Cardiff Oncology Q4 2023 Earnings Call Transcript

Quartr
Provided by Quartr
February 29, 2024

There are 8 speakers on the call.

Operator

Welcome to the Cardiff Oncology 4th Quarter and Full Year 2020 3 Financial Results and Corporate Update Conference Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen only mode. After the speakers' presentation, there will be a question and answer Please be advised that today's conference is being recorded. I would now like to turn the conference over to Lawrence Watts, Gilmartin Group. Please go ahead.

Speaker 1

Thank you, operator. Joining us on the call today from Cardiocrinology are Chief Executive Officer, Mark Perlender Chief Medical Officer, Doctor. Farooq Sibinova and Chief Financial Officer, Jamie Levin. During this conference call, management will make forward looking statements, including without limitation, statements related to guidance, results and the timing of data readouts for ombantitib clinical trials. These forward looking statements are based on the company's current expectations and inherently involve significant risks and uncertainties.

Speaker 1

Our actual results and the timing of events could differ materially from those anticipated in such forward looking statements as a result of these risks and uncertainties. Factors that could cause results to be different from these statements include factors the company describes in the section titled Risk Factors in our Annual Report on Form 10 ks for the year ended December 31, 2023 filed with the SEC earlier today. Cardif Oncology undertakes no duty or obligation to update any forward looking statements as a result of new information, future events or changes in its expectations. Slides for today's investor call can be found on the homepage and the Events and Presentations tab of the Cardiff Oncology website at www. Cardiveoncology.com.

Speaker 2

With that, I will turn the call over to Chief Executive Officer, Mark Allender. Thank you, Orest. Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you for joining the call. We have some very important new clinical data to share on the call today, while we which we think is highly relevant to our current first line metastatic colorectal cancer program. As you may be aware, last year we made a highly consequential decision to shift our MCRC program from the 2nd line to the first line setting.

Speaker 2

There were three factors that drove our decision. The first was the clinical signal from our 2nd line MCRC trial. The second was the new mechanism of action we discovered for ombansertig. And the third was a strong support from the FDA for the first line clinical development plan. What's new today is that for the first time, we are releasing data from our ENSEMBLE trial, adding powerful support to our first line strategy.

Speaker 2

And as we'll discuss, what's different with the Ensemble clinical data is that it's independent, it's randomized and it's prospective. You'll hear more about each of these attributes today and by the end, I hope you agree that Ensemble data adds substantial support for our first line program. So let's dive in. Slide 2 shows the 3 topics we'll cover on today's call. 1st, we'll talk briefly about 2023 and what a transformational year it has been for cardiomycology and for the clinical development of our drug, onetansertib.

Speaker 2

Secondly, as I mentioned, we'll share clinical data from our randomized second line ENSEMBLE trial. And then finally, we'll talk about our financial position that we disclosed today in our Form 10 ks. On Slide 4, we show the highlights of the significant announcements we made in 2023. In August, we provided our MZRC clinical update where we announced the discovery of a novel mechanism action for onvansertib, which was previously unknown and the clinical level that it plays in the HIF-1 alpha pathway inhibiting fast utilization of tumors. The data we presented showing evidence of complementary mechanisms of action for imansertib and bevacizumab, which we will refer to as BEV, could explain the strength of our clinical data in the MCRC.

Speaker 2

And after discussing the clinical and underlying mechanism with the FDA in June of last year, we received strong support with the decision to move our program to the first line setting. Further, we announced with Pfizer through its Pfizer IGNITE program, who is providing a cheap clinical execution for the CARM-four trial. At the time we made all these decisions, we were already enrolling patients in the ENZONDA trial in the second line setting. So in August, we announced we will discontinue the trial to focus our efforts and resources on the larger patient population and the significant unmet need in the first line setting. In September last year, we held a second update call to announce data for our programs outside of MCRC From our 2nd line pancreatic cancer trial, we announced 4 initial partial responses from the 21 patients.

Speaker 2

And today, we can provide an update on those 4 patients by sharing that 3 of the 4 initial responses were confirmed on a subsequent scan. We also announced our decision to shift our pancreatic program to a first line setting with an investigator initiated trial combining ovansertib with standard of care, gem Abraxane. Finally, we announced new data from our refractory extensive stage small lung cancer investigator machine trial, where we observed a confirmed PR among the first seven patients. Importantly, this is the first clinical data generated using onpasertib as a single agent. Looking at the range of our announcements in 2023, you can believe that the year was a truly transformational for Cardiac Oncology.

Speaker 2

You just have to break for a second, I'm sorry, but I am losing my voice. So I will need to ask my CFO, James, to continue with remarks on the call. I'll be available for Q and A at the end of the call. Thank you.

Speaker 3

Thanks, Mark. On Slide 5, we transition to our 2nd item on the agenda, the new clinical data we're announcing today. Recall that our MCRC program includes 3 clinical trials and we want to very clearly discuss what's significant in each one. The Phase 1btwo trial in KRAS mutated MCRC generated the initial signal of efficacy on which we based our mCRC clinical development program and the trial is now complete. Based on the strength of the preliminary data from the single arm Phase 1btwo trial, we proceeded with our originally designed next step of our clinical development program by implementing the 2nd line ENSEMBLE trial, which would provide randomized data comparing onvansertib plus standard of care to standard of care alone.

Speaker 3

However, as the Phase 1btwo data matured, we saw a powerful and unexpected positive signal from the data. We identified a subgroup of patients, specifically those who had not had prior treatment with bev in the first line setting that achieved higher response rates than what would have been expected. As we state on Slide 8, we discussed our findings including both the Phase 1btwo clinical data and the new mechanism of action I mentioned at the start of the call with the FDA, which led to their strong support for us to discontinue the ENCEMBLE trial and shift our clinical program to the first line setting. CAR TAV004 is our randomized first line RAS mutated MCRC trial for which we just announced the first patient was dosed and Pfizer IGNITE is providing clinical execution. As you see on Slide 9, today we are sharing new clinical data from the CARTF-three ENSEMBLE trial.

Speaker 3

We had enrolled 23 patients in ENSEMBLE prior to making the decision to discontinue this trial. While we closed the trial to new enrollment, those patients who are already enrolled continued treatment per protocol and the majority of the patients enrolled remain on the trial today. As you'll see, there are important findings in the Ensemble clinical data that validate our decision to shift to the first line. I'll now turn the call over to Doctor. Farooz Khabinevar, our Chief Medical Officer to review our clinical data.

Speaker 3

As a reminder, Doctor. Kabinovar is a medical oncologist with 35 years of experience, who led the colorectal cancer program at UCLA and who is heavily involved in the registrational trials that led to the approval of bev in metastatic colorectal cancer.

Speaker 4

Thank you, Jamie, and thank you, Mark. It's my pleasure to present the new randomized clinical data from a CAR TIP-three ENSEMBLE trial. On Slide 10, you can see the ENSEMBLE trial design. This trial enrolled 2nd line RAS mutated metastatic colorectal cancer patients with unresectable but measurable disease. Patients are randomized across 3 arms.

Speaker 4

1 was a control arm where patients received standard of care chemotherapy consisting of Fulphiri plus bev. In the 2 experimental arms, patients received a dose of on-one-one-two-seven each of the 1st 5 days following the Fulphiri plus DIVE infusion. One arm included a 20 milligram daily dose of onvansertib. The other arm included a 30 milligram daily dose of onvulsertib. The primary endpoint was objective response rate and the dosing schedule was the same as in our Phase IbII trial.

Speaker 4

Looking at the enrollment at the top of Slide 11, you can see that at the time the ON sample trial was discontinued, 23 patients had been randomized across the 3 arms. Importantly, one patient was never treated because the patient withdrew consent and left the trial prior to receiving any therapy. This reduced the treated patient population, evaluable for safety to 22 patients only. Also, one additional patient withdrew consent and led the trial before receiving any post baseline scans, so 21 of the 23 patients were now available for efficacy. Both patients who left the trial were randomized to the control arm and both were bev exposed.

Speaker 4

So their withdrawal from the trial does not impact any of the conclusions drawn from the data on the following slides. On Slide 12, I'd like to define exactly what we mean by beb naive and beb exposed. In our 2nd line, MCRC patients trials enrolled patients who have already received first line therapy that may or may not have included bev. A bev naive patient is simply a patient whose prior therapy did not include bev. So these patients would have received only Polpox chemotherapy in their first line treatment before coming into our 2nd line trial.

Speaker 4

In our 2nd line ENSAMBLOC trial, 7 of our 21 patients evaluable for efficacy were beb naive. We refer to the other 14 evaluable patients in our trial as bebopxposed, meaning their prior first line therapy included bev in addition to full FOX chemotherapy. So the critical question we had as we work the ENSEMBLE trial, did I mature over the past 6 months is, will the high response rates we saw for WEB naive patients in our Phase IbII single arm trial continue to be observed in the ENSEMBLE randomized trial. And I'm excited to show you the results of the next slide. Slide 13 is the waterfall plot, which shows each patient's best response to therapy over the course of the treatment.

Speaker 4

As you can see, the answer to my question, the Bevy9 patients receiving onvansertib with fullfiltril plus BevyiV once again had the most robust response to treatment. Now allow me to walk you through what this slide is showing. Starting from the top of the slide, you can see that we have segregated the 21 evaluable patients into 2 groups. So the 7 bev naive patients are on the left and the 14 exo bev exposed patients are on the right, which each of these cohorts within each of these cohorts, we further divide the data into experimental arm patients who received ON1 SERDET plus standard of care FOLFIRI plus BAB and the control ARM patients on FOLFIRI plus BAB without ON uncertain. Looking at the graph, the bars above the midline represent tumor growth and the bars below the midline represent tumor shrinkage.

Speaker 4

A teal colored bar represents an objective partial response, meaning the patient had 30% or greater reduction in the tumor size. A light red bar represents progressive disease, which is an increase of more than 20% in the tumor size. And the yellow bar represents stable disease, which is between these two numbers. At the bottom of the slide, you can see the dose of onmecertib received by each experimental arm patients, either patient either 20 milligrams or 30 milligrams shown in blue boxes above the patient number. And the first three digits of the patient number is the clinical trial site number.

Speaker 4

As you scan from left to right on the waterfall plot, you can see that the 3 patients with the greatest tumor shrinkage observed are bev naive patients receiving on onethirdib plus standard of care. This is highly encouraging and consistent with what we would have expected based on our prior Phase IbII trial data. On the next few slides, we'll parse this waterfall plot into sections and draw additional conclusions. As we call out on Slide 14, you can see that for the bev naive patients, the only objective responses were observed we observed were in patients that received standard of care plus on moncertip. Given this is a randomized trial, it's also important to point out that we did not see any responses in the control arm of bev naive patients that received standard of care alone without on one circuit.

Speaker 4

In addition, by looking at the first three digits of each patient number, you can see that each bev naive patient was enrolled at a different trial site, so that the bev naive finding is not the result of any bias coming out of a single trial site. Specifically in the bev naive patients that did respond, 1 patient received on one side that demonstrated a 44% reduction in the tumor size and the second patient had a 43% reduction. Importantly, both these patients have confirmed partial responses and we see these partial responses at both 20 milligram and 30 milligram dose of Onmoansertib. A 3rd bev naive patient who received Onmoansertib had a 20% reduction in the tumor size, which is very close to the 30% threshold to qualify for a partial response. I would like you to keep this patient in your mind as I'll provide more details in the next few slides.

Speaker 4

On Slide 15, we focus on the 14 patients in the VABEXPOSE cohort and you can see that in both the experimental and control arms, there were no objective responses observed. And certainly, the size of effect appears to be less than what we see in the bev naive cohort. And on Slide 16, you can see that the bev naive and bev exposed control arm patients appear to have very similar responses to the standard of care therapy. On Slide 17, we are looking at the spider plots for the bev naive patients. You can see that on the left are patients in the experimental arm.

Speaker 4

The teal lines in the plot allow you to see the trajectory of the 2 patients with confirmed partial responses. The plot on the right shows the bev naive control arm patients who did not receive onvancertib. Importantly, the 2 control arm patients with tumor shrinkage at their 2 month scan both subsequently progressed at their 4 month scan and left the trial. Now on Slide 18, I'd like to provide some context around the patient I mentioned earlier, who had a 27% reduction in the tumor size at their 6 month scan. On their 6 month scan, a suspicious new metastatic lesion was noted in the patient's lung.

Speaker 4

So the treating physician decided to discontinue onvincertib, but continued treating the patient with standard of care full fury plus valve. The lung lesion was later confirmed by a biopsy to be a value fewer fungal infection, unrelated to the patient's cancer and not a new tumor lesion. At the patient's 8 month scan, the tumors increased sufficiently for it to be considered progressive disease. But more importantly, during this 2 month period between the 6 month 8 month scan when the tumor progressed, the patient was not receiving any on one serdept but was only on Pulpuri plus valve. In summary, on Slide 19, I'd like to reiterate the key attribute to the unwontable data that Mark and JB mentioned at the start of the call now that you have seen all the data.

Speaker 4

First, the ENCEMBLE trial was independent because it's a second clinical trial at a different point in time than our earlier Phase 1b2 trial showing once again that bev naive patients have a strong response to therapy that includes onvansertib with fulferi and bev. 2nd, the ON1 Cell ENSEMBLE trial was a randomized trial, thereby removing all clinical bias, where we see that bev naive patients in the control arm of FOLFIRI plus bev without ARM1 serif had no objective responses. And finally, the ENSEMBLE trial was prospectively designed. The original bev9 finding in the Phase 1b2 trial was from a retrospective look back at the data. However, we had seen the bev naive signal before enrolling the ENSEMBLE trial and have prospectively planned to evaluate the differences in response rates that is included in the appendix of these materials, we see that ONLENZIRDIVEN combined with chemotherapy plus BAB is well tolerated with no major unexpected toxicity that was observed.

Speaker 4

On Slide 20, I'll conclude my remarks reminding you of the new mechanism of action we discovered for onvansertib and that Mark mentioned at the start of the call. This mechanism of action explains why we believe we are seeing this clear efficacy signal in bevNI patients. As we discussed in detail in August, we believe that the robust responses we are seeing are due to a novel mechanism of action that we have discovered for ON-1 surgery's role in the hypoxia response pathway. It is well known that tumors outgrow their blood supply and become hypoxic, meaning they become starved of oxygen and nutrients. Tumors respond to this hypoxic stress by producing the HIF-1 alpha protein.

Speaker 4

HIF stands for hypoxiaindicable factor 1 alpha protein, which turns on hundreds of genes that allow the tumor to survive in the hypoxic environment. One of those mechanisms involves the tumor secreting vascular endothelial growth factor A or VEGF A, promote the formation of creation of new blood vessels to bring oxygen and nutrients to the cancer cells. As you can see on Slide 21, bev works by neutralizing VEGF A, inhibiting the creation of new vasculature. But Onvassertive plays the role of CMO VEGF by inhibiting HIF-one alpha directly and thereby blocking all its downstream effects. This shows why on onethirty one bevacomplementary in a bevacomide setting, but deploying 2 separate hits on the tumor angiogenic pathway and its survival mechanisms.

Speaker 4

In conclusion, in my 35 years as a medical oncologist, I've never been as excited as I am now to see the kind of efficacy signal we are observing across our clinical trials. Now I'm going to hand this call back over to Jamie to continue the discussion further. Jamie?

Speaker 3

Thank you, Farooz. We'll conclude the call with a few comments about Carta004. Turning now to Slide 23, you can see that colorectal cancer is a major public health issue. It's both a highly prevalent form of cancer and it is challenging to treat. And recently, there have been a number of reports that CRC is becoming more common in younger adults, thus increasing our responsibility to develop more effective therapies beyond the current standard of care.

Speaker 3

And on the right side of the slide, you can see how our decision to move from second line to first line substantially increases the number of metastatic colorectal cancer patients who may benefit from adding onvanceertib to the current standard of care. On Slide 24, you can see that the first line standard of care for RAS mutated mCRC consists only of chemotherapy with bev, a regimen that hasn't changed in 20 years. So this large patient population is in need of new therapies directed at all RAS mutations. Slide 25 provides the study design for our CARTF004 trial. Similar to the ENSEMBLE trial, CARTA-four includes mCRC patients whose tumors have a RAS mutation and are unresectable.

Speaker 3

A key difference for CART-four is that all patients are first line and therefore have not previously been exposed to bev. The trial will randomize 90 patients across 3 arms. First, a control arm consisting of standard of care with porphyry bev or full FOXBV and then 2 experimental arms looking at standard of care chemotherapy plus bev and a 20 milligram or 30 milligram daily dose of onvansertib, the same doses as in the ENSEMBLE trial. Our primary endpoint for the trial will be objective response rate and the secondary endpoints are duration of response and progression free survival. Let me provide a few additional details about the CARD-four enrollment.

Speaker 3

Our clinical operations efforts together with Pfizer IGNITE are going well with a critical mass of 20 clinical trial sites activated as of today. And as we announced, we've dosed our 1st patient. Based on the current robust screening activity observed and our current enrollment projections, we expect to meet our goal of releasing data from the trial in mid-twenty 24. And we anticipate this initial release will include objective response rate data for approximately half the patients we expect to enroll on the trial. On Slide 26, I'll cover our 3rd agenda item, our financial position as of December 31, 2023.

Speaker 3

As we disclosed today in our Form 10 ks filing, we had $74,800,000 in cash and investments as of December 31, 2023. And our cash used in operating activities was $7,100,000 in Q4 2023. Today, we have greater clarity on our expected future expenses and so we can be more precise about our forecasted cash runway. Specifically, we believe that our current cash resources provide us with cash runway into the Q3 of 2025, which is beyond the expected readout from the CARDIF-four trial. Finally, on Slide 27, we summarize why the ENSEMBLE data we released today is so relevant for our first line MCRC strategy and our ongoing CART-four trial.

Speaker 3

First, Ensemble is the 2nd independent and randomized data set, reproducing the robust efficacy signal for onvansertib plus standard of care in bev naive patients. And this supports our currently enrolling first line trial where all patients are bev naive. Secondly, no bev naive patients in the ENCEAMBLE control arm showed an objective response to treatment without onvanceertib, suggesting onvanceertib is critical to the robust responses observed in the experimental arm. And finally, both of the 2 ONVANTITIVE doses appear to be active, which suggests the 2 experimental arms of the CARD-four trial could be combined when evaluating the trial data for efficacy. For all these reasons, we continue to believe our shift to the first line setting is the best strategy for all our stakeholders, particularly the large number of patients, 48,000 per year in the U.

Speaker 3

S. With RAS mutated mCRC that may benefit from a new approach to treating their disease. With that, we'll open the call up for questions. Operator?

Operator

Thank you. Our first question comes from Mark Frahm with TD Cowen. Your line is open.

Speaker 5

Thanks for taking my questions and congrats on the data that you're able to release. But maybe first off, just obviously, just the first patient today, but any sense for kind of how much data you'll be able to release in the middle of the year from the 4 trial? And then for the data today from ENCENBL, any characteristics you can kind of provide on the baseline like were there any differences in like left and right sidedness and things like that that might explain a little bit of the difference in response rates?

Speaker 2

I can start. First of all, like we said, on the call, we're going to be putting data out when we have approximately about half of the patients enrolled in the trial. And the second thing was regarding the ENSEMBLE data, we have looked at that. We haven't seen any differences, but we've from the side of this, but we will but we did not present that here.

Speaker 5

Okay. And sorry, just on that update, is that once you've enrolled or that you have mature response data on half?

Speaker 2

We're looking at least one scan after the baseline.

Speaker 5

Okay. Thanks. That's helpful.

Operator

Thank you. Our next question comes from Joseph Catanzaro with Piper Sandler. Your line is open.

Speaker 6

Hey, everybody. Thanks for taking the questions and the update. Maybe first on the Ensemble data. I'm wondering if you guys performed a PFS analysis. I'm looking at the swimmer's plot and even sort of considering both bev naive and bev exposed, it feels like there's a pretty good even maybe merging PFS signal that you're seeing in this randomized data.

Speaker 6

So I'm wondering if you did that analysis and maybe what it's saying? Thanks. And I have maybe one follow-up.

Speaker 2

Thanks, Joe, for that question. We have not looked at it rigorously. We were waiting for more follow-up for us to look at that since they're a small number of patients, but we agree with you, but it looks like there is an emerging signal.

Speaker 6

Okay. Thanks. And then for the frontline trial, was there any is there any safety run-in on the backbone of FOLFOX? Just trying to get a sense of maybe historically how the neutropenia compares with FOLFOX relative to FOLFIRI and then maybe relatedly the expected split between FOLFIRI and FOLFOX. As a backbone, I'm thinking back to some earlier preclinical data from a couple of years back that suggested on vansertib and then rinotecan there's some cooperativity there.

Speaker 6

So hopefully that question makes sense.

Speaker 2

Yes. Joe, let me first start by talking about the preclinical data. We actually have shown publicly that we have synergy with both axalo platinum as well as iridotecan in VIVO models pre clinically And we have not seen any toxicity as well. For your questions regarding the FOLFOX in the first in our first line trial. I'm going to turn it over to Farooz, our CMO here.

Speaker 4

Hi, Joe. So the question about regarding any safety run-in for the full folks bev plus on 1 surgery rounds. Yes, for the first nine patients will be value after the first nine patients have been dosed and those patients will be evaluated by the safety review committee. And once the it is determined that FOLFOX plus on 1 third day plus bev, there's no additional toxicity beyond what is expected of full Fox bev, then that arm will continue to accrue to its full completion of the full complement of the patients. So yes, there is a safety valve built into this trial.

Speaker 4

And we don't expect based on how On1 certainly partners with other chemotherapy drugs, we don't expect any major toxicity issues. And even the I'm giving you a lot more detailed information, even though there were 2 patients with neutropenia that was seen in this in the ENSEMBLE trial, where it was at the lower end lower dose at 20 milligrams not at the 30. And then these patients that neutropenia resolved just by holding the treatment or delaying the treatment for 7 in one patient 7 days and another patient 10 days. And those patients still continue on treatment without any dose reductions.

Speaker 6

Okay. Thank you. That's all very helpful. Thanks again for taking my questions.

Operator

Thank you. Our next question comes from Andy Cai with William Blair. Your line is open.

Speaker 7

Great. Thanks for taking our questions. Mark, I hope you feel better soon.

Speaker 4

Just want to dig

Speaker 7

a little deeper into the top line results, maybe on 2 topics. One is on liver metastases and maybe second on dose response. Maybe I'll go first on the dose response. Maybe perhaps you can comment on whether you see some sort of dose response or both are active and how do you think about both doses going forward? Specifically on the liver metastases, I think if I did the calculation right, it's about 77% of the patients have some sort of liver metastases.

Speaker 7

That's kind of on the higher side. Have you looked at the 2 responders? Do they have liver metastases? And I think the emerging data is suggesting that these patients are particularly hard to treat and maybe there is a potential hypothesis on the mechanistic side of adjuvantages that's active in this population? And a couple of follow ups.

Speaker 2

Okay. Well, thanks, Andy. For the dose response, if I understood your question correctly, we are seeing similar activity albeit small data numbers, but we are seeing similar activity between the two doses, the 20 mg and the 30 mg, if that's what you're asking.

Speaker 7

And so

Speaker 2

from that, that's why we're concluding that we can combine those arms together to look at efficacy in the 4 trial. As far as the Liberumet, we have not analyzed that robustly yet. But I would say that in our Phase 1b2 trial, we showed that there was no difference in the response in BEVNIV patients that had a liver map versus those that didn't, that there was no division of the response there. It is irrespective of the liver region.

Speaker 4

Yes. So Andy, just building upon what Mark just said, in the Phase 1b2 trial, we looked at multiple other factors trying to see, were there any other features that would impact these response rate that we're seeing in bev naive patients. And to give you a very short answer, absolutely no clinical feature appeared to play a role in the significant robust responses that we've seen in the veterinary patients. So we looked at laterality of the tumors, right and left tumors, both responded equally. We looked at patients with liver metastatic, they all seem to respond well.

Speaker 4

We looked at patients who had a gender did not impact the outcome. So we think at this point, based on what we have seen with the Phase 1b2 trial and that it's the bev naivete, if you will, that plays a significant role in the dramatic synergy that you're seeing between bev and on 1 third day plus chemotherapy.

Speaker 7

I see. That's very helpful. So maybe moving out of the sorry, actually before we move on. So in terms of managing neutropenia for the ongoing 4 study, are you considering doing growth factor prophylaxis for

Speaker 4

patients? So, it's the well, the 3 things that we normally would use, hold the dose or delay the next dose, allow the bone marrow to recover. If it doesn't recover, then we use growth factors according to ASCO guidelines. And then subsequently, I mean, we also have the option of doing dose reduction depending on which drug is the culprit. But again, going back to 1b2 trial and others, we have not found a reason for us to dose decrease.

Speaker 4

So we have all three options that will standard that we would normally use in managing these patients. But at this point, we don't think it's going to be a big issue.

Speaker 7

Got it. That's helpful. And then so outside of CRC, I believe small cell lung cancer in the September update was 1 PR3 stable disease patients. Do you have any updates on that cohort or that's kind of the latest data?

Speaker 2

I can say that we don't have any update. The PI has moved to another academic institution and so that has somewhat slowed down the accrual in that particular trial.

Speaker 7

I see. Great. Thank you so much for taking all of our questions and congratulations on the progress.

Speaker 2

Thank you. Thank you, Andy.

Operator

Thank you. There are no further questions at this time. I'd like to turn the call back over to Jamie Levine for closing remarks.

Speaker 3

Thank you, operator. This concludes our conference call and thanks again for joining us this afternoon. Bye bye.

Operator

Thank you for your participation. This does conclude the program. You may now disconnect. Good day.

Powered by Quartr
Earnings Conference Call
Cardiff Oncology Q4 2023
00:00 / 00:00