But that is something we’re incredibly excited about. And I think it’s if it continues to go well and every bit of day we’ve seen so far has been outstanding. And because the test is low cost can be run on any platform, it could be a bedside test, it can be a lab test, it could be a lateral flow test and doing it through a 510(k), which is as you know is the easier path through the FDA is very important. Now as to timing, obviously we’re doing everything we can to preserve cash. So, we’re working with large governmental agencies to see if they can take a large part of the funding in the U.S. as well as Europe. We’re also getting the data ready so that we can get industry partners involved. So that’s coming to a head in June when we’ll start to open up a data room to look to get as much funded as possible from outside sources.
For obvious reasons, the market is what it is at the moment, so we’re doing everything we can not to spend money. And after that, our product would be at least a couple of years. But don’t forget, our model has always been to make as much money as we can from licensing and upfront milestone payments. In the last two years, we’ve got 23 million just from Heska alone, which is obviously very, very meaningful in what we do. So, I wouldn’t just think of it as revenue which is obviously a few years away, but as we have invested getting large chunks of money in the meantime from large industry partners and/or government agencies and I think there’s certainly our aim and I think it’s a very reasonable chance that we’ll get some licensing or milestone revenues from either or both transcription factors and the sepsis side in the next 12 months.
And if you look at the level of payments we’ve got in the vet side, it’s a very important test in the vet. But I think the Nu.Q NET test is a whole level of importance for humanity. So, we’d be expecting some very significant payments in that sort of timescale. Does that answer your question?
Tim Moore: It does, it does. It’s terrific color and granularity. And I have one last little related topic question. You kind of already addressed this. There could be potential for project financing. You can come from the corporate rev, government, both milestones. One question I get from investors a lot was, as things go well on the vet side and maybe that becomes positive free cash flow and self-funding two years from now, hopefully. Would you consider divesting the vet side or spinning it out to maybe cash flow fund the human sepsis trials?
Cameron Reynolds: Yes, absolutely. So obviously, at the moment, it is actually not from revenue because you’ve seen what that is, but from the milestone payments and the other payments we’re getting, it’s actually cash flow positive at the moment from all those other payments. $23 million obviously has been a lot from those sides. Yes, we would absolutely look to corporatize and then have it run as a separate entity, because this is just the very first test on what should be a very long pathway of products we can launch in the vet space. We mentioned feline as well. Obviously, sepsis happens in dogs and every other animal as it does in humans. And also, the human transcription factor work, we have every reason to believe it would work in animals just as well as humans and then all the other animals.
So, I think going forward, our business model has been very much to develop the technology and then prove it works, get a product launch like we have in vet, like we’re about to in NETosis and then make revenue from licensing it out. But I think the final step on that path would be to make it to the vet itself. And I think that’s something which could well happen in the next couple of years. And actually, there’s obviously been some interest from other groups. We’re the only cancer detection company out there at the moment which has a product in the market. So, I think it’s going to be a very attractive one. But we want to get that value curve kind of pushed up the curve by pruning felines and/or sepsis and/or transcription factors in the next 12 months.
So, it’s probably a two-year target for that.
Operator: Our next question is from Ilya Zubkov with Freedom Broker. Please proceed.
Ilya Zubkov: Good morning, and congrats for the progress in Q4. I have a question on the oncology test. Talking about Capture-PCR technology, what types of cancer are currently considered as the most promising for detection according to studies and your expectation?
Cameron Reynolds: That’s a very good question. So, transcription factors are actually indicative of all types of cancer because, they are, it’s an epigenetic signal, which is in all the cancers. So, we’ve done some work in a varied range of cancers, including lung and colorectal and the blood cancers. And initially, we’ll focus on the larger cancers, the more prevalent ones particularly, of course, like we have in the past, in lung and colorectal and the blood cancers because that’s where we did the first work. But it certainly holds the promise of — it’s definitely going to be low cost, very easy to run, as easy to run as a proven test in blood, but certainly potential for every single type of cancer. But you would probably not develop a test for every single type of cancer. You’d probably develop the top five types or seven types, which between them account for the majority of cancer cases.
Ilya Zubkov : Thank you. That’s helpful. And one more from me. The case test has demonstrated strong sensitivity in leukemia detection. And I’m wondering has any progress been made in its diagnostic performance for detection of solid tumors since October last year? And do you see the opportunity for improvement?
Cameron Reynolds: Do you mean any in solid tumors with capture PCR?
Ilya Zubkov: Yes.
