Q4 2020 TRACON Pharmaceuticals Inc Earnings Call
Ladies and gentlemen, this is the operator today's conference is scheduled to begin momentarily.
At times. Your line is will again be placed in all of them.
For the patients.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is the operator today's conference is scheduled to begin momentarily until that time your lines will again be placed on hold thank you for your patience.
[music].
Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to check in Pharmaceuticals fourth quarter and year end 2020 earnings conference call. At this time all colors are in the lesson only mode. I think the speaker's prepared remarks, we will conduct the question and answer session and instructions will be given at that time.
During today's call, we will be making certain forward looking statements, including statements regarding expected timing of clinical trials of unresolved regulatory activities future expenses and cash runway and our development plans and strategy.
These statements are subject to various risks, whereas the are described in our filings made with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including our annual report on form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019, and subsequent quarterly reports on form 10-Q, you are cautioned not to place undue reliance on the forward.
Looking statements and we disclaim any obligation to update such statements now I would like to turn the call over to the Doctor Charles the work President and CEO of check in pharmaceuticals, the answer to it.
Thank you for joining <unk> fourth quarter, and full year 2020 financial results and business update call.
I will begin with an update on our pipeline and then review our recent activities following that Scott Brown, Our Chief Financial Officer will review our financial results for the three months and year ended December 31 2020.
Finally, we will conclude by taking your questions.
Our development efforts continue to focus on the pivotal <unk> trial.
And the circus designed to allow potential approvals and the format in the sarcoma subtypes of undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma for UBS and Myxofibrosarcoma or MSS.
During December we initiated dosing of multiple patients that has continued this year.
Currently we have initiated 16 U S sites, where we have enrolled multiple patients at multiple sites.
We expect to achieve our goal of initiating 25 U S sites by April.
As a reminder, in the format as a potential best in class PD Lone checkpoint inhibitor, which may confer additional clinical benefit by virtue of its convenient and rapidly delivered subcutaneous route of administration.
The end of the <unk> pivotal trial includes two cohorts of 80 patients each one cohort received single agent and before map.
And the second cohort received <unk> in combination with your boy the second checkpoint inhibitor targeting the <unk> four receptor that is marketed by BMS.
The trial enrolls patients with UBS and MFS, who have progressed on one or two lines of prior treatment and of <unk>.
Not received prior checkpoint inhibitor therapy.
The primary endpoint in both cohorts is objective response rate by resist as confirmed by blinded independent Central review with duration of response being a key secondary endpoint.
In each cohort the demonstration of nine out of 80 objective responses were $11 two 5% objective response rate confirmed by independent Radiographic review day.
Finds the level of response that satisfies the primary objective of the study.
Which is to statistically exclude the known 4% response rate of <unk>, the only approved treatment for refractory EPS in MFS.
To reiterate unfortunately of the one approved treatment for refractory EPS and MFS is only a 4% objective response rate.
This is a clear example of an indication with high unmet clinical need.
We are studying the sarcoma subtypes of UBS and MFS because they are responsive to checkpoint inhibition based on data presented at ESMO 2019, and ask the 2020.
At <unk> 2020 investigators from the alliance for clinical trials of oncology reported an impressive 29% confirmed objective response rate in patients with highly refractory UBS, who received the opdivo in combination with your boy.
These data build upon data presented at <unk> 2019, showing the single agent Keytruda demonstrated a 23% response rate in highly refractory EPS and MFS patients.
The <unk> trial was designed based on activity reported for PD, one and PDL, one antibodies as single agents and in combination with your boy in the soft tissue sarcoma subtypes of UBS and MFS.
From a financial perspective, we estimate that the cost of conducting this pivotal trial using tracon CRO independent product development platform, including paying for your void will be less than $20 million.
And we will be spent over the next eight to 10 quarters.
We expect multiple end before the mab milestones this year.
First we intend to report recommendations by the independent data monitoring committee falling interim safety evaluations expected in the first half of 2021.
Second we anticipate submitting early response assessment data to the FDA in the first half of this year as part of our orphan drug designation application.
Third we expect the availability of interim <unk> efficacy data in the second half of this year.
These data could be presented at a scientific conference or could be summarized in a top line data release.
Fourth.
We expect those interim efficacy data will be the basis for submitting a request to the FDA for breakthrough therapy designation.
Looking forward, we anticipate reporting final response assessment data in 2022, and assuming positive data submitting a BLA for accelerated approval that if approved could allow for product launch in the U S. In 2023.
In parallel our corporate partners III, the medicines and alpha <unk> oncology or conducting multiple clinical trials, including two pivotal trials in China in additional indications.
In December 2020, they submitted end of the full map for approval in MSI high cancer in China.
And the application was accepted for priority review by the MTA earlier this year.
We believe and before <unk> could be approved in China later this year.
Returning to Tracon development in sarcoma in the U S Army.
The market assessment concluded that end before Nab, if FDA approved for refractory EPS in MFS could generate peak annual revenue of approximately $200 million in the U S, assuming parity pricing to keytruda or opdivo.
The adoption rate is forecasted to be relatively rapid.
Using the <unk> target product profile.
A 15% response rate as the single agent <unk>.
A 30% response rate when combined with your boy.
Which would compare favorably to the 4% objective response rate of the one approved treatment for refractory <unk> and MFS.
And before net sales revenue could increase further through label expansion or compendium listings into other refractory sarcoma subtypes that have been shown to be responsive to checkpoint inhibition.
Such as angiosarcoma.
The other soft parts sarcoma, and the differentiated LIFO sarcoma.
Which our market assessment.
It could generate an additional $100 million in peak annual revenue in the U S for a total of $300 million when combined with UBS and MFS.
Yes.
We believe dual checkpoint inhibition with the combination of <unk> and your voice should also be advance into first line treatment.
Notably the response rate for dual checkpoint inhibition with Opdivo in your voice in refractory sarcoma subtypes other than UBS and MFS was 16%.
Given the response rate of first line chemotherapy in sarcoma is only 17%, we expect to dose and before the map with doxorubicin and the limited scope based on trial later this year to assess safety of the combination and then move quickly into a potential pivotal trial.
The trial could include a combination of doxorubicin and before the end of <unk> four inhibitor the.
Of the CTO of <unk> four inhibitor could be your boy.
Or another proprietary of <unk> inhibitor as one of our businesses government priorities as licensing another immuno oncology asset.
We are also discussing a clinical trial of <unk> with unapproved C kit inhibitor in gastrointestinal stromal tumor or just.
That may be funded by third parties.
We believe thorough label expansion in sarcoma, including in just in the first line setting as.
As well as for new adjuvant treatment prior to a surgical resection and adjuvant treatment following surgical resection could substantially increase sales revenues to over $1 billion.
<unk> in sarcoma.
We will enter full <unk> of our most advanced product candidate we continue to progress two other clinical stage assets Trc 102 of our second clinical stage asset is a novel small molecule inhibitor of the DNA base excision repair pathway that is intended to reverse resistance of certain chemotherapy of six.
The entire reported notable data for Trc 102, as part of a publication on exceptional responders in the journal cancer cell in December 2020.
The article profile of the colorectal cancer patient treated with Temodar and Trc 102, with an ongoing near complete response for nearly four years.
Detailed molecular analysis of the patients tumor showed silencing of alternative DNA repair pathways, including the MGMT pathway that may have resulted in sensitivity to inhibition of DNA base excision repair by Trc 102.
Inhibiting base excision repair with Trc, one of two was postulated to induce synthetic lasalle of the meaning.
Meaning a combination of deficiencies in DNA repair led to sell debt.
And this effect caused the prolonged response of Temodar in tiers, one of two treatment.
As single agent <unk> is typically inactive in colorectal cancer.
Further supports of the NCI hypothesis was demonstrated in 11 colorectal cancer patients who subsequently enrolled.
While none of the 10 of MGMT expressing patients demonstrated response the single patient with deficient MGMT also responded to treatment with Temodar and Trc 102.
MGMT deficiency observed and about one third of Glioblastoma patients in a prior study of term at our end Trc one of the two reported at the society for neuro oncology in 2018.
Demonstrated that two MGMT deficient MGMT deficient glioblastoma patients had prolong survival when treated with Temodar and Trc one of two after progressing previously on <unk> and radiant radiation therapy.
We expect further developed by the NCI and Glioblastoma based on these data.
And believe the trial in the first line setting of Temodar and radiation therapy, and Trc one of two as warranted.
Notably in October 2020, Trc 102 was granted orphan drug designation by the FDA in malignant glioma that includes Glioblastoma.
We also expect Trc one of two to continue to advance through NCI sponsorship in lung cancer in combination with chemotherapy and radiation therapy based on data presented at <unk> 2020.
Showing that Trc one of two in combination with chemo radiation resulted in a 100% response rate in 15 patients with advanced localized non <unk>.
Including three patients who had a complete response to treatment.
These data compare favorably to prior trials of chemo radiation therapy, and advanced localized non small cell lung cancer.
The proclaim clinical trial reported an objective response rate of 36% and the Pacific clinical trial reported an objective response rate of 51% and these patients using alimta cisplatin and thoracic radiation.
<unk> of PD Lone checkpoint inhibitor is now approved for patients with Unresectable localized non small cell lung cancer, whose disease has not progressed following concurrent chemo radiation.
We believe a study of tiers I wanted to with chemo.
The more radiation and infinity in these patients is warranted.
And ongoing and future trials, we will continue to focus on the assessment of Biomarkers of response, like MGMT and double strand DNA repair status with the goal of identifying a protein or gene expression profile the correlates with clinical response.
Our third clinical stage asset is the <unk> 73 antibody T. J <unk> that is being evaluated in an ongoing phase one dose escalation study as the single agent and in combination with the checkpoint inhibitor to centric.
We are developing T J <unk> in collaboration with I Mab Biopharma through one of our two strategic agreements with them whereby we are responsible for the regulatory and clinical development of T. J for the Eni in the U S and Europe.
Earlier this month I mab centers of noticed the reporting to terminate the T J <unk> non agreement.
Which would result in the IMF, owing us of pre specified early termination fee of $9 million. However.
However.
<unk> does not have a right to terminate the T. J <unk> agreement without cost until the ongoing phase one trial of T. J <unk> of your line is complete.
We therefore believe the T. J <unk> non agreement has not been terminated and continue to perform our contractual obligations.
Per the license agreement with them, we are entitled to receive escalating portions of non royalty and royalty payments if I mab elects to license TJ <unk> of 90% of third party in any region outside of China, Macau or Taiwan.
We anticipate presenting interim data from the ongoing phase one trial at a scientific conference in mid 2021.
During the fourth quarter, we raised a total of approximately $14 million at market prices and welcome the new fund to our shareholder base.
This was accomplished through a registered direct placement that included existing investors Icarian, Opaleye capital Aspire capital and Watermill asset management, and the new Investor five.
Who collectively purchased common stock at market price for aggregate proceeds of approximately $14 million.
Collectively these transactions are expected to extend our cash runway past the anticipated interim analysis for the pivotal <unk> trial.
And into the second half of 2022.
In addition, institutional index funds initiated positions and Tracon in the fourth quarter 2020 for the 13 of filings.
At this time, Scott will provide an update on our financials.
Thank you Charles and good afternoon, everyone.
The <unk> research and development expenses were $2 2 million for the fourth quarter and $8 2 million for the year ended December 31, 2020, compared to $1 9 million and $14 5 million for the comparable periods of 2019.
The decrease was primarily attributable to lower manufacturing and clinical trial expenses related to the termination of the Trc 105 program in April of 2019.
General and administrative expenses were $2 million for the fourth quarter and $8 million for the year ended December 31, 2020, compared to $1 9 million and $7 8 million for the comparable periods of 2019.
Our net loss was $4 3 million for the fourth quarter and $16 8 million for the year ended December 31, 2020, compared to $3 9 million and $22 7 million for the comparable periods of 2019.
Turning to the balance sheet at December 31, 2020, our cash cash equivalents and investments totaled $36 1 million compared to $16 4 million at December 31, 2019.
We expect our current capital resources to be sufficient to fund our planned operations into the second half of 2022.
With that I will turn the call back over to Charles.
Thank you Scott to recap, we continue to execute our clinical development plan around our lead product candidate in the format and recently further diversified our shareholder base and extended our cash runway through capital raised from existing investors and the new investor.
We have now initiated most of the approximately 25% and research sites have enrolled multiple patients at multiple sites, which represent top U S clinical cancer centers.
We expect safety updates in the first half of the year in the interim efficacy efficacy assessment in the second half of this year.
One of our key goals is to request breakthrough therapy designation by year end based on interim <unk> efficacy data.
We believe the end of the start trial provides a potential fast to market opportunity to provide end of a full map to sarcoma patients in significant need of a new therapy as expeditiously as possible.
Addressing this high unmet clinical need is clearly important to investigators and they remain excited about <unk> convenient and rapidly delivered subcutaneous route of administration.
Importantly, we believe our recent capital raise will be sufficient to fund the capital pass the expected <unk> interim efficacy data, which could demonstrate the potential for <unk> to rapidly transform the standard of care for refractory sarcoma patients.
We look forward to providing further updates in the coming months and remain confident that we of the right strategy in place to deliver on the development and business plans for the benefit of patients and shareholders.
Thank you for your time and attention and we're now available to answer your questions.
Yes.
And as a reminder to ask the question you will need to press star one on your telephone line to withdraw your question does the band.
Yes.
Thank you.
Danny roster.
And again to ask a question you will need to press star one on your telephone.
First question comes from the line of Rick Hough.
Ladies and Jefferies. Your line is now open.
Hi, Charles and team congrats on the progress and thanks for taking my questions.
First question is just on whether it's a certain amount of patients enrolled in a certain amount of follow up that triggers the DMC review I guess, what what triggers the review and what specific information will the DMC share with you after the review.
Hi, Morris.
As always thanks for your question, yes for the end of <unk> trial. There are several kind of interim assessments. If you will in the first one is as you pointed out are based on safety.
The independent data monitoring committee will evaluate.
Approximately.
10% to 20% of patients from each cohort.
Cohort a being end of of single agent cohort B being end of a plus it would be just to ensure that there's no significant new safety signal.
They'll do that after those patients have been on study for a set period of time of about one month and also about three months.
And what we report to the public as their overall recommendation.
Our anticipation would be the adult indicate that the trial should proceed as planned and if theres any further disclosure around any safety signal, we would disclose that as well.
Got it Okay and then.
If you can talk about how a site decides whether the patient should go into the monotherapy cohort or the combo cohort and if you can provide any more perspective into how enrollment is going for each cohort.
Sure Yeah. So it's a randomized study morry, whereby when a patient is enrolled in the study as soon as we sign off on the eligibility criteria the or formally randomized see the cohort cohort B and then so youll have equal allocation of patients across both cohorts at all times based on that one to one randomization.
Got it okay and each side is enrolling for both both cohorts correct. Yes. So each site independently will assess patients once they assess the patient. The next patient sequence will be randomized and have an equal chance of going to either cohort.
The randomization is done is it would be for four of randomized controlled study what's unique about MSR. It's randomized with each cohort is independently compared to that 4% response rate of <unk>, but in terms of how the actual machinations of the trial go forward. It would be like any typical randomized trial, except you don't compare cohort versus.
The comparable cohorts to that 4% low response rate of <unk>.
Got it Okay and then last question is just.
And whether you are getting a good balance of <unk>.
MFS of patients or is it skewed to either subtype of had been does this matter.
Great questions Maury. So yes, we are actually enrolling both ups's MFS in patients with each type of histology of enrolled thus far overall I would say the rough balance I would expect would be about three to one in favor of UBS over MFS.
And that relates to the overall prevalence of the diseases and also the overall aggressiveness of the two diseases. So again expect about three to one ratio of Ups's MFS.
And one other important point on that is that their patients are stratified based on the histology. So there will be equal numbers of balanced numbers I should say of EPS and MFS patients in both cohort a and cohort b.
Got it okay. Thanks for taking my questions and I'll hop back in the queue.
The pleasure thanks Maury.
Our next question comes from the line of Jason Mccarthy with Maxim Group. Your line is now open.
Hey, guys. It's a day upon the line for Jason Thanks for taking my question.
Can you guys just shed some light on.
If the guys have any plans on that.
Setting up of initiating a trial of that value.
The weighted you wanted to.
Okay.
I know you guys had debt on that like a while ago, but I was just wondering if you guys plan on maybe think of a new trial in the near term loans. This is maybe.
An idea that you guys might have further down the line.
No I appreciate the question Dave. So tiers you wanted two continues to be very enthusiastically embraced by the NCI and so we continue to have an ongoing credit and in fact, we just renewed the created with them showing the continued interest by NCI to develop <unk> hundred two and with respect to the two indications that there is significant interest one of those is GBM.
In terms of the trial that.
Really sparked debt interest it was the trial in refractory GBM, where temodar failure patients retreated with Temodar plus tiers. One of two we saw some activity there and what was remarkable as the active.
Activity was seen in patients with certain biomarkers. They were MGMT negative so based on that data. We do expect NCI will continue to advance Trc 102 in GBM.
And our goal would be to see of move into the first line setting and that's where we really need to make an impact on GBM patients. So the trial design, we think makes a lot of sense of Knight.
Say that this is also shared by several investigators would be first line GBM patients who are getting temodar in radiotherapy, which of standard of care to those patients you would add Trc 102.
And you would initially do a pilot study say in 25 patients who were MGMT non expresses and assess the response rate.
And based on that response rate that would potentially the and lead to a pivotal randomized study where would be temodar radiotherapy with or without Trc, one or two so that's our expectation to see some trial of that typical of that type of design of pilot study of about 25 patients in first line GBM to see something like that and move forward.
This year would be our expectation.
So okay. So that so we can so we can expect that to happen at some point in 2021, then that's a fair expectation to have that it sounds like right.
Yes, we expect that those types of ideas with advanced through Ctrip and <unk>.
We can't guarantee anything to be clear that <unk> has to make those decisions, but given the unmet need of GBM remains quite severe I would say there are some new therapies, there I would say.
There is still an incredible need for a therapy like with Trc one of the two potentially offers those patients our expectation would be the see that move forward. This year.
Okay, Great and then just one additional question if I could just.
Which gears sort of end of a full of Nab alright.
Alright, considering the possibility of any.
The potential combination trials with any other checkpoint inhibitors down the line.
Sides of the Uruguay.
Yes, I think we look at end of the full mab as kind of of backbone therapy that we feel is the best in class therapy.
Subcutaneously administered injection it literally takes 30 seconds.
A CCN of half so it is really like getting a flu shot.
And having that therapy and in our portfolio of and allows us to build upon that so for instance, where combined with <unk> currently but in terms of other checkpoint inhibitors, either proven or unproven mechanisms.
I think we are now of very attractive partner for companies with those type of therapies, who want to see those developed within before the map.
And I think the fact that we have our CRO independent product development platform. That's been really the basis for four of deals that we've done now around that platform makes it an EBIT more attractive.
Prospect for our partners, we can combine with Enbrel and we can do it with our platform, which.
In most cases greatly speed of course of development and I'll give you. An example on how we speed development I think it's important to remember we only licensed and before <unk> in December 2019.
It had completed just phase one testing in the United States less than a year later in December 2020, we are dosing a pivotal trial.
That is I would call evidence of performance and so now that we have been reform of in our portfolio, we have a path towards registration.
Very eager to add additional assets of our portfolio that could complement and the and to do it with our partnering platform that we feel is a major advantage from potential partners.
Great. Thanks for the additional clarity I appreciate it.
Thank you Dave.
And our next question again from Jason Mccarthy with Maxim Group. Your line is now open.
Any guidance solid David I got arbs to take loans crossed.
Yes, the actually yes from good questions.
Just sticking with Trc.
One of them to when you start thinking about the trials going forward. What we've seen is this new debt.
New but the category at patients debt not stratified by MGMT, but physicians, knowing that theyre not likely going to respond to temodar. After just one cycle and that they can move them to an experimental drug of doing a lot of this in the agile.
Program that they call it adjunct therapy of whatever that means.
That something that you would consider the Trc one of two to try to separate yourself from the just purely recurrent versus purely newly diagnosed.
It's a great great thought Jason.
We havent done of trial and that design, yet, but we clearly have seen with respect to tiers do you wanted to the patients that fail of certain chemotherapy like temodar can be re sensitize of timber of our plus tiers. One of two we've also seen that with the Alimta patients. There were data reported ESCO last year that alimta failures can be re sensitize when you retreated with Alimta plus Trc.
102.
So in a sense debt.
And of Clunky way.
Sort of addresses what youre talking about but to do it more as an integrated trial would make perfect sense and.
It's something we should definitely discussed with investigators.
And just as a follow up to all of the and the related questions can you just remind everybody about.
The opportunity of having two shots on goal in line of what those response rates need to look like because.
My understanding of that and the combo with Uruguay, even if you're still above <unk> and looking like the model you could still get there.
Even though youre going to the double I just can you help us understand that just a little bit more.
Sure Jason I think it's really important we consider an important risk mitigation within the trial that each cohort is independently I should say the response rate for each quarters independently compared to the 4% response rate of <unk>, which means that that bar for of positive trial, which is 980 responses or an $11 two 5% response rate that.
Of our exists for each cohort independently.
So we do expect both quarters to be positive, but it could be the cohort eight does not meet the endpoint in cohort B does meet the endpoint and that would be the base is still from a positive trial and actually be the basis for approval of what we feel will be the way and was used in refractory EPS in MFS, which is with your void given it is expect to have a higher response rate.
But to your point there is risk mitigation built into that trial, because each cohort as compared to <unk> not to each other.
Great.
Thank you for taking the questions looking forward to a busy 2021 for Tracon.
Thank you Jason.
And again to ask a question you will need to press star one on your telephone.
The next question comes from the line of Todd.
Your line is now open.
Thanks. Thank you for taking the question and yes. It does look like a busy 'twenty one of Charles could you give a little bit more detail.
So could you just talk about it during your prepared comments and I think even during the Q&A, but just a little more detail beyond the opportunities with <unk>.
<unk> in refractory sarcoma beyond the kind of the $300 million, you framed and moving towards the $1 billion could you just get a little bit more granular in terms of.
How youre thinking about those various opportunities in.
And the kind of the pacing of it.
No I appreciate it.
Yes, we really feel that you have.
MFS is what we feel is the fast to market strategy, but we do feel there is great potential for end of it to penetrate other sarcoma subtypes.
The one area, that's probably the most exciting would be first line therapy I think the alliance data to US showed two really important points one is that in refractory Ups's MFS.
Dual checkpoint inhibition generates a 29% response rate I mean, that's that's may be the best with sponsored we've ever seen in sarcoma.
But beyond that.
And that was the GPS MFS, but in all sarcoma refractory all sarcoma subtypes. It was a 16% response rate.
And as I mentioned briefly in my comments, that's as good as first line doxorubicin chemotherapy.
The nice thing about checkpoints is generally the combined fairly well with chemotherapy.
So we do expect before end of this year to be starting a trial, combining <unk> with docs and likely would be end of a plus b or potentially in other <unk> four antibody with docs with the objective to show of Tolerability, though would then lead into a potential pivotal study of say docs with the without <unk> or it could be docs with the whip.
And the AP or docs with the without and the end of another proprietary utility for antibody. So.
That is actually the real goal of our entire program is to get to market and clearly the indication within sarcoma subtypes of the sarcoma that are very high the responsive to checkpoint inhibition.
And that you can do through a response rate driven trial, but first line those are a lot of patients and we require to be clear randomized study, but it's in our view of a trial that needs to be done given you know dual checkpoint inhibition in all sarcoma is actually very effective it's as effective as first line chemotherapy.
The response rate perspective, so so expect to see that trial rollout this year the <unk>.
Other area, we've had a lot of interest isn't just and just <unk> inhibitors of the dominant standard of care.
Theyre very effectively prolonged survival.
I actually don't generate a very high response rate, though and so our view is we combine with the <unk> inhibitor just.
Through a single arm study with target response rate is an indication of interest and then we potentially could move forward into a pivotal study there as well.
So we will thoroughly penetrate sarcoma I guess, if youre asking what our goal is really to make sure every sarcoma patient the deserves a checkpoint inhibitor and I think the majority do has the opportunity to be dosed with and the ease.
With.
If the another see utility for or chemotherapy or all three.
And then just in terms of timing. Thank you for all of that just in terms of the timing.
Yes.
What do you frame. This is this the 21 effort Lee of <unk> 'twenty. One after you see the data is this further out just in terms of the timing sure. Yes, no I think the two trials that we expect to start in sarcoma on top of them to start this year one would be in just.
And the other would be with doxorubicin. So those would be phase one trials with expanded cohort of of some.
Particular number two really good of a better understanding of the safety, but also early efficacy, but do expect to see those open either through our sponsorship or an investigator sponsorship of this year and I would just say when I say investigator sponsored theres a lot of interest in end of in the sarcoma community.
It's because two things we've committed to really sarcoma patients Thats one thing, but the other thing is once you use the and you realize how easy it is to give it is just.
It is a complete paradigm shift for these investigators.
Terrific. Thank you for the additional color, we look forward to all of the events upcoming I appreciate of our thank you.
And again to ask the question you will need to pass the star one on your telephone.
And there are no further questions I would like to turn the call back over to Dr. <unk> for closing remarks.
Well I'd just like to thank everyone for your time of attention really appreciate the questions and we look forward to talking with you next quarter.
Hey.
Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today's conference call. Thank you for participating you may now disconnect.
Okay.
Yes.
Yes.
Okay.
Okay.
Okay.
Okay.
Yes.
Revenue.
Okay.
Thanks.
Okay.
The.
Yes.
Okay.
The dividend.
Okay.
Okay.
Sure.
Okay.
Yes.
And the App.
Okay.
Yes.
Yes.
Great.
Okay.
Okay.
Okay.
Okay.
Yes.
Yes.
Okay.
[music].
Total.
Sure.
And in the mortgage loans.
Okay.
Thanks.
Alright.
As loans.
Yes.
And the group.
Okay.