Q1 2022 Jounce Therapeutics Inc Earnings Call
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Jounce Therapeutics first quarter 2022 earnings conference call. At this time, all participants are in a listen only mode.
We will conduct a question and answer session and instructions will follow at that time I saw reminder, this conference is being recorded at the company's request I will now turn the call over to your host Eric.
With Jounce Therapeutics. Please go ahead.
Thank you operator, this is Eric Lau, Vice President of Investor Relations at Jounce Therapeutics.
Good morning, and welcome to the Jounce Therapeutics first quarter 2022 financial results Conference call.
This morning, we issued a press release, which outlines the topics that we plan to discuss today.
The release is available in the investors and media section of our website at Www Dot Jounce T X dot com.
Speaking on today's call will be our CEO and president Dr. Richard Murray, who will review our pipeline progress and key milestones followed by our CMO Dr. Beth <unk>, who will provide an update on our clinical activities and lastly, our CFO Kim Drapkin will review, our first quarter financial results we will.
Then open the call for your questions.
Before we begin I would like to remind everyone that today's discussion will include statements about our future expectations plans and prospects that constitute forward looking statements for the purposes of the safe Harbor provisions under the private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.
Actual results may differ materially from those indicated by these forward looking statements as a result of various important factors, including the fact risk factors discussed in our SEC filings.
In addition, any forward looking statements represent our views only as of today may five 2022 and should not be relied upon as representing our views as of any subsequent date.
While we may elect to update these forward looking statements at some point in the future. We specifically disclaim any obligation to do so even if our views change with that I'll now turn the call over to rich.
Thanks, Eric Good morning, and thank you for joining today.
Before I turn to our pipeline and quarterly accomplishments, let me take a moment to recognize the entire jounce team on their continued commitment to excellence and dedication to improving patients' lives, which they bring to work every day.
We were pleased to announce this morning in our press release that we met the initial pre specified response criteria to continue expansion of two of the <unk> study cohorts to 29 patients.
We were encouraged by this progress and continued to execute execute across all cohorts.
That will provide more detail on the enact study in a few moments.
While the use of PD, one inhibitors continues to grow and expand into earlier lines of therapy, including non metastatic settings.
The size and scope of PD, one inhibitor resistant market continues to grow as there are more patients who are resistant to the therapy did benefit from it.
Unfortunately, there are few alternatives for these patients in many tumor settings.
We see this resistance is a fundamental scientific and medical problem that stands in the way of the broader and more durable impact Io could have for cancer patients.
Our scientific evidence continues to point to the myeloid immune cell lineage is being causal to at least some aspects of Io resistance.
We undertook a comprehensive target discovery interrogation of the myeloid cells from human tumors.
Our discovery work prioritize the low RB for Iot family of receptors as being key mechanisms that could mediate such immuno suppression leading to Io resistance.
These mechanisms could occur in certain patients independent of any T cell focused immuno suppression such as PD, one, but we feel like four.
There are five little or be inhibitory receptors, and six well or a activating receptors.
From this work, we prioritize well RB two <unk> or Iot core is our lead.
Before or Iot three now in IND, enabling studies.
It'd be one for Iot and discovery.
Each of these programs as common as well as unique features of biology.
And the mechanisms by which they may lead to therapeutic benefit.
Our highest priority program <unk> thousand 64 blocks the function of low <unk> on tumor associated macrophages and other myeloid cells.
It aims to convert immunosuppressive activities of themselves through an immune active states.
First by inhibiting ligand binding couple of RV to immunosuppressive macrophages can be re program, which we believe favors an immune response in the tumor.
Second we believe the mechanism also allows for more effective antigen presentation, leading T cell activation.
Creating a bridge between the innate and adaptive immune systems.
This is something T cell checkpoint inhibitors could not do alone.
And the preclinical data tells US it may result in the potential to reverse PD one inhibitor resistance.
We're extremely pleased with the progress of DNA study as we tried to bring benefit to the patients that historically have not benefited from or become resistant to PD one inhibitors.
I'll now turn to select a randomized phase II proof of concept trial adult per kilometer or Volta <unk>.
In combination with our PD, one inhibitor <unk> in non small cell lung cancer.
We've completed the tests broker a biomarker screening and expect to complete enrollment this month.
As we reiterate our guidance of expecting to share a full clinical trial data at a medical meeting in the second half of this year.
Our next potential clinical program.
T X for <unk> 84.
As an anti loan or before or Iot three program currently in IND, enabling studies.
Hello, <unk> four is expressed on immune suppressive myeloid cells in the tumor microenvironment.
With both overlapping and distinct cell types and biology compared to with RBC.
We look forward to advancing this program to the clinic.
Led by the <unk> Rd family as well as additional myeloid target mechanisms.
Our discovery teams are actively building rationally designed by specific antibodies, where our goal is to identify development candidates that have activities superior to that of the combinations of individual antibodies.
We're excited for what lies ahead of Charles So as we work toward our key data Readouts this year.
Our strong financial position enables our continued growth and execution beyond the proof of concept inflection points of the Nate and select.
While continuing our robust novel discovery efforts, identifying and progressing new mechanisms to benefit cancer patients, particularly in settings, where patients have few therapeutic options.
With that I'll turn the call over to Beth to discuss our clinical pipeline and science in more detail.
Thanks Rich.
We're making great progress on our two proof of concept studies and I'm very pleased to be able to provide some updates and both studies for you. This morning.
Let's start with the innate trial of J T X 80, 64 are little RB two inhibitor.
Last year, we completed the phase one dose escalation for both monotherapy and combination with Penney selected 700 milligrams as the recommended phase two dose and initiated the phase II expansion cohorts for both monotherapy and combination treatment in seven different indications.
Enrollment is going very well and as rich mentioned, we are delighted to report the two combination cohorts have met the response criteria to expand to 29 patients and are actively enrolling.
For competitive reasons, we are not just clothing, which indications have expanded at this time.
J T X 80, 64 alone and in combination with Timmy continued to be well tolerated.
As a reminder, each of the expansion cohorts is assignments two stage design for.
The combination cohorts. The first stage consists of 10 patients per cohort each.
Each cohort must meet Prespecified criteria based on radiographic response before resuming enrollment of the additional 19 patients for a total of 29 for combination cohort.
Our goal is to demonstrate proof of concept in the full set of 29 patients which requires that the response rate of J T. X 80, 64 in combination with a PD one inhibitor is greater than what would be expected with a PD one inhibitor alone.
The response rate for PD, one inhibitor monotherapy are different for each indication and are all quite low generally in the single digits. This.
This reflects the high unmet need in patients who have failed the PD one inhibitor therapy or have tumor types, where PD one inhibitors alone has minimal impact.
True to our focus on the interrogation of the tumor microenvironment the tumor types being investigated in a Nate were chosen because they are expected to have a high percentage of immunosuppressive macrophages have a high unmet need and provide opportunities across three major groups of patients.
As we have previously stated we are studying three distinct patient populations across the seven indications in the <unk> study.
PD, one inhibitor naive patients who have tumors for which there are approved PD, one or PDL one inhibitors.
P D. One inhibitor naive patients who have tumors for which there are no PD, one or PDL, one inhibitors approved and patients who have failed a PD one inhibitor therapy, and whose tumors are PD one inhibitor resistant.
We have included all three groups of patients in our expansion cohorts to determine the best opportunities for J T X 80, 64 to make a difference for patients with cancer.
An important aspect of the trial is evaluation of the correlation of Pharmacodynamic and predictive biomarkers with efficacy, which will be done later this year.
We are very pleased with the pace of enrollment and an eight and we expect to present data on all 31 phase one dose escalation patients nine of whom were in combination and at least 60 phase two patients from an eight at a medical meeting in the second half of 'twenty 'twenty.
Two.
This data will include complete phase, one monotherapy and combination dose escalation data, including the respective safety PK PD biomarker and preliminary efficacy data.
Phase two data will include safety and preliminary efficacy based on at least two response assessments for patient.
Pharmacodynamics and potential predictive biomarker correlation with efficacy.
We believe that this predictive biomarker analysis will be useful and interpretation of the clinical data later this year.
There is a growing body of evidence that biomarkers expressed by immunosuppressive macrophages are a negative prognostic factor in many cancers, regardless of treatment and that high levels of little or be too relative to interferon gamma or a negative predictor of response to PD one inhibitors.
If we observe an association of improved clinical outcomes with Biomarkers typically linked to worse outcomes, particularly in the combination cohorts, we will have greater confidence in the contribution of J T X 80, 64, two clinical efficacy.
Now onto our other phase two program for tell them up in the select trial, a randomized phase two proof of concept trial of Oprah our Iqos agonist.
Select has a target enrollment of 75 patients to achieve 60 evaluable patients.
We stopped patient screening when we met our goal of 60, evaluable patients and expect to complete enrollment in the next few weeks.
Therefore, we are on track to present, the complete study data in the second half of 2022 at a medical meeting.
Select studying two doses of both breadth and combination with penny compared to <unk> alone in biomarker selected patients with metastatic non small cell lung cancer, who are PD, one inhibitor naive and have progressed on a platinum based chemotherapy regimens.
This trial seeks to address two important questions one will vote plus a PD one inhibitor in biomarker selected patients result in greater activity than a PD one inhibitor alone.
And to which dose of Oprah should we choose for further development.
Predictive biomarker selection of patients utilize as tis footprint and RNA based 18 gene signature that includes genes relevant to both PD, one and Iqos biology.
Only patients with a value above the biomarker thresholds are enrolled and the trial is designed to show the statistical superiority of Oprah plus our PD, one inhibitor can be versus <unk> alone.
The primary endpoint is the mean change from baseline in tumor size averaged over nine and 18 weeks and the secondary end points are overall resist response rate progression free survival overall survival and duration of response, which represent all of the standard regulatory endpoints.
We will assess the data and determine next steps by analyzing both the primary and the more familiar secondary end points.
The doses, we are exploring 0.1 make per cake and 0.03 make per keg were selected based on differentiated patterns of pulsatile target engagement demonstrated in prior studies and based on the hypothesis that the sustained target engagement required.
For antagonist antibodies is not ideal for an agonist molecule like footprint.
We expect to choose a dose for further clinical development of Oprah based on the results of select and a positive result in select may lead to biomarker directed development in multiple potential tumor types.
Lastly, I'd like to discuss our select study patients in Ukraine.
Thanks to the incredible efforts of our team and the inspirational fortitude of the Ukrainian patients and study site personnel.
I am very happy to report that all of the ongoing Ukrainian patients are continuing to receive steady treatments and assessments.
Every site in Ukraine has enough study drug to last through the end of this year and some patients have moved to study sites in other countries. Our thoughts are with the patients their families and those who provide their care as they continue to navigate this tragic situation. We will continue to monitor the situation.
Asian very closely.
In conclusion, I would like to take a moment to thank our valued investigators and most importantly, the patients who put their trust in our medicines to make a difference in their lives I would also like to thank our team at Jounce and their dedication to advancing these critical programs.
We look forward to reporting on our continued progress this year.
I will now turn the call over to Kim.
Thank you Beth.
Reported in this morning's press release cash cash equivalents and investments as of March 31st 2022, where $186 4 million compared to $220 2 million as of December 31st 2021. The decrease was due to cash burn from operating expenses incurred during the period.
Ian.
Turning to the P&L no revenue was recognized during the first quarter of 2022 compared to $1 5 million of revenue recognized during the first quarter of 2021.
In 2020, one revenue was comprised solely of noncash revenue related to the performance of research and transition services under the Gilead license agreement.
During the first quarter of 2022 we incurred $30 1 million in research and development expenses compared to $20 5 million for the same period in 2020 one.
The increase in R&D expenses was due to increased manufacturing activities performed and increased clinical and regulatory expenses for an eight and increased payroll and stock based compensation expense.
General and administrative expenses were $7 3 million for the first quarter of 2022 compared to $7 6 million for the same period in 2021.
The decrease in G&A expenses was primarily a result of decreased external consulting and stock based compensation expense.
Net loss for the first quarter of 2022, with 37 4 million, resulting in a basic and diluted net loss per share of <unk> 72 cents as compared to a net loss of $26 5 million for the same period in 2021, resulting in a basic and diluted net loss per.
Sure a 58 cents.
The increase in net loss is attributable to increased operating expenses incurred during the first quarter of 2022.
Based on our current operating and development plans, we are reiterating our gross cash burn guidance for the full year 2022 to be approximately $115 million to $130 million.
Given the strength of our balance sheet, we continue to expect our existing cash cash equivalents and investments to be sufficient to fund our operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements through the third quarter of 2023.
I'll now hand, it back to rich for some final words.
Thanks, Tim.
Combination of our clinical execution innovative science and financial resources puts us in a strong position to move beyond our next set of inflection points. We're.
We're extremely pleased to be able to update you on the progress we've made in DNA and select trials keeping us on track to report data later this year.
We are working hard to build an io pipeline, which looks to address the growing unmet need faced by cancer patients.
We're privileged to be working on this mission together with such a talented group of individuals a chance and fortunate to have such dedicated collaborators and clinical investigators.
This is an exciting time of channels and we look forward to updating you on our programs as the year progresses.
With that we'd now like to open the call for your questions operator.
Thank you and as a reminder to ask a question. Please press Star then one on your telephone keypad to withdraw your question press the pound or hash key again that is star one to get into queue.
First question comes from Boris Becker with Cowen. Please go ahead.
Good morning, and congratulations on the progress.
Can you guys hear me, yes, thanks, Boris Yeah. Thanks, Boris Fantastic My first question on 80 64.
I guess for the five combo cohorts in a need that we haven't.
She is an update on how close are they to enrolling and follow up on the initial 10 patients just trying to gauge the timeline of when another cohorts may be expanded.
Hi, Boris Thanks for the question. This is Beth yeah. So some cohorts are still enrolling and some cohorts have completed enrollment and we're still waiting for data so.
You know what are our plan is on every earnings call. We'll give you an update on how the how the studies going but I am really excited about the fact that even at this point in time, we're going to have data on over 60 phase II patients later this year.
Got it and just to follow up on 864 based on its mechanism of action I'm curious if you're assessing the HLA of the enrolled patients and can't different HLA have a material impact on activity.
And also I guess.
Preclinical assessment of finding different human HLA drug.
Drug.
Sure So HLA molecules, particularly the ones that are like an sport J T for little RB two <unk> will be included we presented data at a poster.
So I think in 'twenty 'twenty [laughter], showing some of the work from our human history culture data showing that some of the HLA molecules could potentially be predictive biomarker. So that those are things that we're looking at.
Those are.
Probably lower priority than things like Lille or B to C. D 163 things that we've talked about as clearly negative prognostic factors for cancer or for prediction of response to PD, one inhibitors that we think could be.
I'm missing predictive Biomarkers for J T X 80 64.
Great. Thank you very much for taking my questions.
Welcome. Thank.
Thank you. Your next question comes from Steve Teed House with Raymond James. Please go ahead.
Hey, good morning, Thanks for taking the question and nice to hear about the progress that the specifically AR and in April so across the board I just wanted to ask.
You could sort of rehash.
How you determine what the actual.
Response rate criteria were in each of the cohorts and if you could reference I mean, you have some tables in your court.
Presentation slides or your corporate deck.
Sort of list historical PD or PD L. One response rates in the different tumor types that should we look at that as like a.
Sort of a benchmark or a general guide for how you determine the response rates are is up.
All space.
Yeah. Thanks, Steve that's a great question, Yeah. So I would say that the response rates that we've shared in our corporate deck, which are you know these are drawn from small studies I would say the strongest one of them is the 19% response rate for hambro in frontline PD L. One positive head and neck cancer.
Alright, so that's in the product label, that's the data on which Pampa was approved and the others are numbers that we've gotten from small studies that as closely as possible match the eligibility criteria for the patients in our study they're generally below 10%.
So our goal ultimately is to demonstrate proof of concept in the full 29 patient cohorts.
So that will have to show that our combination looks like it's producing better efficacy than you would see with a PD one inhibitor alone based on those benchmarks.
Very helpful. Thanks, and then the other two questions I just wanted to ask is one is there anything you can say about the monotherapy data that's accrued.
Just if you're seeing any encouraging signals there and also.
I think you mentioned that you'd be updating every earnings call. The progress of the call. So I just wanted to confirm like as if you were to meet the response rate criteria.
Our cohort at some point between now and the next earnings call that wouldn't be something that you would update us on record.
For taking the questions.
Sure. So I think you know we're not reporting on any individual cohort at this time as we've we've said we're actually I'm really proud of the fact that we enrolled the first patient in January 2021 in phase one and we're going to have clinical data on over 60 phase two patients in the second half of this year.
So monotherapy patients will be included.
In that data and we'll report it they reporting at that time and right now yeah. Our intention is to update on the progress of the study quarterly at our earnings calls.
Great. Thanks, so much.
And your next question comes from Ted Turner Hoff with Piper Sandler. Please go ahead.
Great. Thank you very much I'm excited to hear about the progress with the new crew since everyone's been asking the pedal ask about some of the other low RP.
Graham.
When it comes to sort of the profile that you see emerging here is this something where.
Potentially multiple leloir B twos.
Little Rfps.
Be used together or do they kind of different profiles.
Sucks.
Her firm different applications. Thanks, so much for toilet.
Hey, Ted this is dmitry that will shine through.
So thanks for the question.
You know, we're clearly excited about building a pipeline of highly potent and specific antibodies that block the function of little RV tool or before and the larvae one.
These are the most well studied little RV family members with clearly.
Clearly demonstrated inhibitory function in immune cells.
You know I think.
The function of different little RB family members may be distinct and different cancer context, and this is what we're studying and this is how we're approaching.
Our clinical development using this translational translational angle.
Yeah.
There may be some redundancy among the lobbies, but we also see.
Clear evidence of non overlapping activities.
And I think having the pipeline of these three highly potent and specific blockers have little RB family members gives us an opportunity for a.
Rapid combination in the clinic.
And finally, what I would say is that you know one of the.
Core pillars of our strategy in discovery right now of Jones is building.
Bi specific molecules that would combine different specificities and would allow for more complete coverage of the larvae family members.
And that's a really exciting new development for US yes. Thanks for the question Awesome. Thank you for sharing that with me.
And your next question comes from Corey cut them off with J P. Morgan. Please go ahead.
Hey, good morning, guys. Thanks for taking the questions two of them for you both regarding an eight.
As you think about the data update later this year.
How do you think about success given that you're going to have a variety of different arms in indications with with both monotherapy and combination data this about.
Finding one or two lead indications or more about the breadth of activity across them and then as a follow up.
How important is monotherapy activity in your view when evaluating a cancer compound even when its primarily designed to be used in combination.
Sure. So thanks, Cory so for your first question.
I think the answer is possibly both right. So we obviously will be looking for signals that enable us to move forward as quickly as possible on a registration path in one or more indications.
But also when we're looking at data across the indications that's where this.
This year, we actually I think we will have enough data to really be start starting to evaluate those biomarkers and in smaller patient sets, which as you know what we are still having this year.
That's where I think that that that's.
That said some of the Biomarkers that we're studying are known to be negative prognostic factors and so if we see a correlation between response and some of these biomarkers. That's you know that's kind of the Holy Grail right. Because you can take something that is that.
Really predicts the worst outcome outcomes and you can turn it into something that predicts better outcomes for patients. So I think that's going to be really powerful.
As I've said before I think that's one of the strengths of the studies that we have a whole panel of predictive biomarkers now they may be more needed in some cancers than others.
That's some of the data will be starting to get a later this year. So.
We are planning sort of internally, we have clinical development plans with registration paths mapped out for every.
We cohort in the study and you know as the data matures, we'll start prioritizing which ones we're focusing on for further development.
And then your second question remind me sorry, it just yes, just the importance of monotherapy activity for cancer.
Yes.
Sure. So I guess I would turn to examples from things like lag three you know.
Which is doing great and showing a benefit.
On top of PD, one inhibitors in PD, one inhibitor naive patients.
We feel clearly immunotherapy is going the path of cancer therapy since the beginning in terms of combination.
And so whether or not a drug has to show monotherapy activity. I think is a question. What's important is that you design. Your study in a way that you're able to demonstrate that your drug is actually adding to the PD one inhibitor. If it's in combination and that's what we've tried to do in the PD one.
<unk> cohorts in select where we're requiring their most recent prior therapy to be a PD. One inhibitor. So people who are just progressed on a PD one inhibitor are now coming onto the combination therapy.
And then also giving those benchmarks to show you know what you would expect from a PD one inhibitor alone most of that.
The indications we are studying you wouldn't expect much from a C. One inhibitor.
Okay. Thank you Brett that's helpful.
Youre welcome.
Your next question comes from David a day with S. M. B C. Please go ahead.
Hi, Thanks for taking my questions. So for Gtx, 80, 64, especially on the tweaks, but any indications could you comment on whether you have perform any biomarker analysis to support the expansion opportunity, though the additional plane on patients each.
No no biomarker analysis, that's involved in that decision that's based purely on responses clinical responses will be doing the biomarker analyses later this year and reporting them. When we report on the full body of data.
Got it that's helpful and then.
Gtx 40, 84, you decide to move forward with the.
Our Q3 targeted whereas other companies pursuing Archie Chew athlete target could you just help us understand the rationale part has me all of Q3 versus Q2 based on your pre filled data what are the advantages of targeting <unk> three pathway.
Yeah. Thanks for the question David This is dmitry that of Shine again.
As you know we have advanced J T X 14, 84 hour potent and specific Iot three older law before blocker into IND, enabling studies.
We continue to be excited about this program Iot for Oh tier three.
<unk> is expressed on distinct subsets of immunosuppressive myeloid cells in the tumor microenvironment, but as you probably know we also have a.
A discovery program on Iot to all little RMB one.
Which is also progressing quite well and we hope to bring it to development candidate stage.
In the near future there.
Nearly non overlapping biology, among Iot three and Iot to.
For example, Iot too in addition to myeloid cells is also expressed on a subset of natural killer cells as well as CDA T cells. So really brings an exciting new angle to the lobby activity. So we're actually equally excited about all of our mono specific.
Potent blockers over the larvae family members, although there'll be two in the clinical ready the light before not far behind and lube argue one advancing quite well through discovery. Thanks for the question.
I think it's so much Dimitri and Beth.
Your next question comes from our two he with H C Wainwright.
Please go ahead.
Hey, good morning, everyone. The law's written corky and congratulations on the progress this quarter.
I just want to follow up on the response criteria for the.
864 program.
Besides the overall response rate do you guys also look at the PFS.
Or your beauty folks on the wall to make the decision to move forward.
Great. Thanks for the question so for the expansion from 10 patients to 29 patients that's based solely on response when.
When we look at the data from all 29 patients we'll be looking at the totality of data, including response rate Biomarkers PFS OS all of that to help guide further development, but the initial expansion is just based on response.
Got it.
And I'm just curious.
Got it.
Two cohorts you decided to move forward.
The highest dose level has been tested in a pool of patients did you guys tested any of those lovely young 700 milligram.
Yes, we did in dose escalation, we went as high as 1200 milligrams.
But I will remind.
Everyone. We first saw complete target engagement throughout the entire three week dosing cycle at 300 milligrams every three weeks and we chose a dose of 700 milligrams for a recommended phase two dose because we wanted to really optimize target engagement both in the peripheral.
Blood and also in the tumor and the excellent safety profile and safety up at 1200 milligrams with our highest intended dose and it was well tolerated. So we were we were very fortunate to be able to choose a dose that really optimizes, our target engagement and that's the dose that is used for all of the phase II patients.
Got you thanks, very much and thank you for taking my question.
Welcome.
Thank you and our last question is from Nick Abbott with Wells Fargo. Please go ahead.
Oh good morning, Thanks, a lot.
My questions and first of all thank you for updating us on those poor patients in Ukraine, it's bad enough, having cancel let alone having cancer, while there's a war going on.
So my first question is.
For in <unk> can I, just confirm that no courts cohorts have not met the criteria and then do.
Do you expect or are you seeing pseudo progression and if so how are you advising the investigators.
So yes, you're correct all of the cohorts are are either continuing to enrol up to the 10 patients or have completed and are waiting for data to.
To make the decision about expansion.
And in terms of pseudo progression. So all of our investigators are quite experienced with I O therapy. We.
We do allow continued treatment beyond progression in the study, but we don't have any particular guidance regarding pseudo progression for the investigators we just follow resist.
For a response criteria and we do allow treatment beyond progression if patients are doing well clinically.
Okay. Thank you.
And then just in terms of the.
Go no go here for the 10 patients do they have to be a resist response, if you see just really.
Spending on a long term stable disease that would also be unexpected because that's something that could.
Allow you to move ahead or was that sort of be something that you look at perhaps later on.
Yeah, it's for the expansion it requires a response a true response.
Okay, Great and then last one for select so do you have data on <unk> I'm not sure you do it's been a long program and I'll go into the long side, but they don't anticipate bring chemo naive versus experienced patients that would give you confidence you can move from the second line setting to a frontline setting.
We I mean, the data that we've collected is clearly in the studies that you know that we're doing but there is data across the literature on tests that leads us to believe that yes, we could certainly take this into a frontline setting or potentially into other tumor types.
Great. Thank you very much.
You're welcome and thanks for the questions.
And thank you ladies and gentlemen, this concludes our Q&A and program for today. Thank you for participating and you may now disconnect.
Okay for people stuck in terrible plan.
Yes.
Alright.
[music].