This conference call transcript was computer generated and almost certianly contains errors. This transcript is provided for information purposes only.EarningsCall, LLC makes no representation about the accuracy of the aforementioned transcript, and you are cautioned not to place undue reliance on the information provided by the transcript.
spk16: Welcome to the Iovance Biotherapeutics Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2021 Financial Results. My name is Cherie, and I will be your operator for today's call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. Later, we will conduct a question and answer session. During the session, if you would like to ask a question, please press star then 1 on your touchtone phone. Please note that this conference is being recorded. I will now turn the call over to Sarah Pellegrino, Vice President, Investor, and Public Relations at IOAN. Sarah, you may begin.
spk11: Thank you, operator. Good afternoon, and thank you for joining us. Speaking on today's call, we have Dr. Fred Vogt, our Interim President and Chief Executive Officer. Dr. Igor Belinsky, our Chief Operating Officer, Jim Ziegler, our Senior Vice President, Commercial, Dr. Frederick Finkenstein, our Chief Medical Officer, and Jean-Marc Bellemin, our Chief Financial Officer. Dr. Madan Jagazia, our Senior Vice President, Medical Affairs, is also on the call to participate in the Q&A. This afternoon, we issued a press release that can be found on our website at iEvents.com which includes the financial results for the three and 12 months ended on December 31st, 2021, as well as corporate updates. Before we start, I would like to remind everyone that statements made during this conference call will include forward-looking statements regarding Iovance's goals, business focus, business plans, pre-commercial activities, clinical trials and regulatory plans and results, research and pre-clinical activities, potential future applications of our technology, manufacturing capabilities, regulatory feedback and guidance, payer interaction, collaboration, cash position, expense guidance, and future updates. Forward-looking statements are subject to numerous risks and uncertainties, many of which are beyond our control, including the risks and uncertainties described from time to time in our SEC filings. Our results may differ materially from those projected during today's call. We undertake no obligation to publicly update any forward-looking statements. With that, I will turn the call over to Fred.
spk13: Thanks, Sarah, and good afternoon, everyone. I'm pleased to highlight our fourth quarter and full year of 2021 progress that I advanced during today's conference call. In 2021, we continued to advance toward our first BLA submission and expanded our TIL platform into new indications and earlier treatment settings. For our lead pill therapy, lifelucel, our top priority remains our planned BLA submission in metastatic melanoma. We have continued ongoing work developing and validating our potency assays. We have also engaged in discussions with the FDA during the second half of 2021, and we are confident in our current guidance for the anticipated BLA submission during the first half of 2022. Resolution of the potency assay in melanoma is also a key step towards regulatory plans and other indications. 2021 was our busiest year yet in terms of TIL data presentations. Over the past 12 months, we presented data in 118 patients across five indications and four solid tumor types at multiple medical meetings, including the American Association for Cancer Research, or AACR, meeting, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, or ASCO, meeting, and the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer, or CIPSI, meeting. We believe that this growing set of clinical data continue to demonstrate the power, the potential power of Iovance still therapy to become the next paradigm shifting treatment regimen for solid tumors. Last year, we also opened the Iovance Cell Therapy Center or ICTC in Philadelphia. We have made significant progress in our internal manufacturing capabilities at ICTC, which Igor will highlight further. And we grow our organization to prepare for commercial manufacturing and launch. Today we have approximately 350 employees at the company who have, on average, more than four years of cell therapy experience. We believe that the breadth and depth of talent within our organization during this important time of growth is a testament to the potential of our IV and still therapy in solid tumors and our ability to maintain leadership within the field. Looking towards 2022, our milestones include submitting our BLA for Leif Lussel and metastatic melanoma in the first half of the year, advancing TIL therapy in non-small cell lung cancer, which Frederick will highlight, executing an updated registration strategy in cervical cancer based on FDA dialogue and feedback in reflection of the evolving landscape of care in this indication, defining our strategy for TIL plus PEMBRO combinations in early-line solid tumors beginning with melanoma, and finally initiating the first I-Advanced Clinical Study for IOV4001, a genetically modified TIL product in which PD-1 is inactivated, and further advancing our research and next-generation TIL programs to remain at the forefront of TIL therapy in solid tumors. Overall, we are confident in the strength of IVANTS' position to be the global leader in developing, delivering, and innovating TIL therapies for patients with cancer. We are well on our way to becoming a fully integrated organization to launch the first one-time cell therapy in solid tumors. Owning our manufacturing capabilities is the key to our success, so I will hand the call to Igor now to talk more about our progress there.
spk15: Thank you, Fred. During 2021, we achieved several milestones at the IVM Cell Therapy Center, or ICTC, which is a 136,000 square foot cell therapy manufacturing facility. We completed commissioning activities and initiated till clinical supply from the ICTC in the third quarter of 2021. The first patient with cancer received till manufactured at ICTC in September 2021, and as part of our ongoing clinical trial. In parallel with clinical manufacturing, we are on track in preparing the ICTC for the BLA submission and commercial manufacturing upon the potential BLA approval. Several important activities are now underway, such as validation activities and process performance qualification or PPQ runs. In addition, we are getting ready for FDA pre-approval inspections at both ICDC and our contract manufacturing partners facility, which we expect to occur soon after the BLA filing. Turning to our intellectual property or IT portfolio, we continue to build our robust and growing IT portfolio to support our proprietary manufacturing processes, as well as our know-how surrounding till therapy. We currently own more than 35 granted or allowed U.S. and international patents. This IP covers till compositions and methods of treatment and manufacturing in a broad range of cancers, including Gen 2 patent rights that are expected to provide exclusivity into 2038. Our granted patents as well as our filed patent applications are directed towards Gen 3 manufacturing, selected till products, stable and transient genetic till modifications, tumor digest and fragment compositions and methods, including cryopreservation and combinations of checkpoint inhibitors and TIL products. I would now like to hand the call to Jim Ziegler to highlight our commercial launch preparations. Jim. Thank you, Igor.
spk05: Throughout 2021 and into 2022, the iAdvanced team has made steady progress in our commercial launch preparations while maintaining financial discipline. Our launch priorities include the onboarding of our authorized treatment centers, or ATCs, payer engagement, and related operational readiness activities. Our cross-functional teams continue to partner with leading U.S. cancer centers to build their TIL service line capabilities. Our training program is designed to ensure cross-disciplinary teams can administer the lipolucel treatment regimen upon FDA approval. Our goal is to onboard at least 40 ATCs for launch. This number is informed by our assessment of the CAR-T market, where claims data indicate that the top 10 centers account for about 50% of the CAR-T treated patients, and the top 40 centers account for about 80% of the CAR-T treated patients. We expect a similar concentration across our ATCs for the potential commercialization of lifeloosal. Our longer-term goal is to have enough sites so that most patients in the U.S. can be within a few hours' drive to an ATC offering lifelucent pill therapy. The planned timing and execution of key onboarding and training is aligned to BLA-related milestones to ensure just-in-time training and readiness at our ATCs. Although there is a significant amount of work that will occur between our BLA submission and launch, our core commercial team has built the foundation to scale rapidly and efficiently. Reimbursement is also a critical factor for patient access at launch. In the last year, our market access team engaged commercial and Medicare payers responsible for more than 90% of the covered lives, as well as Medicaid states responsible for approximately 50% of the covered lives. Based on these interactions, we believe that payers appreciate the unmet need and the potential clinical value of Lifolucil for patients with metastatic melanoma cancer. Our reimbursement strategies are designed to secure coding, coverage, and payment. In 2021, Medicare expanded DRG 18 to include CAR T and other immunotherapies, including Lifolucil. This is an important milestone achievement because upon Likaluzo approval, hospitals will have more appropriate payment for Medicare beneficiaries. We continue to engage payers and CMS as we plan for VLA submission and prepare for commercialization. We are also pleased with the progress of our Iovance CARES program, which remains on track for launch. Our goal is to deliver a best-in-class cell ordering and patient support system that assists the patients, physicians, and ATCs at every step of the process. Iovance Cares includes our proprietary chain of identity and chain of custody system, our patient management approach, and our integrated approach to quality. I will now pass the call to Friedrich Finkenstein, our Chief Medical Officer, to highlight our clinical progress.
spk03: Thank you, Jim. I am pleased to share highlights from our TIL clinical programs across the various data presentations from 2021. In melanoma, we presented updated cohort 2 data at ASCO 2021. We reported 36.4% overall response rate, or ORR, and a median duration of response, or DOR, that was not reached at 33.1 months of median study follow-up as assessed by investigators. These cohort 2 data continue to demonstrate the durability of one-time treatment with lyfiduzole in metastatic melanoma patients after anti-PD-1 therapy. Looking ahead for this year, we plan to report data from the pivotal cohort four in our melanoma study as assessed by an independent review committee in connection with the BLA submission. We are also excited about the data for TIL in combination with pembrolizumab in checkpoint inhibitor-naive melanoma patients. The most recent results presented at SITC 2021 demonstrated a 60% ORR and 30% complete response and support the potential for this combination as earlier treatment for melanoma. We look forward to enrolling additional patients and to further defining a strategy in frontline melanoma during the coming year. We are also very excited about the proof of concept for TIL plus PEMBRO as an early treatment option in cervical and head and neck cancer patients, which we also highlighted at SITC 2021. Overall response rates for TIL plus PEMBRO were above the published response rates for PEMBRO alone in melanoma, cervical, and head and neck patients who are naive to anti-PD-1 therapies. In additional solid tumor indications, lung cancer patients continue to have an unmet need for new treatment options. Last year, we presented our first clinical data set for IOVAM's TIL as treatment for non-small cell lung cancer at SITC. We were very encouraged by the observed responses in heavily pretreated non-small cell lung cancer patients who received one or more prior systemic therapies, including anti-PD-1 therapy. This data set was an important proof of concept for TIL in non-small cell lung cancer and provided valuable learning to enroll earlier line patients in our ongoing IOV LUN 202 study. We are enrolling second line metastatic non-small cell lung cancer patients in the IOV-LUN202 study at 30 sites while engaging with the FDA about parameters for further registration. In cervical cancer, as Fred mentioned, we are actively engaged in regulatory discussions. Lastly, I am excited by the growth of our research pipeline as we look to enter the clinic this year with our first genetically modified pill therapy candidate, IOV4001. IOB-4001 is a TIL product with inactivated PD-1 using the TALON technology licensed from Selectus and has the potential to deliver TIL and PD-1 inhibition within a single therapy. I will now hand the call over to Jean-Marc to discuss our fourth quarter 2021 financial results.
spk01: Thank you, Frédéric. My comments will reflect the high-level financial results from our fourth quarter and full year 2021. Additional details can be found on this afternoon's press release, as well as in our ACC filings. I will begin with our cash position. As of December 31, 2021, Iovance held $602.1 million in cash equivalents, investments, and restricted cash, compared to $635 million on December 31, 2020. A strong cash position is expected to be sufficient into 2024 to advance our operating plan, including five-plan development, commercial manufacturing readiness, and launch preparation. Moving on to the income statement, our net loss for the fourth quarter and the December 31st, 2021, was $99.3 million, or 63 cents per share, of which approximately $6.3 million, or more than $0.04 per share, were one-time expenses. This compared to a net loss of $68.4 million, or $0.47 per share, for the fourth quarter ended December 31, 2020. Net loss for the full year period under December 31, 2021 was $342.3 million, or $2.23 per share, compared to a net loss of $259.6 million, or $1.88 per share, for the full year period under December 31, 2020. Research and development expenses were $75.6 million for the fourth quarter under December 31, 2021, an increase of $23.1 million compared to $52.5 million for the fourth quarter under December 31, 2020. Research and development expenses were $259 million for the full year period ended December 31, 2021, an increase of $57.3 million compared to $201.7 million for the full year ended December 31, 2020. The increase in research and development expenses in the fourth quarter of 2021 over the prior year period was primarily attributable to an increase in cost associated with growth of the internal research and development team, including stock-based compensation expenses, an increase in clinical trial costs, and facility-related costs associated with ICTC. The increase in research and development expenses in the full year 2021 over the prior full year period was primarily attributable to growth of the internal research and development team and an increase in the clinical trial cost and facility-related cost associated with ICTs. General and administrative expenses were $23.8 million for the fourth quarter ended December 31, 2021, an increase of $7.7 million compared to $16.1 million for the fourth quarter ended December 31, 2021. General and administrative expenses were $83.7 million for the full year period ended December 31, 2021, an increase of $23.5 million compared to $60.2 million for the full year ended December 31, 2020. The increases in general and administrative expenses in the fourth quarter and full year 2021 compared to the period Prior year periods were primarily attributable to an increase in cost associated with growth of the internal, general, and administrative team, including stock-based compensation expenses, and an increase in intellectual property filing-related costs. As of December 31, 2021, there were approximately 157 million common shares outstanding. We continue to focus on investment in four key areas as outlined previously to ensure the growth and strength of our value creation. This includes advancement and expansion of our clinical pipeline, launch readiness, a strong cash position, and manufacturing at ICTC, which will provide new cost efficiencies as we are able to shift work currently being done through contract manufacturers to ICTC. I remain confident that by managing our investments across these priorities, we will continue to stay focused and align our funding with our corporate priorities. With late-stage clinical assets in our pipeline, as well as a strong balance sheet and focused investment on launch preparation, we are also well positioned to execute our operating plan. I will now hand the call back to the operator to kick off the Q&A session.
spk16: Thank you. As a reminder, to ask a question, you will need to press star 1 on your telephone. We ask that you please limit yourself to one question and one follow-up question. You may then return to the queue. To withdraw your question, press the pound key. Please stand by while we compile the Q&A roster. Our first question will come from Tyler Van Buren with Cowan. Please go ahead.
spk12: Hey, guys. Congrats on the progress. Thanks very much for taking the question. Don't you have to have resolution on the potency assay front in the next month or two in order to be able to run the assay or assays with the cohort for patient samples and generate the data to submit the BLA by the end of the first half? And I guess my follow-up to that would be, is it possible that you've already started testing the cohort for patient samples with the latest iteration of the potency assay or assays in anticipation of the filings?
spk13: Yeah, thanks, Tyler. I can answer some of that. We haven't disclosed the detail of how those interactions are going with the FDA and whether we've commenced testing at that level. But in general, yes, we have to be moving towards the BLA filing. I should note that it's important to understand that we could be holding conversations with the FDA in parallel while we do work. We could be staging it so that we manage the risk really well. And it can come right down relatively late in the game for us to really feel comfortable. But regardless, right now what we've been saying publicly and clearly again here on this earnings call is that we're comfortable filing a BLA in the first half of this year. So that should give you some indication of where we think we are with the FDA. That's great. Thank you very much.
spk16: Thank you. Our next question will come from Michael Yee with Jeffrey. Please go ahead.
spk04: Hi, thank you, and thanks for the update, guys. I have one question and a follow-up. My question is, in relation to the filing, is there a scenario where you file and meet your guidance and go ahead and do that, and that you have to tell the street or will tell the street that the final agreement or the final sign-off or the final validation is obviously an ongoing process and ultimately everything gets filed and finalized at the PDUFA date. Can you maybe just talk about that scenario? I think like Wall Street just thinks you have the screen light on a piece of paper and then you just file. So maybe talk to that a bit, that scenario. One quick follow-up. You did say clearly that you'll announce the cohort for melanoma data. Can you just, when that gets done, can you just remind me, you had previously had an interim, and can you just tell me where cohort four is and, When you do it, it will be an independent review when you present it, and that's supposed to be similar response rate data as cohort two. Just remind us about that status. Thank you. Thank you.
spk13: Sure, Michael. Let me take the last one first, actually. The cohort four data is part of the BLA submission. It's IRC red data, and as part of the BLA submission, in conjunction with that, we would talk more about that cohort four data. That's time to go in with the BLA and Obviously, it's important information to put that out. CoR2 is already out there. We've been talking about it for a while. You can see that data. We don't know CoR4 yet. That's something we're still working on. But, you know, the CoR2 data is a very similar study in many respects, so it can give some guidance as to what we expect in these populations, although, of course, they can differ. On the assay part, let me try to answer the whole question there, because going all the way through to the PDUFA date, which would be in early 23, potentially, or very late 22, depending on when we submit the BLA this year. There can be conversations with the FDA during the entire pendency of the BLA after it gets accepted as to sort of the specifications and some aspects of your potency assay or assays that you're proposing for your product. So things can change during that period. I think that's what you might be asking. Of course, they can comment on validation, and you could present additional data. You could provide them with more information about the specifications that you're proposing. They could ask questions about any aspect of the validation package during that period, and you could go back and forth on that. So you're absolutely right in thinking that you don't really know for sure until the BLA is approved that all this is done, and that's the way it just is in drug development. Earlier in the process, though, when we submit the BLA, when we have the pre-BLA meeting prior to that, we're trying to get as much clarity as we can from the FDA so we can make sure we're successful in on the PDUFA date and getting that approval. So we're not submitting something that has gaps in it that we could have filled had we listened to the FDA. So that's our big goal leading up to the BLA submission itself. And, of course, some of that includes successfully completing validations and doing a lot of the work that eventually gets reviewed during the pendency of the BLA. That was a long-winded answer, but I hope I got what you were trying to get there, Michael.
spk04: I think that makes sense, and I can see that.
spk13: Thank you.
spk00: Okay.
spk16: Thank you. Our next question will come from Peter Lawson with Barclays. Please go ahead.
spk14: Great. Thanks for taking the questions. Just on cervical cancer, I wonder if you could walk through kind of timelines and kind of what's changing around the potential for filing for cervical cancer that we should be thinking about.
spk13: Yeah, Frederick, do you want to answer that one?
spk03: Sure, happy to. Good question. So obviously, Obviously, we are acknowledging that the treatment landscape in cervical cancer has changed quite a bit. The approval of checkpoint inhibition as part of first-line center of care was a paradigm shift. And it's great to see immunotherapy to enter that field for the patients. So that's good news. That obviously now changed. the landscape in opportunities after first-line chemo, and we saw that with how this impacted some of the additional checkpoint inhibitors that were going after that second line after chemotherapy only spot. Tilt therapy is differentiated from checkpoint inhibitors. We know that we see activity in patients that have received checkpoint inhibitor therapy from our melanoma data, and that's really based on a differentiated mechanism of action. Because we knew that and because we were foreseeing the changes in the first-line landscape and acceptance of check point ambition and standard of care, we started a post-check point ambition cohort early in 2019 already. And we do think that that is an area of unmet need that we would be able to address with data in that setting. We are planning to execute a registrational strategy addressing feedback from the FDA and addressing this changed landscape. And we do think that we do have some headway in that post-checkpoint setting.
spk14: Perfect. Thank you. And just for the addition of Dr. Perry, Does that change the process in any way for filing? Is there any chance you would file at risk?
spk13: No, that's not really the plan there, Peter. He's essentially a great addition to our team. It's not really tied to the BLA or how we would handle the BLA. Of course, having him join us is going to be very helpful in doing anything from a regulatory perspective, but that's not really something we're thinking about.
spk14: Got you. Okay. Thank you so much. Thanks for taking the questions.
spk16: Thank you. Our next question will come from Nick Abbott with Wells Fargo. Please go ahead.
spk02: Good afternoon. Thanks for taking my questions and appreciate the clarity for it as always. First one, so just going back following up on Mike's question from earlier. So have you closed the cohort for database that's being cleaned, ready for analysis?
spk13: We haven't announced that yet, Nick. We are, without getting into the details there, obviously we're very late in the game, so that's something we would need to do in a relatively short time period here, but we haven't spoken directly about that yet.
spk02: Okay. And then, you know, maybe thinking forward, you know, the potential approval of Nevo and Rilatilamab, do you think you need to show benefit in these patients that's a in a similar magnitude to what you've shown currently from cohort two and presumably what you're showing cohort four?
spk13: It could be important in the future landscape, of course, because there would be patients coming off that line of therapy that would potentially be candidates for lifelucid, but don't assume that we haven't seen some of those patients already because, you know, those patients are out there right now in the clinical trials getting them. So that's something we're looking at closely. I can tell you that's something we've considered closely, and we'll try to provide updates at medical meetings on how we might address those patients.
spk02: Perfect. Thank you.
spk03: Fred, can I chime in here? So I think one thing to keep in mind is that the data that we have presented are clearly indicating benefit that's comparable between patients who have failed PD-1 monotherapy and patients who have failed PD-1 and CTLA-4 blockage combination. So I think that might be indicative of what we might be seeing in patients who have failed other combinations as well. Obviously, we don't have data on that yet in a controlled fashion, but I think that's something to keep in mind for that setting.
spk13: Yeah, that's a good point, Frederic.
spk16: Thank you. Our next question will come from Mara Goldstein with Mizuho. Please go ahead.
spk10: Thanks for taking that question. Just on the initiation of the trial for IOV 4001 this year that you've indicated, can you talk about the clinical plan for that and what indications you might look at? And then I just wanted to ask about the sequential R&D spend and what that run rate looks like going forward given the different, you know, the Delta in the fourth quarter versus the prior quarters.
spk13: Yeah, maybe I can take the first one and have John Mark follow up on the second one. So we haven't disclosed that yet, Meris, but that's something we'll obviously talk about the clinical plan for that asset as soon as we can, because that's tied, you know, once, once we get the regulatory filing through, I think we'll, you'll hear a lot more from us on that. We're obviously indicated interested indications that we, we, we know and can, uh, can benchmark against as well as potentially new indications that might benefit from having the combined effects of a checkpoint inhibition-like mechanism built into the TIL cell itself, which can theoretically infiltrate better into the tumor than the antibody, as well as our polyclonal T cell platform combined in the same asset. So we're looking for indications that would benefit from that approach, and hopefully we'll be able to talk about that pretty soon. John-Marc, do you want to talk a little bit about the R&D spend?
spk01: Yeah, sure. Thanks for the question. Look, honestly, of course, we are focusing, spending on the building of pipeline and, you know, the research will be part of it. So, 4001 is only one aspect of the program that we are building, but from a spending perspective, I mean, we are definitely looking at reallocation of expenses in a way that if you think about what we spent for building ICTC, for example, in 2021, will be reallocated to research for 2022. So we have an increase in research and development spending in Q4. I mentioned during the script that we have this one time $6.3 million, so that's why you have a a little bit more of expenses there. But honestly, there is no real concern. We will keep steady on the research and development spending for 2022.
spk10: Okay. And, you know, if I could just also ask the question around the CEO permanency and what that looks like at this point in time from a timing perspective.
spk13: Basically, our board is conducting a search, and we're still looking for candidates continues to be ongoing, a top priority for the board. We'll announce the outcome as soon as we can. I don't really have anything else.
spk10: Thank you.
spk16: Thank you. Our next question will come from Mark Breidenbach with Oppenheimer. Please go ahead.
spk18: Hey, guys. Good afternoon. Thanks for taking our question. Just one for me, maybe directed at Friedrich. I was hoping he could provide a little more color on the nature of of these parameter changes to the LUN202 trial that you've been discussing with the FDA. Maybe a little bit more detail on that would be appreciated.
spk03: So I don't think that we have spoken about the exact details of our discussions with the FDA in regards to LUN202. So I'm not sure I can really comment on that. Just as a reminder, what we're doing with LUN202 is we are enrolling specifically patients that have failed the single line of checkpoint inhibitor plus standard of care chemotherapy. So this is an earlier line population than the population that was enrolled to the proof of concept cohort 3B from our basket study. So that's the parameter changes that you're referring to. So that's really the main point, is focus on an earlier line population with less prior therapy.
spk18: Okay, that wasn't already part of the protocol as it was originally designed?
spk03: No, that was the design of the study as we opened it. And we have not changed the design. Okay.
spk18: Thank you.
spk16: Thank you. Our next question will come from Colleen Cusey with Baird. Please go ahead.
spk09: Great. Thanks so much for taking your questions. So are there any characterizations you're able to provide as to how the latest conversations with the FDA have progressed regarding the potency assay?
spk13: Yeah, sure, Colleen. They've given us a lot of good advice, a lot of detailed advice, and we feel like we really understand what they're looking for, and we think we're going to be able to address that. At the technical level, the details of that are still confidential, and that's not something we're quite ready to talk about. But as a general matter, it's at the level where really productive discussions can be had, and we can respond to what we think their concerns are, and we can provide them with data and, you know, assays or sets of assays that we think address their concerns in detail. So it's advanced quite a bit over the past nine months in that respect.
spk09: Understood. Thank you. That's helpful. And then any comments on how the PD-1 combo in lung cancer is advancing and what we might see data from that combination?
spk13: Sure. That study is called COA3A in our COMP202 study. That study has been enrolling for a while now. We haven't guided to specific conferences or anything where we would present, but it is one of those studies where obviously we'd like to present some data at some point soon. So we presented as much data as we possibly could last year. I look forward to 2022 where we'll try to keep that up. I just can't say exactly when we'll be able to do that.
spk16: Great. Thanks for taking my question. Thank you. Our next question will come from Ben Burnett with CFO. Please go ahead.
spk08: Hey, thank you very much. I had a question regarding the melanoma BLA in the new manufacturing center, ICTC. I guess, how much patient experience have you accrued from product manufactured here for late-line melanoma specifically? And I guess, can you provide just a little more color just regarding your expectations for what's likely needed in terms of validation data, numbers of samples, or anything like that?
spk13: Yeah, Igor, do you want to talk about at least the first part of that? And I can maybe cover on the last part.
spk15: Happy to. So thanks for the question. So the facility is focused on two things right now. One is clinical manufacturing for ongoing clinical trials, and that's primarily the Gen 2 process. That's part of the cohort four. that we intend to file to the DLA. And then the other part is preparation for commercialization and DLA filing, including the filing and the subsequent inspection that we expect to take place soon after the filing. And then following that, getting the capacity ready to meet the commercial demand after the potential DLA approval. So that's where we're well on track along. all of those activities.
spk13: Go ahead, Igor, if you want to get to the part about the retanks. I think that's what you were asking about, Ben, right?
spk08: Yeah, if there's anything you can say about just the number of samples, kind of ballpark in terms of validation data that's needed.
spk13: I mean, it's a good number of samples. Igor, go ahead if you want to answer it.
spk15: Actually, Fred, go ahead. I'm not sure I understood the question fully, so.
spk13: I think what you're saying, Ben, is the number of samples needed to perform validation exercises both for the assays and for anything we need to do with the facility. Is that right?
spk08: Yeah. Sorry for not being more clear. I think to validate that the product that's manufactured at the new site is similar to what's been manufactured elsewhere.
spk13: Yeah. So that's what we call comparability, and it's part of comparability and what we call PPQs or process performance qualification. Is that right? We have, you know, it's a good number of samples. I don't have the exact numbers. Igor probably doesn't either. But, you know, there's obviously a lot of work done to make sure it's statistically well justified with the FDA. And so that's what really drives the number of samples. And, you know, we're well, we're set in that area, we think. Okay. Thank you very much.
spk16: Thank you. Our next question will come from Astika Goonwarden with Chua Securities. Please go ahead.
spk06: Hi, guys. Thanks for taking my questions. Just maybe a logistical one here. If I understand your answer to Tyler's question, and you might be doing some of these potential potency assay work to include in the filing prior to you getting the official okay from the FDA, is that a scenario that the FDA comes back to you and says, well, we want you to do a couple more things and you run out of samples. And then I have a follow-up question about lung cancer after that.
spk13: All right. Let me, yeah, let me take the first one. They could always come back and ask and ask and ask for stuff. And you could always just run out of retains at some point, but we don't expect that to be the case. We think we've got the retains we need to answer their questions right now. And, um, we're comfortable performing the assays that we've developed and that we think are responsive to what the FDA wants. I think maybe sort of the core of your question is the timing of the whole thing, because you mentioned the concept of the FDA giving us the go. What I was saying earlier to both Michael and to Tyler in their questions was you don't really know it's done until the PDUFA date and they approve your BLA. That's when they truly say go. but what you're trying to do is be responsive to their feedback during the process and, of course, preserve your retains and preserve your, you know, provide them with information as they ask for it and not burn stuff up unnecessarily during the process. So that's something we're doing very carefully here.
spk06: Got it. Okay, thanks. And then a question for Friedrich, if I may. Friedrich, I mean, given what we've seen with the non-small cell lung data that you presented earlier, I want to just get your thoughts on the confidence that you have that LUN202, by going at maybe a potentially earlier stage than the previous data that was presented, that you could have better durability of the responses that you have there. And then related to that, do you think that it could be an option for you to consider maybe adding another arm to LUN202 where you're combining the till with PD-1 with the goal to help for the PD-1 to give the till a little bit more kick to continue them persisting?
spk03: Yes, those are two good questions. Obviously, about the durability and our confidence that going into an earlier line will improve the durability is number one. That is, to some extent, just clinical experience and knowing how sick late-line non-small cell lung cancer patients often are in regards to organ function and performance data. So going into an earlier line will somewhat get you into a little better starting point. Really, the confidence comes from the data that were presented by Dr. Krillian and published by Dr. Krillian from the Moffitt. This was obviously a slightly different design and a single institution experience, but there in in what was overall an earlier line population with patients that had either received a single prior line or were even treatment-naive, long-term and long-durability responses were observed. So that was informing this step to lung 202 at least partially. We obviously have to now run this clinical experiment and generate the data supporting that, but that's the rationale. About your question of adding PD-1 blockade to TIL for better durability, that's something that we are actively exploring in Core 3a of the BASCET study in a checkpoint embittered naive population, albeit, but we are generating data in osmotic lung cancer with that combination. So we are interested in that. Whether that is something that one would want to translate into a checkpoint inhibitor pretreated population is a question that we can ask once we understand what we're seeing in the checkpoint inhibitor population. Keep in mind, lung cancer docs do not tend to reuse checkpoint inhibitors after failure of checkpoint inhibitors. This is slightly different from melanoma. There's not a lot of confidence in checkpoint inhibitors at least not by themselves, and reusing them after failure. So that's a slight difference to the situation in Manana. Got it. Thanks, guys.
spk06: Thank you.
spk16: Thank you. Our next question will come from Lenny Benjamin with JMP Securities. Please go ahead.
spk07: Hey, good afternoon, guys. Thanks for taking the questions. And I apologize, I jumped on the call a little late, so I apologize if you guys have already answered this. Can you just tell us how are you thinking about ex-U.S. or, you know, specifically European filing, especially if this PLA, you know, you were able to pull up this PLA submission on time here in the U.S.? What are the kind of gating steps going forward? And then also, just to clarify, you know, we typically see, you know, clinical data more as a review issue. You know, the potency assay or any part of the CMC could be part of the review issue if there is one. Thanks.
spk13: Sure, I can take those. Our European strategy really hinges on the FDA outcome, so really we're focused on the FDA right now. And then since we have European patients in the trial, as we've talked about before, if things go well with FDA, we think we can turn around the EMA and hopefully move pretty quickly there. We haven't announced any details on that yet, so you just have to stay tuned on some of this. But, you know, we did prepare for that eventuality, and we do think we can do something there fairly quickly after we resolve the issues with the FDA. Your second question, yes, I mean, look, there can be review issues on everything. FDA can always say that. They sometimes use that language in every single question that you ask them, you know, at a type B or type C meeting. but our goal is to try and get it so that whatever is left of the review issue is so minor that we feel very comfortable that we'll get a successful approval when the PDUFA day hits. That's really the way we look at it. The fact is they could say that. They could say that for the clinical side, they could say that for the CMC side, but they could say it for the non-clinical side. But we try to close that window as tightly or as close to completely closed as we can with pre-BLA filing interactions to make sure that we're not caught in a situation where during the review, something becomes a real problem.
spk07: Got it. Okay, and just as a quick follow-up regarding the European filing, is that something you do, you know, kind of like right after submitting the BLA, you know, because you've worked everything out or waiting for the BLA to be accepted, or is it something that you do after an approval here in the U.S.? How should we think about that?
spk13: It would probably be more like the latter, but we haven't determined that fully yet. Again, our focus is on the U.S. market for melanoma first and foremost because that's the market we want to be in. We would look at the European opportunity as much as we possibly could with the resources that we have. Terrific. Thanks for taking the questions.
spk16: Thank you. Our next question will come from Madhu Kumar with Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead.
spk17: Hey, everyone. Thanks for taking our questions. I apologize that I'm going to beat this dead horse. How should we think about news flow through June 30th with regards to litholeucine and post-PD-1 melanoma? We will have the BLA submission. They'll have cohort four data analyzed. How should we think about what information is going to come between now and June 30th?
spk13: Yeah, it's a good question. All that information comes out in that period, basically, or should come out in that period. we expect it will come out in that period. So how it comes out and the order it comes out in is still something that needs to be determined, but those are the critical elements which you mentioned there. Basically the core four data, so the clinical data that will be, or at least the top line core four data, the clinical data will be in the BLA package. Where we stand with respect to the CMC issues, as much as we know, the actual occurrence of a pre-BLA meeting, and the actual occurrence of a filing, all that stuff has to happen. We'll try to time, you know, we don't know the details yet. We can't predict exactly where all this is going to happen, but we'll try to time the news flow and then keep the news flow coming as that process continues.
spk17: Okay. And then following up on the last question, kind of a bigger picture question about accelerated approval in this context, what does a confirmatory trial look like to you with Lifilucel as monotherapy in kind of advanced solid cancers?
spk13: In melanoma or just in general?
spk17: Well, I mean, as a confirmatory trial for the melanoma of DLA. I mean, previously it has been discussed the idea that a confirmatory trial does not necessarily need to be in the same indication. But, like, is that the current view or is there a notion that there needs to be a confirmatory trial specifically in post-PD-1 melanoma? Like, how do you think about what a confirmatory trial looks like?
spk13: So a couple things there. The FDA generally discourages you from having a confirmatory trial in the same indication you just got approval for it. They're more interested in a different, like going to an earlier line of therapy. Another thing I need to point out is that with the RMAT designation, we don't know for sure where we're required to have a confirmatory trial. That's very important to make clear. And we will be submitting, as we've said many times, cohort two data, IRC red data for cohort two to the FDA as part of this as well, which FDA has said can be supporting. So all that kind of goes in the same blender. And from that, you know, you will find out whether you need a confirmatory trial in the first place. And if you do, it's not likely to be in the same indication that you just got your, you just ran your pivotal data in.
spk17: Does that help? So does that end, is there kind of like a natural data set you guys have in hand that serves that function? I mean, kind of one would logically think something like the cervical cancer data set that you have developed over the last few years, is that kind of like a natural kind of confirmatory population to submit as a confirmatory group?
spk13: No, that would be for a separate label on cervical. So that's what they'd be looking for for a confirmatory trial should they require one in melanoma would be in melanoma. And so, you know, maybe the natural one that you could think of would be in an earlier line of therapy in melanoma, like our Covert 1A, a Comp 202, or something similar to that. And FDA's current thinking on this matter, as they talk about publicly, is that the sponsor should have that trial up and running at the time of approval or earlier. Okay. Cool. Thank you.
spk16: Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for participating in today's question and answer session. I would now like to turn the call back over to Dr. Fred Vogt for any closing remarks.
spk13: Thank you, operator, and thank you again for joining the I-Advanced Biotherapeutics Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2021 Financial Results Conference Call. We are really grateful for the patients and physicians who are participating in our clinical studies and moving the field of cancer forward. I want to acknowledge our employees and cross-functional teams who are working tirelessly to prepare for our BLA filing to bring life elusive to patients. I would also like to thank our shareholders and the covering analysts for their collaboration and support of IVANCE. All of you are key contributors in advancing our mission to be the global leader in developing, delivering, and innovating tilt therapy. Please feel free to reach out to our investor relations team if you wish to follow up. Thank you.
spk16: Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today's conference call. Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.
Disclaimer