Curis, Inc.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Curie's Third Quarter 2024 Business Update Call. At this time, all lines are in a listen-only mode. Following the presentation, we will conduct a -and-answer session. If at any time during this call you require immediate assistance, please press star zero for the operator. This call is being recorded on Thursday, November 14, 2024. I would now like to turn the conference over to Dianne Tendulval, Curie's Chief Financial Officer. Please go ahead.

Thank you, and welcome to Curie's Third Quarter 2024 Business Update Call. Before we begin, I would like to encourage everyone to go to the Investors section of our website at .curies.com to find our Third Quarter 2024 Business Update press release and related financial table. I would also like to remind everyone that during the call, we will be making forward-looking statements which are based upon our current expectations and beliefs. These statements are subject to certain risks and uncertainties, and actual results may differ materially. For additional details, please see our SEC filings. Joining me on today's call are Jim Denser, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Jonathan Zung, Chief Development Officer. We will also be available for a question and answer period at the end of the call. I'd now like to turn the call over to Jim.

Thank you, Dianne. Good morning, everyone, and welcome to Curie's Third Quarter Business Update Call. Let's start with our Take Aim Lymphoma Study, which is evaluating M. avucertib in combination with ibrutinib in relapsed refractory PC and SL patients that have failed after treatment with a BTK inhibitor. These patients are generally treated with a methotrexate-based regimen, which includes chemo or radiation in the front-line setting, followed by a BTK inhibitor when a patient's disease progresses. It's when this treatment fails in the salvage line setting that patients become eligible to enroll in our study and receive M. avucertib in combination with ibrutinib. The thesis for this combination, which is supported by both preclinical data and our early clinical data, is that blocking both of the pathways driving NHL, blocking the TLR pathway with M. avucertib and blocking the BCR pathway with ibrutinib, can enable patients to achieve an objective response even after they've progressed on ibrutinib. In September, at the third annual IRAC-IV Symposium in Cancer, we released an update of our PC and SL data with 10 evaluable patients. These data showed three complete responses, CRs, one unconfirmed complete response, CRU, and two partial responses, or PRs. The duration of response for three of the four patients with a CR or CRU was greater than six months. These data are very early, but also encouraging, especially given the high unmet need in this population. We continue to enroll patients in this study and are actively engaging with regulatory authorities to gain alignment on the registrational path. As a reminder, this study is being run in the US, Europe, and Israel. It goes without saying that defining the registrational path to approval is a critical next step in M. avucertib's development, and I'm pleased with the progress we're making. Now let's move on to our take-aim leukemia study, which is evaluating M. avucertib as monotherapy in patients with relapsed refractory AML. At ASCO and IHA earlier this year, we provided updated data for patients with a FLIT3 mutation. These data showed six of 11 evaluable patients achieved an objective response, including three CRs, one CRH, and two MLFSs. Also of note, three of the 11 patients were naive to treatment with a FLIT3 inhibitor. All three of these patients achieved an objective response. And three of the remaining eight patients, those who had failed prior treatment with a FLIT3 inhibitor, achieved an objective response. At the ASH meeting next month, an expanded data set of 19 response-evaluable patients will be presented by Dr. Eric Weiner from Dana-Farber in an oral presentation on Monday, December 9th. We will also be providing updated data for our study in patients with high-risk MDS in a poster by lead author Dr. Guillermo Garcia-Manero from MD Anderson, being presented on Sunday, December 8th. Overall, I'm very pleased with the progress in both our take-aim leukemia and take-aim lymphoma studies, and I look forward to providing additional updates as the year progresses. With that, I'll turn the call over to DeAntha for the financial update. DeAntha?

Thank you, Jim. Cures reported a net loss of $10.1 million, or $1.70 per share, for the third quarter of 2024, compared to a net loss of $12.2 million, or $2.13 per share, for the same period in 2023. Cures reported a net loss of $33.8 million, or $5.77 per share, for the nine-month end in September 30th, 2024, compared to a net loss of $35.7 million, or $6.96 per share, for the same period in 2023. Research and development expenses were $9.7 million for the third quarter of 2024, compared to $10.4 million for the same period in 2023. The decrease was primarily attributable to lower consulting and employee-related costs. R&D expenses were $29.6 million for the nine-month end in September 30th, 2024, compared to $29.5 million for the same period in 2023. General and administrative expenses were $3.8 million for the third quarter of 2024, compared to $4.8 million for the same period in 2023. The decrease was primarily attributable to lower legal and employee-related costs. DNA expenses were $13.4 million for the nine-month end in September 30th, 2024, compared to $13.8 million for the same period in 2023. In October, we completed a registered direct offering and concurrent private placement of unregistered warrants with net proceeds of approximately $10.8 million. Including the impact of the October 2024 offerings, CURIS's cash and cash equivalents totaled $31.6 million, and the company had approximately 8.5 million shares of common stock outstanding. CURIS expects its existing cash and cash equivalents will enable its planned operations into mid-25. With that, I'd like to turn the call over for questions.

Operator? Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, we will now begin the -and-answer session. Should you have a question, please press star followed by number one on your touchtone phone. You will hear a prompt that your hand has been raised. Should you wish to decline from the polling process, please press star followed by number two. If you are using a speakerphone, please leave the handset before pressing any keys. Once again, to ask a question, please press star followed by number one on your touchtone phone. You will hear a prompt that your hand has been raised. One moment,

please, for your first question.

Your first question comes from the line of Ed White from HC Wayne Wright. Your line is now open. Please ask your question.

Good morning.

Thanks for taking my questions.

Morning, Ed.

Good morning, Jim. So, you had mentioned that you're working to gain alignment with the FDA in PC and SL. So, that sort of implies that you're out of alignment. So, what needs to be done right now to get into alignment? And what is the ideal pathway to approval in your mind?

Sure. So, I wouldn't say we're out of alignment by any stretch. No, I just say we're engaging in the discussions. I think what we see, and we've said this in the past on calls, in the early days, earlier this year, as we started to get the first data in on these patients, we saw that we were seeing results in salvage line therapy that were, frankly, better than we expected and better than second line. And even though it was a small number of patients, we wanted to reach out directly to the FDA to see if we couldn't have an accelerated path for this drug. You know the normal path of approval is you complete a phase one to study, you run all the reports, you have an end of phase meeting with FDA. And then talk with the FDA about what the registrational design looks like. We thought that given there's such a critical unmet need, no drugs are approved for this. And the salvage line data that we're getting looked, frankly, terrific, that we might have a faster path. So, that's the discussion we're having right now of can we have an accelerated approval path? And if so, what does that look like? My hope is that, you know, with those discussions are, in my view, hopefully going to be in a position where we'll have some clarity in Q1. But we'll remain to be seen. I think at this point we're just excited by the data and we're pleased that the FDA is engaged with us on identifying an accelerated or at least a faster path.

Great. Thanks, Jim. And, Diantha, maybe a question

for

you. You know, GA general administrative costs were down about a million dollars quarter over quarter and R&D was down about a half a million. As you know, you continue to advance in clinic, how should we be thinking of expenses going forward, you know, not only for the fourth quarter, but how should we be thinking of the cadence of expenses in 2025? I know it might be difficult as you're waiting for FDA guidance, but just wanted to get your initial thoughts on it.

Thanks, Ed, for the question. So, you know, our historical burn has really been in the call it 10 to 12 million dollar range. We did some cost modulation earlier in the year that has brought that burn down. But I would expect that the normal burn for curious in 2025 should probably stay around that 10 million dollar, that 10 million mark. It will vary due to some timing of manufacturing. But for the most part, I would sort of assume that's what a 10 million dollar number.

OK, great. Thanks for taking my questions. Thanks,

Ed. Your next question comes from the line of Bill Jahangiri from Twist Securities. Your line is now open. Please ask your question.

We have a question about Emma's potential in HR MDS, given the abstract that was posted at Ash. There's impressive responses and supplies of some mutants, which isn't surprising at this point, given the data you all have shown. But we want to know what the broader potential is, given the specific impacts on gene signatures that you've seen. How representative are the mutations in the MDS patient population? You have 10 percent, 15 percent or more. And given that Verona hasn't read out this pursuit of doublet without Venn and HR MDS makes sense. Are HMA and Emma's MOAs synergistic or additive enough for that?

Yeah. Hey, Bill. Thanks for calling in. Great question. So first, yeah, MDS is one of these things that not enough people are paying attention to. It's really exciting and we're really looking forward to it. As you know, it's a challenging population. And until Verona reads out, AZA is standard of care. But, you know, once patients go through that, there's really nothing for those patients. So the opportunity is really terrific. So, as you know, we've seen a lot of responses, more marrow CRs than CRs. We're seeing activity in patients with flip three mutation, patients with splicing mutations. At this point, we're exploring the possibilities of different dosing regimens and also perhaps combining M of assertive with other agents. As you say, the Verona readout is going to matter a lot of what that combination looks like. But I would say this is an evolving discussion. We're really looking forward to the data update that Dr. Garcia Monero is going to provide at ASH. And hopefully it should be a really exciting discussion going into 2025. But thank you for paying attention to MDS. Not as many people see

that as we do. Thank

you. Your next question comes from the line of Lee Waczek of Cantor. Your line is now open. Please ask your questions.

Hi, team. This is Daniel Bronder on fully. We have a question regarding the PCNSL trial and the contribution of parts. Do you think that the FDA might raise that as a question? And also, do you have any historical data on to be decay responses that could help you answer that question? Thank

you for the question. Thanks for the call. Yeah, let me address the first question first, and then I'll go to the second one. So the short answer is discussions with FDA are evolving. So we'll have to see how they respond to that. But the design of this study is really meant to address that question implicitly. So we're taking patients in immediately after they have progressed on a BTK. So the logic would be if you've just progressed on a BTK inhibitor, retreating with that same inhibitor should have no effect, should have a zero response rate. You just progressed. So by definition or by design, maybe more accurately, the benefit that you receive is much more likely to be due to the addition of M of usertip either in its monotherapy capacity or its synergistic effect, which we believe is at least the thesis suggests is powerful with the BTK inhibitor. So the first question is, yes, the FDA, we know, is likely to have that question. And we'll have that conversation with them and see how that plays into the registrational design. At the same time, we're benefiting from the design of the study that's currently in progress, which does by definition or by design highlight the comparative effect of the two agents. And the second question or second part of the question you asked was about BTK and their efficacy. There's a lot of literature out there that the largest clinical study to date that was published was Carol Sasan's study of ibrutinib in PC and SL. And you may remember in that study in second line, patients naive to a BTK were able to get a 19 percent CR rate and a 52 percent ORR. So I said earlier, we're very encouraged that our salvage line data are outperforming that. And they are. It's early days, to be fair. But we would not have expected that in any disease, a drug being studied in the salvage line setting would outperform second line. But I would say that's why we and why our clinicians are so excited about the possibility of this regimen.

OK, thank you so much. And if I may ask a follow up or another question. We were just wondering, how are you going to go about the prioritization between your different programs, your PC and SL program versus the AML and MDS programs moving forward? Yeah,

that's a fantastic question. So if I tell you about all the high class headaches we have at CURIS, I am grateful that we are in the position that the drug works really where we would expect it to in a number of therapeutic areas. As you know, we're studying it in primary CNS lymphoma. We're studying it in AML. We're studying it in MDS. We've also got five ISTs going on in solid tumors that are reading out over the next 12 months. We have this embarrassment of investment opportunities and embarrassment of riches. And maybe the hardest part of the job for the management team at CURIS is trying to figure out how to prioritize those. I would say at this point in time, because we're in discussions with FDA on primary CNS lymphoma and what that registrational path looks like, I think by definition, given the clear unmet need and the data that we're seeing, that's got to be a very high priority for us. Coincidentally, it's a very attractive commercial market as well. Beyond that, expanding to the other five types of NHL where BTKs get used, that's a really compelling opportunity for us. AML and MDS, the data are about to read out at ASH. So I'd say with those data in hand, let's have that same discussion that we're having about NHL. What is the best path to approval and how do we engage the regulatory authorities in that discussion? And then shortly thereafter, we're going to start getting data in solid tumors. It's a great question. Today we're prioritizing primary CNS lymphoma, but it is absolutely a high-class headache for us how to prioritize all of these opportunities.

Okay. Thank you so much for taking my question.

You bet. Thank you.

Your next question comes from the line of C.N. McKeltham of Raymond James. Your line is now open. Please ask your question.

Hi, guys. Thanks for taking the questions. A couple from me. First, can you walk us through your current assessment of what you'll need as far as the data package for primary CNS lymphoma? In particular, what do you think will be the sufficient number of patients in the safety database at the go-forward combination with the Brutonib and EMA? And how many patients have you currently treated at or above that dose of EMA? Do you think 100 patients is kind of the rough threshold based on precedent? And then secondly, can you speak to some of the challenges you've seen in enrolling the triplet study, whether that be disposition of the NRD-positive CR AML patients or just in general issues with AZA and Venn and timing of the treatment of patients with those agents? Thanks.

All right. Thank you, Sean. So great questions. Let me start with the primary CNS lymphoma question, and then I'll go to the triplet study. So the primary CNS lymphoma study, to be honest, that's the whole point of the discussion we're having with FDA. As you know, the normal process for any drug going through studies is you run a Phase 1-2, do dose escalation. When you get those data back, follow the patients, lock the database, produce all the reports, go to the FDA, have an -of-phase meeting, talk about the registrational design, and then you go into Pivotal. I think given the data we have, we thought it should be, it was worth having a conversation with the FDA to see if they'd be interested in running a faster process. We're grateful that they agreed to take that call. We're now in discussions. In primary CNS lymphoma, there's not a lot of precedent, but we do know that there are two studies ongoing right now with a BTK inhibitor. So iBrutNib is the one that today is the standard of care for BTK inhibitors, but Ono Pharmaceuticals has a BTK inhibitor, TiraBrutNib, which is approved in Japan for primary CNS lymphoma and is now in its study to get approval in the U.S. We know that for that study, its second line, not salvage, obviously they're trying to displace iBrutNib, and they also have a front-line study. That they're using TiraBrutNib in combination with methotrexate-based regimens. In their study, the front-line study was N of 75, or is N of 75. The second line study

is N of 45. Presumably, salvage line setting wouldn't need 45.

Now the question there is, of course, given our data from an efficacy perspective, that might make sense, but we need to recognize that TiraBrutNib has a larger safety database simply because it's already approved in Japan. So I don't exactly know where the FDA is going to come out, but we think it's reasonable to suggest that if they're okay with granting us accelerated approval, that that's a smaller study and that then we would have a larger study with perhaps a survival-based endpoint in a confirmatory trial. All of that's conjecture at this point. We need to finish these discussions and see how the FDA feels about that. But I think given the precedent that ONO has in their study sizes, it makes sense that in this ultra rare indication, a small study would be appropriate. It's one of the reasons, of course, that we chose primary CNS lymphoma. Now on the triplet study, you had asked specifically about the design. What question were you looking to have about the design? The MRD study?

Yes, just some of the challenges you've seen in terms of enrollment and getting patients progressed on that study, whether that's just the disposition of the MRD positive CR AML patients or it's more an issue of getting patients who are receiving or received A's of N in the front line and are receiving it in the maintenance setting. Any reticence you've seen from docs in terms of adding additional agent to an A's of N in that setting and an insight on their strategy moving forward

to boost enrollment there? Yeah, I think you put your finger on it. It's not a reticence at all or a safety issue at all. It's just how do you find patients who are on A's of N, who are in CR and still MRD positive and stable enough that they can go into our study, into the triplet. At this point in time, what we really want to try and do is accentuate the safety. The long-term solution to finding all the patients is of course go from cycle one day one to get the patients the minute they're diagnosed and go to a lot of sites. We're at a very small number of sites. We're simply looking to make sure that this combination of Emma, Aza and Ven is going to be safe and tolerable. As you know, Aza and Ven are a little tricky. No two sites dose them the same way. Anecdotally, half of all patients who go on Aza and Ven at some point have to come off for tolerability, not just efficacy. We want to make sure that the Emma, Aza and Ven combination is tolerable first. That's why we're going after these patients. It won't take long. We just need a handful of patients and we just want to follow them to make sure we understand it. Once we do, then we frankly turbocharge the study. We go to cycle one day one, we expand the number of sites, and at that point, once it's been shown to be safe and tolerable, now I think you'll find the physician community is very eager to find something that will increase the potency of that Aza

Ven regimen. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks for the call.

We do not have further questions at this time. Jim Denser, please continue. Thank you.

And thank you everyone for joining us on today's call. And as always, a special thank you to the patients and families participating in our clinical trials, to our team at CURIS for their hard work and commitment, and to our partners, especially at OroGene and the NCI and the academic community, for their ongoing collaboration and support. We look forward to updating you again soon. Operator?

Thank you. This concludes today's conference call. Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.