Figma Shares Indicated To Open $105/$110
Puma Biotechnology (NASDAQ: PBYI) presented its strategic outlook at the TD Cowen 45th Annual Healthcare Conference on Wednesday, 05 March 2025. The company highlighted both achievements and challenges, focusing on the performance of its flagship drug, NERLYNX, and the ongoing development of alisertib. While NERLYNX continues to generate significant revenue, its growth has plateaued, prompting Puma to invest in new clinical trials to ensure future growth.
Key Takeaways
- NERLYNX revenue for Q4 2024 was $54.4 million, slightly down from the previous quarter but up year-over-year.
- Alisertib is being tested in breast and lung cancer trials, with interim results expected later in 2025.
- Puma reported a net income of $19.3 million in Q4 2024, supported by a non-cash tax benefit.
- The company holds $101 million in cash and cash equivalents as of the end of 2024.
- Financial guidance for 2025 suggests stable NERLYNX revenues but highlights potential net income impact due to interest expenses.
Financial Results
NERLYNX, Puma’s leading product for HER2-positive breast cancer, generated $54.4 million in revenue during Q4 2024. This marks a decrease from Q3’s $56.1 million but an increase from the $53.2 million reported in Q4 2023. The company projects U.S. revenues for NERLYNX to range between $192 million and $198 million in 2025, with Q1 2025 revenues expected between $41 million and $43 million.
Puma’s net income for Q4 2024 was $19.3 million, including a $7.1 million non-cash deferred income tax benefit. However, the company anticipates a slight loss or breakeven for Q1 2025 due to interest expenses from $60 million in outstanding debt.
Operational Updates
Puma continues to manage NERLYNX’s side effects, particularly grade three diarrhea, using a dose escalation technique now applied in 74% of prescriptions. In terms of distribution, 75% of U.S. sales occur through a specialty pharmacy network, while international sales are managed by various partners.
Alisertib is under investigation in Phase II trials for breast cancer (ALISCA BREST1) and small cell lung cancer (ALISCA LUNG1). The ALISCA LUNG1 trial uses a biomarker-driven approach to improve patient outcomes based on c-MYC expression.
Future Outlook
For 2025, Puma projects NERLYNX U.S. revenues to remain steady between $192 million and $198 million, with royalty revenues expected to reach $20 million to $24 million. The company anticipates net income of $23 million to $28 million, though Q1 2025 may see a slight loss due to interest expenses.
Key clinical milestones include interim data from the ALISCA BREST1 and ALISCA LUNG1 trials, expected later in 2025. Puma’s strategic focus remains on managing NERLYNX’s side effects and advancing alisertib’s development, particularly in tumors with specific genetic markers.
Q&A Highlights
During the Q&A session, CEO Alan Arbuck addressed concerns about NERLYNX’s flat revenue growth, attributing it to the drug’s maturity in the market. He highlighted the company’s efforts to manage commercial expenses and the impact of interest expenses on net income. The discussion also touched on the promising feedback from the breast cancer community regarding alisertib and the ongoing clinical trials.
For more detailed insights, please refer to the full transcript of the conference call below.
Full transcript - TD Cowen 45th Annual Healthcare Conference:
Divya Rao, Biotech Team Member, TD Cowan: Hi. Thank you all for being here today. Welcome to TD Cowan’s forty fifth annual healthcare conference. My name is Divya Rao. I’m on the biotech team here at TD Cowan.
I’m happy to introduce Alan Arbuck, CEO, President, and Chairman of the Board of Puma Biotechnology, and we’re happy to leave a few minutes at the end if anyone has any questions from the audience. Thank you.
Alan Arbuck, CEO, President, and Chairman of the Board, Puma Biotechnology: Good morning, and welcome to the Puma Biotechnology presentation. Just a reminder, I’ll be making forward looking statements. On this slide, you can see the product pipeline for the company. Our drug NERLYNX, also known as neratinib, is currently approved in the HER2 positive breast cancer space in two different spaces, which is the extended adjuvant and the metastatic. We also have the drug in a ongoing clinical trial in combination with trastuzumab, duruxtecan, also known as an HER2 in HER2 amplified and mutated solid tumors.
We also have a second drug, alisertib, which we in licensed a few years ago, which is an oral kinase A inhibitor, and we’re testing that in three different tumor types, HR positive HER2 negative metastatic breast cancer, metastatic EGFR mutant non small cell lung cancer, and small cell lung cancer. So to first talk about NERLYNX, which is our commercial product. In The United States, we sell NERLYNX ourself through our own sales force, xUS. We sell it through partners who sell the drug and then pay us our royalty. Here you can see our pharmacy and distribution network, in The US.
In The US, we sell it through two networks, which we refer to as our specialty pharmacy network and our specialty distribution network. Specialty pharmacy network is the one where there’s a physical prescription written, and then the bottle is actually delivered to the patient. The specialty distribution is also called our in office dispensing, which is where the bottle is given to the patient, in the physician’s office. We go through both of these channels. About 75% of the business goes through the specialty pharmacy, about 25% through the specialty distribution.
On this slide, you can see our financial results. As you can see, in the fourth quarter of twenty twenty four, we reported $54,400,000 in revenue, which was an increase from the prior year, which was $53,200,000 Going quarter over quarter, the $54,400,000 reported in Q4 was a decline from the $56,100,000 in Q3. From a bottle perspective, in Q4 of twenty twenty four, we sold 2,964 bottles. That was an increase from the 2,881 in the prior year and also an increase, from Q3 of twenty twenty four, which was 2,723. The main side effect of NERLYNX is that the drug causes a, GI AE, which is a grade three diarrhea.
This tends to happen in the first cycle that the patient is on the drug. We found that by doing a dose escalation, so starting with half a dose in the first week and the dose escalating up, in that first cycle, tended to do a nice job of reducing the AE and making the drug much more manageable. So we started to track when the use of this drug commercially. You can see in Q3 of yeah, in Q2 of twenty twenty one is when we first got the this approved in our label, which is where you see the big jump in the use of it. And in the fourth quarter of twenty twenty four, 74% of the scripts that were written used this dose escalation technique.
As I mentioned earlier, we sell the drug in The U. S. Ourselves, ex U. S. We have partners who sell the drug and then pay us a royalty.
On this slide, you can see the different partners that we have. In Australia and Southeast Asia, our partner is Specialized Therapeutics. In Israel, it’s Medison. In Canada, it’s Knight Therapeutics. In Latin America, it’s Pint Pharma.
And then in Europe, China and the Middle East region, it’s Pierre Farb. And in South Korea, it’s BiCSYNC. So the market for NERLYNX in extended adjuvant HER2 positive breast cancer, there’s about twenty eight thousand patients in The U. S. Who have early stage HER2 positive breast cancer that are treated with adjuvant treatment.
The current NCCN guidelines really focus on the use of NERLYNX in the higher risk patients, which is defined as those who are the no pathological complete response to neoadjuvant treatment. And also it further says those with HR positive because that’s where the data looks stronger. And there the market is about six thousand patients. Ex US, the drug, approaches a group of about thirty seven thousand patients that have early stage HER2 positive breast cancer, and it’s only approved in the HR positive population there, which represents about sixty five percent to seventy percent of those patients. In terms of our financial guidance, in this slide, you can see our recent financial guidance we put out.
For 2025, we’re expecting U. S. NERLYNX revenues of $192,000,000 to 198,000,000 royalty guidance of about 20,000,000 to 24,000,000. We’re looking for net income in the range of 23,000,000 to 28,000,000 for the year and our gross to net of between 20.5 percent and 21.5 percent. For Q1, we’re looking for U.
S. Revenues of 41,000,000 to 43,000,000, dollars royalties of $1,500,000 to $2,000,000 net income of a slight loss of $2,000,000 with a range of a slight loss of $2,000,000 to breakeven and a gross to net of 22.5% to 23.5%. As I mentioned, Neurontinib is also in a clinical trial in combination with INHER2, which is trastuzumab dorastecan. And this is in patients that are HER2 amplified or HER2 mutated and open to all solid tumors. And we’re expecting to see interim data from this trial in the first half of twenty twenty five.
I’ll move now to our drug, alacertib, which is our pipeline asset that we recently brought in. And this we’re testing in breast cancer and small cell lung cancer. So alacertib is a oral drug that has an Aurora Kinase A inhibitor. It has previously shown both single agent and combinatorial clinical activity in a number of tumor types, including hormone receptor positive metastatic breast cancer, triple negative breast cancer, small cell lung cancer, and head and neck cancer. It was also very widely tested in a number of hematological malignancies.
Prior to us licensing the drug, we licensed this from Takeda. It was tested in about 1,300 patients across 22 trials. So we have a very well characterized safety database for the drug. From a mechanistics perspective, there’s a synthetic lethality between a and RB one. More specifically, in tumors that have a loss of function mutation in RB one, this leads to a HEPA activated primed spindle of semdol checkpoints.
When this happens, you get an increase in aurora kinase A, so it makes these targetable by an aurora kinase A inhibitor. And preclinically, we have seen activity of elocertib in tumors that are RB1 loss of function mutations. Also, Aurora kinase A and c MYC tend to co regulate one another as you can see on the slide. And specifically, when you see a tumor that’s c MYC upregulated, it also has Aurora kinase A upregulation. And again, we’ve seen preclinical activity of alocertib in tumors that are C Myc amplified.
To now move to the clinical development of the drug in breast cancer. So previously, alacertib was tested in a monotherapy trial in a number of solid tumors. And as you can see on the slide, this included, homo receptor positive HER2 negative breast cancer, which is outlined in the box. In this trial, there was twenty six patients tested and the response rate was twenty three percent with a PFS of seven point nine months. On this slide, you can see the waterfall plot.
In that trial, the drug was tested in triple negative breast, HR positive HER2 negative breast and HER2 positive breast. And you can see on this slide, the waterfall plot, the triple negative is in red, the HR positive HER2 negative is in blue, and the HER2 positive is in green. From a side effect perspective, allocertib is a cell cycle inhibitor. So the side effects we would expect would be the ones associated with the cell cycle, so specifically the cytopenias. And as you can see on this slide, the main side effects seen with the drug was a grade threefour neutropenia.
There was also a trial that was completed by the Translational Breast Cancer Research Consortium Group known as TBCRC41. And this trial tested Alocerta plus fulvestrant versus Alocerta alone in patients who had previously been treated with fulvestrant. In the trial, as you can see, the response rate of Alacertib alone was nineteen point six percent with a PFS of five point six months. And the Alacertib plus fulvestrant, it was twenty percent with a PFS of five point four months. Again, from the side effect perspective, the main side effect you tend to see with the drug due to the cell cycle inhibition is the grade threefour neutropenia.
And as you can see on the slide, that’s what was seen in this trial. Alocertib was also tested in a randomized trial, which was a paclitaxel plus alocertib versus paclitaxel alone. In this study, patients were randomized to receive either the combination the of paclitaxel plus alocertib, or single agent paclitaxel and the primary endpoint was PFS. As you can see on from the Kaplan Meier curve on the right, the median PFS in the alocertib arm was 10.2, in the alacertib alone, seven point one months. That resulted in a hazard ratio of 0.56 with a p value of 0.005.
The median OS in the trial was twenty six point three months for the paclitaxel alacertib arm, 25.1 for the paclitaxel alone, and that was a hazard ratio of 0.89 with a p value of 0.61. Very interestingly, in the trial, when they looked at the subgroup of patients that were previously treated with CDK foursix inhibitors, which is the standard of care in The US and other countries, there was a much greater, PFS benefit seen. And this was 13.9 for alacerta plus paclitaxel versus five point six months for paclitaxel alone with a hazard ratio of 0.58. There is preclinical data that shows that in patients who have palbociclib resistance, palbociclib being one of the main CDK foursix inhibitors used, There is both an RB1 loss of function mutation as well as C MYC upregulation. And so this could support why we’re seeing this better activity of alacertib in this patient population.
We currently have an ongoing study known as ALISCA BREST1, which is a Phase II dose optimization trial, and this is to satisfy Project Optimus with the FDA. And as you can see, patients are randomized into one of three arms, thirty milligrams BID alisertib, forty milligrams BID alisertib, or fifty milligrams BID alisertib in combination with one of the endocrine therapies shown on the slide. This is principally being done in patients who are CDK foursix experienced, in the recurrent or metastatic setting, and they can have up to one additional endocrine treatment before entering the trial. These are all chemotherapy naive patients as that’s where we’re positioning the drug, is in the chemotherapy naive, third line, hormone resistant population. And we initiated this trial in the fourth quarter of twenty twenty four.
As we mentioned on our recent earnings call, this trial is actually enrolling better than we expected and we’re expecting to have interim data from the trial later this year. To move now to the clinical development in small cell lung cancer. So this is a Phase II trial of alacertib monotherapy in solid tumors that I mentioned earlier. In this trial, they enrolled patients who had undergone up to two previous cytotoxic regimens, and they were given alacertib as a monotherapy in a twenty one day cycle, which was fifty milligrams BID for seven days, followed by a break of fourteen days. There was forty eight patients total in the trial.
In small cell lung cancer, they tend to break this into chemotherapy sensitive or chemotherapy, refractory or resistant, and this trial enrolled thirty six patients with chemotherapy sensitive, twelve patients with chemotherapy, refractory or resistant. The efficacy that was seen in the trial was there was, of the thirty six patients who were chemotherapy sensitive, the response rate was nineteen percent with a PFS of 2.6. In the patients who were chemotherapy, refractory or resistant, the response rate was twenty five percent with a PFS of one point seven months. On this slide, you can see the waterfall plot from that study. The chemotherapy sensitive patients are in the light blue.
The chemotherapy refractory or resistant are in the red. Again, the side effect profile that was seen in the study was very similar to what we’ve seen previously. Again, this being a cell cycle inhibitor, the main side effects seen is the, grade three neutropenia. And obviously, the other cytopenias like anemia and thrombocytopenia as well. There was a second trial done of alacertib in small cell lung cancer, and this was a randomized study of paclitaxel plus alacertib versus paclitaxel plus placebo in second line small cell lung cancer.
Patients were randomized to receive either ulcerda plus paclitaxel, ulcerda being given at forty milligrams BID for three weeks and days one to three, eight to ten, and fifteen to seventeen, plus paclitaxel given at sixty milligrams per meter squared, IV on days one, eight, and 15, or a placebo plus paclitaxel given at eighty milligrams mill milligrams per meter squared on days one, eight, and 15 in a twenty eight day cycle. The primary endpoint was PFS. In the intent to treat population, so initially when they enrolled the trial, they had done the categorization of sensitive versus resistant, based on time from response. That is not the standard definition that is used in small cell lung cancer. It is usually from, time from completion of chemotherapy.
So there were two analyses done. The primary, which uses the definition based on response, and then the corrected, which uses the definition that’s more accepted, which is based on completion of chemotherapy. In the, intent to treat population, the hazard ratio was 0.77 with a p value of 0.113. In the corrected using the corrected definition, the hazard ratio was 0.71 with a p value of 0.038. From an OS perspective, the OS, as you can see on the Kaplan Meier on the right, was 0.87 with a p value of 0.714.
And the corrected definition was a hazard ratio of 0.79 with a p value of 0.209. They did a very in-depth biomarker analysis in the trial. And in the study, they looked at patients with, C Myc expression and amplification. In the subgroup of patients that had C Myc, amplification, the PFS seen in the paclitaxel alacertibarum was four point six months. The paclitaxel placebo was two point two seven months, and that was a hazard ratio of 0.29.
As you can see from the confidence interval, that was indeed just as significant. And as I mentioned, they also did a very extensive biomarker analysis. They also looked at patients that had any genetic alteration in the cell cycle. That included CDK six, RBL one, RBL two and RB one mutations. The large majority of these were RB one mutations.
The other ones had, hits of like, you know, one percent or less. In the patients that had the mutations, as you can see on the Kaplan Meier curve on the upper left, the hazard ratio was zero point three nine five with a p value of 0.0003. And that was a PFS of three point six eight months in the alacerta plus pacatax alarm and one point eight months in the placebo arm. The OS in the trial also showed statistical significance as the Kaplan Meier curve in the upper right with a hazard ratio of 0.427, with a p value of 0.00065, I believe that looks like. And the OS was seven point two months in the alacertib arm, four point four seven months in the placebo arm.
From a side effect perspective, similar to what we’ve seen previously, the main ones that came out were the cytopenias, with, you know, neutropenic and anemia being and thrombocytopenia being the main ones. We currently have an ongoing Phase II trial. We call this ALISCA LUNG one or also the 4,201 study. This is a study of single agent alacertib fifty milligrams BID on days one to seven every twenty eight days. This trial was started in the first quarter of twenty twenty four and we’ll have additional interim data on this later in 2025.
We’re doing a very extensive biomarker analysis in this trial based on the previous data. So what we’re doing is kind of a real time biomarker analysis. And as we see increased activity in certain biomarkers, we’re going to be enriching the enrollment in the trials that we can get a better hit on those biomarkers. We mentioned on a recent conference call that this is exactly what we would be doing, because we were noticing that patients with, increased c Myc, over, copy numbers and overexpression, we were getting better activity. That tends to be in small cell lung cancer, something that occurs as a mechanism of response and resistance to treatment.
So in more patients who’ve been more heavily pretreated, you’re likely to see a higher enrichment of this biomarker. So as we mentioned on our call recently, we’re going to be opening the trial to not just patients who’ve had one or two prior lines of therapy, but even more to try to enrich more for this biomarker. From an IP perspective for NERLYNX, the composition of matter patent is issued and that expires in 02/1930. That was extended in November 2021 by Hatch Waxman. We also have use in the treatment of cancer patents issued that expire in 02/2025.
There’s two polymorph patents issued. They expire in 2028. There’s a combination with capecitabine that expires in 02/1931, and then a use in extended adjuvant that also expires in 02/1930. For alacertib, our composition of matter patent is issued and expires in 2029. Our use in the treatment of proliferative disorders in 02/1932.
The use in the treatment of small cell lung cancer, expires in 02/1933, and the use in the treatment of breast cancer expires in 02/1934. All these patent expirations do not include Hatch Waxman exclusivity, which can extend the patents for up to five years. We also have IP in a related area, which is in the eGFR t seven ninety m mutation area. These are issued claims in Europe, Asia, Australia, and in The United States, which are for a irreversible EGFR inhibitor, for treating cancer with a t seven ninety m mutation, as well as those for lung cancer and, now small cell lung cancer. We actually had litigation against AstraZeneca, regarding this.
We went to trial on this and we got awarded 170,000,000 I’m sorry, 107,000,000 in damages for the infringement in February. The judge later ruled that the patent was invalid for lack of enablement in February, and we filed an appeal on this in September 2024. So in terms of the expected milestones for the company, we’re looking to present interim data from our trial of, neratinib plus and HER2 known as trastuzumab darusticand. This is trial being run by the NCI, And that will be sometime in the first half of twenty twenty five. We’ll have interim data from the ALISCA BREST one trial, which is our Phase two trial of alocertib in combination with endocrine treatment in patients with chemotherapy naive, HER2 negative, hormone receptor positive breast cancer, and that’ll be sometime in ’25.
And then we’ll also have additional interim data from the Alyssa lung trial, which is the phase two of alacertib in the treatment of extensive stage small cell lung cancer, and that will also be sometime in 2025. From a management perspective, I act as the CEO and president of the company. Jeff Ludwig is our chief commercial officer. He has prior experience from Eli Lilly, Astellas, and Amgen. Maximo Noguez is our chief Chief Financial Officer.
He’s got prior experience from Get and Gay, Boston Scientific, and Clorox. And Doug Hunt is our Chief Regulatory Officer, and he previously worked at, Armogen as well as Baxter Healthcare and Amgen. From the board of directors, we’re very pleased to have a board that comprises, both, or I should say all inclusive of commercial, financial, clinical, and regulatory experience. That includes Alexandra Susano,
Divya Rao, Biotech Team Member, TD Cowan: who’s
Alan Arbuck, CEO, President, and Chairman of the Board, Puma Biotechnology: the chief medical officer of ESSA, and you can see her experience on the slide. Allison Dorval, who’s currently the CFO of VERB, and you can see her experience as well. Mike Miller, who was formerly the executive vice president of commercial for Jazz, and he was also the VP of sales and marketing for Genentech and specifically for the, cancer business. Jay Moyse, who used to be the CFO of Sarah Prognostics and was the former CFO of Marriott Genetics. Adrian Senderowitz, who was the, former chief medical officer of Constellation and previously worked at a number of companies and also worked at the FDA in their oncology drug product division.
Brian Stuglick, who is the CEO of Verastem, and then also was the chief marketing officer for Lilly. And then Troy Wilson, who is the President and CEO, currently of Kura Oncology and has been with a number of companies as you can see on the slide as well. From a financial perspective, we currently trade on the NASDAQ under the ticker PBYI. Our cash and cash equivalents at the end of the year was $101,000,000 Our net income was $19,300,000 in the fourth quarter of twenty twenty four. That $19,300,000 included a non cash deferred income tax benefit of $7,100,000 Our cash earned in the fourth quarter was $4,300,000 We did two private placements.
So the company has not raised money publicly since 2016. We did do two private placements, which was, basically to me. In March of twenty twenty two, we did 3,500,000.0 shares to me and Ethereum Capital, who is our debt holder. And then in December 2022, did, 568,000 shares to me. So our total issued and outstanding is 49,600,000.0.
So I can just close with the company highlights. NERLYNX is the first HER2 positive directed drug approved by the FDA for the extended adjuvant treatment of early stage HER2 positive breast cancer in patients who perceive prior trastuzumab. It’s also the first HER2 directed tyrosine kinase inhibitor approved both in the early stage and metastatic breast settings. We retain the full US commercial rights to NERLYNX. For alocertib, we have clinical activity that’s been demonstrated, in previous phase two trials, both in HR positive HER2 negative breast cancer, triple negative breast cancer, and small cell lung cancer.
And we’ve got the potential with alacertib for a very novel biomarker directed commercial opportunity, compared to the other drugs that are currently in development in those tumor types. I would like to thank everyone for coming and thank TD Cowan for allowing us to present. We’ve got some extra time, so I’m happy to take any questions that anyone has.
Divya Rao, Biotech Team Member, TD Cowan: I’ll ask two questions, if that’s okay.
Alan Arbuck, CEO, President, and Chairman of the Board, Puma Biotechnology: Of course.
Divya Rao, Biotech Team Member, TD Cowan: The first one
Alan Arbuck, CEO, President, and Chairman of the Board, Puma Biotechnology: Test, test. There you go.
Divya Rao, Biotech Team Member, TD Cowan: Thank you. So one question on the financials. So, you obviously, in your last earnings call, gave 2025 revenue guidance, which for at least for NERLYNX calls for somewhat flattish, year over year growth. Can you walk through some of the assumptions that you made when looking, when when kind of generating that revenue guidance? And then I have another question as well.
Alan Arbuck, CEO, President, and Chairman of the Board, Puma Biotechnology: So in terms of revenue guidance, as we said on the call, we’re looking kind of flattish to slightly down, in terms of demand. So with that and then the price increase, that’s where you’re getting the range from. Drug is in year seven, of its launch. So obviously, without new data, etcetera, you know, kind of challenging to try to, you know, impact that and grow that. One of that’s one of the reasons you’ve seen us kind of cut our commercial budget from that perspective is, you know, seven years in the launch, the drug was approved in, you know, February mid two thousand seventeen.
You know, challenging to try to inflect that. So we’re just being pragmatic and and responsible with the shareholders money. On the net income side of things, where a lot of that is coming from is, we originally had, when we first launched NERLYNX, we took out $150,000,000 in debt. This is straight debt, so it’s paid out over time. It’s not a convert.
We’ve been paying paying that down, you know, every quarter. So now we’re down to about 60,000,000 in debt. And so that includes this year includes about I think it’s 11,000,000 a quarter in interest expense. So that obviously hits our net income line as well.
Divya Rao, Biotech Team Member, TD Cowan: That’s helpful. And then from an Allocertib, perspective, you have a couple of updates coming in 2025. I guess starting with the metastatic breast cancer combo trial, any color on, one, I guess, the venue? Are you looking for kind of a press release similar to or in conjunction with earnings kind of similar to what you did with small cell? And then also, the scope of the update.
Again, would it be similar to kind of what you presented with small cell?
Alan Arbuck, CEO, President, and Chairman of the Board, Puma Biotechnology: So we have a steering committee for for this, so they would obviously have a say in where this would be presented when, etcetera. So I have to defer and wait for that feedback. The trial is enrolling a lot better than we expected it to. I mean, we’re really get we’ve wonderful feedback from the breast cancer community on this. I’ve been surprised how often you often at medical conferences, they’ll do these dinners for community oncologists, and they’ll talk about all the drugs on the market and all the ones in development.
I am surprised how often I am seeing Alacerda mentioned. We’re not doing this. The docs are. And it’ll be on a slide of here’s everything in phase three, phase two, we’re excited about it. Right there in phase two, they always mention it.
So we’ve really gotten wonderful support from the breast cancer community. A lot of that deals with the prior use of the drug, the prior trials, and the work that was done by TBCRC, the Translational Breast Cancer Research Consortium. What a great group of doctors. They’ve been very, very, very supportive. So I expect we will have, you know, a strong double digit number of patients to be able to talk about probably in each arm of the trial.
What that will consist them, I I, you know, would have to just wait to see what that looks like.
Divya Rao, Biotech Team Member, TD Cowan: That’s helpful. Thank you.
Alan Arbuck, CEO, President, and Chairman of the Board, Puma Biotechnology: Great. Thank you.
This article was generated with the support of AI and reviewed by an editor. For more information see our T&C.