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.
spk02: Good afternoon. We will begin the Macrogenics 2023 Third Quarter Corporate Progress and Financial Results Conference call in just a moment. All participants are on a listen-only mode at the moment, and we will conduct a question-and-answer session at the conclusion of the call. At this point, I will turn the call over to Jim Carroll, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer of Macrogenics.
spk10: Thank you, Operator. Good afternoon. Welcome to Macrogenics Conference call to discuss our Third Quarter 2023 Financial and Operational Results. For anyone who has not had the chance to review these results, we should have press released this afternoon outlining today's announcement, which is available under the Investors tab on our website at MacroGems.com. You may also listen to this conference call via webcast on our website, where it will be archived for 30 days beginning approximately two hours after the call is completed. I would like to alert listeners that today's discussion will include statements about the company's future expectations, plans, and prospects that constitute forelooking statements for purposes of the safe harbor provision under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Actual results may differ materially from those indicated by these four looking statements as a result of various important factors, including those discussed in the risk factors section of our annual, quarterly, and current reports filed with the SEC. In addition, any four looking statements represent our views only as of today and should not be relied upon as representing our views as of any subsequent date. While we may elect to update these four looking statements at some point in the future, we specifically disclaim any obligation to do so even if our views change except to the extent required by applicable law. And now I'd like to turn the call over to Dr. Scott Koenig, President and CEO of Macrogenics.
spk08: Thank you, Jim. I'd like to welcome everyone participating via conference call and webcast today. This afternoon I will provide key updates on our clinical programs. But before I do so, let me first turn the call back to Jim, who will review our financial results.
spk10: Thank you, Scott. This afternoon, Macrogems reported financial results for the quarter ended September 30, 2023, which highlight our financial positions. As described in our release this afternoon, MacroGen's total revenue was $10.4 million for the quarter ended September 30, 2023, compared to total revenue of $41.7 million for the quarter ended September 30, 2022. The decrease reflects the recognition of $30 million in revenue under the Insight License Agreement during the three months ended September 30, 2022. Revenue for the quarter ended September 30, 2023 included recognition of $4.5 million in contract manufacturing revenue and margins in net sales of $4.7 million, compared to $4.4 million for the quarter ended September 30, 2022. Our research and development expenses were $30.1 million for the quarter ended September 30, 2023, compared to $48.2 million for the quarter ended September 30, 2022. The decrease was primarily related to decreased costs related to discontinued studies, partially offset by increased expenses related to preclinical antibody drug conjugate, or ADC, molecules, and increased clinical expenses related to lorajirulamab. Our selling general and administrative expenses were $12.4 million for the quarter ended September 30, 2023, compared to $15.4 million for the quarter ended September 30, 2022. The decrease was primarily related to decreased selling costs for Margenza. During the quarter ended September 30, 2023, Macrogenics received a $50 million milestone payment from Sanofi related to the achievement of a primary endpoint in a T-Zield clinical study. The accounting treatment for this milestone is consistent with that for the $100 million proceeds received from the sale of our single-digit royalty interest on global med sales of PZIL to DRI healthcare acquisitions LP in March of this year. Accordingly, $50 million was included in other income as a gain on royalty monetization arrangement for the quarter ended September 30, 2023. Our net income was $17.6 million for the quarter ended September 30, 2023, compared to a net loss of $24.8 million for the quarter ended September 30, 2022. Our cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities balance as of September 30, 2023 was $256.4 million, compared to $154.3 million as of December 31, 2022. Our cash balance as of September 30, 2023 did not include the $15.7 million milestone from Gilead subsequently received. Finally, in terms of our cash runway, we anticipate that our cash, cash equivalents and markable securities balance of $256.4 million as of September 30, 2023, the $15.7 million milestone subsequently received, in addition to projected and anticipated future payments from partners and product revenues, should extend our cash runway into 2026. Our anticipated funding requirements reflect expected expenditures related to the Phase II Tamarack Study, the Phase II Lorakete Study of Loratulamab in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, as well as our other ongoing clinical and preclinical studies. And now I'll turn the call back to Scott.
spk08: Thank you, Jim. We continue to believe our proprietary pipeline of product candidates has great promise. and I will walk you through each of our key programs momentarily, as well as tell you about our plans for upcoming clinical programs. But before I do that, let me quickly remind you that since mid-2022, for our business development efforts as well as milestone achievements, we have received $335 million of non-dilutive capital. This includes $215 million from prevention DRI Sanofi in connection with T-ZEAL, $75 million from Gilead, and $45 million from Insight in connection with Zinus. Voverminimab duocarmazine, or VoverDuo, is our ADC designed to deliver a DNA-alkylating duercomycin cytotoxic payload to tumors expressing B7H3. B7H3 is a member of the B7 family of molecules involved in immune regulation. VOBRDUO was designed to take advantage of this antigen's broad expression across multiple solid tumor types. We began enrolling the Tamarack Phase II study of VOBRDUO under a modified study protocol during the second quarter. I am thrilled to tell you that we recently completed enrollment of this study ahead of schedule. As a reminder, Tamarack is being conducted in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer or MCRPC were previously treated with one prior antigen receptor axis targeted therapy. Participants may have received up to one prior taxing containing regimen, but no other chemotherapy agent. This study is being conducted to evaluate VOBR duo in patients across two experimental arms of either two mgs per kg or 2.7 mgs per kg every four weeks. We anticipate having data from the study to share with you in the first half of 2024. Next, I'll update you on loridrolumab, our bispecific tetravalent PD-1 by CTLA-4 DART molecule. We designed loridrolumab to have preferential blockade on dual PD-1 CTLA-4 expressing cells, such as tumor infiltrating lymphocytes or TILs, which are most abundant in the tumor microenvironment. We recently began enrolling the Laura Keats study, a randomized phase two clinical trial of loradrolumab in combination with docetaxel versus docetaxel alone, and second line chemotherapy naive MCRPC patient. A total of 150 patients are planned to be treated in the two to one randomized study. The current study design includes a primary study endpoint of radiographic progression-free survival or RPFS. Given that we just commenced enrollment, we'll need more time to estimate when we might complete enrollment and have data to share from the study. In addition, we continue to enroll patients in the Phase I-II dose escalation study of VOBRDUO in combination with loradrelumab in patients with advanced solid tumors, including renal cell carcinoma, pancreatic cancer, ovarian cancer, patocellular carcinoma, MCRPC, and melanoma. We anticipate commencing the dose expansion portion of the study in 2024. Next up, MGD024 is our next generation bispecific CD123 by CD3 DART molecule that incorporates a CD3 component designed to minimize cytokine release syndrome while maintaining anti-tumor cytolytic activity and permitting intermittent dosing to a longer half-life. Our phase one dose escalation study of MGD024 is ongoing in patients with CD123 positive relapsed or refractory hematologic malignancies, including acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndrome. Recall that Gilead has the option to license MGD024 at predefined decision points during the phase one study. Also, as part of our collaboration with Gilead, and as Jim already mentioned, we received a $15.7 million milestone from Gilead related to their nomination of the first of two potential research programs that leverage our DART and Trident platforms for bispecific antibodies. This nomination grants Gilead an exclusive option upon achievement of a predefined preclinical milestone to license worldwide rights to this first research program. Macrogenics will conduct the work related to this program on behalf of and funded by Gilead. Next, inoblituzumab is an FC-optimized monoclonal antibody that targets B7H3. Recently published data from a Phase II investigator-sponsored study of inoblituzumab in men with prostate cancer prompted our academic collaborators to initiate an investigator-sponsored, randomized, translationally intense prostate cancer clinical trial. The HEAT study is expected to commence enrollment in early 2024 and will evaluate the activity of neoadjuvant enoblituzumab given prior to radical prostatectomy in men with high-risk localized prostate cancer. Eligible patients will undergo a pretreatment prostate biopsy and conventional imaging CT and bone scan, as well as PSMA PET and optional prostate MRI as per institutional preferences. Finally, on our second quarter earnings call, I described our ongoing efforts in developing preclinical ADC molecules utilizing linker payload technologies we licensed from Synapsex. I'm very pleased to tell you we recently submitted an investigational new drug or IND application to the US FDA for the first of these ADCs, MGC026. This molecule utilizes a topoisomerase inhibitor-based cytotoxic mechanism directed against an undisclosed solid tumor target. In preclinical studies, the activity of this linker toxin combination compared very favorably with that of other toboisomerase inhibitor-based ADC technology. We look forward to sharing this preclinical data with you at a future scientific conference and telling you more about this molecule in early 2024. In addition to MGCO26, we are readying a second toboisomerase inhibitor-based ADC for which we currently expect to submit an IND in late 2024. And behind these two ADCs, we are exploring additional molecules for potential future IND submission. Stay tuned. To conclude, we believe we have the technical, development, and clinical expertise, as well as financial resources to support our vision of developing and delivering life-changing medicines to cancer patients. We would now be happy to open the call for questions. Operator?
spk02: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. If you have a question or a comment at this time, please press star 1-1 on your telephone. If your question has been answered, you wish to move yourself from the queue, please press star 1-1 again. We'll pause for a moment while we get our Q&A queue in order. One moment. Our first question comes from Charles with Guggenheim Securities. Your line is open.
spk13: Oh, hey, good evening, guys, and thanks for taking the question, and congrats on all the progress. Perhaps my first one here, how are you guys thinking about potential longer-term RET registrational development for Vobra Duo within prostate cancer, particularly with not only with the potential setting, but also with the potential choice or choices of a control arm, just given the current shifting landscape? Thank you.
spk08: Thanks for the question, Charles. So as you know, there's been some recent updates at the USMO meeting with regard to PSMA4. And clearly, we would like to see the results of the Tamarack study, which as we described today, will occur earlier than we originally announced. We feel that there is great opportunity for treatment of patients in later line therapy. and we are evaluating now the potential options for a control population. These may include multiple choices by the investigator, but at this point, until we finish completion of the current Tamarack study and have further discussions with the regulatory agencies, we will not provide guidance with regard to the specific control group. But it is clear from our interaction with key opinion leaders that this is a very needed treatment advance for late-aligned patients, giving them greater options than that are currently offered to them.
spk13: Got it. Great. Thanks for that. Maybe one quick follow-up on the VobroDuo with loridrolumab combination. Regarding the potential expansion cohorts starting from next year, which tumor types might you prioritize and why? And would you presumably also need to demonstrate contribution of components for this? And if so, would your current single-agent data suffice, or would you need to demonstrate this data for each given individual histology? Thank you.
spk08: Well, as you know, Charles, thanks for that question. We have now significant data of individual treatment arms for boberduo and loridrolumab in prostate cancer, for example. So, again, this would be a discussion with regard to the design of such study if we were moving forward with prostate. It is likely that prostate would be one of the expansion arms once we have established the final combination dosing for the individual components. As we have said previously, it is likely we will add one to two other tumor types in addition to prostate cancer, but at this time we're not ready to describe the ones we have selected.
spk13: Got it. Great.
spk05: Thanks for taking the questions. One moment for our next question. Our next question comes from with VTIG.
spk02: Your line is open.
spk01: Hey, good evening. Congrats on the progress. So, I guess my question is similar to the previous question that was asked. For OBRA, if you can just tell us how you are thinking about its development after readouts from Tamarack trial in the first half of next year. Do you think you will have sufficient efficacy data to directly move into a pivotal study, or you would be running another randomized trial?
spk08: So, thanks for that question, Kaveri. You know, the purpose of the current study was to fine-tune the dosing from what we had previously reported on the expansion dosing at 3 mgs per kg. Obviously, the data is still early in... the feedback of the current trial, but I'm very pleased on how this trial has both enrolled and is performing. Clearly, we feel that we will be in a great position to select a dose for a control study, a phase three study, with one of those two doses. But at this point, as I described previously, We're not in a position to describe the control arm. But I imagine it'll look similar to what we had previously described in the Phase 2-3 original design last year.
spk01: Got it. That's helpful. And for a larger LIMAP and stilfatexol combination trial for chemo and IU patients, how are you thinking about competition from radio pharmaceuticals Are you allowing enrollment of patients who have gone through these trials like PSMA-4, SPLASH, or ECLIPSE regimen? And can bone marrow and kidney toxicities from these drugs provide a big market opportunity? And maybe a follow-up on that, do you think the prior use of Atezo, if approved based on CONTACT-02 trial, could impact loridolumab's efficacy?
spk08: So lots of questions there. Opportunities for patients who have been exposed to radiopharm is possible in the study of the Lord-Gerald-Mann docetaxel. As you know, this is a randomized study, two to one, 100 of the combo and 50 of the controlled docetaxel. We do believe that there will be great opportunities for patients. It expands the opportunity here despite the fact of encouraging data for Plovicto in the earlier line therapy. Clearly, we are not curing these patients even from that treatment. As you know, there was some question with regard to the overall survival benefit because crossover of Plavicto, and certainly there will be challenges for patients who have a history of bone marrow toxicities from the radiopharmaceutical or from other agents going forward. Clearly, at this point, we're still in the early phases of enrolling in this study, and we'll have more to speak about this in 2024. I didn't catch your last question. Could you repeat that one?
spk01: Yes. You think that a TESO, if it gets approved based on the contact O2 trial, do you think it could impact large oil map efficacy?
spk08: I don't think that that's going to be a...
spk05: One moment.
spk08: That the activity of Laura General Lab based on the data we've reported to date should have a superior outcome in various prostate settings.
spk05: One moment for our next question.
spk02: Our next question comes from Esther Drott with VMO Capital Markets. Your line is open.
spk07: Great. Thanks for taking the question. Just a couple of quick ones. So the first one, just was curious, Scott, how much overlap or trial-side overlap you have between Tamarack and sort of the LORCIT? And could we sort of see, you know, maybe a similar sort of trajectory in terms of enrollment for that study if sites are sort of similar between those two studies? And then for the Vobra-Laurie duo, for the combination, just curious as to sort of maybe where you are currently with the dose escalation and sort of the drivers here for the expansion start in 2024. Thanks.
spk08: Okay, after you cut out, let me answer the first question, which was on the trial overlap. There is some sites that are enrolling in both studies, but largely separate sites. But I think we're in very good shape with the current sites that are set up for Laura Keith to have a good enrollment in late this year and into 24, but clearly still
spk05: Are you still there, Scott? Yeah. I'm here.
spk10: Scott, you faded out. Would you mind answering that again?
spk08: Okay. I didn't hear the second question with regard
spk05: for the trial. Can I ask the second question or?
spk07: Yeah, please, please. Yeah, sorry. Yeah, so just was curious to sort of where you were with sort of the Volgra-Lowry dose escalation and sort of the pushes and pull here for the start of the expansion trial in 2024.
spk05: One moment, please stand by. Are you back, Scott? Ladies and gentlemen, please stand by. Hello? You're back now, Scott. We can hear you.
spk08: Okay. I switched computers.
spk09: Yeah, we can hear you. Yes, we can hear you. Okay.
spk07: Okay. Should I ask the question again? I'm not sure if you heard me. Please. No, I didn't hear. Yeah, no, just curious to see sort of where you were with the dose escalation of the Lori-Vorbra combination. Okay. What sort of triggers here the expansion start in 2024? If you can just maybe provide a little bit more color on where you are with the escalation.
spk08: Yeah, we're pretty close to selecting the doses now. We're fine-tuning the individual doses. We expect that to occur by the end of the year and then would move into the expansion in early 2024.
spk07: Got it. Thank you.
spk05: One moment for our next question. Our next question comes from John Miller with Evercore.
spk02: Your line is open.
spk14: Hey, guys. Thanks so much for taking my question, and congrats on all the progress. I guess one on Laurie Keet. This is a randomized phase two here, but you were previously guiding to a phase two expansion after the ongoing phase one. Are we still expecting to see a meaningful MCRPC data set here in an expansion setting in first F24, or is this taking the place of that? And then secondly, on the 024 program, Are Gilead opt-ins – I mean, I know they're at unspecified points in Phase 1, but are we going to see public-facing data from that Phase 1 before Gilead has opt-in rights, or is it possible they have opt-in rights before even Phase 1 data is available?
spk08: So let me start with the second one. They can opt-in any time during Phase 1, so they will control the data with regard to – public presentation. But they can do it before the data phase one is complete. With regard to the lorikeet and the expansion study, that study is complete. But for the fact that several of the patients, three of the patients are still on lorigerolamab, this is now coming on almost two years from enrollment in that study. We are being encouraged by the activity and the ability to retreat patients over long periods of time. With regard to the lorikeet phase two, the plan is to complete that study, make decisions not only for the chemo-naive population, but also look at the opportunity of lorikeet in other prostate settings and what we will describe is opportunities to test this in other tumor settings. And we should provide some updates very soon with regard to additional indications that we would like to pursue with .
spk14: Great. Thanks for the color there, Scott. But maybe I missed it. Are we still expecting a LORI expansion update, an actual data set coming for SAP next year?
spk08: Well, you know, from the prostate study that, you know, we presented that, as you know, last February, there is for that particular cohort, there's, you know, just the longevity of the prostate. With regard to the non-prostate indications, what we have said is that once we have decided to move forward with other indications, they may provide opportunities to present the dating for which we base the decision to move forward.
spk14: Okay, thanks so much. And maybe one on the deeper pipeline then. You mentioned a topopayload on 026, but you previously talked about multiple payloads and linkers. So how diverse are those next couple of molecules that you mentioned coming just behind 026? Are they also representative of that multiple payloads, multiple linkers program that you've got?
spk08: I'll continue to look at the options. This will be in terms of the linker payloads. And because the way the biospacer and toxin is set up, we can select one of several. What we've said, this first one is a topoisomerase inhibitor. The second one will be a topoisomerase inhibitor. We're evaluating not only a topoisomerase inhibitor, but other toxins associated with other targets going forward. but are not in a position yet to discuss either the targets or the particular tableau that we'll use for the number three, four, or beyond.
spk05: Thanks so much, guys. One moment for our next question. Our next question comes from Peter Lawson with Barclays. Your line is open.
spk11: Great. Thanks, Scott. Thanks for taking the questions. Just on Tamarack, what did that enroll faster than expected, and how much data should we expect to see from that in the first half of next year?
spk09: Well, I have to say that we're thrilled. We're in Europe and the U.S. and in Asia.
spk08: We saw great enthusiasm from the investigators, the patients on the study. I can't give you a little bit any more color than they have in the opportunity here with Boba Duo in helping their patients. And the rationale why we're doing that resonated very well with the investigators as well as the patients. What the study was as 100 patients, 50 in each arm. We've actually exceeded that. It is an overall study. So, we expect a fairly sizable amount of data to come out in 2024.
spk11: Okay, and then on ADAM-9, any details where that readout was nudged back from second half of this year to 24?
spk08: The study is being completed out, finalizing, and as Imunogen has said, they will report out in the beginning part of 2024. As I've indicated to you, One of the challenges has been always with identifying the appropriate dose moving forward. They are finishing out the patients that are on the non-small cell lung cohort currently, and we'll report on that in the first part of the year and with regard to next steps for that program.
spk11: Great. Okay. Thank you so much.
spk02: One moment for our next question. Our next question comes from Salvan Tarkan with JMP Securities. Your line is open.
spk00: Hi, good evening. Congrats on the update, and thanks for taking my question. Maybe a more big-picture question. Can you comment maybe on some key takeaways from Esmo and Sitsi on B7H3 as a checkpoint? There's been more and more presentation also of what we can learn from the Daiichi Merck partnership. And then a second question is, what is your role in the HEAT study on ENO? I know that's investigator-related and it's earlier stage prostate cancer, but what is your role here and what's your involvement? Thank you.
spk08: So with regard to the data, first of all, as you commented on the partnership now with Daiichi, Merck includes a 7300 molecule. I have to think that we're very encouraged that the way that that partnership was constructed and the value that Merck placed on that relationship of the 7300 with being a very important part of the three target deal, it only heightens, I think, the value we see for VOBRDUO and our whole B7H3 program. With regard to the that Daiichi presented in their poster session, if you recall, there was more in terms of improved activity in the prostate cohort that they tested. They were seeing about five months of our PSS is first reported, about a year of and a 25% PSA50 response, the latter of which is not any different than previously reported. So we feel, again, very good about where VOBRDUO sits right now, having this additional data that will come out on November 24th. on a camera study to be able to move forward with a very active drug with a proper dosing to mitigate some of the side effects we were seeing. With regard to the heat study, Again, we have always had a very close relationship with and had discussions with them on where the value we see in settings like a neoadjuvant use of this drug. And we're also looking at opportunities for in other settings as well. With regard to this being a collaborative study, it is mostly an IST, so they have full control over the execution and providing the data. but we have constant conversations back and forth with regarding the opportunity for ennobling another B7H3 molecule in the treatment of . Thank you.
spk05: One more for our next question.
spk02: Our next question comes from Jonathan Chang with Luron Partners. Your line is open.
spk12: Hi, guys. This is Faisal for Jonathan. Thanks for taking our question. So congrats on the Tamarack enrollment. I guess now that you sort of know what kind of patients you've enrolled, what do you see as the right benchmarks for Vobra Duo in this setting?
spk08: Well, I mean, as I indicated, that we were looking to achieve a similar range of activity that we had previously where we were seeing about half the patients achieving PSA 50s. I said we would look for a 40 to 60% range on PSA 50s, obviously looking hopefully for some of these patients that have PSA 90s. With regard to the objective responses here, Again, we have reported, and what I just described to Daichi with approximately a quarter of those patients have objective responses without even higher levels. And we think that there is an opportunity there given as improved, these patients will stay on drug potentially longer. when they don't have to come off for side effects that are problematic for them. With regard to RPFS, again, we look to the historical data on both Plavicta, on Kabazi-Tax, over the cards, et cetera. Again, as I just reported to you, with RPFS from the 70 to in the range of five months, we obviously would be looking hopefully for longer RPFS, you know, in the six months or greater. So, I would say those are sort of, you know, general ranges, nothing absolute here. with regard to decisions, the totality of the data, which will decide our next steps for this program.
spk12: Got it. That's super helpful. Thank you. And then, you know, recently there was data presented for a PSMA ADC and also a steeple and T-cell engager like phasal and data in prostate cancer. Just curious your thoughts on the competitive landscape and how you see your assets positioned.
spk08: Well, I think actually we're in wonderful shape. and giving greater opportunities for patients. For PSMA ADCs, if you look at the data that has been presented at various meetings, the actual patterns of PSMA and B7H3 are not identical. They overlap some tumors. But there are clearly select parts of the tumors which will express one or the other. As I pointed it out, as patients progress to later line, PSMA tends to drop significantly, whereas are maintained. So we think that it provides greater opportunity and choices for treating particularly patients. But most importantly, with regard to this particular program, having an ADC for B7H3 versus an ADC for PSMA, PSMA is going to be largely limited to prostate cancer, where with a broad expression of B7H3 across most solid tumors, I think that we are in great opportunity not only to for patients with prostate cancer, but through a whole host of other tumors. With regard to other platform technologies, again, none of the data I've seen is overwhelming in that regard. But again, we'll have to see how that pans out. In most of these cases, again, point I was making with regard to the PSMA specificity, it will limit the prognosis of cancer.
spk05: Thank you. One moment for our next question. Our next question comes from . Your line is open.
spk03: Hi, guys. This is . Thanks for taking my questions, and congrats on all the progress. Just a couple of quick ones. Will there be an interim look in Laura Keet? And if so, what might trigger that interim look? Also curious if you're able to share any color on powering assumptions and remind us what the trial is designed to show in terms of separation and PFS between the arms. Thanks.
spk08: So there is a plan that will likely be a futility analysis. We have not provided the statistics around that. I should point out that historical data in multiple controlled trials in this chemo-naive population has shown our PFS is around eight months. So we're working on this to be able to beat that milestone and that landmark.
spk03: Okay, got it. And then maybe one on MG024. I guess, can you remind us what you view as an acceptable CRS profile for this program? And then maybe on the efficacy side, what you would see as a worthwhile complete response rate in a phase one dose escalation, decided to maybe move into expansion at phase two.
spk08: Thanks. As you know, this is a study, as we pointed out, that has with Gilead, so I can't speak to them in terms of what their bar for this study. We described historically in late-line patients with the the precursor of this molecule. We were seeing at that time in the primary induction failure population north of 20% response rates. Clearly, we would like to see higher rates, as now we think that we have both a on the reduced CRS profile, and as well as the ability to give this dose, dosing on an interim, intermittent basis, and . With regard to the specific tolerance for safety profile, Clearly, the absence or markedly reduced low-grade CRS and limiting it to potentially initial dosing and not later dosing would be, I think, a favorable profile that would allow the use both in early-line and late-line patients. But again, this is a decision that Gilead would make based on their expectations.
spk03: Okay, got it. And the last one for me, just a very high level. We're just wondering if you received a lot of inbounds for potential partnerships with Mobiduo. And if so, maybe when you entertain partnerships, would there be more around the phase three, or is that something you'd rather do sooner rather than later?
spk08: So the answer is we've had very... Encouraging discussions historically about Boba Duo with many large companies, both pharma and biotech companies. What we have described to them is our interest in getting additional data in the Tamarack study before we would engage in further discussions on potential partnerships Back to the point I was making earlier, because of the here for VOBRDUO to treat many, many different tumors, that is something we as macrogenetics ourselves, and so at the appropriate time, I would envision if developments in the case that we're now proceeding with could entertain a future partnership which would both expand the opportunity not only in prostate cancer but in other tumor types as well with a partner who has the resources and capabilities to support it along with us.
spk02: Got it. Very helpful. Thanks very much.
spk05: One moment for our next question. Our next question comes from Steven Wiley with Stiefel. Your line is open.
spk06: Yeah, good afternoon. Thanks for taking the questions. Maybe just a quick one on the next Gen ADC efforts. And Scott, I know you're not going to be disclosing target antigens anytime soon. Just wondering philosophically how you're kind of thinking about selecting target antigens for this next round of ADCs that you put into the clinic, and I guess how far out on the risk curve are you willing to step, considering you are tethering a novel anchor and payload to these things? And I guess when you declare the target for the first candidate, the first half of next year, is this something that we should expect to fall into kind of the highly competitive buckets of of ADC antigens that we've seen across the landscape, or is this thing going to be kind of maybe a little bit more differentiated and unique? Thanks.
spk08: Thanks, Steve. And we put a lot in the selection of both the targets as well as the linker payloads. Clearly, there is lots of competition, and therefore, we want to be thoughtful in the selection of both. We feel that given what Synapse has already shown with regard to what we believe is superiority platform, the ability of using a DIR in this case close to four. of the exotecan in various configurations and our own preclinical data showing the favorable aspects of this. With regard to the specific target, I think what you'll be pleased to see is, I would say, a mixture of targets that are validated to some degree, but not necessarily have any approved product market where we can be very competitive. There's opportunities for clearly novel targets that no one else is pursuing. And in some cases where there's some scanty data and where they've been pursued but have been disappointing, which could be described due to the design of the particular molecules that have been tested. So I think over the course of the next six months, you will certainly see the first looks at some of these targets, presentations at scientific meetings. And then later in 24 and going out in 25, we'll be adding on more of these targets. And I think that the pace we are at right now is quite favorable where, you know, we're pushing the team to be able to have a new IMD on an annual or slightly longer basis. So that would provide both opportunities for organic growth of , but also given the importance of bringing in non-dilutive capital, the opportunity for partnerships there. I should also point out that because Synapsex also has partnerships with other companies using their linker toxins, so having that validation early Later this year, from other molecules as well as our own, will give a lot more encouragement for the value of .
spk06: Great. Thanks for taking the question.
spk02: Again, ladies and gentlemen, if you have a question or a comment at this time, please press star 11 on your telephone.
spk05: And I'm not showing any further questions at this time.
spk02: I'd like to turn the call back over to Scott for any closing remarks.
spk08: Well, thank you, Operator, and thank you all for joining us today. We look forward to providing updates in 2024, both on our clinical and preclinical outcomes. We hope you have a good day.
spk02: Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today's presentation. You may now disconnect and have a wonderful day.
Disclaimer