Status Reports from COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY
to Cav-Con (in chronologic order):

February 4, 1992

J.S. D'Arrigo, Ph.D.
Cav-Con, Inc.
Farmington, CT 06032

Dear Dr. D'Arrigo:

"To summarize my observations thus far, I have administered FILMIX at a dose rate of 0.3 ml/kg body weight to [a total of 19 dogs:] 6 normal dogs, 5 with prostatic benign hypertrophy, 2 dogs with prostatitis, 3 dogs with prostatic neoplasia, 1 dog with neoplasia of the liver, and 2 other dogs suspected to have liver neoplasia. The dog size has ranged from 5 through 40 kg and so the dose of FILMIX administered intravenously as a bolus injection has ranged between 1.5 ml through 12 ml. I have personally administered the FILMIX and watched the dogs in the immediate post-injecton phase. A technologist has performed the subsequent ultrasound study and observed the dogs over the next hour. The technologist and I have not observed any post-injection clinical effects in these patients. In fact, one dog that we are evaluating for possible metastatic neoplasia to the liver has had a series of contrast injections given at monthly intervals (total so far of 3 intravenous injections) and this dog, like the others, shows no effects of the intravenous injection of FILMIX."

Sincerely yours,

Robert H. Wrigley, BVSc, MS, DVR, MRCVS
Diplomate ACVR
Associate Professor
Chief, Radiology Section
Department of Radiological Health Sciences
COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY
Fort Collins, CO 80523

October 11, 1993

J.S. D'Arrigo, Ph.D.
Cav-Con, Inc.
Farmington, CT 06032

Dear Dr. D'Arrigo:

"To update you from 1992, I have now administered Filmix to an additional 34 dogs [i.e., beyond the earlier 19 dogs], mostly at a dose rate of 0.3 ml/kg body weight. (In a few dogs, a dose rate of 0.6 ml/kg body weight was used to search for metastatic spread from a known primary tumor.) As before, there has been a wide range of dog sizes. The Filmix was administered as a bolus intravenous injection and no adverse after-effects have been observed. No histology was available in the majority of the dogs or I have not had time yet to compile additinal findings on any but the prostate examinations."

"The contrast enhancement in the additional prostate examinations remain constant and in agreement to the prior observations. Two histologically confirmed prostatic carcinomas enhanced asymmetrically, as observed previously with Filmix. A third dog, "Shupe", a Boxer, presented with an enlarged prostate and urinary incontinence. The attending clinician felt neoplasia was most likely. Ultrasound confirmed the enlarged prostate but little asymmetrical enhancement occurred with Filmix. As a result of the Filmix effect, my report indicated prostatitis was the most likely diagnosis. The clinician was still skeptical of my opinion until a biopsy confirmed prostatitis. I've continued to find Filmix to assist me with ultrasonic evaluation of the prostate."

Sincerely,

Robert H. Wrigley, BVSc, MS, DVR, MRCVS
Diplomate ACVR
Associate Professor
Chief, Radiology Section
Department of Radiological Health Sciences
COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY
Fort Collins, CO 80523