Telix Pharmaceuticals Limited (TLX) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Okay. Good afternoon, everyone. We're here with the second last session of the day. My name is David Bailey. I'm part of the Australian health care team at Morgan Stanley. Before we get going, I just have to read this out quickly. For important disclosures, please see the Morgan Stanley research disclosure website at morganstanley.com/researchdisclosures. If you have any questions, please reach out to your Morgan Stanley sales representative.

So welcome, Dr. Chris Behrenbruch, CEO of Telix. Maybe just for those who are a little bit less familiar with your company, just a bit of an overview. A bit of background would be great as a starting question.

Yes. Thanks, and thanks for the opportunity. So we're globally active, I guess, you call it a pure-play radiopharmaceutical company. We are a commercial stage company, a little bit unusual in the sense that we have a deep pipeline of products, and I'll talk a little bit about that more in a second, but we are commercializing our products as well in the major markets we serve. We're clinically and commercially active in 26 countries. We have sort of 3 pillars of value creation in the company. We have a portfolio of products that target what we think are exciting targets in cancers and rare diseases, where we target that we go after. We develop both an imaging agent and a therapeutic because we think that, that precision medicine strategy is extremely important. And in fact, it's the whole point of radiopharma. You know where your drug goes because you can measure it. You can put a patient in the scanner and you can see everywhere from your toes to your nose where the drug goes, terrible literation, but anyway. The second pillar of value creation is we're a vertically integrated manufacturer of products. We rely heavily on a partnership distribution model in almost every market we serve, but we also see that the future of therapeutic drug development in radiopharma is very infrastructure intensive. And so we've made about USD 0.5 billion in investments over the last couple of years to really make sure that we are along with select partners in control of our destiny. And we think that's critically important. And then the third thing, as I mentioned before, is that we are commercially self-powered. So we go out and sell our own products even for a major indication like prostate cancer, which is where our lead programs are because we think that selling radiopharmaceuticals to oncologists is a unique thing. It's a very content-rich sell. You're not just selling a vial or a blister pack, you're selling an entire clinical service from how do you manage your practice, how do you dose patients, how do you calibrate cameras, how do you do waste management. And we think it's really important to be part of the care team. And so we take a really service-oriented viewpoint, and that's why we put ourselves out in front as the commercial partner. So those are the 3 parts of our business. This year, we'll do about USD 800 million in sales. We fund about $200 million in R&D of earnings. So over the last few years, since we commercially launched in '21, we've become a cash-generative, profitable business and really focused on now extracting the next value of inflection points from our pipeline. So it was a bit of a long-winded answer, but it is a bit of a complicated business, and those are the key parts of it.

No, it's a good introduction, good segue to my follow-up question. So you mentioned 2021, '22. It's been very rapid. We are at a stage now where you are generating cash flow and reinvesting into the business. So just what does that look like over the next couple of years? And then part of your R&D Day presentation, there is a pathway to profitability and balance sheet position. How do you sort of see that evolving over the next couple of years?

Yes. So we're lucky because we really are a classic biopharma company in the sense that our sole focus really is to build out the value in our pipeline. We've got an incredible pipeline of molecules. We've got basically 14 molecules across our diagnostic and therapeutic pipelines. We have -- and those are our clinical stage programs, not even counting things that are sneaking in behind in 4-legged patients instead of 2-legged patients. And so our latest-stage therapeutic program is in Phase III. We've got a couple of other Phase III trials kicking off. We've just had a run at 2 drug approvals for 2 more diagnostics. So we had some minor setbacks with the FDA that we're in the process of rectifying that there's some real unlock value there coming up. So really, what I'm talking about there is pipeline, pipeline, pipeline. It's just that we happen to be able to invest in our pipeline ourselves from our earnings. But sometimes we get mistaken for being a health care company, and we're not quite there yet. I think that 2027 is our pre-commercial launch year. 2028, we hope to be selling our first therapeutic drug. There are a couple of candidates to kick off in 2028. That's when we really start to see that the cash generation ability outstrips our immediate R&D needs. But until then, it really is about, albeit with some cash buffer and some contingency management on the balance sheet, it really is about all in on the pipeline and to have as many programs as we can in late-stage development.

And strategically, it's self-funding as opposed to looking for partners. So just to be clear in terms of your business model, it's the cash you're generating from the approved products, reinvesting back into the pipeline.

That's right. I mean, we have conversations all the time with potential partners. And I'm not ruling out the possibility at some point. But the value proposition of partnerships tends to be around manufacturing and supply chain and commercialization. And as I sort of said, we think that manufacturing and supply chain is unique in this industry. It's not something that you can go to a [ brown brick pharma and solve.] And we think that the commercial interface to the patient is also really unique. And so we just don't see that as a value proposition that you're going to immediately get out of the pharma partnership. But that said, of course, there's been a lot of transaction activity in the space, and big pharma is certainly interested, big and medium-sized pharma is interested in radiopharma and it should be because I think it's going to be one of the key pillars of cancer care and other areas, frankly, in the future.

Understood. Maybe just on to the PSMA imaging market. So just an overview of the current approved products. And maybe just sort of what you've been seeing in the market more recently from a competitive dynamic or market perspective?

Look, there's no doubt, I mean, the PSMA opportunity, I don't think anybody really imagined how big it would be. I mean even I'm fairly ambitious, my team is fairly ambitious, and it's kind of it's bigger than everybody expected, but it's also going to get bigger because it had such a profound impact on prostate cancer care and is across the patient continuum. That's really the first time that we've seen molecular imaging just show up all along the patient journey for a given disease. It's -- longitudinal imaging hasn't been that big a part of cancer care in the way that it has been for prostate cancer. And that's just because the decision-making that you get at each point is so unique. You've got a high-risk patient, you want to know, do they have disease. You've got a patient that's being staged for surgery, you want to know how far to cut. You got a patient that's had a surgery or radiotherapy and has a rising PSA, you want to know where the disease is. You have a patient that's on an expensive drug regimen, you want to know are they still responding. These questions are so distinct and yet it's the same product that can give you that information. So we're sitting at about 80% penetration of a $3.5 billion market. We see -- in the U.S. alone, we see the opportunity for that market to double over the next 2 or 3 years through indication expansion and label expansion. And it is a maturing market. So now there are 4 approved products in the market. We do expect to see 5 and 6 and maybe 7 come to market over the next couple of years. But it's also clear from the current competitive dynamic that it's going to be harder for new entrants to get in. They're going to have to catch up on label. They're going to have to catch up on distribution infrastructure. They're going to have to catch up on -- I think unless there's a profound clinical value proposition, it's going to be really hard to compete. And we always have to remember that it's a $3 billion market, right? But it's with a product that sells for an ASP of, call it, $5,000 and has gross margins of 60%, right? So the impetus to get into the space in a very -- it's a very specialist space, I think, is not the same as for a therapeutic drug. So I think it's a specialist market. I think the distribution infrastructure is a specialist. It is becoming more commercially competitive. We have seen some price erosion, but that's just to be expected in a maturing market. What I also believe is that in order for us to reach the potential volume of sort of 2 million scans for PSMA, you've got to have a different price point anyway. So it's one of those things where to achieve -- to realize the full market, you probably going to need to have a slightly different price point anyhow. So it's a volume game. And clearly, the firms that can scale are going to win because it is a volume game. This is not a -- it's not a rare disease indication, right, where you're going to service 10,000 patients a year, and that's it. This is a large-scale mass market indication.

I will move on to the potential expansion of the market in a minute. But just -- maybe just talking through your existing product portfolio, so Illuccix and Gozellix, 2 slightly different products there. Just talk us through the slight nuances between the 2. And then how you're seeing the opportunity for Gozellix last quarter this year and into fiscal '26?

Yes. So it's clear from a reimbursement perspective that we are now -- because of the way that you get pass-through and your HCPCS code, we're in a cyclic innovation environment. And that's not uncommon. I mean it happens in other parts of pharma as well, right? So -- but essentially, ongoing product incremental improvements are going to be necessary. There's going to need to be innovation to get new product reimbursement. And I think that's good broadly for customers as long as we continue to do clinically added value innovation. Gozellix is a significant improvement on Illuccix. It offers a couple of things. One is about a 3x longer shelf life, which means that when we manufacture it, when we compound it in a radiopharmacy, we can drive it further. We can service more customers from our pharmacies. And it also means that we can do very large scale production of gallium-based products and deliver that into the hospital environment, which has been traditionally a kind of strength of F-18-based cyclotron products. So today, drinking in Diet Coke are the same -- [indiscernible] and Diet Coke at the same time don't work. So cyclotron-based products have purported to have that edge. And I'd say that in some academic environment, that's an advantage, and we can go in now and we can solve that problem. And the third thing that we did with Gozellix, which really has huge implications for the industry was we were able to convince the FDA that we can go from solid target production of radio metals like gallium and zirconium and copper-64 straight into the nuclear pharmacy. When we had this conversation with the FDA 5 years ago with the Illuccix, it was no. You have to bombard your target, you have to do the dissolution and produce your radio metal and then you have to do radionuclidic profiling of your radio metal before it goes into practice of pharmacy. That's a big deal that just basically pushes you into GMP manufacturing territory like a classic cyclotron-based approach. With Gozellix, we go straight from cyclotron to pharmacy, which means that it has a big implication for cost of goods structure. The volume of demand you can satisfy. And it really changes the model for cyclotron usage. And so all of those then wrapped up in a new reimbursement code because we are delivering clinical innovation. We're delivering better scanner throughput. We're delivering to patients that are in radiopharmaceutical deserts that aren't being serviced right now. We think about 15% of the market. It's never -- 400 PET scanners have never tasted PSMA of any kind because the planes, trains and automobiles that our competitors have to take to get a dose to a patient prevents it from happening, right? And so at least happening cost effectively. And so that's what Gozellix gives us. And HCPCS code goes into effect 1st of October. We're expecting to get pass through. And it's a big advantage to patients. So we're really excited about that.

So it's a volume game, potentially moving to markets you haven't played in before, but then also distribution into places that haven't actually received your products in the past. So that's from a volume perspective, have I got that right around that?

Yes. And it's pricing as well. The Gozellix, we will seek value for the improvements that we've made in the product. It has a little bit of a dosing -- dose price strategy that's different as well, which confers an advantage to the product in the reimbursed setting. So yes, we expect Q4 to be a significant event for our PSMA franchise overall.

And how important is transitional pass-through pricing. I know it's relevant to a subset of the market. But is that something that's kind of important, material impactful? Or is it more of the fact that you've got a product you think you can price a little bit differently relative to Illuccix that's more important for the overall revenues?

Well, I think there was -- historically, there was a lot of focus on pass-through because when pass-through was finished, you went into a bundled procedure code and it was perception that there was this kind of Armageddon event. And in practice, what you did is you sat down with your customer and you segmented the components of their CMS, the 340B, their commercial patients, and you came up with an average pricing that kind of made them whole. And so the net result is it was the price erosion, not a catastrophic price erosion, but it was a price erosion. The CMS reform that happened at the end of last year, which is now that diagnostic radiopharmaceutical above a certain price threshold have stand-alone pricing has kind of taken the importance of TPT away, not completely, but mostly. So the fact that you have a new HCPCS code means you have a reimbursed product, which means that you essentially get all the benefit competitively. The TPT confers one last advantage, which is that for the proportion of Medicare patients, not all, but it's a proportion, there's a -- the co-pay is eliminated under TPT. It's -- it doesn't apply to Medicare Advantage. There are plenty of patients that have coinsurance on that. So it is -- for us, it's a single-digit proportion of our business that's really ultimately benefited. But I would say that it's -- I describe it as a kind of a hygiene factor when you go to a customer that you're trying to competitively acquire and you have TPT, it's a good tick box. It does help with customer acquisition. So we hope we get it. But if we don't get it, and I'm not complying that we think we won't, we'll find out in the next couple of weeks. We meet all the criteria for it. But the most important thing is that we've got our HCPCS code that opens the door to that market segment again.

And in terms of life cycle management in this space, and I'll move on to bypassing a second. But you made an announcement recently of another potential product. Maybe just talk us through that one a little bit more how that's kind of different.

Yes. So we think that there is -- we believe that physician preferences exist and it's something that new entrants into the field will also have to think about. We worked really hard to establish Gallium PSMA. A lot of people thought Gallium PSMA would never be successful. I had major key opinion leaders in the U.S. say it's a European thing. It will never take off here. When we do PETs, we do F-18, okay? And there is a fairly entrenched thinking around that. If you look at physician workflows, and I'm not an armchair CEO, I really love to get out to the field. I spent a lot of time, in fact, I see some of my business partners even in the room. I spend a lot of time out talking to our customers and visiting our customer sites. And when you go into a large, busy hospital, efficiency and workflow is really important. And so when you're doing FDG scans all day and then you want to weave in a little F-18 PSMA in between, it's really convenient to not have to change your scanner calibration settings. You don't have to change your windowing and your workflow on your workstation. It's just conducive to volume. And also, I don't remember which analyst it was that made the analogy, but in the academic centers, Telix tends to be the morning espresso. And then at 11:00, the big bucket of Starbucks coffee arrives from Lantheus. And I like that analogy because Starbucks coffee tastes like s***. But anyway, so the Starbucks coffee arrives at 11:00 and academic centers love that because it's -- there's a volume of material there. They know it's there. They're not waiting on scheduling throughout the day. It's different for an IDTF. They don't have a dispensing nuclear pharmacy. They're receiving doses all day. They're used to that. But in an academic center, it's different. And so because of these workflow considerations, I do think that there are some users that do just say, "Look, your product is great." They may even buy into the fact that we have the best sensitivity and specificity and the best inter-reader variability, but they kind of just like what they like. And so the [indiscernible] product, when you -- turns out when you react aluminum or aluminum as it's known in these parts with F-18 or with fluri, we get a molecule that looks and behaves exactly like gallium-68, to drop in replacement for gallium-68. You have the same targeting agent, same chelator, same formulation, same lyophilized vial, and you can just drop a big glob of aluminum fluoride into it. And you can dispense Illuccix basically, but flavored as F-18. And so that enables us through the nuclear pharmacy infrastructure that we built to, at a cyclotron site, very efficiently produce aluminum fluoride under a drug master file and then drop it into a pharmacy and then dispense an F-18-based dose. And it really has a lot of the same advantages that Illuccix and Gozellix has. So it's, again, part of our ongoing life cycle management. It's about thinking 3 years ahead. We have a Phase III trial that we acquired as part of the IP. That includes intrapatient comparison between Illuccix and aluminum fluoride. We've taken that to the FDA. We have advice on what does the bridging study needs to look like. We'll do that study next year. We'll complete that study next year. And hopefully be in a position to file an NDA for that product at the end of next year. So that will be then -- I guess you can think of that as Gozellix version 2.0, but just minty flavored.

Maybe just -- that's great. Moving on to maybe the potential expansion of the market. So the approvals in the prostate protection space, staging PCR and RLT selection. Maybe just help us understand what -- you sort of mentioned the dollar number there, maybe a number of scans, if you can in the U.S., but then also moving on to the BiPASS study and what that could do in terms of number of scans, a potential market opportunity there.

Yes. So it's about a 700,000 scan, 3 billion odd. Everyone's TAMs very slightly, but I think that, that's sort of ballpark, right, defensible number. We're sort of 80% penetrated that number right now. So that's the current market opportunity. The growth areas really come, I think, from a couple of specific things. We are seeing continual guideline evolution that does flex a little bit the interpretation of what's the BCR patient or high-risk patients. And as we learn more, the great thing about PSMA imaging is we're just learning a lot more about prostate cancer and prostate cancer risk. We used to think that a Gleason 6 or 7 patients was a high-risk patient. And now we see at least in 4 patients with certain histologic subtypes that are metastatic. So we're learning more, and that sort of flexes the appetite, I guess, in the existing indications that we have. The other thing is that on the therapeutic side, not just driven by Novartis' success in radioligand therapy, but many other prostate cancer drugs, including ones that are in clinical trials. We service a lot of those clinical trials because we're one of the few people that can deliver a dose globally. So we see a lot of that trial activity. We're seeing PSMA imaging really used in longitudinal management of patients. And it does make sense. It's going to get to the point where, let's say you're doing an expensive radioligand therapy and it's 6 cycles of therapy, you're going to want to know after your second to third cycle, like are you getting patient responses. I think payers are going to want to know that information. So there's going to be more and more use of longitudinal imaging there. That's a multi-imaging time point opportunity. And so that will increase the market size by, I don't know, 20%, 30%. And then the other opportunity is really at the front end. So we just launched a Phase III trial called the BiPASS study, as you mentioned. This is not about eliminating biopsy. This is about making sure that when you biopsy a patient that you should be biopsying a patient. So we do over -- we do about 1.2 million scans a year -- sort of 1.2 million biopsies a year in the United States, about 800,000 of them don't really add value. So the idea of the BiPASS study is to use PSMA imaging on top of MRI to stratify whether a patient should be scanned and done. There's no reason to biopsy a patient based on cumulative PSMA and MRI information or scan and one. So given the focal targeted biopsy, minimum number of tissue samples, use the image guidance to really sample the correct part of the prostate and be confident and grade better. Or if that's all sort of ambivalent, then go into a template biopsy. And so we think we can stratify patients that way that can add another 750,000, 800,000 scans. But it's also strategic because there's a truce that when a patient is first scanned with a particular flavor of PSMA, they tend to want to continue that flavor in time so that you can get like-for-like comparisons. And so it's also about strategically moving upstream. And whoever can move upstream the furthest ultimately kind of wins the overall price.

And what's the timing around that one?

So we started the study -- it's going to be a pretty fast recruitment. It's only 200 patients. It's something that academic. There's actually a couple of wonderful studies that have been done in academia that show this as a proof of concept. So there's appetite to do it. When we've got great centers recruiting, it should take us maybe 6 months to recruit it. Probably, it's another -- there's a follow-up period just to make sure that we're not introducing false positive, false negative into the decision-making tree or to be able to characterize what that risk is. So I imagine that we should be able to file that as a label extension next year. And that will then come into effect in 2027. Again, part of that sort of 2-year life cycle management plan.

Maybe just moving on to therapeutics. Just give us a -- can you just give us a bit of a sense as to the pipeline and what you're really focused on at the moment?

Yes. So we have kind of 3 concentration areas in the pipeline. So we want to have a long-term stakeholder relationship with urologic oncology. That's obviously cornerstone by the prostate cancer program, but we also have a very late-stage renal cancer program. Imaging clinical work is done, therapy. We're hoping to take that into Phase III this year as a monotherapy in advanced metastatic patients. And we're just going backwards and forwards with regulators right now on the protocol for that and trying to decide whether we need to get more data from our second -- our Phase II trials or whether we have enough data to move ahead. Principally, the issue is safety, obviously, to have enough safety data. So yes, that's very exciting. Our IPAX-BrIGHT study in glioblastoma is just kicking off. That's a pivotal trial, starting ex U.S. and then hopefully adding U.S. patients as a cohort expansion just because the standard of care is a little different in the U.S. than it is in other parts of the world. So we're excited about that. So neuro-oncology is really an unmet need. We've shown some really encouraging data. And we've shown prolongation of life even in recurrent glioblastoma patients. We've seen good evidence of antitumor response. So we see that as a second potential area aside from urologic oncology where the company can do well. And then we have, I broadly call it a musculoskeletal franchise. It's around things like sarcoma, osteosarcoma and bone metastases. This used to be a very well service part of nuclear medicine. It used to be an area that nuclear medicine did a great job in. And we sort of lost the art a little bit, and there's some need for some improved products given the number of patients that are getting radioligand therapy. We'll ultimately progress with advanced bone metastases. There's a need to transition those patients into palliative care without pain. So we see a really interesting opportunity there to sort of bookend the radioligand space and use that as an entry point for the business. So those are the sort of 3 main areas. We acquired a FAP program last year or early -- going into early this year that's got a lot of patient data, patient data in hundreds of patients. So we think that can go quickly. So just a lot of things that are in advanced development that have good clinical data underpinning it.

One looks most advanced is probably the ProstACT GLOBAL. So could you just give us a bit of a sense as to where we're at now. So I think it's part one fully recruited. Just what that looks like versus the second part. And then how you think it's different to approve products?

Yes. So ProstACT GLOBAL took us a bit of extra time to recruit that we hadn't anticipated. And the reason for that is kind of twofold. First of all, it's a full safety dosimetry study. So it's multi-time point SPECT imaging. It's really demanding on the patient and the site. And actually not a lot of sites have the sort of physics chops to do it properly. So we actually limited recruitment to a small number of sites to try to do the study well, and we just didn't have the recruitment volume. Like I said, it's more of a science project than a medical oncologist referral sort of dream, right? But now that it's done, we're expecting to read that data out in a couple of months' time. It's fully recruited. The docetaxel arm has a slightly longer kind of observation period than the RP arm. So it will come a little bit later on, but before the end of the year, we expect to read out that part one. And that's a gating study for the FDA. We want to see that the safety profile across the 3 proposed treatment arms of enzalutamide, abiraterone and docetaxel that they are equivalent in terms of safety profile. Ex U.S., we don't have that challenge. So the study protocol is approved in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Turkey, China, Japan and I'm forgetting one -- Singapore, I think we got last week. We've got Europe planned later on this year as well. And so the part to the randomized part of the trial, it's a much more vanilla study. It's pretty straightforward, 2 shots, 14 days apart, just conventional imaging for patient selection. So it will be a pretty fast study to recruit. We're expecting to have about 60 sites, 70 sites up and running by the end of the year. And we expect to substantially recruit that study by the end of next year. Certainly, the futility analysis, which is based on 90 events, we would hope to have that done by the end of next year or maybe early '27. So that's the time line on that. A ton of investigator engagement on the trial. The value proposition is really compelling for medical oncologists. It's a very simple dosing regimen, 2 shots, 14 days apart. That's the entire course of therapy. So high patient compliance, essentially a single toxicity event, which is the challenge of doing competitor radioligand therapy. It's essentially with all follow-up and everything. It's about 40 weeks of therapy. That's a long time in the life of the metastatic patient and compliance does tend to fall off after a few doses. We don't have salivary gland uptake or dry eye. Patients don't feel has banged up. The amount of radiation that we inject over the course of therapy is about 1/10 of the current approach. That has all kinds of consequences around ambulatory patient management, injection characteristics, don't need toilet for radio activity. You don't have to worry about radioactive vomit. Tend not to have a gastric reaction that the small molecules have. The downside is we do have some cytopenias. It's very typical of using an antibody-directed therapy, but they're predictable, they're manageable. It's about 15% of patients have a Grade 3, Grade 4. You know at day 7, whether you're going to need to give a platelet transfusion at day 21. So it's not an acute event. It's a predictable event. And it's transient, and it's recoverable. So these are clinical AEs. No patient goes home to their partner and says, "My neutropenia is acting up today." These are things that physicians have to manage. And because we're targeting our product at medical oncology, medical oncologists, we've had tremendous success in radioligand therapy when it's been used in the last line setting. Now as it moves -- we all want radioligand therapy to move into earlier lines of therapy. It should move into early lines. It's very synergistic with patients that have their clinical capacity to respond. I'm confident we're going to see synergies with checkpoint inhibitors. We're going to see synergies with parts, with even taxane. Taxanes are a great radio sensitizer. I'm excited about the docetaxel arm in prostate global because I think it's important for many parts of the world where that is a standard of care, that's going to be really important to show benefit for patients. The challenge is that when a course of radioligand therapy is managed by a theranostic center or by nuclear medicine department, that's essentially the medical oncologist handing over the patient to another specialty. And we just -- it's not everywhere a limitation to adoption and properly integrated cancer models will allow it. But in a lot of places, there will be a conflict around patient ownership. We've seen it happen in nuclear medicine before. We've had product sale in nuclear medicine because [med-oncs] will not refer patients to another specialty. So what we believe is that the best way is to develop very focal, very condensed time line therapies, intense therapies, high patient benefit that medical oncologists can send the patient to nuclear medicine for a couple of weeks, and then they'll come back and they'll continue their taxanes, their PARPs, their RPs, whatever. And it's just a more effective prescribing model.

We've got about 45 seconds left. So I do have a few more questions, but I'll -- the final question I might just ask you is, what do you think the market, us as sell-side analysts, investors are not paying enough attention to?

Everything except the Illuccix business. I'm kind of bored of talking about prostate cancer imaging. I didn't actually start the company to do prostate cancer imaging. It just sort of happened along the way. And I'm glad it did so don't get me wrong, but I think our market cap is kind of below the enterprise value of the Illuccix right now. And I think we all know why it's a challenging environment. But it's also -- we're a very ambitious company. We have 3 drug approvals planned for this year. We've got 1 over the line. We've got 2 more to come, and they will come. The challenge with radiopharma is it's a totally new area. As everybody is learning in real time, including the FDA. No one's ever submitted a biologic-based pet tracer to the FDA before. So there's some definite learnings there. But really, the upside in our pipeline is just huge. So I think the entire commercial dynamics around the business and the investor appetite really today is just focused on prostate cancer. I think if we can just get a few of these other products over the line, and maybe regain some trust that, yes, yes, we can deliver other products to market, and I think we'll be in a really good shape. But that's what the market is missing today is the potential of that pipeline.

Understood. That does put us at time. Thank you very much for your time this afternoon.

Thank you.

Please join me in thanking Dr. Behrenbruch.

Cheers.