KYNB 2026财年第二季度业绩电话会议：9570万美元流动资金及第四季度临床催化剂

核心要点

• 截至2026年6月30日，KYNB拥有的现金、现金等价物、投资及应收账款总计9570万美元。管理层预计其现金储备可支持运营至2028年。
• FG-3246治疗转移性去势抵抗性前列腺癌的2期单药治疗试验进展顺利，预计将于2026年第四季度针对36名患者进行中期分析。该试验预计将在三个剂量组中共招募75名患者。
• 管理层对FG-3246设定的目标是中位影像学无进展生存期至少达到10个月，相比之下，此前1期单药治疗试验中为8.7个月。
• 公司已敲定罗沙司他治疗较低风险骨髓增生异常综合征的3期临床试验方案，并计划于2026年第四季度启动该研究，具体将通过内部筹集额外资金或通过战略合作的方式推进。
• 2026年第二季度运营成本和费用从上年同期的1340万美元增加至1610万美元。公司录得持续经营净利润1200万美元，而2025年第二季度净亏损为1370万美元。

关键财务数据

业务与运营表现

FG-3246与FG-3180在转移性前列腺癌中的应用

FG-3246是一款针对CD46靶点的潜在首创抗体偶联药物（ADC），而FG-3180是其使用相同YS5靶向抗体的同伴PET成像剂。公司正在开发该项目，作为转移性去势抵抗性前列腺癌（mCRPC）的非PSMA治疗方案。

正在进行的开放标签2期试验计划在患者接受过一种前体雄激素受体通路抑制剂治疗且未接受化疗的情况下招募75名患者。该试验正在测试1.8、2.4和2.7 mg/kg三个FG-3246剂量组。所有患者均接受FG-3180成像评估，以评估CD46表达与治疗反应之间的关系。

2026年第四季度开展的中期分析将涵盖PSA50应答率、客观缓解率、安全性、药代动力学及暴露-应答数据。无效性评估将结合PSA50和客观缓解的综合指标进行。成熟的影像学无进展生存数据预计将在2027年期间公布。

管理层强调了早期的临床结果，显示在1期单药治疗试验中，中位影像学无进展生存期为8.7个月，PSA50应答率为36%。在FG-3246联合恩扎卢胺的研究者发起研究中，此前仅接受过一种ARPI治疗的患者实现了10.1个月的中位影像学无进展生存期，PSA50应答率为40%。

2期试验设计引入了预防性使用G-CSF，以减少严重的中性粒细胞减少症、限制暂停给药情况，并支持更稳定一致的药物暴露。公司在美国顶尖机构中拥有23个活跃的试验中心。

罗沙司他在较低风险MDS中的应用

KYNB敲定了罗沙司他治疗较低风险骨髓增生异常综合征贫血的3期临床试验方案，针对促红细胞生成刺激剂治疗无效或不适用的患者。

在3期MATTERHORN研究高输血负担患者的事后分析中，接受罗沙司他治疗的患者中有36%实现了至少连续8周脱离输血，而安慰剂组这一比例仅为7%。标称p值为0.041。

新的3期试验将把前24周内连续8周脱离输血作为主要终点。关键次要终点将评估48周内连续12周、16周和24周脱离输血的情况。该研究将招募足够数量的RS阳性和RS阴性患者，以评估两个亚组的疗效。

管理层展望

管理层预计，9570万美元的流动性状况将支持公司运营至2028年，同时为其在美国的管线提供资金支持。

近期的主要催化剂包括2026年第四季度FG-3246的2期中期分析，以及计划于2026年第四季度启动的罗沙司他3期试验。由公司内部启动罗沙司他研究需要额外资金；公司目前正在同步评估战略合作选项。

风险与关注要点

• 罗沙司他3期试验的启动取决于能否为内部开发筹集资金或达成满意的战略合作安排。
• 根据公司与阿斯利康（AstraZeneca）签署的协议，若自主开发与商业化，公司需按净销售额支付中单数字百分比的特许权使用费；若该项目通过合作推进，阿斯利康将获得KYNB所获经济收益的35%。
• 支持性的MATTERHORN研究结果源自高输血负担亚组的事后分析，且具有标称p值。
• 中性粒细胞减少症一直是FG-3246安全性的重要考量因素。当前试验采用预防性G-CSF给药，以减轻3级或更严重不良事件的发生。
• 转移性去势抵抗性前列腺癌（mCRPC）的组织采集受到限制，因为病灶往往集中在骨部，制约了配对活检的可获得性。公司同时也在使用成像技术和循环肿瘤DNA（ctDNA）评估。

分析师问答集锦

在计划中的3期试验中，罗沙司他的剂量调整可能每六周进行一次。管理层表示，剂量滴定将基于获益-风险评估，包括血红蛋白水平和血红蛋白增长速率。在2.5 mg/kg与3.5 mg/kg之间将设置中间剂量阶梯。

关于FG-3246，管理层表示2期随机分配患者中约有30%此前曾接受过Pluvicto治疗。统计分析计划包含了基于先前Pluvicto使用史的预先设定评估，但管理层尚未承诺针对该亚组采取加速批准策略。

管理层表示，FG-3246相对于PSMA靶向疗法的最终定位将由数据决定。在FG-3180成像、PSMA扫描、组织采集和ctDNA分析的支持下，公司正在研究CD46靶向疗法是否可用于PSMA治疗后的患者或解决其他患者亚组的需求。

业绩电话会议完整文字实录

完整财报电话会议逐字稿

管理层陈述

Operator

Thank you. Good day and thank you for standing by. Welcome to the Kentra BIO Second Quarter 2026 Earnings Conference Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. Later, we will conduct a question and answer session. If you would like to ask a question at that time, please press star 1-1 on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. Please be advised that today's conference is being recorded. I would now like to hand the conference over to your speaker today, Gaia Shamus of LifeSci Advisors.

Please go ahead.

Daia Vasiliver-Shamis

Thank you, Latonya, and good afternoon everyone. Thank you for joining today to discuss KintraBio's second quarter 2026 financial and business results. I'm Gaia Chamis from Lifeline Advisors. Joining me on today's call are Thayne Wettig, Chief Executive Officer, David DiLuccier, Chief and Carl Gadum, Vice President of Product Development. Following the prepared remarks, we will open the call to your questions. I would like to remind you that remarks made on today's call include forward-looking statements about Kindred's bio. Such statements may include, but are not limited to, collaborations with AstraZeneca and Astellas, financial guidance, the initiation in the bio, and the application of the bio to the design, conduct, and results of clinical trials, regulatory strategies and potential regulatory results, research and development activities, commercial results and results of operations, risks related to our business, and certain other business matters.

Each forward-looking statement is subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results and events to differ materially from those projected in that statement. Our complete description of these and other material risks can be found in KintraBio's filing with the SEC, including our most recent Form 10-K and Form 10-Q. Intrabio does not undertake any obligation to update publicly any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise. The press release reporting the company's financial results and business updates and a webcast of today's conference call can be found on the investor section of Kintra Bio website at www.kintrabio.com. With that, I would like to turn the call over to the CEO, Thane Wedding. Thane?.

Unknown Speaker

Thank you, Gaia. Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to our second quarter 2026 earnings call. On today's call, I will provide an update on the important progress we have made across our clinical portfolio. First, with FG3246, our potential first-in-class antibody drug conjugate targeting CD46 and its companion Canyon Pet Imaging Agent in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, and second with Roxadustat, our potential treatment for anemia due to lower-risk mild dysplastic syndromes. Then David De La Chia, our CFO, will review the financials, after which we will open the call for your questions. Starting with slide three, I'd like to highlight our mid- and late-stage programs and upcoming catalysts. phase 2 monotherapy trial for FG3246 and its companion diagnostic FG3180 in the post-ARPI pre-chemo setting in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer continues to actively enroll patients, and we are on track for the results from the interim analysis in the fourth quarter of this year. With our Roxy-Dustat program, the protocol for the Phase III trial has been finalized, and we are advancing towards our goal of initiating the registrational trial in the fourth quarter of 2026. the simplified capital structure and cash runway into 2028. We remain committed to executing on our strategic vision and look forward to the upcoming catalysts for both clinical programs.

Let's start with the FG3246 and FG3180 program in MCRPC. Then that need for new treatments for the 65,000 men in the U.S. diagnosed every year with drug-treatable castration-resistant metastatic disease is substantial. Targeting CD46, a novel tumor-selective, multifunctional epitope that helps tumors evade complement-dependent cytotoxicity could help address this need. Moving to slide five, what sets CD46 apart from non-PSMA tumor antigen targets for metastatic prostate cancer centers on four key points. First, it is highly expressed in prostate cancer and other tumors, yet with limited expression in normal tissue. Second, CD46 is upregulated during tumorigenesis, as well as during the progression from localized castration-sensitive prostate cancer to metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Third, an estimate of 15 to 70% of patients have high CD46 expressing tumors.

And finally, relative to PSMA, CD46 expression is more uniform with lower interpatient variability and with higher median expression in MCRPC tissues, which make it a compound non-PSMA therapeutic target. Slide six highlights FT-3246, our CD46 targeting potential first-in-class ADC, which combines the YS5 antibody with an MMAE payload. UMAE is the payload for five currently marketed ADCs that generated approximately $5 billion in worldwide revenue in 2025, making it a well-characterized therapeutic approach for treating solid tumors. The OIS5 antibody offers an androgen receptor agnostic and non-PSMA approach, differentiating it from many of the prostate cancer treatments currently in development. As with the ADC, our companion imaging agent, FGE3180, utilizes the same YS5 targeting antibody and is being developed under its own IND. We believe that having a patient selection biomarker could enable us to potentially enrich the patient population in a Phase III trial, while also differentiating the patient population. FG3246 in the prostate cancer treatment paradigm.

It also represents an important commercial opportunity as a companion diagnostic to FG3246, similar to the existing PSMA PET agents, which generated revenue of almost $2 billion in 2025. FG3180 is an important part of our ongoing phase two trial, where we will assess the correlation between CDP expression as measured by the PET agent in response to FG3246. Our aim is a clinically differentiated therapeutic in a competitive yet highly unsatisfied MCRPC market. Importantly, we are the only non-PSMA program in mid- to late-stage development that combines a therapeutic with a companion PET imaging agent. The excitement we have in this program comes from the clinical results for FG3246 across two distinct trials. We believe these results, summarized on slide seven, are competitive when compared to other approved and investigational treatments. In the phase one monotherapy trial highlighted on the left part of the slide, FG3246 demonstrated a median RPFS of 8.7 months in patients with MCRPC who were heavily pretreated and were not biomarker selected, with PSA50 response of 36%. 20% of the 25 resistive-available patients achieved an ORR with a meaningful duration of response of 7.5 months.

It is important to note that all of these ORRs were demonstrated at the 2.7 milligram per kilogram adjusted body weight dose utilized in the expansion phase of the trial, providing providing early evidence of a dose-response relationship. In the top line results from the Phase 1B2 investigator-initiated study that UCSF summarized on the right side, combination of FG3246 with enzalutamide demonstrated encouraging anti-tumor activity with seven months of median radiographic progression-free survival in biomarker unselected patients across the entire cohort of 44 patients. Importantly, in patients who had progressed on only one prior ARPI, the combination of of FT-3246 and enzalutamide achieved a meaningful median RPFS of 10.1 months with a PSA50 response of 40%. In addition to the efficacy measures, the ISP provided us with important insights into the adverse event profile of the ADC. The use of GCSF prophylaxis led to a significant decrease in grade 3 or greater neutropenia compared to the phase 1 monotherapy trial. This approach is now designed into our ongoing phase 2 monotherapy study where our objective is to keep more patients on their initial dose without the same degree of dose interruption or reduction experienced in the Phase I monotherapy trial, with the aim to build upon the 8.7 months of RPFS demonstrated in the Phase I trial. Moving to slide 8, an additional insight we gained from the IST is that higher tumor uptake of FG3180 was associated with greater PSA50 response.

The PET imaging on the right is from a patient with clear and meaningful expression of CD46 after exposure to FG3180. The bottom row of the table on the left shows that patients with a higher average maximum standardized uptake value or SUV of a target lesion when normalized to the SUV of the blood pool demonstrated a trend to greater PSA50 response to FG3246 versus those with a lower SUV. with a nominal p-value that just missed being statistically significant despite the small number of patients. This is the first observed association between CD46 expression and response to FG3246. We aim to further characterize this association as part of the ongoing phase two monotherapy trial. Slide 9 lays out the design for this Phase II monotherapy trial, where we will enroll 75 patients in the post-1-AORPI pre-chemo setting across three dose levels, with the primary objective to select the optimal Phase III dose based on efficacy, safety, and PK measures. All patients in the study will be treated with FG3180 in order to further explore the correlation between CD46 expression and response to the ADC in this biomarker unselected trial. The interim analysis of this open-label trial is on track for the fourth quarter of this year and will include PSA50 response, ORR, safety, PK, and exposure response data.

Futility will be assessed by a composite response rate of PSA50 and ORR. Importantly, we expect mature RPFS data to become available throughout 2027 as patients continue their treatment with FG3246 and the trial progresses toward completion. On slide 10, we'd like to emphasize the three design elements we have incorporated with the aim of improving upon the 8.7 months of median RPFS demonstrated in the Phase I trial. First, we are testing three of the highest doses from the Phase I monotherapy study, 1.8, 2.4, and 2.7 milligrams per kilogram. Second, primary prophylaxis with GCSF is being utilized to mitigate neutropenia, an approach which was successfully implemented in the Phase II portion of the IST. We believe reducing the incidence of grade 3 or greater neutropenia should lead to fewer dose interruptions or adjustments, extending the duration of therapy, and enabling more consistent exposure to the ADC. of FG3246. And third, we are enrolling patients who are earlier in the progression of MCRPC versus the median five prior lines of therapy in the phase one trial.

The 10.1 months of median RPFS demonstrated in the IST in patients who progress on only one prior ARPI underscores the potential of FG3246 in this patient population. Together we believe these design elements have the potential to improve upon the Phase I results and achieve a median RPFS of 10 months or greater, which can be viewed as a threshold for commercial competitiveness. Slide 10 shows the sites who are participating in the ongoing Phase 2 trial. We now have 23 sites live at top-tier U institutions, and we continue to be encouraged by our progress to date. We remain on track for the interim analysis of 36 patients in the fourth quarter of this year. To conclude this update on FG3246, we are actively enrolling patients in our Phase II monotherapy trial in the post-1ARPI pre-chemo MCRPC setting with important design elements in place that we believe could enable FG3246 to surpass the 8.7 months of median RPF best demonstrated in the Phase 1 trial. We look forward to the interim analysis in the fourth quarter of this year.

Moving on to the Roxodustat Lower Risk Mildness Plastic Syndrome Program on slide 13. There are approximately 50,000 patients with anemia associated with lower risk MDS in the U.S. with current therapies effective in less than 50% of these patients. With no oral options currently on the market or in late stage development, there's a significant opportunity for an effective, durable, convenient oral treatment that works across multiple lines of therapy. Slide 14 highlights why we believe Roxidustab can be that treatment. In a post hoc analysis of high transfusion burden patients from our previous phase III Matterhorn study using the international working group definition for high transfusion burden of four or more RBC units in two consecutive eight-week periods, we saw that 36 percent of patients treated with roxidustat achieved transfusion independence. for at least eight straight weeks versus only 7% in the placebo group with a nominal p-value of 0.041. These results are highly similar to the pivotal trial results for the two most recently approved therapies for anemia associated with lower risk, MDS. Turning to slide 15, based on these results, our target indication is intended to be for the treatment of anemia in patients with lower-risk MDS who are refractory to or ineligible for prior ESA treatment, where we believe Rotsadustat can raise the standard of care across multiple lines of treatment.

We believe we also have a unique opportunity to demonstrate transfusion independence across both RS-positive and RS-negative patients. As presented in our most recent disclosure at EHA, the European Hematology Association, in a post hoc analysis of the Phase III Matterhorn study, Roxadustat demonstrated similar rates of transfusion independence across both RS positive and RS negative patients. Primary research that we have conducted with practicing clinicians indicates that Ruxidustab has the potential to be a useful treatment in both of these patient segments. The RS negative opportunity, which represents a majority of lower risk MDS patients, is especially relevant given that Lusvapracept, the market leading brand in the treatment of lower risk MDS, has not demonstrated clinically differentiated efficacy in this segment of the lower risk MDS population and is not indicated for use in the second line setting in RS-negative patients. We believe that demonstrating similar efficacy across the entire patient population could position Rocto-Ducet favorably in the treatment paradigm of lower risk MDS. Slide 16 provides an overview of the Phase III trial. Following our interactions with the FDA, we have now finalized the protocol for the Phase III study, which includes a primary endpoint of eight-week transfusion independence over the first 24 weeks of the trial, with key secondary endpoints of 12-, 16-, and 24-week transfusion independence over 48 weeks.

We continue to explore the opportunity to develop Roxidustat internally or with a strategic partner, which aligns with our goal of initiating the study in the fourth quarter of 2026. To summarize the Roxyduce-Stat opportunity in lower risk MDS on slide 17, with a substantial unmet need, no oral therapeutic options on the market or in late development, potential in RS negative patients and an orphan drug designation in hand we see Roxadustat as a compelling commercial opportunity. We continue to make important progress with the phase 3 enabling activities. With that, I will now turn the call over to Dave to discuss the company's financials. Dave?.

Unknown Speaker

Thank you, Thayne. For the second quarter of 2026, total revenue was negative $1.5 million compared to $1.3 million for the same period in 2025. Total operating costs and expenses for the second quarter of 2026 were $16.1 million compared to $13.4 million for the second quarter of 2025. R&D expenses for the second quarter of 2026 were $6.8 million compared to $5.9 million in the second quarter of 2025. SG&A expenses for the second quarter of 2026 were $9.3 million compared to $7.1 million in the second quarter of 2025. During the second quarter of 2026, we recorded a net income from continuing operations of $12 million, or $2.96 net income per basic and diluted share, compared to a net loss of $13.7 million, or $3.38 net loss per basic and diluted share. share one year ago. Now shifting towards cash. As of June 30th, we reported $95.7 million in cash, cash equivalents, investments, and accounts receivable. We expect the company to have a cash runway into 2028, enabling us to continue to invest in our U.S. pipeline opportunities.

Thank you, and I will now turn the call over to you.

Unknown Speaker

call back over to Fane. Thank you, Dave. We entered the second half of 2026 with promising momentum. We will continue our disciplined execution of the FG3246 and FG3180 program with results from the interim analysis of the phase two monotherapy trial expected in the fourth quarter of 2026 and continue the phase three enabling activities for Roxodustat with the goal of initiating the Phase 3 trial in lower-risk MDS in the fourth quarter of 26. With that, I would now like to turn the call over to the operator for Q&A.

Operator

Certainly. As a reminder, to ask a question, please press star 1-1 on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. To withdraw your question, please press star 1-1 again. Please stand by while we compile our Q&A roster. Our first question will come from the line of Alex Ramsey of William Blair. Your line is open.

分析师问答

Alexandra Ramsey

Hi, this is Alex on for Andy. So for the upcoming phase three trial of Roxadustat, the dosing regimen begins with 2.5 mg per kg with potential for titrating up to 3.5. So we were just wondering how that determination is made and if it's based on tolerability or efficacy, after starting the treatment the assessment is made and then also what the titration interval is from both a timing and a dosing perspective.

Unknown Speaker

Thanks, Alex, for the call. I'm going to hand that question over to Carol Gattam, our VP of Product Development.

Unknown Speaker

Thank you for the question. So up titration or down titration is based on an assessment of benefit and risk, as you have highlighted. And the assessment is or a change in dose is possible every six weeks based on what we see frequently.

Alexandra Ramsey

from a benefit and risk perspective. Perfect, thank you so much. And so, and that is it straight from the beginning. from 2.5 to 3.5 if they go up in dose or is there some interval in between? There are some intervals in between. There are some intervals in between, yes.

Unknown Speaker

Okay, perfect. Thank you so much. And Alex, there will be very specific guidance to the sites on the titration either up or down based upon a number of factors, including hemoglobin level and the rate of rise of that hemoglobin level as well.

Operator

Perfect. Thank you so much. And our next question will be coming from the line of Matthew Keller of HC Wainwright. Your line is open.

Matthew Keller

Hey, good afternoon everyone. Thanks for taking our questions. So I guess on the ROXA program as well, first I was wondering if you could remind us, you know, how contingent are you starting the phase three on a partner? And then a follow up to that I was wondering is, you know, how has the Matterhorn data change your calculus at all on potentially partnering that program.

Unknown Speaker

Thanks, Matt, for the question. So the start of the phase three, as we've stated previously, we are undergoing both the opportunity to develop internally as well as partner the program. To develop internally, we would have to bring in capital in order to do that. And so that's a consideration while we also evaluate strategic partners as well. And so we're running a parallel path with both of these. And at the end of the day, we're going to make the decision that we believe is in the best interest of shareholders. There are some dynamics in play related to economics. So if you think about the license that we wholly own in North America and South America, that was a license that was previously held by AstraZeneca during the development of the CKD program.

When we negotiated those rights back from AZ, if we were to develop Roxadustat on our own and commercialize on our own. we would owe AZ a mid single digit royalty on net sales. If we were to partner the product, the program with a strategic and somebody else were to develop and commercialize, AZ would then be entitled to 35% of any economics that would accrue to Kentra Bio. So that's one consideration from an economic perspective. strategic and operational considerations that we continue to evaluate. And as I said, we're going to ultimately make the call that we believe is in the best interest of shareholders.

Matthew Keller

Yes, it totally makes sense. And then can you comment at all about how the RS data is maybe playing into that, if at all? And if I may, kind of an adjacent question, did the RS data also influence the potential phase three design at all? Sorry, I'm going to pepper you with a couple there. No, it's a great question. And so yes.

Unknown Speaker

The RS kind of dynamic with respect to RS positive and RS negative, there's clearly a larger need in the marketplace for RS negative patients, given the fact that Lusbatyrecept has not been able to really show any sort of a benefit relative to ESAs in that particular patient population. And in fact, they're not indicated in the second line setting for RS negative patients. And so, the understanding of that dynamic, obviously plays into how we think about the opportunity, how we think about the clinical design, think about we're going to make sure that we enroll a requisite number of both RS positive and RS negative patients in the phase three trial so that we can have the power to be able to demonstrate that roxidustat works across both of those patient populations but the RS negative opportunity or the the Matterhorn data, we'd be pursuing this regardless of the opportunity for Roxy-Dustat to perhaps show a differential benefit in RS-negative patients relative to RS-positive patients, but it clearly does give us, we think, a really nice commercial opportunity across both segments, but especially in the RS-negative population, which makes that more than 50% of the total patients who have lower risk modest plastic syndrome. Did that get at your question, Matt? It absolutely did. Thank you so much for the call, Eric. I really appreciate it. And Dave or Carol, anything to add to that? No.

Unknown Speaker

Thank you. The only thing I would add is you asked around how Matterhorn informed the Phase III design, and it's obviously been a significant driver of the Phase III design, went through a comprehensive analysis of what variables were driving outcomes, roxa versus placebo, and isolated transfusion burden. as the key variable and have designed the phase 3 trial accordingly. And to Thane's point, the analysis also shows that roxidustat improves transfusion independence and hemoglobin across RS positive and negative. And so that is also reflected in the phase 3 design.

Operator

Okay. That makes sense. Thank you. And our next question will be coming from the line of Michael King of Rodman & Renshaw LLC. Your line is open.

Unknown Speaker

Thanks for taking the question, guys. If I could, I'd like to pivot to 3246 and 3180. of questions on the program I'm just curious how you guys look at it as far as you know I know it's one to two prior lines one prior a RPI but I'm just curious what you anticipate the enrollment might be for individuals who have been treated with lutetium-177, and whether you can, you know, enrich enrollment for that population. The reason I'm asking is I'm trying to think about whether there's any element of the design of the Phase 2 that could... propel you towards some kind of an accelerated approval strategy.

Unknown Speaker

Yes, it's a great question, Mike, and I appreciate the question. I'll go ahead and kick it off, and then Carol, I'll hand it over to you for additional commentary. So to your point, we clearly are allowing prior pluvicto-treated patients into the trial. At the outset of the trial, we kind of had an estimate as it relates to what percent of patients were going to be previous PluVicto-treated patients. far into the trial, while we're not disclosing our enrollment stats yet, what we can say is about 30% of patients who have been enrolled into the trial and randomized were previously treated with Pluvicto. And we've got a pre-specified analysis. based upon prior Plobicto exposure or not. So that we've got that built into the SAP so that we will be able to clearly determine is there any sort of a differential impact or effect from 3246 based upon prior Plobicto exposure. I haven't really thought about the ability to go for accelerated approval in that particular patient population if we showed a really nice benefit, but it's an interesting thought.

Ultimately, we're going to be data-driven based upon the outcome of the phase two trial. So Carol, go ahead.

Unknown Speaker

No additions from my side. I just wonder, has there been any inflection? Because, I mean, I know it's early days, but... Novartis just recently received first line indication. So I wonder if that 30% proportion might increase.

Unknown Speaker

going forward from here? Yes, it very well could. I think what we've found is that, you know, you don't see an immediate or instantaneous adoption, especially in urinary cancer therapy, where ARPIs have been really cemented as standard of care, both in the castration-sensitive phase, as well as if they haven't been previously treated with an ARPI, the castration-resistant phase as well. So it's something we'll continue to keep an eye on. We're closely evaluating the patients who are enrolled to understand, are we seeing an inflection in previously plevictor treated patients? And so it's clearly an important consideration for us.

Unknown Speaker

Yes, I would just add to that, that there is obviously the dynamic around enrollment, and that is obviously also highly driven by the sites in particular and the treatment practice at the individual sites. As we think about the design of a global phase three, we're obviously very closely monitoring market shares in the global market. the pre-CRPC setting and then the metastatic setting to understand eligibility criteria, but also how we set up the control arm and what is the appropriate prior line of therapy. So point well taken around there being a lot of movement in that space.

Unknown Speaker

Yes, yes, yes. Sorry to keep belaboring this point, but one other question I wanted to ask, and that is I know PET imaging is your key guide towards response, but I'm wondering is it possible to get – both pre and post treatment biopsy from these individuals because I'm just curious about the expression, the levels of expression of PSMA prior to therapy and post therapy to see if there's any difference. you know correlation or With with the level of expression with with PSMA sort of are you going to be more active? serving the post PSMA setting less active or you know indifferent to to PSMA the.

Unknown Speaker

No, thanks, Mike. Carol, you want to take that one? Sure, yes, it's certainly a very interesting scientific question, and we're doing a lot in terms of tissue collection, PSMA scans, PET scans, and our 3180 scans, as much as possible to understand how it evolves over time, as you can appreciate there limitations as to the burden that you can put on patients. So it is a bit more on a best effort basis, but it's certainly a key question to address. And what I would also just say is in this disease area, the tissue availability is limited given the disease, often just being bone disease and also tissue availability if soft tissue disease. So we're coming up against some challenges here in terms of disease, but we're doing all we can to address that scientific question. Well, I know the Proxy Cancer Working Group just updated their guidelines to encourage the use of ctDNA. I don't know, are you going to be looking at ctDNA in these patients?.

Unknown Speaker

Correct. Yes, we are. We definitely are. In fact, in the Phase I monotherapy trial, there was a really nice ctDNA effect with FG3246.

Unknown Speaker

Okay. All right. I think I've exhausted my questions for now. Thank you. I appreciate it, Mike.

Operator

And our next question will come from the line of Jay Olson of Oppenheimer. Your line is open, Jay.

Jay Olson

Oh, hey, congrats on all the progress and thanks for taking our questions. We had a couple of questions, starting with 3246. Can you just talk about how you're thinking of positioning and 3246 is a differentiated non-PSMA approach to metastatic CRPCs. Is the greatest opportunity in PSMA low or PSMA negative patients? Or do you see CD46 targeted therapy as potentially complementary to PSMA directed approaches? And then just on rocks from a longer term perspective, how are you thinking about eventually moving into the first line setting? Thank you.

Unknown Speaker

Thanks, Jay. Good to hear from you. Carol, you want to take that one and then I'll add on?.

Unknown Speaker

Sure, yes, I think these are exactly the type of questions we're looking to address with the phase two, and that's why we're allowing prior letitian to understand how responses are similar or different in different patient subpopulations. And to the prior question, we're also doing the scans to really understand where the patient is. fall and where there's the greatest unmet need and where we have the most compelling value proposition for 3180. So I think all strategic options are here on the table and it will ultimately will be data driven. And then to your point around moving up lines, I think that's what we've traditionally used. seen right is is from the post chemo setting into the pre chemo setting into then the to the hormone sensitive setting and so that those are certainly part of our of our life cycle of our life cycle considerations moving forward.

Unknown Speaker

Dane, back to you. Yes, thanks, Carol. And Jay, maybe one other comment. And this just comes from discussions with clinicians in this space. And this isn't based upon dozens of interviews like we would do as we would contemplate a phase three design, but this is speaking with some KOLs. They believe that a PSMA approach will continue to be kind of standard of care in this pre-chemo setting. What they also talk about is with the ARPIs, they're being used more in the castration-sensitive phase, and that clinicians are shying away from this ARPI switch approach just because you only get an incremental four to six months of additional RPFS when you switch from one ARPI to another. And so they think that the PSMA approach, Pluvicto or other PSMA-directed therapies would be standard of care once a patient has progressed on an ARPI.

Once a patient then progresses on a PSMA-directed therapy, then they tend to think about a different target, but they also tend to think about a different modality. So if they were on an RLT that targeted PSMA, they then might think about an ADC that targets a different epitope like CD46. So they wouldn't go from an RLT that targets PSMA to an ADC that targets PSMA. They also may not go from an RLT that targets PSMA to an RLT that targets another epitope. And so, again, that's it's a different question. It's more anecdotal than anything. We'll continue to, as Carol said, explore it. heavily driven by what we see in our phase two trial. But yes, it's something that we think about a lot as we contemplate what a phase three design could look like.

Operator

Great. Thanks for taking the questions. You bet. And I'd now like to turn the call back to Thayne for closing remarks.

Unknown Speaker

Yes, we appreciate everybody joining us for today's second quarter earnings call and your continued interest in Kindred Bio. Enjoy the rest of your day, guys. And this concludes today's conference call. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.

This live transcript is auto-generated without human intervention or review.

[Call has ended.]