Panna Sharma: Yes, the clinical advancement is clearly our priority. So — but there are a lot of new ideas and advancements that are being made that we’ll very likely announce with partners. So you’re right on, there’s only so many trials that we can handle alone. But we do have some interesting things that we’re like to develop, but probably will develop with a partner faster. But our current priority is the clinical advancement of that, that we’ve talked and we’ve talked about that first. But I don’t want investors rather so forget this — this is also a platform, the amount of new content that’s coming out is at a rate that’s only getting more precise and larger. And so that was our hope as we grew the platform, and I think that’s beginning to be an opportunity for us to partner and so that’s why we raised it. But clinical advancement of the existing compounds is the number one priority.
Nicole Leber: We have another question coming in here. What are the first observations on screening success for the Harmonic trial?
Panna Sharma: We’re in the process of screening, probably half a dozen to a dozen patients. So we won’t know until we’ve started the dosing process. But yes, we’ve got probably six to 12 patients that are being
David Margrave: That are in the likely stage.
Panna Sharma: No observations yet.
Nicole Leber: I see John Vandermosten is raising his hand. John, you should be able to ask your question.
John Vandermosten: I thought it was really interesting that you had noted about taking the liquid biopsies over the course of the trial, and wonder if there was any precedent for that? And if so, any observations and then might that also be useful for conducting some kind of adaptive trial design in the future?
Panna Sharma: Yes, like I said in the comments, the liquid biopsy, probably one of the largest longitudinal studies on the same patients in never-smokers. So what happens now in these never-smoking population is that they’re typically, if they have an actionable mutation, they’re given a range of TKIs. Some stop responding in a few months, some take two three years. If they’re EGFR, they might mutate to T970M, which you can be on that drug also for a year or two. So my expectation is that the cancer genome will be pretty different across these never-smokers. There’ll probably be some subtle variations based on the drug history — treatment history that they’ve had. And so I think that we may expect different levels of response to the LP-300 plus chemo doublet based on the clinical treatment history.
And so that’ll allow us to really pinpoint who’s going to be the most responsive. And if there’s a signature that comes out of it, we can use that signature regardless of never-smoking status, and we may then have a pivotal Phase 3 would based on that signature. It’ll advance our understanding of never-smoking cancer biology in general, but I think it will be very helpful into creating a more focused and even narrower trial and it’ll also help us with pharma partners, because pharma partners, of course, ask the same question, why do we have a range of variability in response, can you tell us what you’re seeing. It may or may not correlate with their prior clinical treatment, but I think we’ll find a lot of really good insightful data in the liquid biopsy that we collect.
David Margrave: And I think, very exciting aspect of this is the de-identified data will then be included and incorporated in RADR, which will make that even more powerful.
