Sometimes it’s just the face, sometimes it’s just the arms or the trunk. But nobody seems to think that it’s terribly debilitating. We’ve actually only had one patient who had to stop for a couple of days and then restart. And that wasn’t actually because of rash. It turns out it was because of an associated urticarial itch that was associated with it that seem to accompany the rash. So I think it’s €“ that’s pretty much all I can tell you at the moment.
Mark Goldsmith: And then in terms of the duration of 120 milligrams, I think the only thing we can fully tell you is that the three patients who are on that waterfall plot, you can see that the bar that’s shown there is associated with the first scan.
Unidentified Analyst: Got it. Thank you so much. And if I could just sneak one €“ yes, understood. That makes sense. Thank you. And if I could just sneak in one more. Just based on the safety profile that you’re seeing thus far, are you still considering the potential for intermittent dosing of the future? Or has this given you more confidence for the potential for just the once daily? Thank you so much for taking our questions.
Mark Goldsmith: Yes. Thank you, Charlie. Appreciate it. I think we’re very much where we were in January when we commented on this that we’re feeling quite encouraged by the once-daily dosing. All the data we’re showing you here is based on once-daily dosing. We’ve gotten away with it quite well with very good tolerability and safety profile and clear evidence of antitumor activity. So it’s not looking to us as if intermittent dosing is on a critical path to defining our first recommended Phase II dose schedule for monotherapy. With that said, we also indicated in January, and I think we’ll stand by this, we’re likely to test an intermittent dosing schedule. It’s not our highest priority at the moment. And to the extent that we can move forward with monotherapy on a daily basis, we want to do that, but we would want to determine at some point whether we’re leaving anything on the table in terms of potential clinical benefit. But so far, it doesn’t appear to be so.
Operator: Our next question comes from Ben Burnett with Stifel. Your line is now open.
Benjamin Burnett: Hey. Thank you very much. I wanted to ask about the patient that you just mentioned, so the one patient that stopped treatment due to an itch, but then it was restarted. Can you comment if €“ were they restarted at the original dose? And also, how long do they pause dosing?
Steve Kelsey: I think I’m just going with memory with that, so forgive me is what I say subsequently turns actually slightly inaccurate. But my recollection is it was only for a couple of days that they actually stopped dosing. And then when they restarted, they started at a dose level below the one that they had originally been on. And that patient remains on. So…
Benjamin Burnett: Okay. Okay. That’s helpful. And then just going back to €“ so can you comment on what the median follow-up time is in the adverse event table overall?
Steve Kelsey: The median duration of €“ it’s really short. I mean the median is really short. I would have thought right €“ again, it’s €“ we haven’t actually fallen and calculated it, but I would be surprised if it was in excess of a couple of months.
Benjamin Burnett: Okay.
Mark Goldsmith: The record we have calculated it.
Steve Kelsey: Yes. No, we haven’t no, we really haven’t calculated, but it’s really short. And I think the data that we’re showing you is deliberately a very preliminary snapshot of what we’re seeing and not something that we could necessarily claim will persist over time.
Benjamin Burnett: That’s helpful. Okay.
Mark Goldsmith: And also say that in the 40- to 120-milligram group with pancreatic or lung cancer, they’re all still on so.
Steve Kelsey: Yes. No, all the patients that have been evaluated for efficacy are all on study, the lung, pancreatic cancer patients that we evaluated are still all on study.
