So we expect that there will be a substantive increase based on the data that we probably will show. And I would like to remind you that — remember that for ovarian cancer, platinum-resistant, we already presented data in one subject who had primary colorectal cancer. It was on study treatment for 18 months. That’s a lot to be on study treatment for, where we — like I already previously said, the median PFS is approximately three to four months. So if you’re seeing patients who are on for six months or more, that’s significant. And we’ve already disclosed in Anat’s previous prepared statement, that some of our patients who were on the treatment on ovarian cancer, have been known for approximately 9 months. So that’s clinically relevant for those patients.
For patients with microsatellite stable colorectal cancer, anything that’s beyond six months also relevant. And the reason I say that is, if you recall, the median overall survival with standard of care now, whether it’s TAS-102 or with regorafenib is approximately six months. So patients who can be on study treatment will be on this period of time will have derived substantive clinical benefit from study treatment of either in doublet or in triplet. Does that answer your question, Asthika?
Asthika Goonewardene: Yes, Henry. Thank you. Maybe if you can have a quick follow-up. What do you think of the next steps in colorectal cancer, microsatellite stable colorectal cancer? Do you think there’s a fast path to market with a single-arm study if you go after CRC population with liver metastasis? I know, about 70% of patients present with metastasis. Is that a viable option for you ?
Henry Adewoye: Yes. So all options are on the table. From the data we presented so far, I think it probably would be best to pursue what the triplet will show us, because the Dynavax appears to be very active also in several cancers, including as we think, in microsatellite stable colorectal cancer. And that’s the reason for pursuing the triplet in that indication. Now depending on the results we get from the triplet, there of course will be a discussion with regulatory agencies with regards to either considering the triplet as a regimen or trying to see if we need to sort out the contribution of components with either a doublet also and then a discussion with regards to whether monotherapy should be added in this case, the monotherapy and — that seems reasonable to compare to the standard of care, which would be either TAS-102 or regorafenib.
So at this point, the strategy we have is to pursue the triplet. And like Anat said in her prepared comments, we’ll have data disclosures.
Asthika Goonewardene: Excellent. Thanks for taking my question, guys.
Operator: The next question is from Daina Graybosch of SVB Securities. Please go ahead.
Daina Graybosch: Hi, guys. Thanks for the question. Two for me. The first one is, I’d like to understand more Yvonne about your partnering conversations. So have partners been coming to you? Have you been going to partner? Which assets specifically have they been interested in, which data set? And have they advised at all on the concept study?
Anat Cohen-Dayag: So I’ll take that. So first, just to say, partnering strategy from our perspective, we are open for collaboration arrangements. We do want to make sure that we broaden the patent opportunities through studies that will be done with a partner. And we also view it as a way to add non-dilutive funding to the company. That’s our first priority. So that’s just in general. I think specifically on COM701 and COM902, obviously, we cannot share any details or — on any possible discussions that we had or have with partners. But I think that in general, COM701 being differentiated in the field, we’re leaders, we’re leading these test fields. We have the substantial amount of biology and supports the mechanism of action they choose.
