Medivir AB (publ) (MVIR) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Welcome to the Medivir Q2 Report 2023. [Operator Instructions]. Now I will hand the conference over to CEO, Jens Lindberg. Please go ahead.

Thank you, and welcome, everyone, logging in or dialing into this webcast. A Friday afternoon webcast, not usually the day we run this, but hopefully, we can close out the week with a good session. We have had quite an eventful quarter at Medivir, and we are at a very exciting time for the company and for our lead program, fostrox in liver cancer, and we very much look forward to sharing more details in the webcast today, as we move forward, so we were planning to be for today. We will be 3. We are missing our CMO Pia today. She has actually come down with cold and a fever and most important she has lost her voice. So you are going to have to make do with us today. And unfortunately, that means you would need to hear a lot from me during the session today. Important information, I will not go through it in detail that will be -- you will find our presentation on the website as well after our session today. So let's move into what has happened and where are we on things. So with regards to the last sort of 3, 4 months, we are seeing quite a strong book. We're seeing quite a strong momentum in the lead program fostrox. We have a very strong interest in recruitment into the study that is ongoing, the Phase IIb the interest from investigators, the interest from patients to participate is very high. And most importantly, as we have sort of shared in the press release earlier this week. We are seeing quite promising signs with regards to clinical benefit for the patients in the fostrox LENVIMA combination and we will share a bit more sort of on that sort of in the call today. In addition to that, in the past quarter, we have concluded the Phase Ib dose escalation of fostrox KEYTRUDA and we do have a safe dose. But we have also said that we are not moving forward with that arm into the 2a part. That arm and the data is still of high interest, but for other alternatives, and I will come back to that as well later in the call. In addition, we have also communicated relatively recently that we have now formalized or established a Scientific Advisory Council with some of the world-leading liver cancer experts, participants from our study, but also physicians and clinicians that are not participating in the study. We've kicked that off and they -- the purpose of that council is clearly then to intensify and go into the details of the phase -- the next steps in the fostrox development as we sort of start to flush that out. So a clear signal that we truly believe we have a drug in a compound that [ correlate ] benefit for patients, and we are moving ahead with as much speed as we can towards the next phase. So if we then -- sort of before we go into fostrox, just as a kind of comment, we do have our pipeline and overview. And considering the events that have taken place over the last 3, 4 months and where we are with fostrox as our lead compound, we will focus on fostrox for the call today. So we will not touch on the other assets. That doesn't mean we haven't seen progress. We are seeing progress across the partnering assets. We are very much looking forward to Phase I initiation sort of in the coming period for both the USP-1 program with Tango and the MET-X program with INFEX Therapeutics And IGM continue to dose escalate the birinapant compound together with their the DR5 agonist. So that's moving along nicely as well. But we will not touch further on that today. We will focus completely on fostrox today. So with that said, before showing data, just to kind of take a step back and recap where are we sort of where are we playing or where are we developing the drug it is in HCC or primary liver cancer where HCC is clearly the majority and here's a simplified treatment algorithm, and there are a couple of elements that are important to keep in mind because we will touch on this in the presentation. And that is we are in development currently in the advanced stage in the second-line population. What has happened as of late or in the last 12 to 18 months is in that first-line setting. We have a new standard of care, which basically almost every patient gets today, and that is TECENTRIQ Avastin. So that's sort of the true standard of care in first-line. That has bumped the other alternatives to second line, and it's equally clear that LENVIMA is, I wouldn't say that all patients get the bema, but LENVIMA is the preferred option in that setting of the monotherapy or the TKIs. So that's something that has established itself quite firmly in the past 12 to 18 months. A couple of other comments is that I think we've said before, but sort of worth pointing out is that intravenous chemotherapy is not used in HCC. Twofold reasons. One, systemic side effects; and two, a lack of clinical benefit and the lack of clinical benefit sort of mainly due to the inability to dose properly and get enough concentration into the liver. We do know that chemotherapy is the backbone treatment for most other cancers, but not here. And is that -- but patients would benefit from it. So we will come back to that a bit as well. But there clearly means that there is an opportunity for a liver-targeted treatment that could be combined with both the first-line options and the second-line options. The program that we are running currently are sort of on this slide. And as I mentioned, just sort of a recap, we are now in the Phase IIa combo phase with fostrox plus LENVIMA at the recommended dose of 30 milligram. And as we communicated earlier this week, we've now included 15 patients into the study. If we dig into some details a bit more in terms of what we are seeing and a little more information about the patient. Then first, with regards to patient characteristics, you can see on the left-hand side, and this is for the first 17 patients. The last 4 patients they sort of -- it doesn't sort of change the picture. But just in terms of the first patients. You see on the left-hand side, a couple of things to note. One is that, as I mentioned previously, TECENTRIQ Avastin has become the standard of care in first-line and that also reflected in our study. 82% of the patients have received TECENTRIQ Avastin in their first-line treatment. So again, we're quite aligned from a study perspective where the current standard of care treatment algorithm is taking us. Two, which is quite important, and that is that all of the patients included in the study, they had tumor progression prior to treatment. So they didn't come off first-line treatment because they had side effects or any other problems, they all progress. They all had tumor growth sort of before moving into second line. So I think that's an important element also to keep in mind with regards to when we start to look at what are we seeing from an efficacy point of view with fostrox, expected split for the east, west, virology, non-viralology -- non-viral etiology. And the other part to sort of highlight here is that there is quite a high usage or previous usage of TACE or sort of local chemo-embolization, indicating then the importance of sort of minimizing primary tumor burden in the liver. So as you can see here, that sort of 65% of the patients have had pace. That's also a number to keep in mind. And we will touch on that sort of slightly later in the presentation. This is a slide that we've shown before. So it's an updated version. On the left-hand side, we have now -- we communicated on Monday included that we have included 50 patients in IIa. So if we add the Ib patients on top of that, we have now included 21 patients in total on the fostrox plus LENVIMA arm. We do have a couple of patients sort of still in screening that could still sort of make it into the study if they are -- unless they are screen failures. So there are slots that have been allocated. But on the right-hand side, there are -- we previously reported 2 sort of sample patients. And we just wanted to first, before we go into the other patients, we wanted to give a bit of an update on these 2 because we've highlighted them in the past. One, female Caucasian and -- with a hepatitis C background and this is the patient that has been the longest on treatment, and she is still on treatment. She progressed on TECENTRIQ Avastin after 5 months. But she has now -- or I believe it's August '22. She has been on treatment for exactly 12 months. And what we're also seeing with that patient is we're seeing sustained tumor shrinkage, i.e., more than 30%. And when locally assessed by local physician and local radiologist. So all sort of the all data that we are sharing today is with sort of preliminary results based on local reads. We will also do central reads, of course. And then when we present the study at a scientific congress, sort of the central reads data will clearly be part of that. That is the primary end point. But here, we show the local reads. So that's patient #1 and continues to do well. Patient #2 is a slightly different patient. So that's actually an additional patients on top of the 21 because this is a patient that is on fostrox monotherapy. Asian mail who started -- who weren't able to tolerate LENVIMA, but they kept the patient on fostrox mono. So it's not going to be part of the combination study, but still relevant to see -- progressed on TECENTRIQ Avastin after already 6 weeks in the -- before coming into the study. That patient is no longer on treatment, but he was -- he had stable disease for 7 months, with fostrox monotherapy, before showing a 25% tumor growth at the final or the last scan and remember that when the tumor grows -- target lesions grow more than 20%, then they are considered progressive disease. So patients stayed stable for 7 months with fostrox monotherapy. And so some of these sort of 12 months, 7 months, keep those in mind because we will come back to some of those numbers later. If we go forward, take sort of another step. Earlier this week, we communicated that we sort of in the first 10 patients that have been on -- in the study long enough to have 2 scans and 2 -- every scan is 6 weeks apart. So that means that they've been on the study drug or they've been on treatment potentially for 3 months. And what we could see in that sort of those first 10 patients is that 7 out of 10 patients were with sustained tumor control, sort of the second scan. And we wanted to share a bit more here because if we look at those patients, if we look at those 7 patients and 6 of them have been -- have now been on study sort of long enough to have a third scan, and that happens after 4.5 months. And of those 7 patients, as I said, sort of 1 patient hasn't reached that sort of time yet. But of the 6 patients that have 4, again, continued with at least sort of -- we call it sort of sustained tumor control, that means at least stable disease or tumor shrinkage. And then we have 2 patients out of the 6 that -- where we saw a progressive disease at 4.5 months. But 4 of them continue to be on treatment, continue to benefit at the 4.5 months mark and are moving forward. Again, we'll come back to some of those sort of numbers or time lines from a month perspective as we move forward. The other element is to sort of look at sort of how is the combination, how are the patients able to tolerate the combination. And first, we will focus on the fostrox side of things. And we are seeing a consistently good safety and tolerability profile in sort of what we saw in Phase Ib continues for Phase IIa. One, we look at sort of the number of patients that are able to remain on the starting dose, i.e., the 30-milligram and a clear majority of the patients are. So that's a good first sign. But perhaps even more importantly, is that we are continuing to sort of not see a bit of a weird statement, but we're not seeing any unexpected new safety events in the combination, which is super good. The adverse events are sort of manageable and transient. And as expected, the adverse events primarily that we would see with our hematological as we saw in the Phase I mono as well. Importantly is that there'll only be 1 out of the 21 patients that have discontinued study treatment due to side effects related to fostrox. And with cytotoxic drugs like this that are effective drugs that provide benefit, that is a very low number. So we're quite encouraged by the patient's ability to both stay on drug or stay on the treatment and also stay on the recommended dose. The other element of the safety sort of tolerability question is the LENVIMA part of the combination. And if we turn to that, on the left-hand side is the percentage of patients that have required LENVIMA dose reduction, and that's been 48% of the patients. And that number in isolation isn't perhaps the most important one. But if we look on the right-hand side and we compare that number with what has been shown for LENVIMA in previous studies. And that is in the REFLECT study either sort of Phase III monotherapy study, 62 patients -- 62% of the patients required either discontinuation or dose reduction in that study. Similar number when and LENVIMA was combined with KEYTRUDA in the Phase Ib combination study, 66% of patients required dose reduction or discontinuation. And we -- and that was an element that we came into the study. One of the things that we were perhaps the most curious about how would the patients be able to tolerate the combination knowing specifically that so that LENVIMA can sometimes be a challenging drug and there's a high level of dose reductions and then adding a cytotoxic drug to it was a question mark. But as I said, sort of we're quite encouraged by the patient's ability to stay on recommended dose and stay on treatment. So let's put things a little bit into perspective in the sense that sort of some of the numbers I showed previously. When we look at the -- what has been shown previously in second-line, we are seeing and this is data, on the left-hand side is progression-free survival. On the right-hand side is overall response rates, all from previous second-line studies in HCC and sort of -- they do vary a little bit, but sort of relatively close to each other. And if you look at sort of the PFS numbers, on average, somewhere along the lines of 3.5 months with regards to progression-free survival or time until sort of tumor starts growing again. And then that number is sort of -- has kind of drawn up a little bit by Cabozantinib as well as the 5.2 months is a bit of an outlier. But that is what we've seen in the past. Hence, coming back to, as I said, sort of we can see a chunk of patients that are able to sort of stay on fostrox LENVIMA for 4.5 months sustained tumor control and where we're also seeing tumor shrinkages across a number of the patients. That sort of is encouraging as we look at the benefit in this study versus what has been shown in this quite difficult to treat population. And similarly, the overall response rates are sort of on average sort of single-digit numbers. So again, what we -- what we're seeing in the study thus far from a clinical or patient benefit, we are quite encouraged by. So with that, I'll stop from a patient data perspective, remember, I spoke a little bit before about the number of patients that have received TACE, sort of indicating a signal that there seems to be a keen interest and an importance of the -- treating the primary tumor burden in the liver. And that's also something that we are getting strong feedback from our advisory council and others. And we wanted to sort of touch a little bit on that, and I'll leave it to Fredrik to go through that.

Thank you, Jen. So if you think about different cancers, you will appreciate that liver cancer or hepatocellular carcinoma is different in some respects. The first one being that the tumor actually rises in the background of underlying liver disease. So a vast majority of the HCC patients will have liver cirrhosis. So irrespective, if they have a viral etiology either hepatitis B or hepatitis C virus infection or excessive alcohol abuse, diabetes, obesity or metabolic syndrome. All these converge in liver injury and inflammation, then leading to liver cirrhosis and reduced liver function. So in this context, the tumor grows, and this means that the patients will have actually 2 diseases in the liver. The tumor and the underlying liver disease. And this is really different from many other cancer types. And in contrast to many other cancer types where [ metastasis ] disease is really one of the causes of death. In liver cancer, as you see on the right side here, the tumor in the liver and the primary liver disease is the cause of death. And as a consequence of this, treating the local liver tumor is really, really important. So if we move to the next slide. As Jens pointed out, one of the main treatments that are given to patients in the intermediate stage that is patients who have not reached the advanced stage and are not treated systemically is the locoregional treatment with chemo-embolization. And the graph here depicts the response at a consecutive TACE treatment. So there are several limitations of TACE, you obviously need to reach the tumor, you can treat one lesion at the time. But many patients will have several sequential TACE treatment. And if you look at the graph here, which depicts the different response complete, partial and stable disease, they -- you would have initial response at the first TACE treatment, which is fairly good. It's usually not very durable, but still you have a response locally at the treated tumor. But as you see, that response diminishes with sequential TACE treatments, and you lose the ability to actually get a locoregional control of the tumor. So in the end, you will not have a good response by increasing the number of TACE treatments. As a consequence of the TACE treatment, if we move to the next slide, there's also a consequence in terms of liver damage. So the patients will have an injured liver by the cause of the liver cirrhosis, loss of liver function, but also [ tails ] will induce liver damage. So in this slide, the graph depicts liver function or deterioration of liver function after the first TACE treatment. And this is something that has become increasingly clear in the discussions with our experts that what is -- what they really would like to see is locoregional treatment to control the tumor in the liver. Without having excessive risk of damaging liver function. And if we move to the next slide, this is a slide that we've shown before, but just to highlight what we think are the important aspects of fostrox is that by an oral treatment, we do have a liver-directed locoregional effect on the tumor. It is very, very much linked to the proliferation, the growth of the tumor and very selectively hits the tumor. So on the right side, the graph is from biopsies from patients where we have looked at the result of fostrox treatment, that is the DNA damage that will kill the cells, both in the tumor tissue itself, but also in the adjacent nearby normal liver tissue. And as our preclinical work indicates, we do not have induction of a DNA damaging effect in the surrounding liver tissue, which means that I believe that this will be something that's really with interest clinicians in in the context of not damaging the normal liver function but selectively inhibiting growth of the tumor in the liver. So with that, I will move over to Jens.

Thank you, Fredrik. So as many of you know, but just to highlight that Medivir does have a -- we do have a long history of developing drugs to target or reach the liver. We truly believe and that we are unique from a mechanism of action in this field with regards to liver cancer, and we truly believe that we have found a way which we are now encouraged by the clinical signs we're seeing, find a way of having patients benefit from a liver targeted cytotoxic drug while minimizing the any damage to liver function. So as we then sort of when -- as we're seeing this from a data perspective, of course, we look ahead. And in terms of looking ahead, we have communicated that sort of we have chosen fostrox plus LENVIMA as the arm for second line. So what we're looking to from a next-step perspective with that arm is clearly then to compare with -- to do a randomized study. So what we are working with our scientific advisory council is to sort of design the best possible way forward or program study in that at a second-line space, looking at fostrox LENVIMA versus LENVIMA mono, as it's showing clinical promise and that is sort of aligning super nicely with the treatment algorithm. As you may remember, sort of I did comment that sort of the KEYTRUDA arm is still of importance and having a dose, having the ability combined with an immunotherapy is still important, and we think there is a good rationale for doing so with postop, just not with KEYTRUDA in second-line because it's not logical to use it after TECENTRIQ Avastin. However, combining with an immune therapy and possibly a TKI or VEGF inhibitor could definitely be an interesting option as a triple combination in first-line. So that's something that we are exploring. We're looking at it with the advisory council and seeing what could be a potential way forward would probably be a single-arm study design, that would also then sort of align very nicely with the treatment algorithm in the first-line. So those sort of the working -- what we are working towards. And then -- and I referenced the treatment algorithm a couple of times, but just tend to go back to this slide again, where we started it a little bit that sort of clearly in that first-line setting, a triple on top of TECENTRIQ Avastin would be logical, but sort of as a first step to take the clinical benefits and the encouraging signs we're seeing in second-line in that second-line space in combining with LENVIMA in order to bring a liver-targeted drug to the market as fast as possible. I mentioned before, and we've communicated that sort of externally. The advisory council that we are working with to sort of shape the future development Dr. Reig, Heo and Evans are all 3 parts of our current program, whereas Doctors Fin and Vogel are not, but they are sort of work renowned experts in the field and Dr. Finn have been the primary investigator on a number of the most important sort of landmark studies in HCC as of late. So with that said, before handing over to Magnus, if I just sort of sum things up, hopefully, we have shown that there is a significant unmet need in general, but also specifically for a liver-targeted compound to minimize the primary tumor burden in the liver with that then clear becomes a significant commercial potential. We do have a unique mechanism of action. We are the only liver-targeted compound and then selectively targets cancer in the liver. And there is a strong potential for attractive combinations, and we're super encouraged by what we're seeing in the Phase IIa in combination with LENVIMA as a start. So with that, Magnus, financials.

Thank you, Jen. If you move to Page 25, we can see the financial summer for Q2 and year-to-date to you, which I will briefly comment on. From a financial viewpoint, Q2 was -- according to our plan with no really big surprises. The turnover for 2 months, SEK 2 million, which relates to [indiscernible] income for [indiscernible], which was higher than last year. Other external expenses are higher as well compared to last year, and the performance related to the costs for the ongoing combination study, which was a bit higher in this quarter. Year-to-date, we can see the costs are lower, and that's actually almost due to lower clinical costs and especially for the quarter 1 then. Personnel costs are higher and the related formers that we have more employees and at time compared to last year, and the same applies to [ end ] year-to-date, of course. The operating loss for quarter 2 is minus SEK 27 million, which is higher than last year in the quarter. But if you look at year-to-date, it's below last year and it's in line with our current plans, so no surprises. Year-to-date, the operating cash flow is minus SEK 34 million, which is much lower than last year in the quarter, it was minus SEK 80 million in the quarter which was more or less in line with the same level as last year. And if I sum up the cash balance a the end of Q2 is around SEK 83 million. And according to our current plan and with our current assumptions, the cash run rate is into Q2 2024, which is in line with what we have communicated before. So no change there. And with that, I will hand back to Jens.

Thank you, Magnus. And then final slide before we go into Q&A, just to sort of repeat back what we said at the beginning. There's 3 elements that I would pull out today. One, there is a very strong momentum in the lead program with regards to moving forward, there is a continued very strong interest among investigators and patients to participate and perhaps most importantly we are seeing very promising signs of clinical benefit in the fostrox LENVIMA arm as communicated earlier this week and as we have highlighted in a bit more detail here today. So excited about where we are and the -- as we sort of plan ahead with the lead program, fostrox. So with that said, we will stop and we'll move to Q&A.

[Operator Instructions]. The next question comes from Richard Ramanius from Red Eye.

I'd like to start with some questions about financing. You mentioned in the report that the Board of Management makes assessment that there are good conditions to carry out the financing within 12 months, just wondered whether you are considering accessing the capital markets just to finance continued operations like a bridge financing or if you -- as a first step or would you do a financing also for the Phase IIb trial at the same and also, I guess, you would want to wait for the readout from the LENVIMA arm before to do -- doing a financing thing.

Thank you, Richard, for the question. Magnus here. Yes, I mean, we are exploring different alternatives for the financing. And that's -- we have not communicated to this. We have not made a formal decision yet on when and how the financing will look like. But as you said, of course, it will be nice to align it with the readout from the LENVIMA arm. So that's why we -- as we have mentioned during this call, I mean, the patients are still on treatment, and we are gathering data all along, and we have included 15 patients now, but we have to wait and see when we get the data as well. So no decision yet, but we are exploring different alternatives for the future. and we will communicate it when we have decided on that. I hope that answers your question, Richard.

Yes, yes. And I related questions because situations would be quite different if you find a partner, for example, an Asian partner who could finance the Phase II trial.

Yes, you asked a bit [indiscernible] question.

So that will -- I guess that would mean you would need to raise less money than if you would have to do a Phase II trial by yourself? Or would you -- I was also thinking whether it's even possible to finance a large Phase II trial in this in current financial situation. So you -- wouldn't you be dependent on finding at least one partner to do, let's say, take off the cost of an upcoming Phase II trial?

Yes. I mean, definitely, you are correct. If we could get finance with a partner that will, of course, help us for the next financing. But as I said before, I mean, we are we're looking at different alternatives at the moment. And that one is, of course, something that we're exploring further on.

Okay. And last scientific question, about when we -- first, when could we have -- do you think we could have a figure of medium progression-free survival. And you also mentioned that scans are taking 6 weeks apart. Does that mean that you -- you either or -- this number has to be multiple 6 weeks, like 3 months or 4.5 months or 8 months -- or no, sorry, 6 months.

For each individual patient normally, the scans will be if they are according to the schedule every 6 weeks. Of course, the median progression-free survival or time to progression, et cetera, in the study will not have to be in exactly in 6 weeks interval because of -- obviously, that still we an average over the patient population.

But if it's a number -- if it's patient #8, isn't that the median patient that should be an even number...

Yes. But still, you would need to take a look at the -- there are also going to be most likely and have been unscheduled scans in the study. So that requires that everyone will be exactly just having scans on the 6-week date.

Okay. I got it. But if we assume then that the progression-free survival based on patients recruited, that thus far seems to be something like 5 months perhaps 4.5 months. Shouldn't that -- and then those patients would probably be -- or you need to read -- have a reader from all patients including the last 5, could that -- so if you would calculate forward for 5 months, could that be in January then?

I wouldn't want to give you a specific date. Obviously, it's sort of a balance here where the better the treatment effect or the benefit is the longer the study will be. So we will see. I mean the last patients in, they have not reached that number of scans yet. So we will have to let the data speak for itself.

Do you think -- sorry, go ahead. .

No. So I couldn't give you an exact date.

But this year or early next year, what do you think?

Yes, it's difficult to say. I would assume that we would have data this year to be able to present preliminary data in the beginning of next year. But that said, it will be depending on how the study goes.

Yes. Of course, the longer -- the later the better.

I mean that's a little bit. So if we sound a bit wobbly here, Richard, that's because the longer the better, and clearly, with regards to patient benefit in terms of sort of what the drug and the combination is doing. So the longer the better, but then there's also the element of data is important as we start to plan for the next phase, et cetera. So -- but with that said, difficult to give an estimate. And again, especially considering that we are quite encouraged by what we are seeing in the study as we speak as we are have hopefully been able to convey a little bit. And that encouraged data set is sort of clearly pointing to okay, we're not going to have the data mature tomorrow or in the next months, it will take slightly longer than have to mature just because of the benefits we're seeing in patients.

Okay. I got it.

I think the other comment, just to make, Richard, is that now we hone in on PFS or potentially time to progression. We are sort of clearly sort of -- the overall response rate is something that we will see is something that we can read out quicker than that. So we'll see data sort of earlier than that. So there are different sort of end points as well.

The next question comes from Klas Palin from Erik Penser Bank.

Yes, nice to see promising data from the Phase II study so far. Just if you could help me out with -- to clarify. As the data you report about this female Caucasian, 56-year-old, with hepatitis C. You said that you see a tumor shrinkage of 30%, but you still don't define it as a partial response. Just could clarify.

Maybe we are being overly cautious on this class. The primary readout of the study is central -- from a local read perspective, it is more than 30% tumor shrinkage. And as we said, sustained, so it's actually over more than 1 scan. This particular patient actually had sort of stable disease for the first 3 scans, and then we saw a response from scan 4 and onwards. And so from a local read perspective, it is a partial response. And we're just being a bit cautious in not calling it a partial response on the slide because there will also be a central read. Maybe we are being overly cautious. But yes, it is a sustained shrinkage of more than 30%. And by definition, then yes, that is a partial response.

Sounds good. And another question for clarification, perhaps. It's Slide 15, where you are referring to second-line data I guess this is second-line date after TKI, like NEXAVAR or something like that?

Yes. So Yes, it is. Say that again. .

Have you seen any date second-line after a [indiscernible] percentage.

The short answer is also yes. So then now Pia is listening in on the call. So now she is thinking well, you should have been clear on this slide. And I should thank you for calling that out. And I will actually take the opportunity of moving to Slide 15 for the sake of the argument. So what you're seeing on the left-hand side are 5 studies. 4 of them are post-TKI first-line. And that's with Stivarga, Cabometyx around [ Cyramza ] and the combination at the bottom. And that's an important element, as you say, because there are very few studies where we actually know what happens after TECENTRIQ Avastin. The only sort of data that we've been -- that we think is sort of good enough to represent is actually the LENVIMA data you see on this slide. The LENVIMA data here, it's not a randomized prospective study. It's a retrospective data set from the U.S., I believe, where they have measured progression-free survival. These patients, they got LENVIMA monotherapy second-line after TECENTRIQ Avastin. And the interesting part is that medium progression-free survival in that data set aligns sort of with the others, i.e., it does signal, it is a challenging patient group to treat sort of post TECENTRIQ Avastin as well. But clearly, it's a retrospective data set -- so it's not as sort of the robust, but it aligns with the other. They did not make the overall response rate in that population, and that's why it says not available on the right-hand side. So it's -- it is -- the PI usually calls it a data desert when it comes to second-line population post Atezolizumab. So we are kind of breaking ground or trailblazing a bit with regards to sort of running this study and looking at sort of data or efficacies in this population.

Sounds good. And then my last question would be about business development. Are you increasing your efforts to find a partner when you have this data, with this data starting to mature.

There are 2 answers to that question. The short answer is yes. And the slightly longer answer is clearly sort of -- I mean we've had sort of efforts ongoing or sort of -- we continue to speak with and it's been super clear that sort of -- let's start to generate clinical data in that second-line space. Now that we are, and this is an open-label study, and we can follow the maturing of the data kind of continuously that clearly opens the door for engaging sort of in more detailed discussions. So yes, it's definitely -- I mean, that's the other exciting part about sort of generating the data is that it does open the door for discussions because that's what a potential partner wants to see.

[Operator Instructions]. There are no more questions at this time. So I hand the conference back to the speakers for any closing comments.

And we will, in addition to leaving you with sort of the -- the -- so the excitement that we have hopefully been able to convey regarding sort of where we are with the program and what we see looking forward with some upcoming activities going forward. We will have a number of presentations at sort of health care conferences in the coming sort of few weeks and a month. We will also be sharing some non-clinical data at the ILCA Congress in Amsterdam on September 7 through 9. So we'll share a bit more detail about that later. But perhaps the most importantly, what we're also planning to do on the back of sort of encouraging sort of data we're seeing and as we are planning ahead, we are sort of planning to host an expert perspectives webcast together with KOL experts in our Scientific Advisory Council. On the sort of current unmet medical need and the future treatment landscape in terms of the importance of liver targeted sort of treatment in the field of HCC, that we're planning to hold. The current planning assumption is that we'll hold it at the webcast at the ILCA Congress and sort of broadcast is -- that for everyone to attend wherever they are in the world. But we do have accounts sort of gathered at the Congress for other activities. So we will look to take advantage of that and maybe hold an hour session or so. But more details on that, exactly when it happens and log-in details, we will, of course, communicate in advance before that. So with that, thank you all for dialing in and logging in on a Friday afternoon, and hopefully, you share our excitement about where we are and where we're moving to. And with that, thank you, and have a great weekend.