Because 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 and may not reflect the rates observed in practice.

Systemically induced effects of photodynamic therapy (PDT) with PHOTOFRIN consist of photosensitivity and mild constipation. All patients who receive PHOTOFRIN will be photosensitive and must observe precautions to avoid sunlight and bright indoor light 

Photosensitivity reactions occurred in approximately 20% of cancer patients and in 69% of high-grade dysplasia (HGD) in Barretts esophagus (BE) patients treated with PHOTOFRIN. Typically, these reactions were mostly mild to moderate erythema, but they also included swelling, pruritus, burning sensation, feeling hot, or blisters. In a single study of 24 healthy subjects, some evidence of photosensitivity reactions occurred in all subjects.Other less common skin manifestations were also reported in areas where photosensitivity reactions had occurred, such as increased hair growth, skin discoloration, skin nodule, skin wrinkling and increased skin fragility. These manifestations may be attributable to a pseudoporphyria state (temporary drug-induced cutaneous porphyria).

Most toxicities of this therapy are local effects seen in the region of illumination and occasionally in surrounding tissues. The local adverse reactions are characteristic of an inflammatory response induced by the photodynamic effect.

A few cases of fluid imbalance have been reported in patients treated with PHOTOFRIN PDT for overtly disseminated intraperitoneal malignancies. Fluid imbalance is an expected PDT-related event.

A case of cataracts has been reported in a 51-year-old obese man treated with PHOTOFRIN PDT for HGD in BE. The patient suffered from a PDT response with development of a deep esophageal ulcer. Within two months post PDT, the patient noted difficulty with his distant vision. A thorough eye examination revealed a change in the refractive error that later progressed to cataracts in both eyes. Both of his parents had a history of cataracts in their 70s. Whether PHOTOFRIN directly caused or accelerated a familial underlying condition is unknown.

The following adverse reactions were reported over the entire follow-up period in at least 5% of patients treated with PHOTOFRIN PDT, who had completely or partially obstructing esophageal cancer. 

Location of the tumor was a prognostic factor for three adverse reactions: upper-third of the esophagus (esophageal edema), middle-third (atrial fibrillation), and lower-third, the most vascular region (anemia). Also, patients with large tumors (>10 cm) were more likely to experience anemia. Two of 17 patients with complete esophageal obstruction from tumor experienced esophageal perforations, which were considered to be possibly treatment-associated; these perforations occurred during subsequent endoscopies. Serious and other notable adverse reactions observed in less than 5% of PDT-treated patients with obstructing esophageal cancer in the clinical studies include the following; their relationship to therapy is uncertain. In the gastrointestinal system, esophageal perforation, gastric ulcer, ileus, jaundice, and peritonitis have occurred. Sepsis has been reported occasionally. 

Cardiovascular reactions have included angina pectoris, bradycardia, myocardial infarction, sick sinus syndrome, and supraventricular tachycardia. Respiratory reactions of bronchitis, bronchospasm, laryngotracheal edema, pneumonitis, pulmonary hemorrhage, pulmonary edema, respiratory failure, and stridor have occurred. The temporal relationship of some gastrointestinal, cardiovascular and respiratory reactions to the administration of light was suggestive of mediastinal inflammation in some patients. Vision-related reactions of abnormal vision, diplopia, eye pain and photophobia have been reported.

Transient inflammatory reactions in PDT-treated patients occur in about 10% of patients and manifest as pyrexia, bronchitis, chest pain, and dyspnea. The incidences of bronchitis and dyspnea were higher with PDT than with Nd: YAG. Most cases of bronchitis occurred within 1 week of treatment and all but one was mild or moderate in intensity. The reactions usually resolved within 10 days with antibiotic therapy. Treatment-related worsening of dyspnea is generally transient and self-limiting. Debridement of the treated area is mandatory to remove exudate and necrotic tissue. Life-threatening respiratory insufficiency likely due to therapy occurred in 3% of PDT-treated patients and 2% of Nd: YAG-treated patients 

There was a trend toward a higher rate of fatal massive hemoptysis (FMH) occurring on the PDT arm (10%) versus the Nd:YAG arm (5%), however, the rate of FMH occurring within 30 days of treatment was the same for PDT and Nd:YAG (4% total events, 3% treatment-associated events). Patients who have received radiation therapy have a higher incidence of FMH after treatment with PDT and after other forms of local therapy than patients who have not received radiation therapy, but analyses suggest that this increased risk may be due to associated prognostic factors such as having a centrally located tumor. The incidence of FMH in patients previously treated with radiotherapy was 21% (6/29) in the PDT group and 10% (3/29) in the Nd:YAG group. In patients with no prior radiotherapy, the overall incidence of FMH was less than 1%. Characteristics of patients at high risk for FMH are described in 

Other serious or notable adverse reactions were observed in less than 5% of PDT-treated patients with endobronchial cancer; their relationship to therapy is uncertain. In the respiratory system, pulmonary thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and lung abscess have occurred. Cardiac failure, sepsis, and possible cerebrovascular accident have also been reported in one patient each.

The following adverse reactions were reported over the entire follow-up period in at least 5% of patients with superficial tumors (microinvasive or carcinoma 

In patients with superficial endobronchial tumors, 44 of 90 patients (49%) experienced an adverse reaction, two-thirds of which were related to the respiratory system. The most common reaction to therapy was a mucositis reaction in one-fifth of the patients, which manifested as edema, exudate, and obstruction. The obstruction (mucus plug) is easily removed with suction or forceps. Mucositis can be minimized by avoiding exposure of normal tissue to excessive light 

Three patients experienced life-threatening dyspnea: one was given a double dose of light, one was treated concurrently in both mainstem bronchi and the other had had prior pneumonectomy and was treated in the sole remaining main airway 

Stent placement was required in 3% of the patients due to endobronchial stricture. Fatal massive hemoptysis occurred within 30 days of treatment in one patient with superficial tumors (1%).

In the PHOTOFRIN PDT + omeprazole (OM) group, severe adverse reactions included chest pain of non- cardiac origin, dysphagia, nausea, vomiting, regurgitation, and heartburn. The severity of these symptoms decreased within 4 to 6 weeks following treatment. 

The majority of the photosensitivity reactions occurred within 90 days following PHOTOFRIN and was of mild (68%) or moderate (24%) intensity. Fourteen (10%) patients reported severe reactions, all of which resolved. The typical reaction was described as skin disorder, sunburn or rash, and affected mostly the face, hands, and neck. Associated symptoms and signs were swelling, pruritis, erythema, blisters, burning sensation, and feeling of heat. 

The majority of esophageal stenosis including strictures reported in the PHOTOFRIN PDT + OM group were of mild (57%) or moderate (35%) intensity, while approximately 8% were of severe intensity. The majority of esophageal strictures were reported during Course 2 of treatment. All esophageal strictures were considered to be due to treatment. Most esophageal strictures were manageable through dilations 

NOTE: Adverse reactions classified using MedDRA 5.0 dictionary with the exception of esophageal stricture and esophageal narrowing.

In patients with esophageal cancer, PDT with PHOTOFRIN may result in anemia due to tumor bleeding. No significant effects were observed for other parameters in patients with endobronchial carcinoma or with HGD in BE.

The following adverse reactions have been identified during post-approval use of PHOTOFRIN with PDT. 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. Infusion reactions: Infusion reactions including urticaria, bradycardia, hypotension, dizziness, and hypertension.

PDT with PHOTOFRIN was utilized in a multicenter, single-arm study in 17 patients with completely obstructing esophageal carcinoma. Assessments were made at 1 week and 1 month after the last treatment procedure. As shown in

Of the 17 treated patients, 11 (65%) received clinically important benefit from PDT. Clinically important benefit was defined hierarchically as a complete tumor response (3 patients), achievement of normal swallowing (2 patients went from Grade 5 dysphagia to Grade 1), or achievement of a marked improvement of two or more grades of dysphagia with minimal adverse reactions (6 patients). The median duration of benefit in these patients was 69 days. Duration of benefit was calculated only for the period with documented evidence of improvement. All of these patients were still in response at their last assessment and, therefore, the estimate of 69 days is conservative. The median survival for these 11 patients was 115 days.

Two randomized multicenter studies were conducted to compare the safety and efficacy of PHOTOFRIN PDT versus Nd:YAG laser therapy for reduction of obstruction and palliation of symptomatic patients with partially or completely obstructing endobronchial non-small-cell lung cancer. Assessments were made at 1 week and at monthly intervals after treatment. Table 11 shows the results from all randomized patients in the two studies combined. Objective tumor response rates (CR + PR), which demonstrate reduction of obstruction, were 59% for PDT and 58% for Nd:YAG at Week 1. The response rate at 1 month or later was 60% for PDT and 41% for Nd:YAG.

Patient symptoms were evaluated using a 5- or 6-grade pulmonary symptom severity rating scale for dyspnea, cough, and hemoptysis. Patients with moderate to severe symptoms are those most in need of palliation. Improvements of 2 or more grades are considered to be clinically significant. Table 12 shows the percentages of patients with moderate to severe symptoms at baseline who demonstrated a 2-grade improvement at any time during the interval evaluated.

* Statistical comparisons were precluded by the amount of missing data at Month 1 or later.

† Dyspnea was graded on a 6-point severity rating scale; cough and hemoptysis on a 5-point scale. Clinically significant improvement was defined as a change of at least two grades from baseline.

In a separate retrospective analysis, patients were individually evaluated to identify those patients whose benefit to risk ratio was most favorable, i.e., those who obtained clinically important benefit with minimal adverse reactions. Clinically important benefit was defined as one of the following:

Thirty-six (36) of the 99 PDT-treated patients (36%) and 23 of the 99 Nd:YAG-treated patients (23%) received clinically important benefit with only minimal or moderate toxicities of short duration. Thirty-four (34) of 99 PDT- treated patients demonstrated improvements in 2 or more efficacy endpoints (dyspnea, cough, hemoptysis, sputum, atelectasis, pulmonary function tests of FEV1 or FVC, Karnofsky Performance Score or tumor response) and 29 patients had improvements in 3 or more.

The median duration of documented benefit in the 36 patients was 63 days. In these patients with late-stage obstructing lung cancer, median survival was 174 days in PDT-treated patients and 161 days in Nd:YAG- treated patients.

The efficacy of PHOTOFRIN PDT was also evaluated in the treatment of microinvasive endobronchial tumors in 62 inoperable patients in three noncomparative studies. Microinvasive lung cancer is defined histologically as disease, which invades beyond the basement membrane but not through or into the cartilage. For 11 of the 62 patients, it was clearly documented that surgery and radiotherapy were not indicated. These 11 patients were all inoperable for medical or technical reasons. Radiotherapy was not indicated due to prior highdose radiotherapy (7 patients), poor pulmonary function (2 patients), multifocal multilobar disease (1 patient), and poor medical condition (1 patient). As shown in 

The safety and efficacy of PDT with PHOTOFRIN in ablation of HGD in patients with BE was assessed in one controlled randomized clinical study and two supportive studies.

A multicenter, pathology blinded, randomized, controlled study was conducted in North America and Europe to assess the efficacy of PDT with PHOTOFRIN plus omeprazole (PHOTOFRIN PDT + OM) in producing complete ablation of HGD in patients with BE compared to control patients receiving omeprazole alone (OM Only). A total of 485 patients with the diagnosis of HGD were screened for the study; 208 (43%) were randomized to treatment, 237 (49%) were excluded because the diagnosis of HGD was not confirmed and 40 (8%) did not meet other screening criteria or declined to participate in the study.

The high patient exclusion rate re-enforces the recommendation by the American College of Gastroenterology that the diagnosis of HGD in BE should be confirmed by an expert gastrointestinal pathologist. Patients were centrally randomized in a 2:1 proportion to receive PHOTOFRIN PDT + OM (138 patients) or OM Only (70 patients). All patients underwent rigorous systematic quarterly endoscopic biopsy surveillance. Four-quadrant jumbo biopsies at every 2 cm of the entire Barretts mucosa were obtained at each follow-up visit (every three months or six months if four consecutive quarterly follow-up endoscopic biopsy results were negative for HGD). All histological assessments were carried out at a central pathology laboratory and read by pathologists blinded to the treatment administered.

A total of 208 patients who had biopsy-proven HGD in BE were enrolled in the initial 2-year phase of the study. Of those, 199 patients were considered evaluable: 130 of 138 (94%) patients randomized to the PHOTOFRIN PDT + OM group and 69 of 70 (99%) randomized to the OM Only group had no esophageal invasive cancer, suspicion of esophageal invasive cancer, lymph node involvement, or metastases, and had received at least one PHOTOFRIN PDT course or one week of OM treatment, respectively. A disproportionate percentage of patients were discontinued from the OM Only group during the initial 2-year phase leaving 81 (59%) patients in the PHOTOFRIN PDT + OM group and 21 (30%) patients in the OM Only group at the end of the 2-year phase. Consequently, a total of 102 patients who completed the initial 2-year phase were eligible for continuation into the long-term phase until completion of 5 years; of those, 48 (59%) patients from the PHOTOFRIN PDT + OM group and 13 (62%) patients from the OM Only group consented to pursue the long- term phase until completion of 5 years. The mean age was 66 years (38 to 89 years) in the PHOTOFRIN PDT + OM group, and 67 (36 to 88 years) in the OM Only group. The patients in both treatment groups were predominantly male (85%), Caucasian (99%), and former smokers (64%). These characteristics are typical of patients with HGD in BE. Patients randomized to the PHOTOFRIN PDT + OM treatment received up to three courses of treatment separated by at least 90 days. Each course consisted of intravenous administration of 2.0 mg/kg of PHOTOFRIN followed 40-50 hours later by a 630 nm laser light dose of 130 J/cm of diffuser length delivered using a centering balloon. A second laser light dose of 50 J/cm of diffuser length could be administered without a centering balloon 96-120 hours after the injection of PHOTOFRIN for treatment of skip areas. Since centering balloons are up to 7 cm in length, patients with more extensive HGD were treated with two or three courses. Both the PHOTOFRIN PDT treatment group and the control group received 20 mg of omeprazole BID to decrease reflux esophagitis. The mean duration of the follow-up period was 34 months (0- 67 months) for the PHOTOFRIN PDT + OM group and 25 months (0-65 months) for the OM Only group.

The major efficacy outcome measure was the Complete Response rate (CR3 or better) at any one of the endoscopic assessment time points. The CR3 or better response was defined as the complete ablation of HGD and referred to as a composite of the following three response levels.

 Additional efficacy endpoints included:

The quality of response in the PHOTOFRIN PDT + OM group was significantly better than that measured in the OM Only group at all response levels (p<0.0001). Seventy-two (52%) patients in the PHOTOFRIN PDT + OM group achieved a CR1 response as compared to only five (7%) patients in the OM Only group. Eighty-one (59%) patients in the PHOTOFRIN PDT + OM group achieved a CR2 or better response as compared to ten (14%) patients in the OM Only group.

* Fishers Exact test.

† CR3 or better: Ablation of all areas of HGD.

NOTE: Six patients in the PHOTOFRIN PDT + OM group and three patients in the OM Only group without post-baseline biopsy data are considered as non-responders.

At the end of the long-term phase, the median response duration was 44.6 months (95% CI: 15.0-not reached, months) in the PHOTOFRIN PDT + OM group compared to 3.2 months (95% CI: 3.0- 3.4, months) in the OM Only group.

At the end of the initial 2 year phase, the time to progression to cancer was significantly longer in the PHOTOFRIN PDT + OM group compared to the OM Only group (HR=0.36 (95% CI: 0.19-0.69), a hazard ratio less than 1 favors the PHOTOFRIN PDT + OM group). The proportion of patients progression to cancer was lower in the PHOTOFRIN PDT + OM group than in the OM Only group: 13% (18 of 138 patients) vs. 28% (20 of 70 patients).

Complete response was influenced by the following factors: treatment with PHOTOFRIN PDT + OM (vs. OM Only), single focus of HGD (vs. multiple foci), and prior omeprazole intake of at least 3 months (yes vs. no). Complete response was not influenced by the duration of HGD, length of BE, nodular conditions, gender, age, smoking history, and study centers size.

Two uncontrolled, supportive studies were conducted that were physician-sponsored, single center Phase II trials. Both studies included patients that had low-grade dysplasia (LGD), HGD and early adenocarcinoma. All HGD in BE patients were treated with PHOTOFRIN PDT and omeprazole.

The first study enrolled 99 patients (44 with HGD); the purpose of this study was to determine the required light dose to produce effective results. The second study enrolled 86 patients (42 with HGD), who were randomized to receive either PHOTOFRIN PDT with prednisone or PHOTOFRIN PDT without prednisone to determine whether steroid treatment would reduce the incidence and severity of esophageal strictures.

A CR3 or better response was demonstrated in 93% of 44 patients with HGD in the first study and in 95% of 42 patients with HGD in the second study after a minimum follow-up of 12 months. A CR2 or better response was achieved in 82% of patients in the first study and in 91% of patients in the second study. A CR1 response occurred in 57% of patients in the first study and in 60% of the second study. Progression to cancer during the above follow-up period occurred in 18% of patients in the first study and in 7% of patients in the second study. No reduction in the incidence or severity of esophageal strictures was found in the prednisone group in the second study.