Welcome to the next session. So we're sticking with—we've got a European pharma afternoon, in fact, pharma biotech afternoon. So we have with us today Genmab and Anthony Pagano, who's the CFO. Anthony, I don't know if you wanted to make some sort of opening remarks. There's been obviously a lot going on for Genmab in the last 6-12 months. Maybe just run through some key points, and then we'll get into some Q&A. Thanks.
Yeah, thanks, Graham. And again, thanks for having us at the conference back here again. It's a pleasure to be here and have a chance to engage with all of our investors. As we start to get in the process of exiting 2025, I find it really useful to reflect on the progress that we've made here at Genmab during the course of the year. And I think it's really interesting to kind of tell the story through the lens of three of our late-stage programs, now assuming that the PETO and the Merus transaction closes, but to really tell that story through the lens of these three assets. And that's Epkinly, RENA-S, and PETO. And what you have across all three assets is each of them have at least one FDA breakthrough therapy designation.
During the course of 2025, each of them have had really significant clinical data that has only served to increase our conviction in the programs. And you look forward to 2026, each of them also have meaningful registrational data that could set up some very important potential launches in 2027. So if you step back, you really have a very strong set of late-stage programs between Epkinly, RENA-S, and Peto. And don't forget about Aclasunamab as well. And you look forward to 2026 again, a number of important readouts and then potential launches in 2027. And this is underpinned by continued very strong financial performance. Through the first nine months of this year, total revenue growth has been 21% and recurring revenue growth of 26%. And what you've seen as well is continued focus on running the business in a very financially disciplined way.
So you can see a lot of that revenue growth really coming through to the bottom line. So as we kind of really now sort of step back for a minute and think about Genmab, what you have is a very strong existing oncology business that we're building with a set of very nice growth prospects here moving forward. And we'll continue to run this business in a very operationally and financially disciplined manner and really zooming out, thinking about continuing to sort of translate this antibody science knowledge expertise into meaningful breakthrough therapies for patients and ultimately delivering value for patients and shareholders. So that's some opening remarks to set the context, Graham. And now maybe let's get into some questions.
Yeah, great. Maybe sort of a question on strategy, sort of bigger picture of obviously Genmab at inception was really a technology company, then came an out-licensing company, and now you're a company that has own assets that are growing. So perhaps you can just talk to, over the midterm, what the strategy is to continue with that growth of your own products and being marketed.
Yeah, so for a number of years, I mean, really, if you want to go back in time, it's really to 2013, we were very clear that new products going into the clinic that originated from Genmab, that the absolute base case was for us to own those assets at least 50% and to really start to forward integrate around those products. That strategy really started to come to life as we got into that 2019-2020 timeframe when we started seeing some encouraging mid-stage clinical data for both Epkinly and Tivdac. So at that point, we really started building out the development, late-stage development, and commercialization capabilities, particularly in the United States and Japan, to really be very good owners of those programs.
But as importantly, to set the stage for where we are today, to really now see the expansion of Epkinly and really now looking forward, see execution and expansion both around RENA-S and Peto moving forward. So overall, this has been a very sort of thoughtful, well-thought-out stepwise plan to get us where we are today, which is having a very strong platform and foundation to allow us, as we have these readouts that I explained across the three programs, to really harvest that clinical data, take it to regulators, and then be very well positioned to market the program. So we're very excited about what's been built up here over the last number of years, but even more excited about the next couple of years, particularly 2026, with a number of very important clinical readouts.
Got it. Okay. And obviously, part of that strategy now has got M&A in there as well with the Maris acquisition. So perhaps you can just talk through the deal rationale for Maris, what you think it brings to the plate and why go external.
Yeah, so again, it goes back to this capability build. So these are not just generic capabilities and expertise we've been building. Our focus, as everyone knows at Genmab, is antibodies and antibodies in oncology. We have a very nice platform, and we're looking for opportunities to further leverage that platform. And of course, we look for internal growth opportunities. But of course, our job is also to survey the landscape and look for external opportunities. And ultimately, we landed on the Maris potential acquisition of Maris. Here again, going to this concept of natural ownership in the first order, how can you be a very good evaluator of Maris or particularly in PETO? Again, it starts with antibodies in oncology, then deep understanding of a bispecific, an EGFR bispecific, and then the therapeutic area being head and neck cancer.
These are all areas where we've invested quite a bit over the last couple of decades in areas we know very, very well. So ultimately, we're in a position to evaluate this opportunity and then really think about post-deal close, how could we add substantial value? And here, as we all know, Peto has two ongoing phase 3 trials. One or both of them will likely read out in 2026. We said, how can we add on to this? And what we said here is that we plan to start another phase 3 trial in locally advanced head and neck cancer already in 2026. So I think it's a natural evolution of the Genmab business, thinking about how we can further fuel the overall growth profile of the business. Again, very excited about the prospects of Peto.
We can maybe dive a bit deeper into the product profile in a minute, Graham. But overall, it makes sense with that overall, again, forward integration of our business and really setting us up on a very nice growth trajectory here as we exit this decade and get into the early part of the next decade.
Okay. As you highlight, we've got two phase 3s running, one potentially reading out next year. I guess what is it in the data perhaps to discuss the earlier data on Peto to sort of explain what gives you the confidence that this is going to be a successful asset in phase 3?
Yeah, so again, we start off with building off what you just said. We have super high conviction in the program. A couple of things that really stand out for me is, of course, the external validation via each of these indications, both in second line, third line, but also in front line, having breakthrough therapy designation from the FDA. If you actually kind of dig into the data, particularly in front line, in the data set we're looking at, you can see when you add Peto to Pembro and Keytruda, you get to a response rate of north of 60%. So 60 out of every 100 patients are potentially going to benefit from this combination therapy. And what's important to think about then is what does Pembro do or Keytruda do by itself, which is around 19% or 20%. So you have a tripling of the potential benefit.
You see, as you look at duration of response or PFS and the overall survival, preliminarily, of course, you see, again, a pretty significant amount of headroom between the combo of Peto and Keytruda versus Keytruda alone. So that headroom, that powerful efficacy gives us a lot of confidence here moving forward. It's this profile as well that gave us the confidence to already commit to starting a phase 3 in locally advanced head and neck cancer.
Okay. Perhaps you can talk through how it compares to the competition, so in particular, J&J's Rybrevant.
Of course. I think all of us would acknowledge in biopharma, generally speaking, competition is a reality. There's not a lot of white space or very little white space really at all. So competition is a reality. Then the question is, if that's a given, how are you going to operate within that reality? You want to have high conviction programs like PETO, like RENA-S, like Epkinly, that really have super strong target product profiles that could lead to a best-in-class profile as a starting point. We think PETO ticks those boxes versus existing competition as well as potential future competition, so first is best-in-class, then you have first-in-class. We think we have a real shot here to be first-in-class relative to competition, and then you can't take your foot off the gas pedal. It's about how can you be potentially broadest in class.
Here I go back to what I've said now maybe for the third time is we already have very clear plans to expand beyond the existing two phase threes, and we're going to start that first phase three in locally advanced head and neck cancer. This is maybe a point around the data that we're seeing. You don't only see the strong efficacy and combo that I alluded to in terms of the response rate. What we're also highly encouraged by is what seems to be a rapid response. We're seeing a fair number of responses already show up in that first scan. It's really the combination of having a very competitive product profile in terms of best-in-class, be first-in-class where you can, and then go as broad as you can.
And we feel very comfortable that we have the team in place both from a development perspective, but also a commercialization perspective that we can compete. And I think we've demonstrated that with what we've been able to do with Epkinly. Epkinly is also obviously operating in a hyper-competitive environment. And I'd say the battle's not over yet, but we're more than holding our own as we sit here today.
Got it. And then with Peto, there was some earlier data in colorectal cancer as well. So when you talk about broadening, is that an indication that's high up on the list of places to expand?
As we think about PETO, where the most amount of data very clearly is in head and neck cancer, there's two ongoing phase threes. We're going to start another phase three. That's what we've publicly kind of is out there and we've committed to. As you think about the rationale and the logic for the deal, it was really primarily around head and neck cancer. Of course, with any drug, when you see activity and a very strong activity, to be clear, and a particular tumor type, you're always going to look for expansion opportunities. Right now, where we've seen some data, it's early and encouraging is in colorectal cancer. I think for now, that's what we're going to say on the topic. That's the data that's out there.
When we're ready to sort of talk about more broadly about Peto, we'll kind of save that for a later day. But what I would say again is that we're encouraged by the data. It's early and more to come.
Got it. Okay. So perhaps you can just help us with just the cadence then you're expecting of the data readouts for what's in development at the moment or any other waypoints we should look to to give the market the confidence in the multibillion peak sales that you've communicated that you think that this can do.
So for Peto, where we're at right now, again, just to summarize for everyone, there's the two ongoing phase 3s. We expect one or both of those to read out next year. And that's where we would kind of anchor everybody for now is one or both of those to read out next year. And again, what's important, obviously, the development side of things is important, of course, to see that clinical data. The next step is a potential launch. There we've said that we expect the first commercial launch to be in 2027. We've also, based upon the product profile, think it could be a very nice launch curve. And here we've indicated we expect Peto to exceed $1 billion of sales by 2029. So we're pretty confident in what we're seeing so far.
Okay. Good. Any other questions on Maris in the room? Okay. So I might shift gears to Epkinly, the CD20, CD3 bispecific T-cell engager. You've got, I guess, a broad indication strategy for that product as well. So maybe just talk through initially how you think about positioning across follicular lymphoma, DLBCL, across first and second line, just the broader strategy for the asset before we dive into any data.
To remind everyone, at present, broadly speaking, Epkinly is approved in third line plus DLBCL and third line plus follicular lymphoma. It was originally on the market, the first approval in May of 2023. We've kind of added on the FL indication in different countries and so forth and so on over the last number of years. As a starting point, we're very pleased with the launch to date. Again, we are launching into a competitive environment with entrenched competition. Epkinly has performed very well. Again, that's underwritten by very compelling product profile. In some cases, us being first to market in particular markets, like for example, in Japan. Overall, the existing base business, if you like, of third line plus FL and DLBCL is a really nice business and very strong data.
We all know that ultimately, if Epkinly is going to hit its $3 billion peak year sales target, which we've put out there and really have a lot of confidence in, it's going to be around getting into earlier lines of therapy. And that's where we had the ongoing five phase threes to really take it from a later line product to an earlier line product. And here we had the first positive phase three among those five read out earlier this year. This is the second line follicular lymphoma in combination with rituximab and Revlimid read out earlier this year, filed and was approved just a couple of weeks ago. So this will be the first of the five phase threes to read out.
And then next year, we look forward to two additional phase three readouts, second line DLBCL monotherapy, as well as, importantly, the front line diffuse large DLBCL readout. This will be Epkinly plus R-CHOP. And this represents a meaningful part of that $3 billion peak year sales forecast.
Got it. Okay. As you're launching in the second line follicular lymphoma, it's a recent approval there. Just help us understand uptake, sort of change in trajectory versus the existing indication as you sort of exit this year and go into 2026.
Yeah, so look, it's too early to get into launch dynamics. It's literally been less than two weeks, but I think what's important to maybe sort of think about as we think about the data, a couple of things. The data in second line follicular lymphoma we presented at ASH next week, just unbelievably strong data really show the combination power of adding Epkinly to existing standard of care, this remarkable efficacy. Now, what's going to be important for everyone to understand is the total addressable market in this indication. It's around 9,000 patients across the three major markets, the U.S., Europe, and Japan, and that 9,000 is out of that total addressable market for Epkinly of around 146,000, so it's important for the brand, I think, qualitatively in that it shows how what Epkinly can do in combination.
It's something now for us to be out there in the marketplace promoting now in the United States to show that power of that combination therapy. Financially, it's not going to be a hockey stick for us, certainly not in 2025, nor in 2026. Really, as we think about the growth profile of EPKINLY, it's going to be the accumulation of the broadening more generally, getting into earlier lines, but most notably that front line diffuse large B-cell lymphoma readout. That represents around almost half, around 70,000 out of the 146,000 of the total addressable market. So the data are super. Encourage everybody to listen into the post-ASH conference call we'll be hosting. Very compelling data, but financially, it's just not going to be the major driver towards the peak year sales target.
So first line DLBCL readout still expected 2026 for that. And perhaps any more specifics you can add to that?
No. So here our guidance remains unchanged. It's 2026. We have two phase three trials we expect to read out in 2026. It's the second-line DLBCL, Epkinly monotherapy, and then the front-line DLBCL, Epkinly plus R-CHOP. Again, here there will be some additional data for you all to sort of consider. We've done a fair amount of phase 2 work of looking at Epkinly in lots of different settings, lots of different combinations. And among those is the Epkinly plus R-CHOP and front-line DLBCL, some phase 2 data. And some of that will be profiled at ASH next week.
Okay. And you said first line DLBCL, about half of the total opportunity. Then you're also running the, as you said, pointing out the second line study. So maybe just talk through the strategy of why run second line as well as first line, or patients eventually not once they're treated, then would there be an opportunity in second line? So over the long term, how big do you see the opportunity for the second line trials?
So maybe we sort of level up and zoom out. I don't think there are any products that have 100% share in front line. So even if you assume very high shares, market share goals in front line, not every customer is going to, or every patient, excuse me, is going to get your drug or even the class. So even the class share of a CD3, CD20 bispecific is never going to be 100% in front line. That's just the reality of the marketplace. So there's always going to be space for your product to be used in a later line. We think it's important for as people are on, and there's also a timing element here of people transition from front line to second line or to third line vis-à-vis when these products are approved.
It is important to really cover all of your bases as it relates to different lines and also in either phase twos or phase threes, different combination therapies, so that was the initial kind of concept as we thought about the CDP is essentially covering first line, second line, third line DLBCL, and then the same front line, second line, third line for follicular lymphoma, and that's exactly what we're doing.
Got it. Perhaps just talk to what differentiation you see versus the Roche bispecific, Columvi, Lunsumio, and what do you need to see out of that first line DLBCL readout to feel that you've got a competitive asset there?
So first of all, we're absolutely mindful of the competition. I kind of said that earlier on. There is going to be competition out there. It goes back to that framework of best in class, first in class, and then broadest. And we think we're competing effectively depending on the particular indication and setting very effectively vis-à-vis the competition. If we look at the product profile for Epkinly, we think about a single option across both DLBCL and FL. That distinguishes us from the competition today as we know they have two different options depending on the setting. So there's one product option regardless of disease. Secondly, we have the subcutaneous delivery, which we think is additive in terms of the overall customer experience, both from the physician as well as the patient. We think this is also a distinguishing characteristic.
We think overall, if you think about Epkinly, we think relative to the two different products that are out there from the competition, we look at the efficacy, very strong efficacy we see, as well as a very manageable safety profile. We think that stacks up very nicely relative to the competition. There will be some areas where the competition will be ahead of us. We have to acknowledge that and compete effectively. There'll be other areas like second line follicular lymphoma where very clearly it looks like we are ahead. And we'll look to continue to look for opportunities to do that. And then perhaps depending on timing of various trial readouts, we could have the potential to be ahead in front line DLBCL as well. And I think that kind of brings back to your other question was around that product profile and front line DLBCL.
The existing standard of care is R-CHOP. We're adding on to R-CHOP. Of course, we have to see our phase three data, but what we've seen so far in the phase two data is highly compelling. We think it's going to be additive to the existing standard of care R-CHOP, and we think it's going to be competitive to other things that are out there in the marketplace.
Okay. Just from a practical standpoint, as you go earlier lines, you're going to be the patients are going to be increasingly treated in the community setting. Just perhaps talk through your commercial capabilities in community versus in academic centers.
So yes, increasingly, ultimately in any product scenario, you want to meet the customer where they are, in this case, the patient. And we know that in the earlier lines, particularly in DLBCL and follicular lymphoma, they are treated in the community. So what have we been doing here to effectuate that, to get us closer to the customer? So we have been really being thoughtful about the overall commercialization build. Now, we go back to the overall mindset of how we resourced Epkinly from day one. Remind everybody this product was approved in May of 2023 in third line DLBCL. As we thought about the go-to-market plan, particularly where Genmab is sort of the lead commercialization party in the United States and Japan, as we thought about that, we were not resourcing Epkinly for a late line therapy.
We were resourcing it that it was going to be competitive or is competitive, and that ultimately this could be a multi-billion-dollar blockbuster or $3 billion-plus product. And we resourced it accordingly. So really the resource is there. It's in place. Of course, you always revisit your brand plans on an annual basis, but there's a very significant investment behind the brand already that we think positions us well together with AbbVie to get into the earlier lines, particularly also to increase the reach out into the community setting. So of course, it's something that's top of mind. But as we sit here today, we feel confident in our ability together with AbbVie in the U.S. in particular to hit those key accounts in the community.
Okay. I might move on to RENA-S then, the folate receptor ADC. I think you guided $2 billion peak on that one. And you're in phase three for platinum-resistant ovarian cancer and endometrial cancer. I think you started phase 3 or are starting phase three. So perhaps just talk through the development plans and commercial opportunity across the different indications to start off with.
To ground everybody, maybe where were we in H1 of 2024? Where are we today? In H1 of 2024, there was roughly 50 patients' worth of clinical data. As we exit 2025, we're going to have two ongoing potentially registrational phase twos and three phase threes. There's been a material expansion and acceleration of the program. As we think about 2026, we expect to have the first potentially registrational phase two data in platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. Let's maybe sort of think about that platinum-resistant ovarian cancer opportunity for a moment. Here what we've seen is, again, highly compelling data so far, both from a safety and efficacy perspective. The safety is a key part here because safety is driving the efficacy. Let's unpack that efficacy just a little bit.
What we've seen so far and the emerging, let's call it phase one, two data that we've published is a response rate of around 50%. And that response rate is across all levels of folate receptor alpha expression, whereas the existing approved therapy is only looking at the high expressors, which is around 30% or 33% of the patient population. So we're seeing a highly compelling response rate regardless of expression level. So we can treat, in theory, many, many more patients. I highlighted safety. Safety is a key part of this because what we think is, and what we're seeing is that patients are staying on the therapy for much longer, which is then ultimately driving the duration of response. The most publicly reported data at a medical conference is we still have not reached the median duration of response at 11 months and that's still ongoing.
We think we're going to have a very compelling efficacy profile in terms of number of patients we're able to help, as well as for how long we're able to help them, so we'll see hopefully now the registrational phase two data in 2026, and then ultimately first potential launch in 2027, and that's obviously an important part for the brand and is going to be a first important stepping stone to hitting that $2 billion peak year sales potential, so in addition to that phase two trial in PROC, we also have an ongoing phase three trial in that same indication. Sticking within ovarian cancer, we've also initiated a trial in platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer, so we feel very comfortable and confident with what we're doing in ovarian cancer today, probably with more to come here.
Now, in terms of endometrial cancer, we're seeing a consistent theme of very strong efficacy and duration with a nice safety profile. For those of you that don't know, endometrial cancer is a cancer where the folate receptor alpha expression levels are generally lower. So here, that's why we're very encouraged about the activity we're seeing, again, regardless of expression level. We're seeing again around a 50% response rate with very nice durability. And on the endometrial cancer side, in terms of the CDP, we also have an ongoing potentially registrational phase two and then a corresponding phase three trial. So overall, what you've seen here, Graham, is really since the beginning of 2024, a material expansion and acceleration of the program with more to come, I think, in terms of the clinical development.
I wouldn't be surprised at all if we start some more phase threes in the gynecological oncology space as we move forward.
Got it. So the two of the folate receptors, I think, are in similar stage of development. It's for Lilly and Astra. Perhaps compare and contrast the data. I think the phase one data that Lilly put out in the summer had numerically very similar sort of overall response rate. So are there any other differentiating points and features you'd point out between RENA-S and those two assets?
Look, it goes back to the same framework that I highlighted around best, first, broadest, and there's going to be competition. So we want to look to be best. I think right now, if you look at the totality of the data, we're certainly in that conversation. We think that we have the best profile. And certainly, if you look at the totality of the data, we have the most data in terms of the next generation ADC folate receptor alpha products. Unquestionably, we have the most amount of data. And right now, we have the most advanced clinical development program. And as I indicated, we're going to add on to that moving forward. Competition is a reality. Our job is to leverage the capabilities in place. As I highlighted those earlier, both from a development and a commercialization perspective.
Again, here, one thing I would probably highlight for everyone is focus. We have four late-stage programs. These programs at Genmab, Epkinly, Rina-S, now Peto, as well as Aclasunamab, are getting the absolute focus, attention, and resources of the organization. And I think on the margin, this does make an important difference as we think about competing more effectively. But overall, whether it be Epkinly, Rina-S, or Peto, we really like our products and are very happy owners of those products.
You started a phase two or planning to start a phase two non-small cell lung cancer trial as well. Just talk quickly through the rationale and how you think that fits into the paradigm there.
Yeah, I think this comes back to just investing generally. We see a product that is working here about RENA-S very, very well based upon the emerging clinical data in both platinum-resistant ovarian cancer as well as in endometrial cancer. We have a very clear line of sight to expand that even further in the gynec space, so we see very clear activity and a nice safety profile, then the next question is, okay, where else can I take this product, and the team did a lot of work, and I think Tahi did a wonderful job of outlining the different areas we could go into, and we decided the first area or the next area we would go into would be non-small cell lung cancer. I think there's a clear rationale here in terms of doing a signal-seeking study, so let's not get ahead of ourselves.
It's a signal-seeking study. This is an investment. I think you should be asking the opposite question, Graham: if we're not making this investment, why weren't we making this investment. I think I'd kind of turn it around and look at it that way. It's a very clear and obvious thing we want to be doing. We're starting the trial as we speak, and we look forward to when we have data to use in the first quarter evaluating it and then taking it and sharing it at a medical conference. And the same approach sort of comes back to the kind of question in colorectal cancer or other opportunities for Peto. It's the same thing. You see very strong activity and very strong efficacy, manageable safety. You have to sort of think about doing other exploratory work or signal-seeking work.
I think if we weren't doing that, you should be asking us the question, why aren't you doing this?
Sticking with non-small cell lung cancer, the other asset you mentioned actually there about being a very happy owner of his Aclasunamab, the PD-L1 4-1BB. Just I think just perhaps an update on the phase three progress and timing of that readout. How important do you think that is, again, to the sort of materiality for the business?
Aclasunamab is a product where we saw very encouraging data that was presented at ASCO in 2024. Based upon that strong signal, we decided to start the phase three. The phase three is progressing well. There'll be some updated data that's presented here in a week or so at ESMO.io. So look forward to sharing that data. We remain encouraged with what we're seeing. I think just in terms of the context, right now we've pegged it at being around a $1 billion opportunity. So it is at least in the first order smaller. And right now we have one phase three here versus all of the other programs. As I've already articulated at length over the last half an hour or so, there's multiple phase threes that are ongoing with very clear intention to start more phase threes moving forward.
I think it's potentially an important product in the second-line non-small cell lung cancer setting. Saw some strong overall survival data. Yeah, the phase three is progressing well.
Great. Maybe given your CFO, we should ask some financial questions as well.
It's a novel concept, right?
Yeah. But so I guess post-Merus, perhaps just talk to gearing capacity, capital allocation. How do you think about growing the business from a capital point of view?
So if I think about the business right now, and this is where we spent the bulk of the time talking today, we have four late-stage programs with ongoing phase threes. And I highlighted at length Epkinly, Rina-S, and Peto, all having breakthrough therapy designation, all with meaningful readouts in 2026, as well as potential launches in 2027. So when you look at those across the entire portfolio, you really have a very nice oncology platform today with a very nice growth profile moving forward. If you think about it from a capital allocation perspective, priority number one is investing back into those programs, both from a development and a commercialization perspective. That brings us to your question around kind of leverage. As we thought about funding the acquisition, as you all know, we're using a $5.5 billion of debt. We did not go into this decision lightly.
We went into this eyes wide open. And here I bring it back to what I just said. From an R&D and a commercialization investment perspective, as we thought about the overall financial profile of the business moving forward, we fully baked in all of the required investments to unleash the full potential of that late-stage portfolio on the investment side. Now, particularly what we said from a leverage perspective, we said we plan to be below three times gross leverage within 24 months of deal close. So, in particular, in 2027, I did not over-index on all of these launches that I just alluded to. I did not stretch out our necks too much and think relying on those 2027 launches to drive that deleveraging profile.
Really looked at the strength of that existing base business, whether it be the existing royalty business, which have a very nice growth profile, or the existing base business of Epkinly and Tivdac. So from a capital allocation perspective, invest back in the business, and then obviously hit our deleveraging target, which we feel comfortable we can hit within 24 months of deal close.
Got it. And then do you still see then that M&A would be part of the strategy going forward from there?
Look, I think as I just articulated, right now the focus is on being very good owners of the late-stage programs that we have. We also have a lot of innovation going on here at Genmab in terms of research and discovery, preclinical, phase one, phase two. I'm confident that one or more programs will move forward to late stage, and of course, as we get into beyond this deleveraging point, we can of course see where we're at and think about what opportunities we want to pursue, whether it be internal or external.
And then, last question for me, just beyond operating leverage. So obviously you've been displaying some as you've gone through this year. Just as you think about sort of your OpEx outlook into next year with, I guess, more launches, R&D as well, just can you keep a cap on that or how do you keep a cap on that?
So two things we're going to do. We're going to invest where there's very clear return opportunities. Sounds simple, but we're going to allocate the resources in a very thoughtful way. We're not going to spread the peanut butter evenly across the bread. We're going to think about opportunities where we can very clearly invest. We're not going to shy away from those investments. At the same time, we're going to make those investments in the most productive and efficient way possible. We're looking across our entire business and being very thoughtful about realizing these scale benefits, whether it be in development or in commercialization. And here we're looking everywhere in detail, looking at our phase three trial costs, bringing down the per patient costs in a very thoughtful, diligent way.
And likewise, from a commercialization, we're looking for any and all opportunities to leverage the investments we've made in that commercialization capability, particularly at the kind of foundation level where our investments from commercialization, particularly in the United States and Japan, are going to be more at the brand level. The foundation is there. And then finally, we said on Q3 in terms of operating costs or investments that we thought that consensus, both from a Genmab perspective as well as a Merus perspective, are in a reasonable place. So ultimately, we feel like we're making the right investments in a productive and efficient manner.
Great. I think clock's showing zero. We're up on time, but really appreciate the time today, Anthony. Thanks for coming and thanks for everybody for listening, and thank you.
Yep. Thank you, Graham. Thanks for having me. Thank you.