/Nutrition

MusculoskeletalMyalgia 8% 14%

RespiratoryDyspnea 18% 27%Epistaxis 1% 16%

Skin/AppendagesExfoliative dermatitis 75% 84%

UrogenitalAlbuminuria 7% 22%

GlioblastomaAll adverse events were collected in 163 patients enrolled in Study 7 who either received Avastin alone or Avastin plus irinotecan. All patients received prior radiotherapy and temozolomide. Avastin was administered at 10 mg/kg every2 weeks alone or in combination with irinotecan.Avastin was discontinued dueto adverse events in 4.8% of patients treated with Avastin alone.In patients receiving Avastin alone (N=84), the most frequently reported adverseevents of any grade were infection (55%), fatigue (45%), headache (37%),hypertension (30%),epistaxis (19%) and diarrhea (21%).Of these, the incidenceof Grade ≥3 adverse events was infection (10%), fatigue (4%), headache (4%),hypertension (8%) and diarrhea (1%).Two deaths on study were possibly relatedto Avastin: one retroperitoneal hemorrhage and one neutropenic infection.In patients receiving Avastin alone or Avastin plus irinotecan (N=163), the incidence of Avastin-related adverse events (Grade 1–4) were bleeding/hemorrhage (40%), epistaxis (26%), CNS hemorrhage (5%), hypertension(32%), venous thromboembolic event (8%), arterial thromboembolic event (6%), wound-healing complications (6%), proteinuria (4%), gastrointestinalperforation (2%), and RPLS (1%).The incidence of Grade 3–5 events in these 163 patients were bleeding/hemorrhage (2%), CNS hemorrhage (1%),hypertension (5%), venous thromboembolic event (7%), arterialthromboembolic event (3%),wound-healing complications (3%),proteinuria (1%), and gastrointestinal perforation (2%).Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma (mRCC)All grade adverse events were collected in Study 9. Grade 3–5 adverse events occurring at a higher incidence (≥ 2%) in 337 patients receiving

α) plus Avastin compared to 304 patients receivingα plus placebo arm were fatigue (13% vs. 8%), asthenia (10% vs. 7%),

proteinuria (7% vs. 0%), hypertension (6% vs. 1%; including hypertension and hypertensive crisis), and hemorrhage (3% vs. 0.3%; including epistaxis,small intestinal hemorrhage, aneurysm ruptured, gastric ulcer hemorrhage,gingival bleeding, haemoptysis, hemorrhage intracranial, large intestinal hemorrhage, respiratory tract hemorrhage, and traumatic hematoma).Grade 1–5 adverse events occurring at a higher incidence (≥ 5%) in patients receiving

α α plus placebo arm are presented in Table 4.

Table 4NCI-CTC Grades 1−5 Adverse Events in Study 9

α α + Placebo)

α α + AvastinPreferred term* (n = 304) (n = 337)

Gastrointestinal disordersDiarrhea 16% 21%

General disorders and administration site conditions

Investigations

Metabolism and nutrition disordersAnorexia 31% 36%

Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders

Myalgia 14% 19%Back pain 6% 12%

Nervous system disordersHeadache 16% 24%

Renal and urinary disordersProteinuria 3% 20%

Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders

Epistaxis 4% 27%Dysphonia 0% 5%

Vascular disordersHypertension 9% 28%

*Adverse events were encoded using MedDRA, Version 10.1.

The following adverse events were reported at a 5-fold greater incidence in theα α alone and not represented in Table 4:

gingival bleeding (13 patients vs. 1 patient); rhinitis (9 vs.0 ); blurred vision (8 vs. 0);gingivitis (8 vs. 1); gastroesophageal reflux disease (8 vs.1 ); tinnitus (7 vs. 1);tooth abscess (7 vs.0); mouth ulceration (6 vs. 0); acne (5 vs. 0); deafness (5 vs. 0);gastritis (5 vs. 0); gingival pain (5 vs. 0) and pulmonary embolism (5 vs. 1).6.2 ImmunogenicityAs with all therapeutic proteins, there is a potential for immunogenicity.The incidenceof antibody development in patients receiving Avastin has not been adequatelydetermined because the assay sensitivity was inadequate to reliably detect lowertiters. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) were performed on sera fromapproximately 500 patients treated with Avastin, primarily in combination withchemotherapy. High titer human anti-Avastin antibodies were not detected.Immunogenicity data are highly dependent on the sensitivity and specificity ofthe assay.Additionally, the observed incidence of antibody positivity in an assay

may be influenced by several factors, including sample handling, timing of

reasons, comparison of the incidence of antibodies to Avastin with theincidence of antibodies to other products may be misleading.6.3 Postmarketing ExperienceThe following adverse reactions have been identified during post-approvaluse of Avastin. Because these reactions are reported voluntarily from a population of uncertain size, it is not always possible to reliably estimate their frequency or establish a causal relationship to drug exposure.Body as a Whole: PolyserositisCardiovascular: Pulmonary hypertension, RPLSDigestive: Intestinal necrosis, mesenteric venous occlusion, anastomotic ulcerationHemic and lymphatic: PancytopeniaRenal: Renal thrombotic microangiopathy (manifested as severe proteinuria)Respiratory: Nasal septum perforation, dysphonia

7 DRUG INTERACTIONSA drug interaction study was performed in which irinotecan was

results demonstrated no significant effect of bevacizumab on the pharmacokinetics of irinotecan or its active metabolite SN38.In a randomized study in 99 patients with NSCLC,based on limited data, there didnot appear to be a difference in the mean exposure of either carboplatin orpaclitaxel when each was administered alone or in combination with Avastin.However, 3 of the 8 patients receiving Avastin plus paclitaxel/carboplatin hadsubstantially lower paclitaxel exposure after four cycles of treatment (at Day 63)than those at Day 0, while patients receiving paclitaxel/carboplatin withoutAvastin had a greater paclitaxel exposure at Day 63 than at Day 0.In Study 9, there was no difference in the mean exposure of interferon alfa administered in combination with Avastin when compared to interferon alfa alone.

8 USE IN SPECIFIC POPULATIONS8.1 PregnancyPregnancy Category CThere are no studies of bevacizumab in pregnant women. Reproduction studies in rabbits treated with approximately 1 to 12 times the recommended human dose of bevacizumab resulted in teratogenicity, including an increased incidence of specific gross and skeletal fetal alterations. Adverse fetal outcomes were observed at all doses tested. Other observed effects included decreases in maternal and fetal body weights and an increased number of fetal resorptions. [See Nonclinical Toxicology (13.3).]Human IgG is known to cross the placental barrier; therefore, bevacizumab may betransmitted from the mother to the developing fetus, and has the potential to causefetal harm when administered to pregnant women. Because of the observedteratogenic effects of known inhibitors of angiogenesis in humans, bevacizumabshould be used during pregnancy only if the potential benefit to the pregnant womanjustifies the potential risk to the fetus.8.3 Nursing MothersIt is not known whether Avastin is secreted in human milk, but human IgG isexcreted in human milk. Published data suggest that breast milk antibodies do notenter the neonatal and infant circulation in substantial amounts. Because manydrugs are secreted in human milk and because of the potential for serious adversereactions in nursing infants from bevacizumab, a decision should be made whetherto discontinue nursing or discontinue drug, taking into account the half-life of thebevacizumab (approximately 20 days [range 11–50 days]) and the importance ofthe drug to the mother. [See Clinical Pharmacology (12.3).]8.4 Pediatric UseThe safety, effectiveness and pharmacokinetic profile of Avastin in pediatric patients have not been established.Juvenile cynomolgus monkeys with open growth plates exhibited physeal dysplasiafollowing 4 to 26 weeks exposure at 0.4 to 20 times the recommended human dose(based on mg/kg and exposure). The incidence and severity of physeal dysplasiawere dose-related and were partially reversible upon cessation of treatment.8.5 Geriatric UseIn Study 1, severe adverse events that occurred at a higher incidence (≥ 2%) in patientsaged ≥65 years as compared to younger patients were asthenia, sepsis, deepthrombophlebitis, hypertension, hypotension, myocardial infarction, congestive heartfailure,diarrhea, constipation,anorexia, leukopenia,anemia,dehydration,hypokalemia,and hyponatremia. The effect of Avastin on overall survival was similar in elderlypatients as compared to younger patients.

greater relative risk as compared to younger patients for the following adverse events: nausea, emesis, ileus, and fatigue.In Study 4, patients aged ≥ 65 years receiving carboplatin, paclitaxel, and Avastin had a greater relative risk for proteinuria as compared to younger patients. [See Warnings and Precautions (5.8).]In Study 5, there were insufficient numbers of patients ≥ 65 years old to determinewhether the overall adverse events profile was different in the elderly as comparedwith younger patients.Of the 742 patients enrolled in Genentech-sponsored clinical studies in which all adverse events were captured, 212 (29%) were age 65 or older and 43 (6%) were age 75 or older. Adverse events of any severity that occurred at a higher incidence in the elderly as compared to younger patients, in addition to those described above, were dyspepsia, gastrointestinal hemorrhage, edema, epistaxis,increased cough, and voice alteration.In an exploratory, pooled analysis of 1745 patients treated in five randomized,controlled studies, there were 618 (35%) patients aged ≥65 years and 1127patients <65 years of age.The overall incidence of arterial thromboembolic events wasincreased in all patients receiving Avastin with chemotherapy as compared to thosereceiving chemotherapy alone, regardless of age. However, the increase in arterialthromboembolic events incidence was greater in patients aged ≥ 65 years (8.5% vs.2.9%) as compared to those < 65 years (2.1% vs. 1.4%). [See Warnings and Precautions (5.5).]

10 OVERDOSAGEThe highest dose tested in humans (20 mg/kg IV) was associated with headache in nine of 16 patients and with severe headache in three of 16 patients.

AVASTIN® (bevacizumab) AVASTIN® (bevacizumab) AVASTIN® (bevacizumab)

Manufactured by: 7453214Genentech, Inc. 4835706

94080-4990 © 2009 Genentech, Inc


Dr. Brufsky discussed the results from the RIB-BON-2 trial at the recent San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS; abstract 42). Currently, subse-quent chemotherapy or hormone therapy is the only FDA-approved option for second-line treatment of advanced human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative breast cancer.

Study Details

RIBBON-2 included 684 women with MBC that progressed on first-line chemotherapy. Women were randomized 2:1 to receive either chemotherapy plus bevacizumab or chemotherapy alone and were treat-ed until disease progression. Women received che-motherapy of the investigators’ choice—44% received a taxane, 23% received gemcitabine (Gemzar, Eli Lil-ly), 21% received capecitabine (Xeloda, Roche) and 12% received vinorelbine.

Treatment arms were well balanced for demo-graphic and disease characteristics. Median age was 55 years. A slight imbalance was observed for patients with triple-negative breast cancer (estrogen recep-tor-negative, progesterone receptor-negative, and HER2-negative): 20% in the chemotherapy arm and 24% in the bevacizumab-containing arm.

For the primary end point of PFS, the addition of bevacizumab achieved a highly statistically signif-icant 22% improvement (P=0.0072) from a medi-an of 5.1 months with chemotherapy alone to 7.2 months with the addition of bevacizumab (Figure). An exploratory analysis that looked at PFS results according to type of chemotherapy received suggest-ed that the choice of chemotherapy matters.

“As a class, there was a benefit with taxanes and with capecitabine. Patients on gemcitabine or vinorelbine did not appear to benefit from the addition of bevaci-zumab. But this was a preliminary analysis in very small numbers of patients,” Dr. Brufsky said.

Response rates were also much higher with the addition of bevacizumab. Overall response rates were 39.5% with the combination therapy versus 29.6% with chemotherapy alone. No difference in overall survival was seen in this interim analysis. Only 57% of the patients have died.

“A difference in overall survival may emerge with longer follow-up,” Dr. Brufsky said. “We now know that bevacizumab is clearly beneficial as first-line and as second-line therapy. We are interested in a study of continuous bevacizumab in metastatic breast can-cer, the so-called RIBBON-3 trial.”

Toxicity with bevacizumab was consistent with previous experience in MBC and other tumor types. No new toxicity signals emerged.

Dissecting the Data

Edith Perez, MD, director of the Breast Cancer Pro-gram at Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., who was not involved with the study, said that a previous study in second-line therapy of MBC showed no benefit for the addition of bevacizumab to capecitabine.

“It is an important finding that bevacizumab plus several options of chemotherapy improved PFS in patients who did not get it as first-line,” Dr. Perez com-mented. She said that bevacizumab plus chemothera-py should be considered for patients with metastatic breast cancer who did not get the drug first-line.

When asked whether the cost of bevacizumab was worth an extra 2.1 months of PFS, Dr. Brufsky acknowledged that cost is an issue. “When we com-pare trial results, 2.1 months is a mean. There are patients who do much better at one end of the curve. We want to identify characteristics that predict bet-ter response,” he commented.

Maura Dickler, MD, attending physician in the Breast Cancer Medicine Service at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, pointed out that the updated AVADO study also presented at SABCS showed that the addition of bevacizumab to docetaxel as first-line therapy in patients with MBC improved PFS and overall response rate, but at 25 months, no difference in overall survival was seen. She agreed with Dr. Perez’s conclusion. “Based on results from these two studies, clinicians may con-sider bevacizumab in combination with their choice of chemotherapy for patients with metastatic breast cancer in either the first-line or second-line setting,” Dr. Dickler said.

Laura Boehnke Michaud, PharmD, BCOP, FASHP, manager of clinical pharmacy services at M.D. Ander-son Cancer Center in Houston, said the results of RIBBON-2 “confuse the picture” of how to manage patients with advanced cancer and MBC. A previous large randomized Phase 3 trial found no advantage

in PFS for the addition of bevacizumab to capecitabi-ne in women with advanced breast cancer that had progressed on an anthracycline and a taxane (J Clin Oncol 2005;23:792-795, PMID: 15681523). Secondly, none of the trials to date with bevacizumab plus che-motherapy in breast cancer has demonstrated signif-icant improvements in overall survival. These issues, coupled with the difficult-to-manage side effects of hypertension and blood clots, raise concern that the addition of bevacizumab may provide only modest, transient benefits for patients with metastatic breast cancer, Dr. Michaud suggested.

“Further, recent preclinical data indicate that tumors

relapsing while on antiangiogenic therapies appear to be more invasive, which may be one reason why the addition of bevacizumab has not had a positive effect on [overall] survival. These data, of course, need to be confirmed in clinical trials, but bring to light signifi-cant concerns with this agent,” she said.

“Everyone is grappling with how to apply results of RIBBON-2 and to decide what is in the best inter-est of patients,” Dr. Michaud added. “My concern is about giving a clearly toxic drug to potentially com-promised patients that does not extend survival. The drug is going to be studied as maintenance therapy in this population, which is also of concern, but should be systematically studied.”

Dr. Michaud also stated that the decision to add bevacizumab should be individualized and discussed fully with each appropriate patient, including men-tion of all the concerns she cited.

The bottom line is that bevacizumab has difficult-to-manage toxicities, does not prolong overall surviv-al and is also expensive. Dr. Michaud is not convinced that this drug should be used second-line, as in the RIBBON-2 trial. “However, each patient should be presented with the available information and given the opportunity to decline or accept the therapy.”

—Alice Goodman

Colon Cancer Awareness Month

March is National Colorectal Cancer Aware-ness Month. Are you looking for education-

al materials to provide to your patients or do you want to get involved?

Materials on colon cancer can be found at www.preventcancer.org/ or the Web site of the Colon Cancer Alliance (CCA), www.ccalliance.org/news_events_dress-in-blue.html. The CCA once again is involved in the Dress in Blue Cam-paign, which has been held annually since 2006.

SOLID TUMORS

Breast

SECOND LINEcontinued from page 1 �

‘These results are clinically meaningful. We have few

options for second-line chemo-therapy in metastatic disease.’

—Adam Brufsky, MD

‘Recent preclinical data indicate that tumors relapsing while on antiangiogenic therapies appear to be more invasive, which may be one reason why the addition of bevacizumab has not had a positive effect on [overall] survival.’

—Laura Boehnke Michaud, PharmD, BCOP, FASHP

Chemotherapy

Chemotherapy plus bevacizumab

P=0.00727.2

5.15.1

7.28

6

4

2

0

Mo

nth

s

Figure. Comparison of progression-free survival.


Given the premium on most “green” consumer products, ecologically friend-ly hospitals might seem to cost more to build than conventional facilities. But that’s not necessarily the case.

Alan R. Bell, director of design and construction for Seton Network Facil-ities, said the 500,000-sq ft Dell cost $130 million, or $260 per square foot. In current dollars, the project would cost $318 per square foot—well with-in the range of what hospital buildings now cost without environmentally kind details. “I’ve talked to some of my con-tractor friends, and they said that for a ‘normal’ hospital, right now, it would be between $310 and $325 per square foot,” Mr. Bell said.

The last three years have seen a mon-umental shift toward construction ven-dors and suppliers with green products, he added. This, in turn, has driven down the cost of many products. “It gives them a competitive advantage,” he said. “If you can get green carpet or a regular car-pet, and they’re the same cost, you’ll get green carpet.”

Culturing Change

Increasing access to daylight is not the only thing that hospitals are doing to reduce their energy consump-tion and lighten their ecological tread (see page 27). Steps can be taken to reduce waste by adopting reusable prod-ucts or even starting a composting pro-gram. Some hospital landscaping incor-porates fruit trees and vegetable gardens to produce natural foods for their cafe-terias. Mr. Shinn cited a hospital in Flor-ida that captures condensate from its air conditioning system to be used in its cooling tower.

But challenges remain.“We knew this was about market

transformation, about culture change,” Mr. Smith explained. “Before sustain-able design came along, before the Green Guide, before anything, it was just ‘this is the way we do business.’ To change

Protocol Type Age Protocol ID Trial Sites

Su

pp

ort

ive

Car

e

NicVAX/Placebo as an Aid for Smoking Cessation, Phase III 18 to 65 Nabi-4514 CA, FL, ID, KY, MA, MD, NC, NY, OR, VA, WA

Contingency Management and Pharmacotherapy for Smoking Cessation, Phase II 18 and over 08-035-3 CT

Behavioral Exercise Intervention for Smoking Cessation, Phase II 18 to 65 0603-01 RI

Do Treatments for Smoking Cessation Affect Alcohol Drinking? Study 2: Do Varenicline (Chantix) and Bupropion (Zyban) Change Alcohol Drinking? Phase II

21 and over HIC0702002391 CT

Varenicline for Smoking Cessation in Heavy Drinking Smokers, Phase II 18 to 75 NIAAA-O’Malley-P50AA15632-2009

CT

D-Cycloserine Enhancement of Exposure-Based CBT for Smoking Cessation 18 to 65 1728 MA

ECO MOVEMENTcontinued from page 13 �

Continued from page 18 �

CLINICAL TRIALS

see ECO MOVEMENT, page 27 �


in the two nilotinib arms (Figure).Edema and weight gain were also more

common in the imatinib arm, although overall rates were low. The most com-mon type of edema was peripheral (any grade), reported in 14% of patients tak-ing imatinib and 5% taking either dose of nilotinib. Grade 3 and 4 laboratory abnormalities were also observed at a low frequency overall. Although grade 3 or 4 total bilirubin elevations were more common with nilotinib than ima-tinib (4% and 8% vs. <1%) and lipase abnormalities were more common with nilotinib (6% in either arm vs. 3% with imatinib), there was one discontinua-tion for nilotinib and one for imatinib due to pancreatitis. No clinically signif-icant QTc abnormalities were observed in any group.

Nearly 30% of the patients enrolled in this study were in a high Sokal risk classi-fication, with the remaining patients rel-atively evenly divided between low and intermediate risks. When rates of MMR were stratified by Sokal risk, nilotinib was consistently more effective in all risk groups. Regardless of therapy, the study supported other evidence that patients with a better response, characterized by CCyR, are less likely to progress in CML. The researchers said the greater efficacy of nilotinib can be attributed to a greater specificity for the molecular target, pro-ducing a greater likelihood of an MMR. This response predicts protection from

progression, which was more common for imatinib by the end of the study (4% vs. <1% for either nilotinib dose).

“We know that despite excellent results we can achieve with imatinib, progression can still occur in a small proportion of patients, and progression is associated with a poor outcome,” Dr. Saglio said. Based on these results, nilo-tinib further reduces the risk for pro-gression relative to imatinib.

More Data Needed

Asked to comment on the study, Rich-ard M. Stone, MD, director of the Adult Leukemia Program at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, in Boston, character-ized the results as “encouraging,” but he

did not agree with the conclusion that the study establishes nilotinib as the new standard of care in CML. He not-ed that nilotinib has only demonstrated superiority on the surrogate markers of MMR and CCyR. Although the respons-es of both parameters likely predict a decreased risk for disease progression, patients who take somewhat longer to attain the desired end points may still do well. According to Dr. Stone, the decreased rate of progression to AP dis-ease was the most compelling finding in favor of nilotinib over imatinib.

“The story is complicated, and it is not clear that this study has generated the type of data that warrants an immedi-ate change in practice. We need longer

follow-up that continues to show mean-ingful clinical differences, such as risk for progression, beyond the surrogate end points,” Dr. Stone said. “These are strong findings that do predict nilotinib has the potential to emerge as the better first-line agent, but we are not there yet.”

Hem/Onc Pharmacist Urges Caution

Asked for his comment, Casey B. Wil-liams, PharmD, hematology/oncology clinical coordinator and residency direc-tor, Kansas University Medical Center, Kansas City, concurred with Dr. Stone. “I am also not convinced that this data warrants an immediate change in prac-tice. We have at least eight years of fol-low-up information to go on with ima-tinib from the IRIS trial and the results have been quite impressive. Overall sur-vival is approximately 85% with imatinib, and actually climbs to around 93% when only CML-related deaths and those pri-or to stem cell transplant are considered,” Dr. Williams reported.

From the pharmacy perspective, one variable of interest is price. Dr. Williams noted that nilotinib “is a lot more expen-sive than imatinib,” but these results may change pricing for both imatinib and nilo-tinib. Pricing strategies are particular-ly difficult to predict because the same pharmaceutical company, Novartis, mar-kets both drugs. In any event, Dr. Wil-liams characterized nilotinib as “a prom-ising alternative to imatinib as a first-line agent,” but “I am not ready to change my practice just yet.”

—Ted Bosworth

A late-breaking abstract (LBA1) that generated much interest at the

recent American Society of Hematology (ASH) meeting was the presentation of the randomized up-front trial compar-ing nilotinib (Tasigna, Novartis) with imatinib (Gleevec, Novartis). The study provides evidence that nilotinib could replace imatinib as the drug of choice for CML.

At the ASH annual meeting in 1999, also held in New Orleans, the world heard about the exciting results with the tyrosine kinase inhibitor imatinib in patients with CML. This drug seemed to be the first “magic bullet” in cancer: Virtually all patients with chronic-phase CML achieved hematologic remis-sion. A subsequent critical study, the IRIS (International Randomized study

of Interferon versus ST1571) trial, ran-domized patients with newly diagnosed CML to either imatinib 400 mg per day or interferon/ara-C, which was the stan-dard when IRIS was initiated. The strik-ing and durable results in favor of ima-tinib have been updated at the last few ASH meetings, including at this year’s meeting. Studies show the agent has good tolerability relative to the control arm and results in a high cumulative rate of cytogenetic remissions (approximate-ly 80%) and a low rate of progression to advanced-phase CML. This trial has led to the standard use of imatinib 400 mg per day in patients newly diagnosed with chronic-phase CML.

It is difficult to imagine how bet-ter results could be achieved. Nonethe-less, at least one-third of patients dis-continue therapy with imatinib because of a lack of response, disease progres-sion or toxicity. Two new, more potent BCR-ABL inhibitors—dasatinib (Spry-cel, Bristol-Myers Squibb) and nilotinib (Tasigna, Novartis)—have been shown to be effective in patients with CML who

are intolerant or resistant to imatinib. Given the ability of a drug like nilotinib to inhibit BCR-ABL potently and inhibit secondary imatinib-resistant mutations in BCR-ABL, it was thought that nilo-tinib might be superior in the up-front setting. Previously, several Phase II tri-als demonstrated a rapid reduction in the disease burden measured by quanti-tative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) testing for the BCR-ABL fusion mRNA.

The results presented by Saglio et al (LBA1) were from a study in which 846 patients with newly diagnosed CML were randomized to either 300-mg twice daily (bid) of nilotinib, 400-mg bid of nilotinib or the standard once-daily 400 mg dose of imatinib. Nilotinib was at least as well tolerated as imatinib. The primary end point of major molec-ular response (3 log reduction in BCR-ABL transcript by qPCR from baseline) at one year was reachable more often in those randomized to nilotinib (44% in the 300 mg arm and 43% in the 400 mg arm) compared with those randomized to imatinib (22%). One-year cytogenetic

responses also w e r e m o r e prominent in the nilotinib groups (79% vs. 65%). Per-haps the most striking finding was a small but sig-nificant reduction in the patients who progressed to advanced-phase CML during the first year. The latter finding was the only clear-cut clinical benefit that can be ascertained in the brief fol-low-up period of this study. Given these results, it becomes an open question as to whether patients newly diagnosed with CML could or should receive ima-tinib or whether practitioners should “switch” to nilotinib. The results of this trial must be considered preliminary and longer follow-up is needed before firm answers to this question can be rendered. But, this trial does suggest that a good prognosis for those diag-nosed with chronic-phase CML may be getting even better in the future.

Are Imatinib’s Days as the Drug of Choice for CML Over?Richard Stone, MD

Director of the Adult Leukemia Program Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical SchoolBoston, Massachusetts

HEMATOLOGIC DISEASE

CML

NILOTINIBcontinued from page 7 �

‘The story is complicated, and it is not clear that this study has generated the type of data that warrants an immediate change in practice.’

—Richard M. Stone, MD

% o

f P

ati

en

ts

Imatinib Nilotinib 300 mg bid Nilotinib 400 mg bid

31

12 11

31

26

8

14

2120

24

7 6

21

87

14

9

5

35

30

25

20

15

10

0

Nausea Muscle spasm Diarrhea Vomiting Rash Headache

Figure. Comparison rates of nonhematologic side effects.


the culture of a health care institution or to transform the way we design and deliver architecture, is huge.”

‘Fight It With Science’

Some hospitals, municipalities and patients have questions about the safety of sustainable design. One area where this has been true is infection control.

“There are the regulatory systems—it’s not only getting the hospital leadership on board, there is the local municipality

that will be impacted by their design decisions,” Ms. Dilwa-li said.

“You have to fight it with science,” Mr. Shinn suggest-ed. “A doctor is a scientist, a nurse has scientific training. If you can show them that a practice has no infection control compromises, then you have a chance.”

Advocates admit that the hospital that creates more energy than it uses, that creates more clean water than it pollutes, that heals the planet as well as people, and that is truly restorative remains a goal, not a reality. But work

on the new guide is moving forward: Volunteer commit-

tees are being formed to write the new toolkit. Cli-nicians are welcome to con-tact the Green Guide if they

are interested in assisting.Ms. Guenther added that cli-

nicians can also change their own hospitals. “If you are an anesthesiologist and can’t stand the waste in your oper-ating suite, join your hospital’s green team. If you don’t have one, create one. You can make a difference.”

—David Jakubiak

Energy Diets Help Cut Waste

Hospitals are notorious consum-ers of energy, sucking power

for heat, lights, hot water, laundry and other aspects of daily operation. All that adds up to an average of 27.5 kWh of electricity, and another 110 cu ft of natural gas—or $3.71 per square foot in 2005 prices, accord-ing to the Healthcare Environmental Resource Center, an information clearinghouse. But energy diets can help. A 150,000-sq ft hospital that slashes its power use by 20% can save more than $111,000 per year on its energy bill.

In addition to reducing demand for resources, some hospitals have begun tackling the power problem from the other end of the plug: generation. The Veterans Affairs hospital in Ann Arbor, Mich., is one of a handful of facilities to mount a turbine on its roof in an effort to produce at least some of its annual energy needs, which amount to about 22 million kWh. Hospital administrators also plan to install solar panels to complement the 16-ft tall turbine, and to reap savings from more efficient air conditioning systems and other technologies.

A consortium of Pennsylvania hospitals recently announced that it would begin buying roughly one-third of its electricity directly from a major wind farm in Bucks County. The deal could save the individual institutions millions of dollars over the coming decade.

ECO MOVEMENTcontinued from page 25 �

POLICY & MANAGEMENT


Are you looking for more optionsfor your patients? NCI’s Center

for Cancer Research (CCR)conducts more than 150 clinical trialsat the National Institutes of Health(NIH) in Bethesda,Md. In the state-of-the-art NIH Clinical Center, the latestinnovations in medicine are put intopractice every day.

CCR is currently conductingtrials for many types of cancerincluding:

• Prostate Cancer • Lung Cancer/Thymoma• Lymphoma• Pediatric Sarcoma• Kidney Cancer• Brain Cancer

To learn whether your patients may be eligible, visit

bethesdatrials.cancer.gov or call

1-888-NCI-1937 (1-888-624-1937)

CCR Clinical Trials at NIH

Natio

nal C

ance

r Ins

titut

e Committed to Cancer Research


Not least of their attributes, “these novel borte-zomib-based schemes appear to overcome the poor prognosis of high-risk cytogenetics,” said Maria-Victoria Mateos, MD, PhD, Hospital Universitario Sal-amanca, in Salamanca, Spain. Presenting the results at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hema-tology (ASH; abstract 3), Dr. Mateos said that survival data so far have been almost identical between high- and low-risk patients. Importantly for a patient pop-ulation in which the goal is to prolong survival rather than eradicate cancer, both the induction and mainte-nance regimens were well tolerated.

Previous data from a trial called VISTA (N Engl J Med 2008;359:906-917, PMID: 18753647) are credit-ed with establishing VMP as the standard of care in patients with newly diagnosed MM who are ineligi-ble for high-dose chemotherapy with curative intent. In VISTA, the addition of bortezomib extended the time to progression (TTP) by almost eight months (P<0.001) compared with melphalan and prednisone (MP) alone. Many of the investigators who participat-ed in the VISTA trial were also involved in the more recent study.

Complex Study

In the somewhat more complex recent study, 260 patients over the age of 65 with newly diagnosed MM were randomized to VMP or to the same regimen with thalidomide substituted for melphalan (VTP). Both therapies were administered in six, six-week cycles. Unlike the VISTA trial, in which patients received eight doses of bortezomib for the initial five of the nine-week cycles (and weekly thereafter), bortezomib was administered weekly after the first cycle in this study.

After completing the six cycles of treatment, patients were randomized a second time. They received main-tenance therapy with either bortezomib and thali-domide (VT) or bortezomib and prednisone (VP).

Thalidomide (50 mg) and prednisone (50 mg) were administered daily. The 1.3 mg/m2 dose of bortezomib, which was the same dose used in the induction reg-imen, was administered on days 1, 4, 8 and 11 of an every-three-month cycle. The maintenance regi-men was continued for up to three years.

The primary objective of the induction portion, which compared the rates of objective response, was to identify whether the immunomodulator mel-phalan or the alkylating agent thali-domide was a better partner for VP. The primary objective of the main-tenance portion of the study, which compared CR rates, was to evaluate whether the depth of response from induction could be improved with main-tenance. PFS, tolerability and overall safety were important secondary objectives.

Highly Active

Both induction regimens were highly active, pro-ducing objective response rates of 80% for VMP and 81% for VTP, which did not differ significantly. How-ever, the side-effect profiles were different, with more neutropenia (39% vs. 22%; P=0.008) and more thrombocytopenia (27% vs. 12%; P=0.001) for VMP, but more cardiac events (8% vs. 0; P=0.001) for VTP. Discontinuations due to serious side effects were significantly more common for VTP (17% vs. 11%; P=0.03) (Figure 1).

In 178 patients who entered and could be evaluat-ed in the maintenance portion of the study, a CR or near CR was achieved in 59% of those on VT main-tenance and 55% of those on VP maintenance, which was nearly a doubling of the CR rates achieved at the end of induction in either treatment arm (Figure 2). Both maintenance regimens were well tolerated with very modest differences in the types of side effects. Only 5% of those on VP and 7% of those on VT discon-tinued therapy because of side effects.

One of the most remarkable findings of both the induction and maintenance portions of the study was

a 29% CR rate in patients with the cytogenetic abnor-malities of t(4;14), t(4;16) and del 17p. This was actual-ly greater, although not significantly so, than the 23% CR rate in patients with normal cytogenetics. Similar-

ly, the rate of immunofixation-negative complete response (CRIF–) after initiating mainte-

nance therapy was relatively high and not significantly different in patients with

abnormal versus normal cytogenetics (38% vs. 42%, respectively).

Despite similar efficacy of the dif-ferent regimens in the two phases of the study, VMP/VT, which pro-duced a 60% improvement in PFS

(P=0.008) compared with VTP/VP was identified as the preferred

sequence. This relative advantage is likely to have been driven by the lower dis-

continuation rate on VMP than on VTP during induction and by the greater PFS on VT than on VP during maintenance (not yet reached on VT and 23 months on VP [P=0.05]).

According to Donna M. Weber, MD, associate pro-fessor in the Department of Lymphoma and Myelo-ma at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, this trial is the first large ran-domized study to investigate the value of mainte-nance therapy in previously untreated, elderly MM patients who did not proceed to stem cell transplan-tation (SCT). She suggested that the study “heralds a new era” in the effort to identify how to improve regimens in patients who are not candidates for SCT. In particular, she was impressed with the apparent ability of bortezomib to eliminate the disadvantage of certain abnormal cytogenetics. Similar to stud-ies that tested other regimens in this patient pop-ulation, the new study is limited in that it did not demonstrate an overall survival advantage. The PFS data, however, are encouraging, Dr. Weber said, and an overall survival benefit may become more appar-ent as the data mature.

—Ted Bosworth

HEMATOLOGIC DISEASE

Multiple Myeloma

NEW STANDARDcontinued from page 1 �

The Pritchard GroupConsultants provide comprehensive

services to healthcare providers. Pritchard helps you plan, implement,

and evaluate new programs and services, facilitates physician-

hospital strategic relationships and maximizes return on investment. Our

group has extensive experience in oncology and can help you succeed

and solidify your position in the market.

THE PRITCHARD GROUP 240-478-7800

www.thepritchardgroup.net

‘These novel bortezomib-based schemes appear to overcome the poor prognosis of high-risk cytogenetics.’

—Maria-Victoria Mateos, MD, PhD

100

80

60

40

20

0

Co

mp

lete

Re

spo

nse

, %

Patients receiving VT maintenance

Patients receiving VP maintenance

55 5959

55

Figure 2. Comparison of patients with MM achieving a CR or near CR.CR, complete response; MM, multiple myeloma; VP, bortezomib and prednisone; VT, bortezomib and thalidomide

VTP

VMP17

11

20

15

10

5

0Pts

Dis

co

nti

nu

ing

Th

era

py,

%

Figure 1. Comparison of patients discontinuing therapy because of side effects.VMP, bortezomib, melphalan and prednisone; VTP, bortezomib, thalidomide and prednisone

Pediatric Oncologist To Lead ASCO

Michael P. Link, MD, a leader in the field of pediatric oncology, has been elected president of the American Society of Clinical Oncolo-gy (ASCO) for a one-year term beginning in June 2011. He will be the first pediatric oncologist to take the reins as president of ASCO.

Dr. Link currently serves as the Lydia J. Lee Professor of pediatric hematology/oncology at Stanford University School of Medicine and director of the Bass Center for Cancer and Blood Diseases at the Lucile Salter Packard Children’s Hospital at Stanford, Calif. He joined the faculty of Stanford University in 1979 after completing his residency and fel-lowship at Children’s Hospital and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston. His research interests include the biol-ogy and management of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and Hodgkin’s.

Clinicians Receive Awards

The American Association for Cancer Research and the International Associ-ation for the Study of Lung Cancer has honored Paul A. Bunn Jr., MD, for his leadership in lung cancer research at the first Molecular Origins of Lung Can-cer conference. Dr. Bunn is professor of medicine and the James Dudley chair in cancer research at the University of Col-orado, Denver. Dr. Bunn’s studies have set standards for the treatment of lung cancer, shed light on the natural history of the disease and identified biomarkers of prognosis and therapy selection.

“Dr. Bunn has been an inspiration to physicians and scientists working in the field of lung cancer. He deserves this award for everything that he has contrib-uted to this important field past, present and future,” said conference co-chair-person Roy Herbst, MD, PhD, chief of the section of thoracic medical oncology at The University of Texas M.D. Ander-son Cancer Center, in Houston.

The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) has selected Theo-dore Lawrence, MD, PhD, and William Shipley, MD, as its 2009 Gold Medal

recipients. The Gold Medal is the soci-ety’s highest honor. It is presented annu-ally to a member who has made outstand-ing contributions to the field of radiation oncology, through his or her research, clinical care, teaching and service.

Dr. Shipley is chair of the genitourinary oncology unit at Massachusetts Gener-al Hospital and the Andres Soriano Pro-fessor of radiation oncology at Harvard Medical School. Dr. Lawrence is an Isa-dore Lampe professor of radiation oncol-ogy, chair of the Department of Radiation

Oncology and a pro-fessor in the Depart-ment of Environmen-tal Health, School of Public Health at the University of Michi-gan, in Ann Arbor.

“ D r. L aw re n c e and Dr. Shipley have been outstand-ing contributors to the society and to the field of radiation oncology as a

whole,” said Patricia Eifel, MD, chair-man of ASTRO. “It is an honor and a personal pleasure for me to be able to present them with the Gold Medal this year in recognition of their distin-guished careers and dedication to the specialty.”

Multidisciplinary Cancer Programs Multiplying

Seeking to offer patients convenience as well as a better understanding of

Around the Water Cooler


This section brings you news about people and places in the field of oncology. If you have news to share (a new job, an award, a cancer center closure

or expansion, etc.), please send information to [email protected].

PRN

see PROGRAMS, page 31 �

William Shipley, MD

Paul A. Bunn Jr., MD, receives award.

Michael P. Link, MD


Whether you are speaking in a clin-ical setting, delivering a formal

presentation to a group of your peers or discussing medical findings with a patient, there may be a significant dif-ference between what you say and how others hear you. This difference aris-es from how your nonverbal communi-cation—your “body language”—is inter-preted. Most people are largely unaware of how others view them and what mes-sages their body language projects.

The power of body language is illus-trated by the emotional response it elicits from listeners. Feelings drive our reactions in virtually every situ-ation, including when we are listen-ing to someone present information. A listener’s interpretation of nonverbal cues can either strengthen or under-mine the overall impact of the speaker’s information. The listener will receive mixed messages when the speaker’s

gestures are not in alignment with ver-bal content.

In an ideal world, we would be able to control every nonverbal message we transmit when speaking. Although this level of control may not be pos-sible, increasing our understanding of the signs and signals we exhibit while speaking will strengthen our aware-ness of what we communicate to oth-ers. The best way to improve nonver-bal communication is to learn open body language, which is characterized by four main components: direct eye focus, open body posture, open and purposeful hand gestures and a favor-ably expressive voice.

The key feature of open body lan-guage is eye contact. The ability to con-nect with the audience is enhanced if you slow the shift of your gaze to incor-porate the time it takes to impart com-plete, discrete ideas. This technique

helps regulate the flow of information. Slower-paced eye movement gives the audience an impression of confidence, interest, credibility and sincerity. Con-versely, poor eye contact, such as scan-ning the audience or staring at only one spot, projects an image of nervousness, deception and tension.

To provide a strong base for effective communication, adopt an overall open body posture. This communicates a sense of authority while also projecting approachability, confidence and com-fort. An open body posture features:

keeping movement away from the • body’s vertical center line;placing your feet hip-distance apart • with your weight equally distributed;keeping your hands open and down at •

Open Body Language: Optimizing Your Nonverbal CommunicationOur words convey what we are thinking, but our eye contact, gestures, facial expressions and tone of voice express what we are feeling in any given situation.

PRN

Communication

Part 2 of a 3-Part SeriesBe sure to watch for more articles on effective communication skills in future issues:

PART 3: “The Other Side of aTwo-Way Street: Active Listening Is Essential for Conversation”

McMahon Jazz Medicine is pleased to announce the release of our new CD “The Healing Power of Music.”

Medical professionals who are alsoaccomplished musicians bring some of theirfavorite standards to this CD, representingJazz, Blues, Pop and Classical styles.

“If There’s a Sky Above” (Harry Allen, tenor saxophone) • “You Don’t Know How Much You Can Suffer” (Lambert Abeyatunge, MD, saxophone,clarinet) • “The Lingering Kiss” (Bobby Baker, MD, flute) • “Estou Buscando” (Betsy Braud, RN, flutes, saxophones, piano) • “Gabrielle’sTheme” (Adam Dachman, DO, piano) • “Checkin’ On My Records (Everybody’s Had a Look) (Sam Bierstock, MD, vocals, harmonica) • “Moonlight Sonata” (Wolfgang Ellenberger, MD, piano) • “Who’s That Knockin’” (Admir Hadzic, MD, bass guitar, harmonica) • “Keli Atoh”(Ruben Hoch, MD, drums) • “Twilight” (Henry Lee, MD, soprano saxophone) • “Waterfall” (Maria Olivares, PharmD, guitar) • “Manha deCarnival” (Ron Odrich, DDS, clarinet) • “All Blues” (Patrick Plunkett, MD, tenor saxophone) • “A Little Bit of Swing” (Paul Todd, vocals)

$1495*

PLUS SHIPPING

AZZMcMahon

What do music and medicine have in common? To be good ateither, you have to be an improviser. Both disciplines place

improvisational skill on a pedestal, acknowledging that thinking onone’s feet is a vital element of how one practices the art of medicineand music.

This wonderful compilation showcases the great musical skills ofthose in medicine: practitioners who, in addition to devoting their lifeto the healing power of medicine, have also devoted themselves tothe great art of creating music.

McMahon Group, which produces 16 medical publications for medical

professionals, also has one of the most successful new record labels,McMahon Jazz Medicine, and a new Web site,www.McMahonJazzMedicine.com, where these great artists areshowcased. This new Web site logged more than 138,000 visitors in2006—in only its second year.

Go to the Web site and read more about each of the artists, listen totheir music and purchase their CDs online or by phone.

It is widely understood that music has healing powers. Listen to thegreat music on this compilation CD to be inspired by these greatartists and heal what ails you.

CDs Available only throughMcMahon Jazz Medicine*SPECIAL INTRODUCTORY OFFER

ATTENTION MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS! If you are a musician or other artist and would like to be highlighted on this Web Site, contact [email protected]

To order using this formor via the Internet:• Online (listen to song samples):

www.McMahonJazzMedicine.com

• Fax: 212-957-7230 (credit card only)

• Mail: McMahon Jazz MedicineMcMahon Group545 West 45th Street, 8th floorNew York, NY 10036

PLEASE RUSH ME THE FOLLOWING:(Shipping & handling will be added.)

❏ The Healing Power of Music $14.95

❏ Visa ❏ MasterCard

❏ American Express ❏ Check

Card # _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Exp. Date _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Signature_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Name_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (please print)

Address _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

City _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

State______ Zip _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

E-mail _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

❏ Yes, please e-mail me updates about McMahon Jazz Medicine!

❏ Yes, please send me your club booklet on these artists!


your sides;relaxing your shoulders; and• leaning forward slightly.• The ability to connect with your listen-

ers, capture their attention and facilitate their understanding strengthens with the use of open and purposeful hand gestures. Hand gestures act as a visual aid that can demonstrate the size of an incision, the shape of a medical device or even the distance among stages of dis-ease development; they also can subtly express emotion about the topic under discussion. Failure to use gestures gives the impression that you are stiff, uncom-fortable and anxious.

The qualities of your voice as you deliver your presentation also great-ly affect how the audience perceives

the spoken information. The sound and timbre projected by your voice will con-vey how you feel about the information being shared. By controlling the speed, volume, tone, pitch and energy of your voice, you can alter the way the audi-ence interprets and understands your messages.

Regardless of whether the informa-tion being communicated is a compli-cated clinical discussion or a simple conversation, it is important to under-stand what nonverbal messages reveal. When our words have one meaning but our body language conveys anoth-er, our intended message suffers. By

consciously using direct eye focus, open body posture, open and purposeful hand gestures and a favorably expres-sive voice to reinforce your words, you will increase the impact of your com-munication and decrease the likelihood of miscommunication.

—Dalli Simmons

Dalli Simmons, certified school psychologist, is a consultant at Exec|Comm LLC, a New York City-based communications consulting firm, where she coaches medical professionals, scien-tists and senior-level executives in a wide array of communication skills. She can be reached at [email protected].

their diagnosis, Saint Barnabas Med-ical Center in Livingston, N.J., has started a multidisciplinary breast can-cer program. By allowing patients to meet with their breast surgeon, radi-ation oncologist and medical oncolo-gist at the same time, the center hopes

to develop individualized cancer treat-ments and improved communication between patients and providers. “This practice is about addressing the needs of our community in a manner that is efficient and convenient for them,” said M. Michele Blackwood, MD, director of Breast Health and Disease Management at Saint Barnabas.

Physicians involved in the program are Dr. Blackwood, a breast surgeon; Delia Radovich, MD, a medical oncol-ogist; and Raquel Wagman, MD, a radi-ation oncologist.

PRN

Communication

Poor eye contact, such as scanning the audience or staring at only one spot, projects an image of nervousness, deception and tension.

PROGRAMScontinued from page 29 �

From left: Raquel Wagman, MD, radiation oncologist; M. Michele Black-wood, MD, breast surgeon; and Delia Radovich, MD, medical oncologist.

GEMZAR� (GEMCITABINE HCl) FOR INJECTIONBRIEF SUMMARY (OVARIAN). For complete safety please consult the package insert for completeprescribing information.

INDICATION AND USAGE: THERAPEUTIC INDICATION—Ovarian Cancer—Gemzar in combination withcarboplatin is indicated for the treatment of patients with advanced ovarian cancer that has relapsed atleast 6 months after completion of platinum-based therapy.

CLINICAL STUDIES: Ovarian Cancer—Gemzar was studied in a randomized Phase 3 study of 356 patientswith advanced ovarian cancer that had relapsed at least 6 months after first-line platinum-based therapy.Patients were randomized to receive either Gemzar 1000 mg/m2 on Days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle andcarboplatin AUC 4 administered after Gemzar on Day 1 of each cycle or single-agent carboplatin AUC 5administered on Day 1 of each 21-day cycle as the control arm. The primary endpoint of this study wasprogression free survival (PFS).

The addition of Gemzar to carboplatin resulted in statistically significant improvement in PFS and overallresponse rate. Approximately 75% of patients in each arm received poststudy chemotherapy. Only 13 of120 patients with documented poststudy chemotherapy regimen in the carboplatin arm received Gemzarafter progression. There was not a significant difference in overall survival between arms.

CONTRAINDICATION: Gemzar is contraindicated in those patients with a known hypersensitivity to the drug(see Allergic under ADVERSE REACTIONS).

WARNINGS: Caution—Prolongation of the infusion time beyond 60 minutes and more frequent thanweekly dosing have been shown to increase toxicity (see CLINICAL STUDIES in the full Prescribing Information).

Hematology—Gemzar can suppress bone marrow function as manifested by leukopenia, thrombocytopenia,yyand anemia (see ADVERSE REACTIONS), and myelosuppression is usually the dose-limiting toxicity.Patients should be monitored for myelosuppression during therapy. See DOSAGE AND ADMINISTRATIONin the full Prescribing Information for recommended dose adjustments.

Pulmonary—Pulmonary toxicity has been reported with the use of Gemzar. In cases of severe lung toxicity,Gemzar therapy should be discontinued immediately and appropriate supportive care measures instituted(see Pulmonary under Single-Agent Use and under Post-marketing experience in ADVERSE REACTIONSin the full Prescribing Information).

Renal—Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome (HUS) and/or renal failure have been reported following one or moredoses of Gemzar. Renal failure leading to death or requiring dialysis, despite discontinuation of therapy,has been rarely reported. The majority of the cases of renal failure leading to death were due to HUS (seeRenal under Single-Agent Use and under Post-marketing experience in ADVERSE REACTIONS in the fullPrescribing Information).

Hepatic—Serious hepatotoxicity, including liver failure and death, has been reported very rarely inpatients receiving Gemzar alone or in combination with other potentially hepatotoxic drugs (see Hepaticunder Single-Agent Use and under Post-marketing experience in ADVERSE REACTIONS in the fullPrescribing Information).

Pregnancy—Pregnancy Category D. Gemzar can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman.yyGemcitabine is embryotoxic causing fetal malformations (cleft palate, incomplete ossification) at dosesof 1.5 mg/kg/day in mice (about 1/200 the recommended human dose on a mg/m2 basis). Gemcitabineis fetotoxic causing fetal malformations (fused pulmonary artery, absence of gall bladder) at doses of0.1 mg/kg/day in rabbits (about 1/600 the recommended human dose on a mg/m2 basis). Embryotoxicitywas characterized by decreased fetal viability, reduced live litter sizes, and developmental delays. There areno studies of Gemzar in pregnant women. If Gemzar is used during pregnancy, or if the patient becomespregnant while taking Gemzar, the patient should be apprised of the potential hazard to the fetus.

PRECAUTIONS: General—Patients receiving therapy with Gemzar should be monitored closely by aphysician experienced in the use of cancer chemotherapeutic agents. Most adverse events are reversibleand do not need to result in discontinuation, although doses may need to be withheld or reduced. Therewas a greater tendency in women, especially older women, not to proceed to the next cycle.

Laboratory Tests—Patients receiving Gemzar should be monitored prior to each dose with a completeblood count (CBC), including differential and platelet count. Suspension or modification of therapy shouldbe considered when marrow suppression is detected (see DOSAGE AND ADMINISTRATION in the fullPrescribing Information).

Laboratory evaluation of renal and hepatic function should be performed prior to initiation of therapyand periodically thereafter (see WARNINGS).

Carcinogenesis, Mutagenesis, Impairment of Fertility—Long-term animal studies to evaluate thecarcinogenic potential of Gemzar have not been conducted. Gemcitabine induced forward mutations invitro in a mouse lymphoma (L5178Y) assay and was clastogenic in an in vivo mouse micronucleus assay.Gemcitabine was negative when tested using the Ames, in vivo sister chromatid exchange, and in vitrochromosomal aberration assays, and did not cause unscheduled DNA synthesis in vitro. Gemcitabine IP dosesoof 0.5 mg/kg/day (about 1/700 the human dose on a mg/m2 basis) in male mice had an effect on fertilitywith moderate to severe hypospermatogenesis, decreased fertility, and decreased implantations. In femalemice, fertility was not affected but maternal toxicities were observed at 1.5 mg/kg/day IV (about 1/200 thehuman dose on a mg/m2 basis) and fetotoxicity or embryolethality was observed at 0.25 mg/kg/day IV(about 1/1300 the human dose on a mg/m2 basis).

Pregnancy—Category D. See WARNINGS.Nursing Mothers—It is not known whether Gemzar or its metabolites are excreted in human milk.

Because many drugs are excreted in human milk and because of the potential for serious adversereactions from Gemzar in nursing infants, the mother should be warned and a decision should be madewhether to discontinue nursing or to discontinue the drug, taking into account the importance of the drugto the mother and the potential risk to the infant.

Elderly Patients—Gemzar clearance is affected by age (see CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY in the fullPrescribing Information). There is no evidence, however, that unusual dose adjustments (i.e., other thanthose already recommended in DOSAGE AND ADMINISTRATION section in the full Prescribing Information)are necessary in patients over 65, and in general, adverse reaction rates in the single-agent safety databaseof 979 patients were similar in patients above and below 65. Grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia was morecommon in the elderly.

Gender—Gemzar clearance is affected by gender (see CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY in the full PrescribingInformation). In the single-agent safety database (N=979 patients), however, there is no evidence thatunusual dose adjustments (i.e., other than those already recommended in DOSAGE AND ADMINISTRATIONsection in the full Prescribing Information) are necessary in women. In general, in single-agent studies of Gemzar, adverse reaction rates were similar in men and women, but women, especially older women,were more likely not to proceed to a subsequent cycle and to experience Grade 3/4 neutropenia andthrombocytopenia.

Pediatric Patients—The effectiveness of Gemzar in pediatric patients has not been demonstrated. Gemzarwas evaluated in a Phase 1 trial in pediatric patients with refractory leukemia and determined that themaximum tolerated dose was 10 mg/m2/min for 360 minutes three times weekly followed by a one-weekrest period. Gemzar was also evaluated in a Phase 2 trial in patients with relapsed acute lymphoblasticleukemia (22 patients) and acute myelogenous leukemia (10 patients) using 10 mg/m2/min for 360 minutesthree times weekly followed by a one week rest period. Toxicities observed included bone marrow suppression,febrile neutropenia, elevation of serum transaminases, nausea, and rash/desquamation, which were similarto those reported in adults. No meaningful clinical activity was observed in this Phase 2 trial.

Patients with Renal or Hepatic Impairment—Gemzar should be used with caution in patients withpreexisting renal impairment or hepatic insufficiency as there is insufficient information from clinicalstudies to allow clear dose recommendation for these patient populations. Administration of Gemzar inpatients with concurrent liver metastases or a preexisting medical history of hepatitis, alcoholism, or livercirrhosis may lead to exacerbation of the underlying hepatic insufficiency.

Drug Interactions—No specific drug interaction studies have been conducted. For information onthe pharmacokinetics of Gemzar and cisplatin in combination, see Drug Interactions under CLINICALPHARMACOLOGY.

Radiation Therapy—A pattern of tissue injury typically associated with radiation toxicity has beenreported in association with concurrent and non-concurrent use of Gemzar.

Non-concurrent (given >7 days apart)—Analysis of the data does not indicate enhanced toxicity whenGemzar is administered more than 7 days before or after radiation, other than radiation recall. Datasuggest that Gemzar can be started after the acute effects of radiation have resolved or at least one weekafter radiation.

Concurrent (given together or ≤7 days apart)—Preclinical and clinical studies have shown that Gemzarhas radiosensitizing activity. Toxicity associated with this multimodality therapy is dependent on manydifferent factors, including dose of Gemzar, frequency of Gemzar administration, dose of radiation,radiotherapy planning technique, the target tissue, and target volume. In a single trial, where Gemzar at adose of 1000 mg/m2 was administered concurrently for up to 6 consecutive weeks with therapeutic thoracicradiation to patients with non-small cell lung cancer, significant toxicity in the form of severe, andpotentially life-threatening mucositis, especially esophagitis and pneumonitis was observed, particularly inpatients receiving large volumes of radiotherapy [median treatment volumes 4795 cm3]. Subsequent studieshave been reported and suggest that Gemzar administered at lower doses with concurrent radiotherapyhas predictable and less severe toxicity. However, the optimum regimen for safe administration of Gemzarwith therapeutic doses of radiation has not yet been determined in all tumor types.

ADVERSE REACTIONS: Combination Use in Ovarian Cancer—In the Gemzar plus carboplatin versuscarboplatin study, dose reductions occurred with 10.4% of Gemzar injections and 1.8% of carboplatininjections on the combination arm, versus 3.8% on the carboplatin alone arm. On the combination arm,13.7% of Gemzar doses were omitted and 0.2% of carboplatin doses were omitted, compared to 0% ofcarboplatin doses on the carboplatin alone arm. There were no differences in discontinuations due toadverse events between arms (10.9% versus 9.8%, respectively).

Table 1 presents the adverse events (all grades) occurring in ≥10% of patients in the ovarian cancer study.

In addition to blood product transfusions as listed in Table 1, myelosuppression was also managed withhematopoetic agents. These agents were administered more frequently with combination therapy thanwith monotherapy (granulocyte growth factors: 23.6% and 10.1%, respectively; erythropoetic agents:7.3% and 3.9%, respectively).

The following are the clinically relevant adverse events, regardless of causality, that occurred in >1% and<10% (all grades) of patients on either arm. In parentheses are the incidences of Grade 3 and 4 adverseevents (Gemzar plus carboplatin versus carboplatin): AST or ALT elevation (0 versus 1.2%), dyspnea(3.4% versus 2.9%), febrile neutropenia (1.1% versus 0), hemorrhagic event (2.3% versus 1.1%),hypersensitivity reaction (2.3% versus 2.9%), motor neuropathy (1.1% versus 0.6%), and rash/desquamation(0.6% versus 0).

No differences in the incidence of laboratory and non-laboratory events were observed in patients65 years or older, as compared to patients younger than 65.

Post-marketing experience—The following adverse events have been identified during post-approvaluse of Gemzar. These events have occurred after Gemzar single-agent use and Gemzar in combination withother cytotoxic agents. Decisions to include these events are based on the seriousness of the event,frequency of reporting, or potential causal connection to Gemzar.

Cardiovascular—Congestive heart failure and myocardial infarction have been reported very rarely withthe use of Gemzar. Arrhythmias, predominantly supraventricular in nature, have been reported very rarely.

Vascular Disorders—Clinical signs of peripheral vasculitis and gangrene have been reported very rarely.Skin—Cellulitis and non-serious injection site reactions in the absence of extravasation have been rarely

reported. Severe skin reactions, including desquamation and bullous skin eruptions, have been reportedvery rarely.

Hepatic—Increased liver function tests including elevations in aspartate aminotransferase (AST),alanine aminotransferase (ALT), gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT), alkaline phosphatase, and bilirubinlevels have been reported rarely. Serious hepatotoxicity including liver failure and death has been reportedvery rarely in patients receiving Gemzar alone or in combination with other potentially hepatotoxic drugs.

Pulmonary—Parenchymal toxicity, including interstitial pneumonitis, pulmonary fibrosis, pulmonaryedema, and adult respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), has been reported rarely following one or moredoses of Gemzar administered to patients with various malignancies. Some patients experienced the onsetof pulmonary symptoms up to 2 weeks after the last Gemzar dose. Respiratory failure and death occurredvery rarely in some patients despite discontinuation of therapy.

Renal—Hemolytic-Uremic Syndrome (HUS) and/or renal failure have been reported following one ormore doses of Gemzar. Renal failure leading to death or requiring dialysis, despite discontinuation oftherapy, has been rarely reported. The majority of the cases of renal failure leading to death were due to HUS.

Injury, Poisoning, and Procedural Complications — Radiation recall reactions have been reported (seeRadiation Therapy under PRECAUTIONS).

Dosage and administration: Gemzar is for intravenous use only. Please consult full prescribing informationfor complete dosage and administration guidelines.

Literature revised May 7, 2007

PV 4067 AMP PRINTED IN USA

Eli Lilly and CompanyIndianapolis, IN 46285, USA

Copyright © 1996, 2007, Eli Lilly and Company. All rights reserved.

GEMZAR� (GEMCITABINE HCl) FOR INJECTION PV 4067 AMP GEMZAR� (GEMCITABINE HCl) FOR INJECTION PV 4067 AMP

CTC Grades (% incidence)Gemzar plus Carboplatin (N=175) Carboplatin (N=174)All Grades Grade 3 Grade 4 All Grades Grade 3 Grade 4

Laboratoryb

HematologicNeutropenia 90 42 29 58 11 1Anemia 86 22 6 75 9 2Leukopenia 86 48 5 70 6 <1Thrombocytopenia 78 30 5 57 10 1RBC Transfusionsc 38 15Platelet Transfusionsc 9 3

Non-laboratoryb

Nausea 69 6 0 61 3 0Alopecia 49 0 0 17 0 0Vomiting 46 6 0 36 2 <1Constipation 42 6 1 37 3 0Fatigue 40 3 <1 32 5 0Neuropathy-sensory 29 1 0 27 2 0Diarrhea 25 3 0 14 <1 0Stomatitis/pharyngitis 22 <1 0 13 0 0Anorexia 16 1 0 13 0 0

a Grade based on Common Toxicity Criteria (CTC) Version 2.0 (all grades ≥10%).b Regardless of causality.c Percent of patients receiving transfusions. Transfusions are not CTC-graded events. Blood transfusionsincluded both packed red blood cells and whole blood.

Table 1: Adverse Events From Comparative Trial of GemzarPlus Carboplatin Versus Single-Agent Carboplatin in Ovarian Cancera

38358_elonps_ov1p_con7_fa.indd 2 7/7/09 2:09:07 PM

GEGEGEGEGEG MZMZMZMZZZARARARARARARAR i iin n nnnnnn cocococooombmbmbmbmmm iniininatatatatataa ioioioiiiioii n n nnnnnnnnn wiwiw ththththth c ccccarararara boboboboboplplpplplpp atatatttininnininn i is s s s ininininnni dididid cacacaacaacac teteteteeeed d d dddd fofofofofoor rr ththththt e e eee trtrtrtrtt eaeaeaeaatmtmtmtmttt eneneent t tttttt ofofofof p pppatatattieieieientntntnts s ss wiwiwiwiww ththtth a a aadvdvdvdvd anananannna ceceeceed d d d dddd ooovovvooovararaaaa iaiaiaan n nnn cacacacc ncncnn erererer t ttttthahahahaaat t tt hahahahaahaas s s s ssss rerererrer lalaaapspspspspsededededdd a at t ttt leleleleeeasasst t tt 6 6 6666 momomomontnttntttthshshshshshsh a aaaftftftftfterererereeeer cococooompmpmpmpmm leleleeetitititiiononononooon o o oooof fff plplplplpplp atatatttininini umumumumu -b-b-b-b-bbbasasasassededededdede t ttheheheheeraraapypypypyypyyy..

MyMyMyMyMyMyeleleeele osososossupupupupupupupuupuu prprprprpp eseseseseessisisisiiiiiononononooo i i s s ssss ususususuuusuauauauauuallllllllllly y yy ththththhhe e ee eee dododododooosesesese-l-l-l-limimimmmmmitititittininnnnnnnnng g g ggg totototoooooxixixixixxx cicicicitytytytytyyyyt w ww wwwititittittti h h hhh GEGEGEGEEGEGEMZMZMZMZMMZZARARARARAARARA t t t ttheheheheeeerararararar pypypypyyypyyyyypy......

GEMZAR plus Carboplatin 95% Cl (8.0-9.7) (N=178)

0 2 4 6 8 10

Carboplatin 95% Cl (5.2-7.1) (N=178)

8.6

5.8(p=0.0038)

Median progression-free survival (months)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

GEMZAR plus Carboplatin (N=178)

Carboplatin (N=178)

47.2%

30.9%(p=0.0016)

Overall response rate (%)†

ThThThThThThThThe e ee ovovovovo ererererrralalala l l lll susussusus rvrvrvrvvrrrr ivivivivalalalalaaaaaa dd d ddififififiii fefefefefef rerererereer ncncncncnnnn e e ee ee bebebebebebetwtwtwtwtwtwweeeeeeeeen n nnnnnn GEGEGEGEGEGGEGEGGEMZMZMZMZZMZMZZMZARARARARARARAR/c/c/c/c/c/c/c/// arararara bobobobobobobboooplplplplpplp atatatatattta inininininin ( ( ( ( (181818181881 .0.0.0.0.0.00 m m mm mmononononthththhhths)s)s)s)s) v vvvvvvvs s ss sssssss cacacacacacarbrbrbrbbbbbbrbbbopopopopoppopopplalalalallllatitititin n nn (1(1(1((17.7.77777 3 3 3 333 momomomontntntntntntntnthshshsshshshshs) ) )))))))) wawawawawaas s sss nonononooot t ttttt sissisiigngngngngngnngngnififififi iciciciccccanananananant t t t ttt ((((pppp=0=0=0=00.8.8.88.888979797979977)7)7)7)7 ..

**** PlPlPllPlatataaaa inininninumummmmm-s-ss-s-sssenenennsisisisisisiititititiveveveve p ppp ppppatatataaatieieieiieii ntntntnnntntn s s ararararee e eee dededededefififififif nenneneneneneddd d d ddd asasasasassa p p p p p pppatatattatata ieieieieieieieeiei ntntntnttts ss s whwhwhwhww o o ooo dedededededededed vevevevevelololololooloop p ppp didididididd sesessseses asasssa e e e ee prprprprprogogogogogo rerrerr sssssssss ioioiioiooi n n nnnn ≥≥≥≥6 6 666 momomomoom ntntntntn hshshhshshsh a aaaftftftftfftf eerereere r rrrececee eieieieivivivivivvvivingngngng f fffiririririrrstststst-l-l-l-linininine e e plpllpplplpp atatatataatininininumumumumumumm-b-b-b-basasasassssededeedeedeeee c ccchehehhhehhh momomomomm thththththt ererererrapapapappppppy.y.y.†††††† InInInInveveveveststststsss igiggiggatatata orororororooo -r-rrrrrevevevvvevvieieieiei wewewwed.d.d.dddd

SeSeSeSeSeeSeS leeleeeectctctctccccccctccctc I Impmpmpmpmpmpmpmporororororooorrtatatatattt ntntntntnttt S SSSSSSSafaffafffetetetetttee y y y y y y InInnnInnfofofoofofoormrmrmmmmatatatatttttioioioiooioon n nnnnGEGEEGEGEMZMZMZMZMMMMMM ARARARARRARR s shohohohooulululd d dddd nononoonoot t ttttt bebebebebbeb a admdmdmdmminininisisisisissteteteteteererereeered d ddd tototottt p p pppatatatata ieieieieeentntntnttnnn ss s sss wiwiwiwiw ththththththhhh k kkkknononononononoownwnwnwnwnwnw hh h hhh hypypypyyppypyperereerersesesesesss nsnsnsnsn itititttitivivivvitititittity y y y yy tototototototo t t t tthihihihihih ss s sdrdrdrdrdrdrrugugugugugggug. ... .. InInInnfufufufuuuuusisisiononononon t t t ttimimmmimmmeseseseseesss o o o f f fff GEGEGEGEGEGGEG MZMZMZMZZMZZZARARARARARA l lononoo gegegegeegeegeeger r r rr ththththanananannanan 6 666 6660 0 0 0 0 0 mimimimimimmm nunununununun tetetetettt s s s sss anananannannd dd d momomomomomomoom rerererereree f f f ffffrererererrreququququqquq eneneneneeeeentt t t t ththththhhanananann weweweweekekekekekeeeklylylylyyy d d d d ososososininining g ggg hahahaahaahaveveveveeevee b b b bbbb eeeeeeeen n n nnn shshshshshss owowwwowowown n nn nnn totooooo i i iincncncncncn rerererer asasasasasssse e eeeee tototototooooooxixixixixiciciccccc tytytytyttytt . . PuPPuPuPuP lmlmlmlmlmlmlmononononnarararary y y y yy totototoooooxixixxxxx cicicicicicic tytytytyyyyy h h hhhasasasasa bb bbbbbeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeen n nnnrereereeepopopopop rtrtrtrtedededed.. InInnn c cccasasasssseseseses o oooof f fff seseeseseseeveveveveveeerererereee l llununununu g g g g ggggg totototototoxixixiixiciciccccc tytytytyttyt , , , , GEGEGEGEEEGEGEEMZMZMZMZM ARARARARAAAR t tttthehehehehherararaaraaapypypypyyyyy s shohohohohooululululu d d dd bebebbebebebb d d dddddisisissisiscococococococontntntnnnn ininininnueueueueeu d d ddddddimimimmmmemememememmm didididid atatatatttelelelee y y y y anaaana dd d d apapapapapppppprprprprpropopopopopopririririiir atatatttte e eeee sssususs pppppppppppporororortitititivevevevevevvee c c c carararrrrare e e eeee mememeememmm asasasaaa urururuuu esesesesess i insnsnsnssnssn titittt tututuuuuuutetetetet d.d.d.ddd H HHHemememememeeee ololololoo ytytytyyy iciciciccc UrUrUrUrUrUrUUUU ememememmemicicciccc S SSSSynynynynynyy drdrdrdrdrrromommome eee eee (H(H(H(HHHHUSUSUSUSSUSUS)) ) anananana d/d/d/d/dd//orororooo r rrrrrreneneneneenene alalalal f f ff ffaiaiaiilulululul rererererrr h h hhhavavavavavavve e bebebebeeeeeeenenenennnn r r r r epepepepepepe ororororoo tetetetetetteed d d d dd fofofofofoofoolllllllll owowowowoooooo inininininnnnnnng g gggggg ononononono e e e ororororo momomomoooooorereeereee d d d dosososoooso eseseseseees o ooooooofff f GEGEGEGEGGGEGEMZMZMZMZMZMZARARARARARAA . . ReReReReRReenanananannn l lll fafafafafaf iililururururuu e e e e eee e leleeeadadadadadddadinini g g g g gg totototototo d d d deaeaeaeaee thththhhh o o o ooor r r rrr rereeeeequququququuuiririri inininngg g g gggg didididididialalalalalala ysysysysyy isisiss, , , , dedededededd spspspppppititititii e e eedididddd scscscsccccononononntititit nununuunuatatatata ioioioioi n n n ofofofo t ttheheheheheheh raraaaaaapypypypyyy, , , hahahahahahh ss s sss bebebebbeenenenenen r r rrrararararrrrreleleleleeeleee y y y y rererereepopopopopportrtrtrtededededede . . ThThThThThThThThhe e e ee mamamamamamamajojojojojoj ririririirr tytytytytyyy o o o ooo of f ffff thththtthththe e ee cacaaaasesesesesses s ss ofofofofo rererererr nanananal l fafafafaffffaililillilurururururruru e e eeee leleleleadadadadadadadddddininining g gg g tototototoooo d ddddeaeaeaeaaae ththththhth w wwwwererrere e ee dudududuee e ee totototooo H HHHHHHHUSUSUSUSSS. . SeSeSeSeSeSeSeririrrr ouououooo s s ssss sss hehehehehehehehhh papapapaaaatotototototototottotooooxixixixixx ciciccccc tytytytyyy, ,, , ininininnininiii clclclclclududududduudininininiii gg g gggglililivevevevevevever rrr rrr fafafafaililili ururrrurure e e ee ananannanaa d d ddddd dedededeeatatatath,h,h,h,hh, h hhhhhhasasasas b b bbbbbbbeeeeeeeee n n n n rerererererr popopopop rtrtrtrtrtrtttr ededdeddd v vvverererery y y y rararararaarereereeeelylylylylylyyyy i i i in n n papapapapapapp tititt eneneenntstststststssts r r r rececececece eieieieieieiivivivivingngngngggng G G GGGGGGGGEMEMEMEMEMEME ZAZAZAZAAAR R RRRRalalalalllononononoonono ee e ororororoo i i i in nn nn cococococcc mbmbmbmbmbmbmbbmbininnatatatatatta ioioioioooon nn n n wiwiwiwiwiwwithththththt o oooooothththththttherererererere p ppppotototottttttenenenenenntitittttialalalallylylylylyyl h h hhepepepepepee atataaaa otototottototoo oxoxoxoxoxoxoxxicicicccccc d dd dddrururururururr gsgsgsgsgg . . GEGEGEGGGEEEMZMZMZMMMZMZMZARARARARAR i i iiiiis s ssPrPrPrPrPrrPPregegegegege nananananaaan ncncncn y y y y y CaCaCCaaatetetetett gogogogoryryryry D DD D. . GEGEGEGEGGEGG MZMZMZMZMZARARARARARAAA c cccananannan c ccccauauauauausesessssss f f ffffetetetetete alalalal h hhhhararaarrarara m m mm whwhwwwhwwwwww enenenennnn a aaaaadmdmdmdmdmddmd inininininisisssssteteteteteeeerererr d dd dd totototota a a aa prprprprpregegegegegggggnananannnan ntntntnt w wwwwomomomooomo anananaaaa . . UsUsUsUsssse eee ee cacacacac ututututu ioioioioii n n n inininin p p ppppatataatatieieieieei ntntntntttts s sssssss wwiwiwww ththththh p pppprererere-e-e-e-e--- xixixixixiststtstststststststttstts ininininni g g gggg rererereeereenannannnal l ll imimimimimimmpapapapaaaaaaaaiririririrrmememmemmmmmm ntntntntororror h hhhhhhhhepepepepeeeeee atatatattticicicccc i i insnsnsnsnn ufufufufuufuffifififificicicicicc enenenennncycycyyy. . AdAdAdAdA mimimimimimiminininninnn stststttraraaaaatittit ononononn o ooof f f GEGEGEGEGEGEMZMZMZMZMZZARARARARARAA mmmmmmmayayayaaaya e ee exaxaxaxaxaacececececeececcerbrbrbrbbbbbbatatatatte e eeeeeee ununununuu dededededeerlrlrrr yiyiyyiy ngngngngngngng heheheheeeepapapapappppp tititititic c c ccc ininininnsusususufffffff icicicicieieieieieencncncnnn y.y.y.yy.y T T T Thehehehe o o oo oooptptptpptptimimimimimimumumumuuuu r r r rr egegeegegeggege imimimimmmimenenenenn f fffffffororororo ss ssafafafaffafa e e ee e adadadaddda mimimimimmim nininininiststststs rararararaaatitittttttt ononononoo oo oof f f fff GEGEGEGEGEGEGEEEMZMZMZMZZMZMZMMZARARARAR wiwiwiwiththththt t ttttheheheheeheeerarararrar pepepepeppep utututututiciciccii d d d ddddddosoososoo esesesesss o o oof f f f fff rararararradididiidiatatatattioioioooon n nn nn hahahahahahaas s ssss nonononononn t t tttttt yeyeeyeyeet ttt t bebebebebebeenenennen d d d dddetetetetetetee ererererrmimimimiinenenenennen d dd dddd inininni a a allllllll t t t ttttumumumumuu orororororr t t t t ypypypypppeseseseee . . GEGEGEGEGEGGG MZMZMZMZZMZZARARARARRR hh hhhasasasasss r r r rradadadaada ioioioioooseseseeeeensnsnsnsnnsitititiiitizizizzzzininininng g gg acacaca tititt viviviviviv tytytytytttyt a aaandndndddddd r rrrrradadadaddaa iaiaiaiaiatitititionononn r rrececececceccaaalalaaaa l l llll rererereacacaca tititttt ononononnnnns s ss hahahahahahaveveveveveveve b bb bbeeeeeeeeeeeeeee n nnnnnnnnnnnrerererereepopopoopopopopp rtrtrtrtededededdd. . ItItttttt i i s s s s ss nonoonooonot t t knknknkkkknowowowowoooo n n nnn whwhwhwhwhwheteteteete heheheheh r r rr GEGEGEGEGEGEGGEMZMZMZMZMZZMZZARARARARARARRA o o ooor r rrrr ititittts s ss mememeememetatataaaaaabobobobobbbbb lilillitetetetetes s s ararararare e eee exexexxxxcrcrcrcreteteteetee ededededede i ii in n n

huhuhuhuhhumamamamamamamamaan n nn mimimimimmmm llklk. . ThThThThThThThThTTTTT e e e eee efefeffefefefectctttcttivivivivveneneee esesesesss sssss ss ofofofofff G GG GGEMEMEMEMEMEMME ZAZAZAZAAZAAZAR R R RRRR ininininiin p p p ppppededededdiaiaiaiaiaiatrtrtrrricicicici p pp pppppatatatatieieeentntntntts ss s hahahahhhhas s nonononononoonot t tt bebebebebb enenenenen dededededededdddded momomomooooonsnsnssnsnn trtrtratatatatataaaaa ededededeeed. . ThThThThTThT e e ee tototototoxixixixix ciciccititititititittt esesesesesese o oo oo ooof f f f f ff GEGEGGGEGEGG MZMZMZMZMZMZM ARARARARARAA o oooobsbsbsbsssererereree vevevvvevv d d dddddd ininininnnn p ppppedededededede iaiaiaiiaaiatrtrtrtricicicicic p p pp ppppatatatattieieeeeeentntntnttntts s sss wewewewewwerereereeee s s simimimimmmilililillararaara totooto t ttttthohohohoooseseseseeeee r r r repepepepepe ororororro tetetetetett d d dd ininininn a aaadududududud ltlttttts.s.s.s.ss G GGGGGGEMEMEMEMEMMMEMMZAZAZAZAZAZAZAAAAAAAR R RR R RRR clclclccccleaeaaeaararararaaancncncnce e eeeeee isisississi a aaaffffffffecececceee teteeeeeed d d d dd bybybybybb a a a aaaaaaagegegege a aaaas s s s ss weweweweeeelllllll a aaas s ss gegegegeegegegendndndnddererererr. . ..PaPaPaPaPatititititt enenenennnntstststs r rrrrrrecececeeceieieieeie vivivivingngngngngg t t t theheheherarar pypypypyppppp w ww wwwitititititth h hh GEGEGGEGEGEGEMZMZMZMMMMMMM ARARARARAAAA s sshohoohohohooulululululd d dddddd bebbebebbebe m mmmmmonononooonooo itititiititororororrorededededee c cccccccclololoosesesss lylyyyyy b bb by y yyy a a aaa phphphphphysysysysysysssy icciciaiaiaaaaan n nnnnnexexexexexexe pepepepeepp riririririririir enenenenene cecececeeed d ddd ininininini t t t ttthehehehehehee u u u sesesesesee o ooof f ff cacaccccc ncncncnccnccererereeeee c ccheheheheeeemomommomothththththherererererapapapappappeueueueuue titititiiic ccc cc agagagaggenenennnenentstststst . .

AbAbAbAbAAA brbrbrb eveveveveviaiaiaiaaaateteteteeteeed d d dd AdAdAdAdAdAdAdveveveveveveersrssse e ee EvEvvvenenenentststssts ( (( ((((((% % %%%%%% % inininincicicicicccccc dedededeeencncncnnn e)e)e)e))e))eeThThThThThTThTT e e e e momomoomooooststststststst s ss s sseveveveveveveveeee erererereeeeee e e e ee adadadaddadvevevevvevvv rsrsrrse e ee evevevevenenenenntststststtt ( (( ((GrGrGGrGrG adadadadaddesesesses 3 3 3 33/4/4/4/4//// ) ) ) ) ))) wiwiwiwiiwiwiw thththththt G GGGGGEMEMEMEMMMEMZAZAZAZAAAAAR R RRRRRR plplplplp ususuususus c ccccararrarara boboboboboobooplplplplplplp atatatataaa inininnin v v v vererere sususususus s sscacacacccc rbrbrbrbbbbopopopopooplalalalaaatitititititit n nn n alalalallaala ononononone,e,e,e,e r r resesesesspepepeppectctctctttivivivivvivveleleeee y,y,y,y,y f ffororororo tt tthehehehehehee t ttttrereeeeeatatttttmemememeeentntntntnn o oooooof f ff f papapapaapap tititititiiieneneee tstststststs w w wwwitittitti h h h h adadadadaaaaaaa vavavavavvv ncncncnn edededdedd o ooovavavaavav ririrrrr ananaaaaa cacacacac ncncncncncererererrrere w wwwwwerererererrrre e eee neneneneututututttrororoooooopepepepepeniniiniiiia a aaaaa (7(7(7(7(771 1 1 1 1 1 vsvsvsvs 1 1 11112)2)2)2)2))2))222 ; ; ; ; ;;;; ththththhrororororrr mbmbmbmbbmbm ococococococytytytytopopopopopppeneneneeneniaiaiiiaiiiaa ( (((((3535353535 v vvvs s ss ss 11111111111););); l lllleueueueue kokokokoopepepepep ninia a a a (5(5(5(5553 333 vsvsvsvsss 7 777);););); ananananna ememememe iaiaiaaaaiaaaa ( ( (28282828228 vv vvvvs s ssss 11111111111);););); n nnnnnauauaauauauaua seseeseea aa a aa (6(6(6(6(6(6( vvvvvvs s ss 3)3)3)3)3 ; ; ; ;;; vovovovomimimimmmimmmm tititingngngngngngng ( ( (( (6 6 66 vsvsvsvsvsv 3 3 3 3 3););););; a a aandndnndnnn c ccconononoonoooo ststststtipipipippipatata ioiioioioi n n n n nnn (7(7(777 v vvvvss ss 3)3)33)3)3333). . .. ThThThThhT e e e momomomomoom ststtstststtst cococcocommmmmmmmmmm onononoonnn a aaadvdvdvdvdvddd ererererseseseeseseees e eeeeevevevevevevevv ntntntntnnnn s s s s s (a(a(a(aalllllllllll G GG GGGrararararaaadededeedes)s)s)s)s) w wwwwererere e e eee nenenenen ututututututrorooooopepepepeppp nininn a a a a (9(9(9(990 0 000 vsvsvsvsvsvv 5 5 58)8)8)8)); ; ; ;; leleleleleleeukukukukkukuuu opopopoppo eneneneniaiaiaaia ( ( ( (868686868686668 v vvvvvvs s 707070707077 ););))))) anananannnnnnnemememmemmmiaiaiaiaaaiaa ( ( ((868686868688666 v vvvvs s ss 7575757757 ););););); t tt tthrhrhrhhrhhhhrhh omomomomommmmmmomoombobobobobooocycycycyyycycytotootopepepepepepep nininininiia a aa aaa (7(7(7(7(7((778 8 8 88 vsvsvvsvvsv 555 557)7)7)7)7)7))); ; ;; RBRBRRRBRBRBC C CCCCCC trtrtrtrtranananannnnsfsfsfsfs usususuu ioioiooion n n nn (3(3(3(338 8 8888 vsvsvsvvvsv 1 11111115)5)5)5)5 ; ; ; ; ; ; alalaaa opopopopececececcciaiaiaiaa(4(4(449 9 9999 vsvsvsvsvsvsv 1 17)7)7)7)); ; ; neneneneeururururopopopopppatatatataa hyhyhyhyhyhh /s/s/s/s/seneneneeee sosossosss ryryryryryryryyyry ( ((2929299229 v vvvvvvs s ss 2727272777););))) n nnnnnauauauauauua seseseseeeea a aa (6(6(6(66(69 9 9 9 999 99 vsvsvsvsvvs 6 6 661)1)11 ; ;;; fafafafatitititit guguguugue e e e eee (4(4(44440 000 vsvsvsvsvv 3 3333332)2)2)2)); ; ; ;; vovovoooomimimimitititititiiingngngngngngng (4(4(4(4(4446 6 666 66 vsvsvsvsv 3 33333336)6)6)6)); ; ; ; ;; didididdd aararara rhrhrhhhrhr eaeaaaea ( ( ( ( ((25252525252552 v vv vvs s ss 14141414444););))); a aaandndndndn c cc conononoo ststststtsts ipipipipatatatatta ioioiooooon n nn (4(4(4(4444442 2 2222 vsvsvsvsvsvss 3 33337)7)7)7))7)..FoFoFoFooFor rr rr adadaaadaaa dididdid titititiionononononalalaalal s ss afafafafaaa etetetetty y yy inininiinnfofofofof rmrmrmrmrmatatatattioioioion,n,n,nn,n p pppleleleleeeleeasasasse e e sesesesee e eee BrBrBrBrBBBBB iieieieieii ff f ff SuSuSuSuSummmmmmmmmmararaary y yyy ofofofoo P PPPrerererereeescscscscririrriribibibibibibbbingngngnggg InInInInInnI fofofofoffofoff rmrmrmrmmatatatataaatioiooioioon n nnnn ononononoo a aaaaaadjdjdjdjddjd acacacacacaca eneneeeneneeeeee t t t t tttt papapapapappapap gegeggegeg ..

FoFoFoFFooorr r r rrr momomomoorererererer i iinfnfnfnn ororrorormamamammm tititititiiononononooo a aaabobbobobobobobobbb ututututututt c c c c cananannncececececcceer r rr trtrtrtrt eaeaeaeaeeeeeee tmtmtmtmtmmmenenenenee t t t wiwiwiwiiwiwiw thththtthth GG G GGGEMEMEMEMEE ZAZAZAZAAAAR,R,R,R v vvvvvvisisisiisiisitittt GEGEGGEGEGG MZMZMZMZARARARRAR.c.cccomomomomomooo ..

GEMZAR/carboplatin is one option for 2nd-line treatment of your patients with platinum-sensitive* advanced ovarian cancer.

Myelosuppression is usually the dose-limiting toxicity with GEMZAR therapy.

GEMZGEMZGEMZEEGEMZEEM ARARAAAA ®®®®® is is s s s a rea rerer gistgistststsgists erederederederee tra trattrr demademaemamark ork okkrk okk f Elf Elf Ef E i Lii Lii Lii Lillylly llyyyy and and annn CompCompCompCompComCCCC m any.any.anyananyany GC58GC58GC58G 3213213213213 050 050 05005005 9 9 9 9 99 PRINPRINPRINRINR TED TED TEDTED IN UIN UIN UIN UUSA SA SASA © ©©©© 200 200 200 2002002009, L9, L9, LLLillyillyillyilly USAUSA USA USAAA, LL, LL, LL, LLL, L C. AC. AC AC. AC ACC ACCCC LL RLL RLL RLL RRRLL RIGHTIGHTTGHTTTTTS RES RERERERRR SERVSERVERVSERVERRER ED.ED.ED.E

38358_elonps_ov1p_con7_fa.indd 1 7/7/09 2:08:59 PM

Documents

Clinical Oncology News - February 2010 - Digital Edition