Verastem, Inc. (VSTM) Q2 2026 Earnings Report, Transcript and Summary

Good afternoon and welcome to Verastem Oncology's Second Quarter 2026 Earnings Conference Call. My name is Liviana and I'll be your call operator today. Please note this event is being recorded. [Operator Instructions] I will now turn the call over to Julissa Viana, Senior Vice President, Corporate Communications, Investor Relations and Patient Advocacy at Verastem Oncology. Please go ahead.

Thank you, operator. Welcome, everyone, and thank you for joining us today to discuss Verastem's second quarter 2026 financial results and recent business updates. This afternoon we issued a press release detailing these results along with a slide presentation that we will reference during our call today. Both are available on the investor relations section of our website. Before we begin, let me point out that we'll be making forward-looking statements that are based on our current expectations and beliefs. These statements are subject to certain risks and uncertainties, and actual results may differ materially. We encourage you to consult the risk factors discussed in our SEC filings for additional detail. Additionally, today we'll be discussing certain non-GAAP financial measures. Reconciliations to the most directly comparable GAAP measures are provided in the press release we issued today. Joining me on today's call to deliver prepared remarks and take your questions are Dan Paterson, President and Chief Executive Officer; Dan Lyons, Chief Commercial Officer; and Dan Calkins, Chief Financial Officer. Dr. Michael Kauffman will be joining us for the Q&A portion of the call. I will now turn the call over to Dan.

Thank you, Julissa. Good afternoon and thank you for joining our call today. We delivered a strong second quarter with meaningful progress across both our commercial business and pipeline. For the quarter, we generated net product revenues of $25.1 million, reflecting continued execution of our commercial strategy, putting us back on track and reinforcing the long-term opportunity for AVMAPKI FAKZYNJA CO-PACK. We also strengthened the balance sheet with a non-dilutive royalty financing agreement with Oberland Capital to secure up to $75 million in funding, of which we expect to draw $50 million at closing. Combined with a $15 million milestone payment from Secura Bio for a COPIKTRA sales milestone, the incremental $90 million in non-dilutive funding strengthens our balance sheet and allows us to get beyond key data readouts, advance partnership discussions, and preserves strategic flexibility as we evaluate future financing opportunities. Also, as we shared previously, we continue to expect the LGSOC business will become self-sustaining by the end of 2026, meaning that commercial revenue will support both the ongoing commercial organization and the existing avutometinib and defactinib development franchise. As Dan Lyons will discuss, the commercialization of the CO-PACK is progressing well, and we're encouraged that the changes we made are having an impact. Since the first quarter, we've seen a meaningful rebound with significant quarter-over-quarter growth driven by growing physician confidence in initiating treatment for new patients, physicians prescribing to more patients in earlier lines, and increasing patient refills. In addition, our field teams are continuing to support prescribers in helping patients stay on therapy to realize the full benefit of the treatment. These trends reinforce our belief that adoption will continue to grow as physicians become increasingly comfortable using the combination at a patient's first or next recurrence. In June, we reported a positive update on the RAMP-205 pancreatic cancer data. Looking ahead, we believe the regimen of avutometinib plus defactinib in combination with chemotherapy can play an important role in the second-line treatment of PDAC following either a panRAS or KRAS G12D inhibitor to help address resistance mechanisms that are expected to emerge. Turning to VS-7375, we have an opportunity to meaningfully advance treatment for patients with KRAS G12D-driven cancers. Our goal isn't simply to extend patients' lives, but to do so with a treatment designed to specifically target the biology of these cancers without unnecessary on-target toxicities. Ultimately, we want patients to spend more time living their lives, not managing nasty side effects from their treatment. The progress we've seen across the RAS field is validation of the possibilities. At the same time, it has also made clear that there remains significant opportunity to improve both outcomes and the overall treatment experience for the approximately 60,000 patients diagnosed each year in the U.S. alone with a KRAS G12D-driven cancer. Recently, I heard about a young woman in her 30s who was participating in our trial, and her story and experience in the trial reminded me why this work matters. She was diagnosed with a KRAS G12D-mutated advanced non-small cell lung cancer. She'd never smoked and did not respond to current standard of care chemo plus immunotherapy. She was not only living with cancer, but experiencing constant symptoms of the disease that disrupted her quality of life. When she entered our study and began treatment with VS-7375 at 600 milligrams, her primary tumor shrank by more than 65% within six weeks, and her symptoms also started to improve. She remains on treatment today and continues to do well. While this is one patient's experience, it serves as a powerful reminder about what is at stake and that behind every data point is a person and family member hoping for not just more time, but more quality time. In June, we shared preliminary clinical data from the Phase I/II TARGET-D 101 study, which further strengthened our conviction that VS-7375 has the potential to not only become the best-in-class oral KRAS G12D inhibitor, but a treatment that patients can truly tolerate. We continue to be encouraged by the emerging anti-tumor activity across multiple tumor types and the favorable tolerability profile we've seen so far. Together, these data support the advancement of our three ongoing Phase II registration-directed studies in pancreatic, colorectal, and non-small cell lung cancers. Operationally, we've continued to execute the VS-7375 development program at an impressive pace. We completed target enrollment in the pancreatic, colorectal, and non-small cell lung cancer dose expansion cohorts of the TARGET-D 101 study, received FDA fast-track designation for non-small cell lung cancer, and initiated all three of our Phase II registration-directed studies with the first patients now dosed in each trial. These studies represent an important step toward generating additional data to support the potential for the accelerated approval pathway and set the stage for our upcoming frontline Phase III studies. We look forward to sharing a meaningful data update on VS-7375, including response rates across our three lead tumor types in October. With that, I'll turn the call over to Dan Lyons for our commercial update. Dan?

Thanks, Dan. We continue to make meaningful progress in the second quarter as the launch matures. We are pleased with the quarterly sales of the AVMAPKI FAKZYNJA CO-PACK, $25.1 million. Our commercialization of the CO-PACK remains focused on three priorities: driving consistent new patient demand, expanding use earlier in the treatment journey, and helping patients to stay on therapy to realize the full benefit of treatment. Across each of these areas, we are seeing encouraging signs that the changes being made are having an impact and physician experience continues to deepen. Our first commercial priority is to continue to grow new patient starts. We continue to see healthy and consistent levels of new patient starts and refills throughout the second quarter. As the new patient demand continues to build, we expect this to convert to future refills. We're seeing increasing evidence of repeat prescribing that is trending higher among existing writers and greater depth of prescribing among our existing accounts, giving us confidence that adoption continues to broaden. While our distribution model doesn't provide complete visibility into every prescription, we are pleased with the numbers of new accounts that adopted the CO-PACK in the second quarter across academic and community targets. Through the end of the second quarter, adoption continues to expand as experience with the AVMAPKI FAKZYNJA CO-PACK deepens with a meaningful addition of first-time prescribers and new accounts. Gynecologic oncologists are the primary prescribers, reflecting their central role in managing patients with LGSOC from diagnosis through the course of their disease. Adoption continues to expand across both academic and community practices. In the community setting, our site-specific alerts help identify patients, and we are already seeing early returns from that effort. We are expanding this work to more practices in the third quarter. Our second commercial priority has been to drive use in the right patients at the first or next recurrence. As we've discussed previously, the earlier months of the launch were characterized by a higher proportion of heavily pretreated and later line patients. During the second quarter, we saw multiple indicators that physicians are initiating treatment earlier. These observations are based on several inputs, including our internal prescribing data, field insights, physician discussions, and market research. As we move up in earlier lines of therapy, the patients and outcomes are beginning to mirror what we saw in our RAMP 201 trial. With this shift, we will continue to work with prescribers to help these patients stay on therapy longer. Other efforts like our reimagined recurrent LGSOC direct-to-physician and patient campaign are focused squarely on the shift of identifying the right patient. We can attribute our success in Q2 to that message resonating with prescribers. Our peer-to-peer programming are also creating opportunities for doctors to understand where the CO-PACK fits in the treatment paradigm from the respected leaders in the field. Our third commercial priority is ensuring patients remain on the CO-PACK to get the greatest benefit. As the active patient pool has grown, we saw refill consistency in Q2 that suggests patients are remaining on therapy longer. Physician feedback on the CO-PACK has been positive, with tolerability consistent with their expectations. As with any new therapy, there is a learning curve as physicians and their staff become familiar with managing patients and setting expectations around treatment. Our operational execution is strengthened with the changes that we made last quarter across all our field teams. We are working to ensure prescribers are setting appropriate expectations for patients and managing adverse events so patients can have the best outcomes while taking the AVMAPKI FAKZYNJA CO-PACK. Our reimbursement continues to not be a challenge, and patients are getting their medicines quickly. Taken together in Q2, the combination of new patient starts, increased refills, expanding physician adoption, and the appropriate patients being identified, we drove meaningful growth in the adoption of the CO-PACK, and we are seeing that momentum continue in Q3. I'll now turn the call over to Dan Calkins.

Thank you, Dan. Our full financial results are included in our press release, so I'll focus on the highlights here. For the second quarter of 2026, we recorded $25.1 million in net product revenue and $3.8 million in product cost of sales. Cost of sales increased in the quarter in line with the percent increase in net product revenue. We also recorded $15 million in license revenue from the sales-based milestone payment under the terms of our agreement with Secura Bio, which was triggered by cumulative worldwide net sales of COPIKTRA surpassing $200 million during the second quarter of 2026. Research and development expenses were $41.3 million for the second quarter, incrementally increasing as expected from the first quarter of 2026. These expenses continue to be driven by the ongoing TARGET-D 101 clinical trial in the U.S., the initiation of the three Phase II TARGET-D clinical trials, and costs associated with clinical supply and drug production activities related to our expanded VS-7375 program. SG&A expenses were $27.4 million for the second quarter of 2026, and roughly in line with the first quarter. These expenses continue to be driven by commercial activities and operations, including personnel-related costs to support the ongoing CO-PACK launch. Let me reiterate that we expect SG&A expenses to remain roughly the same on a quarterly basis throughout 2026 as we remain disciplined in our expense management, making the right investments at the right time to support the ongoing commercial launch efforts. For the second quarter of 2026, non-GAAP adjusted net loss was $30.6 million, or $0.31 per share diluted, compared to non-GAAP adjusted net loss of $41.3 million, or $0.62 per share diluted, for the second quarter of 2025. Please see our press release for reconciliation of GAAP to non-GAAP measures. Moving to the balance sheet, we ended the second quarter of 2026 with cash equivalents and investments of $136.4 million. When you include the $50 million received at closing from the non-dilutive royalty financing with Oberland and the $15 million COPIKTRA milestone payment, our pro forma cash balance at the end of the second quarter is $201.4 million. Based on our current cash position, with expected revenues from the AVMAPKI FAKZYNJA CO-PACK sales, and access to the future tranche from our Oberland facility, we believe we have sufficient capital to fund operations into the second half of 2027 and reach meaningful value-creating inflection points before needing to access additional capital. As Dan mentioned earlier, we look forward to building on the CO-PACK's growth into 2026, and given our current trajectory, we believe the LGSOC franchise will be self-sustaining by the end of the year, with CO-PACK revenues funding both the commercial operations and our avutometinib plus defactinib clinical trials. With that, let me turn the call back over to Dan Paterson.

Thanks, Dan. Before we open the call to Q&A, I'd like to reiterate that our focus for the second half of 2026 is very clear. Drive strong execution of our commercial strategy to expand adoption of AVMAPKI FAKZYNJA CO-PACK, complete enrollment in our three Phase II registration-directed VS-7375 trials, and prepare to initiate our three Phase III trials for VS-7375. In October, we expect to provide a more comprehensive data set for VS-7375, including response rates across our three lead tumor types, pancreatic, lung, and colorectal cancers, with approximately 20 patients in each, as well as an early look at durability. The progress we've made this quarter reflects disciplined execution across the organization. We've continued to optimize our commercial business and advance our clinical programs, and this positions us well for a productive second half of the year. With that, we'll open the call for questions. Operator?

[Operator Instructions] And we have a question from Cantor. Caller, please go ahead and introduce yourself and ask your question.

It's Eric Schmidt from Cantor Fitzgerald. Appreciate the opportunity and congrats on all the progress. Maybe just on 7375, can you talk perhaps in broad strokes about partnership activity in the G12D space and any updates you could provide? I know last time we spoke you had alluded to a potential collaboration with Erasca, but any other comments you want to provide on what it might take for you to form some sort of a collaboration. Thank you.

Yes, Eric, thanks for the question. We continue to work on the Erasca partnership, and we'll have more details as time goes by. We're working through details on what a first study would look like, what our respective roles would be, and really, you know, kind of when we'll be able to start the study. We still remain interested in PRMT5 and are looking at a number of different options there. And then we have had considerable inbound interest from strategics. And, you know, I think in an interesting way, you know, RevMed putting out their G12D data earlier, as well as we'll have our data coming out in October, I think will really spur additional interest. And as is always the case in these discussions, it's really a judgment call on how early or late you do a partnership. The value goes up over time, but the potential acceleration of a program that a partner can bring has a bigger impact the earlier it is. So we continue on all those fronts and, you know, the funding that we announced today I think gives us a lot more strategic flexibility to not have to rush into something nor rush into an equity financing at, you know, the current stock price.

Thank you, Dan. That's very helpful. And maybe just a quick follow-on for the other Dan. Gross margins to be running in the last couple quarters look better than at least I've been modeling. Is this a reasonable run rate going forward?

Dan C., you want to take that?

Yes, sure. Thanks, Eric. Yes, I think that is a reasonable run. I think as you look at cost of sales, the majority of that really is still continues to be royalty-based. You know, the margins on the product are relatively high. So but going forward from a modeling perspective, I think what you're seeing this quarter, which we've seen historically, should be indicative of what we should expect going forward.

Thank you. Next in queue, we have a question from Guggenheim. Caller, please go ahead and introduce yourself and ask your question.

Hi, this is Michelle on for Michael Schmidt. First of all, congrats on the strong quarter. I just wanted to ask on 7375 regarding the October update. So you cited, I think a general 30% overall response rate and six months durability as an FDA accelerated approval bar. So just heading into October, I want to know, is that still the right framing across the three of these indications? Or does, you know, the competitive landscape in PDAC, for example, shift how you might think about what's needed to establish best in class? Thanks so much.

Michael, you want to take that one?

Sure. We think that's generally a very good guidepost. You probably saw the very recent approval of [ Tudriqev ] in melanoma with a 24% response rate, which got accelerated approval. Granted, we never want to go through what they went through. But 30% is a great metric in this disease. Six months is also terrific. And I would remind you, we all know that 35% is the second line response rate that we're all looking for, but 30% is very good. Let's not forget, there are drugs that are very easy to take and there are drugs that are very difficult. Having a rash that is as extensive as we've seen with some of the panRAS inhibitors is real difficult, nevermind the mucositis or stomatitis. So remember that accelerated approval looks at both activity as well as the safety and tolerability profile drug.

Thanks, Michael.

Next in the queue we have a question from RBC Capital Markets. Caller, please go ahead and introduce yourself and ask your question.

Josh on for Leo here. I was wondering whether or not like how you were feeling about the translatability of the ORR data that you've been seeing in the GenFleet China study, and whether or not that will be recapitulated in the U.S. population given the known differences in PK behavior or disease management. Thanks.

Thanks for the question. We do get compared to the GenFleet China data all the time. I would remind everybody that the most important benchmarks are going to be the U.S. data from other products and, as Michael said, really hitting a bar that we need for the U.S. accelerated approval. We are seeing quite different toxicity profile. We are showing PK that goes up as the dose goes up, and we believe, especially with an isoform-specific molecule, hitting the target really hard will translate into both depth of response and durability. I don't know, Michael, if you want to give any more color there.

I think you can definitely say from the China data the drug is active. We know that. In our hands, you've seen the CA19-9 data is very active. Direct translation, probably not direct, but within the ballpark, and we're really looking forward to the October update across all three tumor types.

Thank you. Next in the queue we have a question from Jefferies. Please go ahead and introduce yourself and ask your question.

This is Faisal from Jefferies. Just wanted to ask on the CO-PACK performance, really nice to see the uptake in revenues this quarter. Can you help us understand a little bit some of the metrics around what you're seeing on like new starts and duration of therapy? Because I know in the past you had mentioned that short duration was impacting the growth. So just trying to understand the extent to which this great quarter was driven by new starts or driven by improving duration or a bit of both. Thank you.

Thanks for the question. I would say a bit of both, but maybe Dan, if you want to give... Dan Lyons, if you want to give a little more color.

Yes, thanks for the question. It's a bit of both. And so what we saw, as you know, Faisal, our three priorities are to grow new patient starts, to move up in line of therapy, and to keep patients on so they can have the best outcome with the AVMAPKI FAKZYNJA CO-PACK. What we saw in Q2 was a bit of both. We saw a meaningful increase in new prescribers and new accounts. And so that has us very encouraged what we're seeing from a new patient start perspective. We're seeing consistent new patient starts, which is what we want to see in this disease. And then from a refill perspective, we're encouraged that all the execution and focus that we had is leading to the outcomes we're looking for overall.

Thank you. Next in queue, we have a question from the Mizuho group. Caller, please go ahead and introduce yourself and ask your question.

It's Graig Suvannavejh from Mizuho. Congrats on the quarter. Two questions if I could, just maybe on the CO-PACK, maybe piggybacking on the last question. As we think about the dynamic between new patient starts and refills and newer prescribers, is there a way to think about, is there any one particular segment that early in this launch process is going to be a bigger contributor to driving sales or is it just a combination of all three relatively equally? And then second, if I could ask a question on 7375, appreciate the color on what you're looking for in the upcoming October data. But just maybe generally speaking and in light of the comments you made about RevMed disclosing some data on their G12D, as you look at the landscape, and certainly there's a lot of excitement around the G12D inhibitor space, how do you hope to best differentiate your compound versus others that either are already out there or could be coming? Thanks.

Thanks, Graig, for the question. I'll take the second one first, and then I'll let Dan Lyons address the first one. I would say, you know, against panRAS inhibitors, we intend to show better efficacy and significantly better tolerability. With the G12D inhibitors, I think what we've said all along is, and if you look at, you know, as we've been able to escalate the dose with very little change in toxicity to hit the target hard, we believe we're going to be able to hit the target harder to have deeper response and hopefully better durability. But against the panRAS, I think the big difference is going to be tolerability. And against other G12D inhibitors, we've said we thought we have the best in class based on preclinical data. I would say where we're starting to see that in the data that we're getting clinically, and, you know, hopefully we can show that in October. Dan Lyons, you want to take the second question, and if Michael wants to add any more color, you can feel free.

Sure. I'll go first, then Michael if you want to add anything. So as you look at the question around the segments, right, whether it's new patient starts first, refills first, moving up the line of therapy, all three of those are critically important. Those new patients start to turn into refills very quickly. And as we look at the ability to keep patients on, that's where our team has been focused this last quarter, and that's where we're seeing that come through. So I think you need all three to answer your question. Now, when you look at the segmentation, I think it's important to point out that we're seeing new patient starts not just in the academics, but also in the community, right? And so we need to win in both places. And so overall, I think it's a bit of all three, but we are focused on those new patient starts as well as keeping patients on. Michael?

Yes, just one last, just to add on to what Dan said. I think unlike most of the G12D inhibitors, and in fact some of the panRAS, our PK continues to climb as we go up from 400 to 600 to 900, and you guys have seen the data, we've made it public. That has not generally been seen with the other drugs. Generally they tend to threshold out and more drug doesn't deliver higher exposures. And we believe and we will assert that we're seeing that. We can get more consistent responses, deeper responses, and we believe eventually more prolonged responses because of that at very tolerable doses. I'll just add also that our main side effects which are nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea, really not much else, that are at levels that are actually below most of the panRAS inhibitors. We have no rash and no mucositis. When we go up on the dose, we don't see any increase, and this is likely due to an irritant effect of the drug rather than a particular effect of the drug when it circulates. So it irritates the stomach and causes some GI distress, but going up on the dose doesn't matter. I think we'll see all that manifest in the clinical data we'll have in October.

Thank you. Next, we have a question from H.C. Wainwright. Caller, please go ahead and introduce yourself and ask your question.

It's Andres Maldonado from H.C. Wainwright. Congrats on the progress. Just a quick one on the commercial frontier. I think you guys touched upon it, but I would appreciate a little bit more color. On the, you know, how much of the prescribing is moving into first and next recurrence? And if that's happening, can you talk about if that's happening beyond the major academic centers? And then on the flip side, you know, how are the potential for dose interruptions or reductions if needed, and if they're helping patients maybe stay on treatment longer? And then a quick one from the TARGET-D developmental strategy. So particularly for CRC, I guess, you know, we just saw data recently from the KRYSTAL-10 study, obviously different inhibitor, different subset. What would justify continuing 7375 monotherapy without an EGFR inhibitor? Thank you very much.

So, just real quickly on the CRC, you know, we don't intend to develop it as a single agent. It's going to be with an EGFR inhibitor. That's really what's needed in CRC. Dan Lyons, you want to really give a little more color on the commercial question?

Thanks, Andres. So, I think there was two questions in there, line of therapy and then dose interruptions. So let me try to tackle both. We're very encouraged by what we're seeing. I mean, we do not have full visibility into our data, but what we are seeing, we're very encouraged that we are moving up in line of therapy. This is not only in the academic, but also in the community. And it goes back to our messaging around being the treatment for the first or next recurrence. And so the data we're seeing is encouraging there and we're going to continue to focus on that. In terms of dose interruptions, dose interruptions were part of our clinical trial. We expect some dose interruptions with this treatment. I think the important part is limiting that time by providing that support for practices so they understand how to manage dose interruptions and when appropriate, having patients restart at the starting dose of AVMAPKI FAKZYNJA CO-PACK. And so that's how we're seeing things. And I think the overall focus and collaboration we've seen across the teams on line of therapy, on managing AEs, managing dose interruptions, has been something that throughout Q2 continue to build.

Thank you. [Operator Instructions] Next in the queue, we have a question from BTIG. Caller, please go ahead and introduce yourself and ask your question.

Thanks for taking the question and congrats on a great quarter. So two questions from me. When it comes to 7375 and thinking about other partner agents, PRMT5, for example, are you inclined to look to strike another partnership similar to the one that you did with Erasca or is in-licensing your own PRMT5 inhibitor something that's available as well? And then as a second question, just could you remind us what you have aligned with the FDA on in terms of the bar for approval across your various Target (sic) [ TARGET-D ] 200 trials?

Yes, I will just say on the PRMT5, we're exploring all options. There are a number available for either, you know, kind of partnerships around a clinical trial, and there are some agents that are available, and we haven't ruled anything out. Michael, you want to comment more on the accelerated approval?

Yes, the FDA, and I've been through three, actually five accelerated approvals. The FDA has never told us what they need, but we can all look back at the numbers. I mean, they're always north of 20%. Typically these days they'd like to see 30, but I just mentioned on the phone call a recent approval today, I think, or yesterday in melanoma, which was 24%. I think durability really matters. But generally, I think the 30% ORR with at least six months durability is a great rule of thumb. We also know in colorectal that it's combo therapy. We know from the accelerated approval there with the combination what we need, similar numbers. And although it's not yet been done in pancreatic, certainly in lung, we've seen accelerated approvals with these kinds of numbers and even higher. And then we feel like we're in very good shape to achieve those.

And I might add, based on the accelerated approval we went through with our current product, you know, yes, response rate and durability are critically important, but it was the totality of the data, and they absolutely look at tolerability.

Thank you. And our final question from Alliance Global Partners. Caller, please go ahead and introduce yourself and ask your question.

Matthew from Alliance Global Partners. Thanks for taking my questions and congrats on the progress for the Q. I had one on doctors with patients who have KRAS G12D-mutant patients. So these patients in the coming months, there's going to be a decision process for these doctors to either put them on an approved RAS inhibitor, panRAS, or to put them on a trial like yours. What does that decision process look like for each doctor, and how do you plan to differentiate your clinical trials from an approved RAS inhibitor product? Thanks.

Matthew, thanks for the question. Michael, I know that's come up specifically at the ad boards we've been having with our investigators. Maybe if you want to comment on that.

Sure. The discussion is fairly straightforward with patients. Anytime you have a discussion of a new drug, particularly oncology, it's an efficacy and a tolerability discussion. So that's the discussion they'll be having. To a [ T ], I mean, I think amongst, I would say, around 30 different key opinion leaders participating in three different ad boards, colorectal, pancreatic, and lung, everyone agreed that given our tolerability profile and the data that they were privy to, they would recommend for a G12D patient that they go on to a G12D specific drug. They particularly liked ours because of what they saw. Of course, they were at our ad boards. And then they would come out with a panRAS inhibitor later, given the very significant reaction stomatitis, but also, frankly, the higher levels of even nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea, as well as other side effects. So targeted therapy for patients with a tumor that has a targeted oncogene, that's not a new concept at all. That is targeted molecular oncology, and that's what we like to do.

Got it. Great. Thanks, guys. Thanks for taking my questions.

At this time, we have no further questions in the Q&A queue. Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today's conference call. Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.