[15] – 1995 (4/3/1995) – Dr. Mario Sznol to Burzynski

This page is linked to:
=====================================
Critiquing: Dr. Michael A. Friedman, Dr. Mark G. Malkin, Dr. Mario Sznol, Robert B. Lanman, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Mayo Clinic, Department of Health & Human Services (HHS), Public Health Service, Quality Assurance and Compliance Section, Regulatory Affairs Branch (RAB), Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP), Division of Cancer Treatment (DCT), National Cancer Center (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Stanislaw Burzynski: On the arrogance of ignorance about cancer and targeted therapies
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/08/critiquing-stanislaw-burzynski-on-the-arrogance-of-ignorance-about-cancer-and-targeted-therapies/
======================================
[15] – 1995 (4/3/1995) – Dr. Mario Sznol to Burzynski
——————————————————————
Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Services, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institutes

Dear Dr. Burzynski,

Dr. Friedman asked me to respond to your letter of 3/29/1995 regarding the change we have been considering in eligibility criteria for the Memorial Sloan-Kettering and Mayo Clinic phase II studies of antineoplastons

At the investigator’s request, the amendments to modify the eligibility restrictions for size of tumor, number of tumors, and leptomeningeal spread, and to allow entry of patients with KPS of 60, have been approved

These amendments were initiated by the investigators when it became apparent that many good candidates for the study were being excluded because of what were perceived to be overly stringent and unnecessary eligibility restrictions

Approximately a year ago, we wrote to you asking for your concurrence to make similar changes to the protocol

(see enclosed letter)

We have documented that the revised eligibility criteria are consistent with those used in your very own protocols that employ identical or nearly identical treatment regimens

Furthermore, in a review of the 7 patients in the best case series presented to NCI, we have found that perhaps 4 of the 7 patients who apparently had tumor shrinkage would not have been eligible to enter the NCI phase II studies under the original stringent eligibility criteria

(see attached)

These types of patients will now be eligible for study using the revised eligibility criteria proposed by the investigators and recently approved by CTEP

Despite the difficulties in accrual, we are committed to completing the phase II evaluation of the antineoplastons

Our goals remain unchanged, that is, we wish to determine whether the drugs used in the similar manner as you recommend, and in the similar population of patients, will yield results consistent with those in the best case series

As noted above, our careful evaluation of the materials you have provided indicate that the amendments to the eligibility criteria do not deviate from the eligibility criteria and methods you have employed in your experience

We would appreciate the opportunity to review your data, alluded to in your letter, that support the contention that inclusion of theses patients requires a different treatment regimen or is unsafe

In the meantime, we will allow the amendments to stand, since all evidence you have provided to date indicates that these newly eligible patients may have a chance for benefit without undue risk of harm, and are appropriate candidates for evaluation of the drug

We will forward the data on the 1st 5 patients in a separate mailing as you requested

Pg. 2

However, you have asked that we suspend accrual while you review the data

There is no medical or regulatory reason to suspend accrual at this time

Suspending accrual will likely further damage the efforts the investigators have made to increase accrual to the trial

Mario Sznol, M.D.

cc:

Dottie Tisevich
Michael Friedman, M.D.
Mary McCabe
Office of Alternative Medicine

Pg. 3

Antineoplaston Cases

1. Histology partial lobe glioblastoma multiforme
Size 2.3 cm largest diameter
Response CR possible
prior Tx RT, surgery

2. Histology anaplastic astrocytoma stage IV grade 3
Size 3.0 tumor 3.5 tumor and edema
Response CR possible
prior Tx RT

3. Histology infiltrating glioma (astrocytoma or mixed astrocytoma / oligodendroglioma)
Size 4.4
Response good PR, possible CR
prior Tx RT and BUdR; Procarbazine, CCNU, VCR; B-Interferon; DFMO and MGBG

4. Histology well differentiated Stage IV astrocytoma, possible juvenile pilocytic astrocytoma
Size 5.5 X 3.3
Response 40-50% decrease of solid component
prior Tx vitamins and laetrile

5. Histology glioblastoma multiforme
Size 6.5 x 5.0
Response 39% decrease
prior Tx RT

6. Histology glioma consistent with anaplastic astrocytoma, differential: anaplastic astrocytoma or spindle cell variant of oligodendroglioma
Size 5.1 x 2.2
Response CR
prior Tx RT

7. Histology Infiltrating anaplastic astrocytoma
Size 4.0 (L) 4.8 (bifrontal)
Response good response – possible CR
prior Tx RT
——————————————————————

======================================
1995 (4/3/1995) – Dr. Michael A. Friedman to Burzynski [16]
1995 (4/3/1995) – Dr. Mario Sznol to Burzynski [21] (3 pgs.)
1995 (3/29/1995) – Burzynski to Dr. Michael A. Friedman
======================================

Advertisements

[11] – 1994 (3/23/1994) – Dr. Mario Sznol to Burzynski [2 pgs.]

This page is linked to:
=====================================
Critiquing: Dr. Michael A. Friedman, Dr. Mark G. Malkin, Dr. Mario Sznol, Robert B. Lanman, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Mayo Clinic, Department of Health & Human Services (HHS), Public Health Service, Quality Assurance and Compliance Section, Regulatory Affairs Branch (RAB), Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP), Division of Cancer Treatment (DCT), National Cancer Center (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Stanislaw Burzynski: On the arrogance of ignorance about cancer and targeted therapies
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/08/critiquing-stanislaw-burzynski-on-the-arrogance-of-ignorance-about-cancer-and-targeted-therapies/
======================================
[11] – 1994 (3/23/1994) – Dr. Mario Sznol to Burzynski [2 pgs.]
——————————————————————
Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Services, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institutes

Dear Dr. Burzynski,

As you know, the NCI-sponsored trials of antineoplastons have been initiated and some patients have been enrolled

However, a great many more have sought access to the trial but have not been allowed to participate because of their inability to meet all the eligibility criteria

Because of this, there is strong interest on our part and that of the investigators to broaden the eligibility criteria

While we recognize the need for and value of clear eligibility criteria, we believe that the protocol now excludes some patients who would otherwise be good candidates for the trial

Specifically, we would propose the following changes in the eligibility criteria:

1. Change the allowable Karnofsky performance status from 70 to 60, as originally written in the protocol

2. Change the exclusion for size of tumor from greater than 5 cm to greater than 8 cm

3. Drop the exclusion for multifocal tumors or leptomeningeal spread

By keeping the performance status score at 60 as a requirement for entry, we believe that the protocol will still be safe for patients, and the drug will get a fair test for antitumor efficacy

We have noted that your protocols for adults (copies of which you have provided to CTEP) have similar eligibility criteria to those proposed above (ie, KPS of 60 required and no exclusion for size of tumor, multifocal tumor, or leptomeningeal spread)

We have also noted that some patients eligible for treatment on NCI-sponsored protocols appear to have been told by your staff that they could receive the antineoplastons at your institute

They have asked us the obvious question, that is, if you have enough evidence of efficacy to offer the antineoplastons as treatment to those patients, why is it that they would not be good candidates for a protocol attempting to determine and confirm the antitumor activity of the agent?

We would appreciate any help you might give us in responding to these inquiries

Pg. 2

Mario Sznol, M.D., Head, Biologics Evaluation Section, Investigational Drug Branch,Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program, Division of Cancer Treatment,
National Cancer Institute

cc:

David Parkinson, M.D.
Mike Friedman, M.D.
Dale Shoemaker, Ph.D.
Jay Greenblatt, Ph.D.
Dean Mouscher, BRI
Mary McCabe
Samuel Broder, M.D.
Bruce Chabner, M.D.
——————————————————————

======================================
1994 (3/23/1994) – Dr. Mario Sznol to Burzynski [20] (2 pgs.)
======================================