Ascelia Pharma AB (publ)

Thank you and welcome everyone to the webcast for Aselia Farmer's Q1 report for 2025. On this call, we will be making forward-looking statements. On today's call, we'll start with the recent key events and then head into our portfolio update before moving to financials and priorities ahead. After the presentation, we will open up for questions. As mentioned, I'm Magnus Kofridsson, CEO of Aselia Farmer, and with me today I have Julie Wehrers-Brogren, Deputy CEO, and Andreas Norlin, Chief Scientific Officer. At Aselia Farmer, we identify, develop and commercialize novel drugs that address unmet medical needs within rare cancer conditions. We have two drugs in our pipeline. OrviGlands is in registration phase as we have successfully completed the pivotal phase three clinical study SPARCL and we are preparing the NDA submission. OrviGlands has orphan drug designation from the FDA and is targeting an addressable market opportunity of $800 million globally. Onkrol is ready to start phase two in the treatment of gastric cancer based on encouraging results in phase one and a high level of unmet medical need. We're based in Malmö, Sweden and are listed on Nasdaq Stockholm. The first quarter of 2025 was eventful as we continued our preparations for the submission of the OrviGlands NDA. I'd like to briefly mention some of the key highlights. The interest in the scientific and medical community continues to be strong and in Q1 we announced the acceptance of three abstracts here of two oral presentations at ESCAR, which is the European Society of Gastrointestinal Radiology, which took place this weekend in Amsterdam. After the end of the quarter, we announced acceptance of a poster presentation at the ISPO conference in Canada, which is also this week about the burden of disease for the OrviGlands target patient population. In February, an extraordinary general meeting was held to approve an option program to replace a program that expired late 2024 without being exercised. In Q1, we also announced the outcome of our meeting with the FDA. Andreas will talk more about it and we are, as mentioned, very pleased with the results from the meeting where FDA provided clear and constructive feedback so we can finalize the NDA according to their interest. The T01 warrants were issued in connection with our rights issue in the fall of 2024 and the exercise period was in the first half of April, so after the quarter. There was very strong interest and 96% of the warrants were utilized and the gross proceeds were approximately 43 million Swedish kronor. Last week we held the annual general meeting and the bulletin has also been communicated. We're very excited about OrviGlands and here is why. OrviGlands is addressing a well-defined unmet medical need for a subgroup of people living with cancer. This is an $800 million global market opportunity and OrviGlands is a -in-class product to target this and has orphan drug designation from the FDA. We have strong data from nine clinical studies and manufacturing has been upscaled to commercial scale. With the strong Phase 3 data, OrviGlands has now been advanced to regulatory phase and we're preparing for NDA submission. We're pursuing some important value creation opportunities with OrviGlands. The first objective is a timely submission and approval of OrviGlands with the optimal label. The key steps on the way are that we completed the SPARC clinical study report in early Q4. We've also announced the outcome from the meeting with the FDA here in Q1 as planned. The FDA feedback is being incorporated into the NDA and the submission is on track for the middle of this year. We expect the most likely timing for the submission to be in the first half of August. The second objective is to progress OrviGlands for commercialization. The key activities are to continue to advance the launch readiness by ensuring the manufacturing and supply chain is ready for launch, as well as working with medical experts, including key opinion leaders, payers, patient advocacy groups and other key stakeholders. The other key objective is entering into a commercialization partnership for OrviGlands. I'm very happy with the progress we're making in Assyria and the efforts made by our team to ensure we will meet our objectives and create value for shareholders. We will start the portfolio section of our presentation with OrviGlands and I'd like to hand the word to Andreas. Thank you Magnus.

OrviGlands is a first class liver MRI contrast agent, which addresses a very specific unmet medical need for which there are no good alternatives available today. Adequate visualization of liver tumors and metastasis is critical for making the right treatment decisions. Contrast enhanced MRI is the gold standard procedure for examination of patients with suspected or known tumors or metastasis. The most used contrast agents are all based on the heavy metal gadolinium. In patients with severe kidney impairment, use of gadolinium based contrast agents has been associated with an increased risk of a very severe side effect called NSF, Nephrogenic Systemic Fibrosis, which may even have lethal outcome. Both the European and the US regulatory authorities have for that reason issued warnings for the use of gadolinium based contrast agents in this group of patients. The consequence is that patients with impaired kidney function typically will get an MRI without contrast, which will result in liver images of suboptimal quality with the risk for that their cancer is not managed in the best possible way. We envision that OrviGlands, which is based on manganese, will address this unmet medical need and in the future become an efficacious non-gadolinium contrast agent for liver cancer patients with impaired kidney function. Our clinical phase three study, SPARCL, completed last year has clearly demonstrated that OrviGlands enhanced liver MRI is superior to unenhanced MRIs. The primary efficacy evaluation in the study was done by three independent radiologists or readers, and they all show that visualization of focal liver lesions when having access to both unenhanced and unenhanced MRI images was significantly improved compared to visualization of lesions in unenhanced images. And the statistical analysis demonstrated p-values below 0.001 for all the relevant tests of the improved imaging. Furthermore, the results from secondary endpoints consistently demonstrated the superiority of OrviGlands over unenhanced MRI with no analysis favoring unenhanced MRI. No serious adverse drug reactions were observed and more than 80% of reported adverse reactions were mild and short lived, primarily related to the gastrointestinal tract, including nausea, diarrhea and vomiting. And the safety results from this vulnerable patient population were consistent with previous studies. All in all, the study met its primary objective by demonstrating that OrviGlands significantly improved visualization of focal liver lesions while being well tolerated by the patients. With SPARQL, we have completed the clinical development and the comprehensive clinical program includes a total of 286 patients and healthy volunteers in nine clinical studies. Taken together, these studies have consistently demonstrated positive efficacy and safety of OrviGlands. And with the Phase 3 SPARQL study confirming the superior visualization of focal liver lesions in the target population of patients with severe kidney impairment and an adverse event profile consistent with what we observed in the other studies, we are moving ahead with the submission of the marketing approval application, the NDA, for OrviGlands. In March, we announced that we received the final minutes from a meeting with the US FDA at which the authority provided clear and constructive feedback on the preparation of the NDA file. The meeting was an important step towards the NDA submission and it was held to present our plan for the NDA and agree on details pertaining to, among other things, the analysis and presentation of the clinical data. Manufacturing documentation and generally how to organize the data and documents in the file. We are implementing the feedback by the FDA to the NDA file and continue to aim for the submission mid 2025, most likely in the first half of August. In summary, we are now taking the last step towards the NDA submission. Having completed the reporting of the SPARQL study that shows that OrviGlands provides superior imaging compared to unenhanced MRI and successfully completed the meeting with the FDA, we focus our efforts on making the NDA file ready. We continue this work according to our plans and anticipate submission mid 2025, first half of August, most likely. And after submission, we expect the standard 10 month review period from the FDA. So with that, I will hand over to Judy.

Thank you, Andreas. The addressable market for OrviGlands has a global value of 800 million US dollars annually. The US represents almost half of this. This market opportunity for OrviGlands addresses the unmet need for a well defined patient population, cancer patients who need liver imaging and who also have severely impaired kidney function, where gadolinium may not be recommended. Our strategy for commercialization is to launch through partners. This strategy supports our ambition to secure the optimal balance between future revenues and investment required. Our focused, ambitious launch strategy and plans build on advanced market insights in place to support this partnering strategy and the launch. As mentioned, the US is our largest commercial opportunity. In the US alone, our real world data, i.e. data from realized procedures in our target patient population, show that every year 100,000 abdominal imaging procedures are performed in around 50,000 patients that fall under the black box warning for gadolinium contrast agents. This is about 4% of people with cancer undergoing abdominal imaging. The well defined patient population with a clear unmet need also drives an attractive value and pricing opportunity. And we have extensive input from market access and pricing experts with whom we've tested different pricing levels and collected insights on the evidence needed to support access and reimbursement. And we have investigated pricing and access benchmarks of other innovative diagnostic drugs in the US. In clinical practice, 90% of healthcare professionals are concerned with issues related to gadolinium contrast agents, including the severe side effect associated with our target patient population, NSF. In fact, 16% of providers have experienced cases of NSF in patients exposed to gadolinium. These insights come from market research with 270 US healthcare professionals and answers from radiologists, nephrologists and oncologists. The insights confirm the concerns with gadolinium in clinical practice and the unmet need for ophthalmology. When speaking to experts, whether in radiology or nephrology, they confirm that an alternative to gadolinium for our target patient population would address concerns of today. Beyond the risk of NSF in kidney impaired patients, gadolinium is well known to be retained in the brain and other tissue in all patients. And scrutiny over the possible safety effects is a key concern of regulatory and medical bodies. It is also well known that gadolinium is excreted by the kidneys in urine. And because it's difficult to remove in our syringe system, it's discharged into the environment and into our drinking water. There's an urgency from regulators and medical bodies to find a viable alternative to the growing use of toxic gadolinium, an alternative that is not associated with these potential safety and environmental concerns for patients and for the environment with gadolinium. And the industry is responding. Recent developments from the large gadolinium manufacturers are focused on smaller doses of gadolinium. And there's even an early stage injectable manganese contrast agent, which is not liver specific like overglances. A more recent point of concern for gadolinium contrast agent manufacturers is that almost all gadolinium is today exported from China. Beyond having seen significant price increases over the past years, there's a more urgent concern about supply continuity and impact of trade barriers and import taxes for these manufacturers. In short, the momentum for an alternative to gadolinium is getting better and better. And we're excited that we have a head start and that overglance is expected to be a first in class to lead a future with less gadolinium and improved outcomes for our target patients. The -to-market strategy for overglance is to launch with commercialization partners. And our dialogue with potential partners is progressing. This supports our objectives to secure the optimal balance between future revenues and investment required. This strategy also allows us to leverage commercial capabilities already established by a partner. We're also working in parallel to ensure that overglance and a partner is ready to launch upon approval. For example, that manufacturing is ready for the first product launch. We're excited to see the successful acceptances of SPARCL data for presentation at major scientific conferences. Data around overglance has been presented in total in four oral presentations and four abstract presentations at major conferences this far. This week, data from SPARCL was presented at the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology, ESCA, in two presentations by leading radiologists. Another key stakeholder group for overglance is payers and policymakers. A poster with real world data on the vulnerability and unmet needs for the target patient population of overglance was presented this week at the Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research, ISPOR. I will now hand it over to Andreas to talk about ONCORAL.

Thank you, Julie. Yeah, let's talk about ONCORAL, the other asset in our development portfolio. ONCORAL is a daily tablet formulation of ArenoTecan, a well-established intravenous chemotherapy agent. The daily tablet formulation enables a frequent low-dose dosing regimen that could offer potential advantages on both efficacy and safety compared to the infrequent high-dose intravenous administration used today. We have completed a phase one study which demonstrated a promising safety profile and an uptake of the drug after oral dosing consistent with the daily dosing concept. We are now planning for taking ONCORAL into clinical phase two. The objective is to generate clinical proof of efficacy data in metastatic gastric cancer in combination with Lonserv, another oral cancer treatment approved for gastric cancer. Animal data has demonstrated a synergistic effect of ArenoTecan when combined with Lonserv, which makes this combination very interesting. The plan phase two study is designed to study ONCORAL plus Lonserv against Lonserv alone. The study will randomise approximately 100 patients and involves a clinical collaboration with Taiho Oncology, the developer and marketeer of Lonserv, who will provide clinical advice and Lonserv for the study. ArenoTecan is a well-established chemotherapy with recognised antitumour effect in solid tumours. Our strategy is to start ONCORAL development in gastric cancer, which is today a $3 billion market. For these patients, there is a high medical need for improving outcomes and there is an opportunity for an orphan indication. We also see opportunities for developing ONCORAL in other solid tumour indications, where a daily dosing tablet formulation can demonstrate an attractive efficacy and safety profile. ArenoTecan as an IV formulation is already approved in colorectal and pancreatic cancer and in addition, ArenoTecan is clinically demonstrated and recognised in guidelines for other cancer types. We are assessing these opportunities as part of our ongoing strategic planning for ONCORAL. Back to Julie again.

Thank you Andreas. I will now move to the update on our financials and our priorities ahead. We were very pleased to see the successful outcome of our T01 warrants series exercise during the first half of April. With a subscription rate of almost 96%, the proceeds reached 43 million Swedish kronor before cost. The successful warrants exercise strengthens our financial flexibility. We now have a cash runway to at least the end of 2025, well beyond the NDA submission and repayment of the 20 million loan to FENYA with a reserved cash for a potential repayment of the 7.5 million convertibles at the end of 2025. This runway excludes financing from partnering. In Q1, our operating result was a lost, i.e. cost of 20.1 million kronor. Costs are at a similar level compared to Q4 2024 with a continued focus on the NDA submission preparations. At the end of March 25, we had 57 million kronor in the bank. This excludes the 43 million gross proceeds from our T01 warrants exercise in April 2025. As mentioned, our cash runway now reaches at least the end of 2025 and it includes a reserve for the potential repayment of the remaining 7.5 million FENYA convertibles at the end of the year. And as mentioned, it also excludes financing from partnering. To wrap up, we have substantial value creation opportunities ahead for Overglens and for Celia Pharma. With Overglens, we are bringing to market a -in-class diagnostic drug addressing an 800 million dollar market for patients with a high on med need. We have two key objectives. First, a timely submission and approval of Overglens with the optimal label. The key steps on the way are the completion of the SPARCL clinical study report, a milestone we achieved early November last year, and which reinforced the successful study outcomes of the Phase 3 studies primary and secondary endpoints and supports the NDA process. In March this year, we communicated positive outcomes from our meeting with the FDA in advance of our NDA submission. And we plan to submit the NDA in the middle of the year, as previously guided, and it will most likely be during the first half of August. Our other objective is to progress Overglens for commercialization for patients in need by entering into a partnering agreement for the launch and by securing that a partner and Overglens is ready for launch by approval. All in all, we have progressed well in Q1 with the continued preparations for the NDA submission of Overglens and a successful meeting with the FDA. We continue to progress our partnering discussions for the commercialization of Overglens. And in terms of financing, we reached a successful 96% subscription rate for our T01 warrants, providing 43 million gross in additional financing. We look very much forward to executing on the opportunities ahead for Overglens and for Aselia Pharma in 2025 and beyond.

That completes our quarterly presentation, and we would now like to open up for questions. Yeah, we have received some questions here that you have added, so we will respond to those. So one question is on the timing of when we can expect a partnership. Julie, do you want to take that one?

Yes, we want to enter into the partnership agreement when we get the right terms and when we have found the right partner. So, of course, we cannot comment on this in detail. We want a partner who can also be ready for launch. So, of course, many of you, I think, are hoping that it is in this year, of course, and we are really excited about the progress on the partnering discussions.

So another question on this topic is whether we are looking for a US-only partner or a global partner. Can you share any thoughts on that?

Again, it depends on the specific terms and the type of partner. The US is by far the largest single opportunity, so that is really a key to start with. Then is it a partner with global capabilities? It makes a lot of sense that it is a global partner. If the best terms for the US is with someone who is focused on the US, then we can find partners for other markets. But there are synergies in a global launch, for sure, but also other opportunities if it's not that direction.

So we have a question here in terms of...

Maybe I need to scroll up.

We have a question here on the time plan for the rest of Overglance. And whether any geographies would be first. I can comment on that. I think as we have communicated, the US is first and we want to do other geographies with a partner. So the timing and priority of the other markets depend on the partnering discussions and the dialogue with the partner. So we don't have any sort of specific guidance at this point on those timelines. Then we have another question, which is if we provided a ballpark cost on crawl phase two and on crawl phase three, and whether Taiho will cover some of the cost. I think maybe that could be a broader question responding to what is the plan for on crawl. Andreas, do you want to share some thoughts?

As we have said, we are preparing for this phase two study and that will start with a dose finding part of the study. That is of course the stepping stone for the rest. You have to review the outcome of each step before you decide. We are very happy to have Taiho taking part of the initial steps here and then we need to see how it goes.

There is another question on recent developments in gastric cancer. That is obviously something we are looking at as well and we will incorporate into the planning of the clinical study that we will hopefully do with on crawl. Julie, here is a question for you. Whether we have had recent talks with payers or insurance companies on pricing and also we are mentioning other innovative products. If you can share any comments on that?

We have done payers research, policy makers, payers, decision makers also at hospitals, private and public payers continuously. Over the years we have several pieces of research and that includes pricing and of course how they will cover over glance. We do also have research into other innovative diagnostics as mentioned in this question. We don't think it is right to specifically comment on other products but a good place to start is to look at diagnostics who also address a small patient population. For example diagnostics that have an orphan drug designation and those that have been sort of launched within the last five, six, seven years. Without mentioning product names there are some within PET imaging and similar areas. It is mainly to look at diagnostic drugs that address a small patient population. That is the benchmark also from a payer perspective because it is similar in the way that the budget impact overall is fairly low because it is a small patient population with a high end need.

Thanks Julie. We have a question here related to initiation of coverage recently by ABG and they issued a research report in April. The question is that they have significantly smaller market size. I think we're not really able to comment on that. I mean we provide the guidance that we have shared with you also on this presentation. So I think that is what we really communicate in terms of market size.

But I think it's fair to add when we look at the way we have worked with our market estimate is that we have combined both literature reviews, epidemiology available online and probably available data. And then we've combined that with market insights, real world data and market research for over glance. So we are confident that we have worked thoroughly to define our market estimate and then of course other parties have their models.

Which is perfectly normal and so I think that's our perspective is that all the analysts that cover us are doing a good job. I don't know if we have any additional questions.

We

have a couple of questions from teleconference. So the next question comes from Dennis Alf from Private Investor. Please go ahead.

Hi, thanks for the presentation. I have a question about the timeline communication, the first half of August there. So it strikes me as quite specific. So I'm wondering, I know that it's in line with previous communication, but should we interpret this as maybe being challenging to submit on time? Is that why you choose to communicate most likely first half of August?

No, I think it's, I mean, the team has been working extremely hard throughout the process and we got some feedback from the FDA and that is doing some additional work that is to be expected. And then we have, you would say more and more visibility on, you would say, finalization of all the analysis and things that the FDA asked for. And we can see that that is most likely in the first half of August. And as you say, that's within the guidance we've given, but the guidance we have provided is also that you would say in principle it could start next week as submission. And that is not going to happen. So it's more to provide transparency to everyone that this is the timeline that we expect and we believe is the most likely scenario. So bearing any unforeseen negative surprises, then we are comfortable with that guidance. Did that answer your question? Thank you.

I guess I have a follow up on that. Just a short follow up on that. I mean, one could envision that you hold out submitting the application to extend your exclusivity timeline. Is this something you would consider as well as a strategic choice?

Yeah, it's a good point. I mean, we're looking, our key objective is to maximize the value of overglance. And as you're alluding to the exclusivity window from the orphan designation starts on the day of approval. And we want to make sure that we have a partner that is ready for launch. So that is certainly that's an important element. We're focused on making sure that the NDA submission has the highest possible quality, including incorporating everything that we discussed with the FDA. So we have a more smooth review process as possible, highest likelihood of approval and having a partner that is ready for launching.

All right, that's all. Thanks.

Yeah, thanks, Dennis.

The next question comes from Johan Oneros from Redeye. Please go ahead.

Great. Thank you for taking our questions. Some of them have been addressed already. Can you hear me all right? Yeah, we hear you well. Hello. Yeah, we hear you well. I have a question about the additional clarification on where you are in the FDA process. This final step of pre-submission that it involves sort of questions regarding analysis, compiling 16 data. Is the technical manufacturing side completed?

Yeah,

should I start?

Yeah, the first part regarding the documentation, that is what you always need to do. And that's what we discussed with FDA, how to present the data. And there are quite a lot of documents that needs to first be compiled and also summarized. So that is part of the normal process.

And we are also ready for supply or making ourselves ready for the supply to fit the timelines for the approval.

Yeah, you say supply and documentation is on track both for the submission and review and for launch. Yes.

And also, congratulations to getting securing the attention of FDA. Of course, volatile times and level of uncertainty regarding the US administration in general. So that's good news in our view. And what about the partner discussion dynamics? Has they become more intense now in the final stage of the pre-submission process or you're active in conferences as well? Yeah,

I mean, you know that we want to succeed with both of these things. And it's a good time because we have both the phase three data, we have the clarity from the FDA meeting. So we've de-risked a lot of this asset. And that, of course, makes partnering discussions more constructive in terms of the risks. And these things take time. So I think the best way to answer your question is we're not bored.

Yeah. And I suspect that there could be an element of data potential or an advanced discussion. The conversation partner would want to see sort of that the submission is ticked off before engaging in the final sort of contract signing stage.

Yeah, we can say in detail, but you could say the mechanics are the further we bring the asset, the more of the value we keep, of course, depends on how far we bring it. Yeah, the more value we add, the more the partner would, of course, pay in the deal for that.

But we're not, as we're saying, we're pursuing the best possible deal. And it's really we're not having any guidance on timing.

Yeah, no. And also, these times in this period, there's a lot of considerations on tariffs and potential changes in price dynamics on the US market. I understand you have sourcing relating to the US and also presumably in this space, there is no real international reference price to be considering. So the risks on those issues should be moderate.

Yeah, I think it's an important point. As you mentioned, we are in a good place. Our manufacturing is in the US and you would say our cost of goods is not a major component of our product. So I think it's not we're probably in the low end of the risk exposure for that compared to other companies. But I think the there is a bit of uncertainty. I think we have many times had new US presidents and you say focus on health care costs in the US as well as in other countries. So I think we need to see what is what is really what materializes. But I think we're in a good place. US is the first market we're launching in. So we'll see.

Yes, and finally, putting on growth to the side and focusing on Orvik Glance for this year, obviously, submission and signing a partner is the key priority. But you will still be engaged in different ways in Orvik Glance. What are the sort of support and to do consideration in the later stage of the review process? Will you consider priority review and perhaps the protocol for these diagnostics will be reviewed and updated as well, for example?

Yeah, I can start on the priority review and then Julie can share some thoughts on our role. So we have not decided yet whether to go for priority review. I think that would most likely also be discussed with us with a potential partner. What we are focusing on is that we want to have the partner ready for the launch and make a successful launch. The question, Julie, on our role. Any thoughts on?

Yeah, I think, as mentioned, the value of working with the partners, of course, that they have the commercial infrastructure and capabilities. And for most partners that that includes manufacturing and regulatory. So at some point, the synergies are that the insights and relationships are with the partner. But now we are the ones sitting with most of that. So there will be some transition phase where we will be involved. That's what we expect. But of course, the final roles all depend on what type of partner and agreement we may have with them on our own.

Excellent. And congratulations to the progress. And we look forward to especially obvious, I suppose. Thanks, Johan.

There are no more phone questions at this time, so I hand the conference back to the speakers for any new written questions or closing comments. Yeah,

there are a few questions here before we wind up here. There's a question on the cash runway to at least the end of twenty five and whether that impacts our you say our priorities and negotiations with partners. Julie, do you have any thoughts?

Yeah, I think we are very. We were really pleased with the outcomes of the warrants exercise that has given us a good, good flexibility in our cash runway. And you could say it's not uncommon when we look around us that companies are in similar situations. So I think when we look at it from an overall perspective, we should look at the value of overgowns. We should look at the value of a senior. And that's what we're going into in a discussion with a partner, not so much the cash runway, because that is what it is in this industry at the moment. So when we're negotiating with our partner, the focus is on the potential of overgowns and the value of the asset.

And I think just in general, I mean, when you have partnering discussions, the best leverage you can have is to have many potential partners in dialogue at the same time, rather than having a financial runway that is, you know, the main leverage driver. But obviously, as Julie said, we're happy with the outcome of the warrants exercise, because that means that that gives us a much better financial position compared to if the outcome had been zero. So I think that's really a big positive for the company and shareholders. So with that, thank you for joining us. We appreciate all the questions and a long... Yeah, we can see there's another question. Sorry, that was just coming up.

Burn rate.

Julie, do we have any...there's a question on the burn rate after NDA submission?

Well, the activities after an NDA submission is to prepare for questions from the FDA. And then of course, we have the ongoing manufacturing preparations. So there are some costs that continue there. And you could calculate it in a way that we talked about the cash we have now, plus the warrants. And then we set a runway to at least the end of this year. So that's the way you can look at it. There are still some costs, but we don't know exactly what that is yet. And that's why we don't want to be more specific. We need to see and be fully prepared for the FDA questions. That's our focus.

Yeah. And then I think the final question here, that's regarding the type of partnering. This question mentioned that, you know, whether it would be a fit to launch -for-measure companies or you could say Land Theos or Braco as examples. What are your thoughts on what types of partners are relevant?

It could be different types of partners. The key is that there's a fit to their strategy and also synergies in their typically commercial infrastructure. And that could of course be someone else who is talking to radiologists already or someone with a high value diagnostic drug. So in that sense, radiopharmaceuticals have some synergies. So that's not excluded. There could also be some that are more sort of specialists that have more also treatment drugs or otherwise focused on small vulnerable patient populations. So that different types of potential partners. And these are of course included.

Yeah.

And there's a question here if it's a competing product, if it takes away market share from them. I think it's important to focus on where overglans add to value and what the strategy for overglans is. It's a small, well-defined patient population who need liver imaging and also have severely impaired kidney function. And right now there's not really a consensus or an alternative out there if gadolinium is not medically advisable. So in that sense, I'm not too worried about competing products from a potential partner.

No, overglans is more like growing the whole market because it provides benefit that is not appropriately addressed by current products. Yeah. So with that, thank you everybody for your interest and all the questions. We'd like to end the conference. And thank you.