We can start. Welcome back, everyone, to the third and final day of our Citi conference, first year in Miami. I'm Yigal Nochomovitz. I'm one of the biotech analysts here. Remember, if you have a question, just, there are mic runners, and someone can come and take your question. With that, it's great to have with me the senior leadership of BeiGene. Not going to be BeiGene for much longer, so we'll talk about that. We have the new incoming CFO, Aaron Rosenberg, and Mark Lanasa, CMO of the solid tumors, although I'm sure we'll speak about hematology a little bit, too. All right. I guess, speaking of corporate identity and domiciling and so on, let's start with that.
In terms of, well, you announced in the summer that you were going to re-domicile to Basel and, you know, be neighbors with Roche and Novartis. Then you also announced more recently the change of the name to BeOne Medicines. So you want to just explain the high-level strategic thinking around that?
Absolutely. Sure. And thanks so much for having us. So we're really excited about both those announcements. And, you know, as we continue our globalization of the company, we've had such great receptivity to our planned name change to BeOne Medicines. I think it really hearkens to the mission and purpose of the company, as we are united with cancer patients in the community, to bring innovative medicines to patients around the world. I think, secondarily, as you see in our logo, there's a really interesting thing that happens at the end of the one, where we really affirm our commitment to oncology. So there's , you know, a power button or, you know, a, you know, signaling our focus that we're always on against the fight against cancer.
We also, as part of the announcement, you know, said that we will be changing our ticker to ONC. I think in this environment where many biotechs and pharmaceuticals are spreading their focus from oncology to maybe some other therapeutic areas, it was really important for us to affirm our commitment to oncology. It doesn't mean that there aren't adjacent areas where our science could be relevant, but we were really committed to serving unmet medical need for oncology patients around the world. Reception has really been incredible. As you said, that followed our announcement at the end of our second quarter earnings to re-domicile to Switzerland. I think, again, this just shows our continued growth as a company. We have a strong presence already in Switzerland.
It's been an important hub for us in Basel, hundreds of employees, important part of our global infrastructure runs through Switzerland. Really, it's an incredible environment that supports the growth, and it's really the continued hotbed for science, which, you know, partners well with our other hubs, whether it be in the Bay Area, in Cambridge, and certainly, our new facility in Princeton that we broke ground on earlier this year, for biologics and manufacturing and clinical global development. So overall, really exciting, and tremendous reception from all of our stakeholders.
If I read the description correctly about the design of that rebranding, the word ONC is embedded within the word One.
Yes, exactly. Yeah.
Yeah. Okay, so let's talk about, well, let's start with just the, you know, the big ticket items. So Brukinsa launch, obviously going very well. So can we talk about the launch in the United States, you know, how you see it evolving, what are the levers that you need for additional growth, as well as talk about some of the new trials that could extend the franchise with novel mechanisms, which there are at least two that I can count, but maybe more.
Sure. Let me start with just our overall performance. We're really pleased with our performance this year. It's really been a remarkable year so far, and we're still driving hard as we conclude the year into next year. Obviously, a big part of that is the foundation of Brukinsa, you know, the leading BTKi. We talked about it this quarter, being the leader in the United States in first line and relapse refractory setting for BTKi is obviously, you know, medicine that's proven superiority. It gets Imbruvica, the only one. And that's really paying for itself and showing itself in the marketplace with its use. We're still continue in growth mode in the United States. There's plenty of opportunity to continue on that journey.
And around the world, we're really in early days as we continue to globalize the footprint, in both earlier days in Europe and certainly in other markets around the world, we continue that expansion. So we're really feel confident about our position for growth. And this is really the foundation for our leadership in CLL. And I'm sure we'll talk about it, but when you think about having the most, you know, the leader in the BTKi space and what we intend to partner that to fulfill the remainder of the patient journey with our potential therapeutics, with sonrotoclax and next generation BCL2, as well as our BTK degrader, we really feel confident that we will be a sustained leader in CLL. This is a market that will be $12 billion by 2030, and really certainly Brukinsa plays an important foundation in that regard. And Mark, maybe?
If you could kind of outline the key late-stage studies.
Yeah, my role is in solid tumors. So I'm here speaking on behalf of Mehrdad Mobasher, who is in transit to ASH, where we have a lot of exciting data that we'll come to.
Mehrdad Mobasher, good morning.
Yeah. So I think the key study that's ongoing is our CELESTIAL 301 study, which is the combination of zanubrutinib and sonrotoclax. We believe that monotherapy Brukinsa is a great option for a lot of patients, but there is a desire within the marketplace among specific patient segments for time-delimited therapy. As you heard from Aaron, we believe that our BCL2 as a next-generation molecule is also favorably differentiated and has the potential to be a best-in-class molecule. We are testing that in combination with zanubrutinib in the front-line setting and a time-delimited treatment that is being compared to the combination of venetoclax and obinutuzumab. The feedback that we've received from investigators is that they are very excited about this concept, and this study is enrolling very, very quickly.
Because it's a front-line CLL study, it will take a reasonable amount of time for us to ultimately read out the time to event endpoints, but we're excited about the enthusiasm and the quick enrollment in that study, again, to help build this franchise that Aaron was alluding to in hematology across these three what we believe are best-in-class molecules of BTK inhibitor, degrader, and BCL2.
Okay. And what types of patients are those that would be more interested in that limited duration of therapy? Who would you be targeting in the market?
Some of it comes down to patient preference and prescriber preference. There are some patients who prefer the reassurance of continuous therapy. We think BTK monotherapy is a great option for those patients. There are perhaps younger patients who would like to have combination treatment that would enable them to take a period of treatment and then have a treatment break. There's a different group of patients who just like the idea of being off treatment for a while so they can sort of retire their leukemia from their mindset. Our view of the future state is that it is likely to continue to be continuous therapy for the majority of patients. But again, we think for younger patients, perhaps fitter patients, that time-delimited therapy presents an important option. And really, we want to have options available to patients so that they can choose the therapy.
Both the patient and the provider can choose the therapy that's most appropriate in their case.
I know you said it could be time-to-event, so it could take a little while, but do you have any rough estimation of when, you know, we could see that on the pharmacy shelf, so to speak?
I'm not exactly sure. I'll say something like, 2028, but certainly on clinicaltrials.gov, we would have, posted what we believe is our best estimate of the time to the primary readout of the study.
And then you mentioned, Aaron, as well, the degrader. So that's a really important asset, too. There's a lot of activity in the protein degrader space, not only with you guys. And we'll talk about you have some solid tumor assets in that respect as well.
Yeah, yeah.
So just give us the quick pitch on the degrader. What can you achieve with the BTK targeted degrader that maybe you can't achieve as well with Brukinsa, or you achieve something different?
Yeah, maybe I'll start.
Yeah.
So we think that degrader is a very important emerging mechanism for targeting BTK. When thinking about BTK inhibitors and the differences between covalent and non-covalent, way back at the beginning of the time of the design and discovery of zanubrutinib, we made a conscious choice that because we want continuous coverage of BTK as a target, that we wanted a covalent rather than a non-covalent inhibitor. So we believe that covalent was the right way to go. We understand that there are non-covalent molecules that are now in the market. If you think about it broadly, ultimately, whether you're using a covalent or a non-covalent inhibitor, fundamentally, what you're doing is you're blocking the enzymatic activity of the protein. A degrader is an entirely different mechanism where the medication itself leads to the protein being ubiquitinated and subsequently degraded. So it is actually removed from the cell.
It's a fundamentally different mechanism that has the potential to address many more mutations within the protein. We are sharing a lot of data for our degrader at the upcoming ASH, and relapse refractory CLL, and Waldenström's macroglobulinemia and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. We had previously talked about high response rates, which we're happy to share those data. We're also now able to talk a bit more about the durability of responses. We're very happy with how that molecule is shaping up in terms of both efficacy durability, and also the safety profile with extended exposure. We do think that the degrader presents a really exciting emerging technology in the space of BTK inhibition. Very happy to talk more about solid tumors as well.
We'll get there, but I just want to ask one. You have a second-gen BCL2 as well, and what's the thinking there? I mean, you have an even better molecule or just a backup or IP issues or?
No, what I would say is we're viewing that as an additional novel BCL2 inhibitor. Sonrotoclax was designed with specific attributes in mind. It was actually designed to have a shorter half-life because we didn't want drug accumulation. This novel BCL2 has a bit longer half-life. It has greater potency against BCL2. It also covers specific BCL2 mutations. We are about to initiate a study of the novel BCL2 inhibitor, in combination with fulvestrant actually in breast cancer. So we think those characteristics are favorable to re-exploring questions around BCL2 inhibition in solid tumors. There is an ongoing phase I study in hematologic indications as well that's currently in dose escalation. So we're thinking about the novel second BCL2 inhibitor broadly in terms of application beyond hematologic malignancies.
Okay. So let's move over to solid tumors, where your wheelhouse.
Yeah.
Great. Okay. But we do want to make sure people understand that you have a very significant product in CLL.
Yeah.
So, all right. So there's a lot going on in solid tumors. Y ou've got development programs, not only, you know, sort of two-dimensionally. You have modality, you have ADCs, you mentioned degraders. There may be others that you haven't even talked about yet. And then you have quite a lot of very interesting targets, CDK4 and others, which you can elaborate on. But before we get to that, can we just do like a state of play for tisle and, you know, where you see the growth there, in China and then in Europe? And I mean, you're collecting a very nice list of indications, or I guess you're slowly catching up to Keytruda.
But so, just anything you want to mention as far as how tisle may be differentiated versus the other PD-1s?
So we're very happy with the data that we have generated with tisle across a range of solid tumors. This has led to a lot of time and constructive work in terms of global submissions aligned to our mission related to global accessibility to drugs. We're very pleased that we have recently received approvals in the European Union for frontline gastric cancer, frontline esophageal cancer. That brings our total number of approvals in Europe to six. Those two indications are under review here in the United States, where we had an oncology advisory committee to discuss a couple of months ago. But importantly, we're also having approvals across the same broad range of indications in many additional markets around the world.
So the approvals that we're receiving in Europe are enabling approvals in other emerging markets that enable us to bring PD-1 inhibitors to countries and patients where there's not yet effective market access. And that's a very important part of what we're trying to do. This is not purely about market access. We do think that we have very, very strong data sets that compare well to the already on-market molecules. Perhaps one validation of that is that FDA felt comfortable to pool our data with other sponsors' data for their approved products for the purposes of class labeling discussions. So overall, we think that tislelizumab is doing really, really well in terms of the review of global regulatory authorities. I'll let Aaron comment on how it's doing globally. Certainly, China continues to have very strong performance where we have the broadest label of any PD-1 inhibitor.
Importantly, on the development side, it also becomes the foundation for novel combinations with our relatively broad pipeline, that we think could bring best-in-class novel combinations to patients.
We certainly see opportunities for continued growth for Tevimbra globally. In China, you know, this is a market-leading PD-1 with continued opportunities to grow in the marketplace behind new indications, new NRDL listings. You know, if we look at our most recent performance, still growing on a volume basis in double digits. As we mentioned with these launches, you know, in areas where we have differentiated data, obviously, there's entrenched competitors. But we do feel in the indications in which we're launching both in Europe and the United States and then certainly globally, where there's a bit less entrenchment opportunities to smartly invest, and get this important medicine to patients. I'm just looking at your solid tumor pipeline chart. It's an impressive list of targets.
I'm not sure where to start here, but where would you like to start as far as which ones would you like to highlight as ones that, you know, investors should start paying attention to? Obviously, you have a lot in early phase I .
Yeah.
But it's maturing. So,
Maybe I'll speak to the high level, and then I'll start by talking about our CDK4 molecule for a little bit, so to understand our strategy, the way that our research and discovery organizations are thinking about target selection in solid tumors is that first, we have prioritized certain common tumor types that we want to focus on, and those common tumor types are thoracic malignancies, specifically non-small cell lung cancer, GI malignancies, and breast cancer, so the team is very much focused on target selection with the intent of bringing those molecules forward in those indications. Once they choose a target of interest, they then ask a question of what's the best modality that's going to be able to impact that biology in a way that we think will be favorable to patients.
And then the third component is we're also thinking in a very intentional way about the opportunity for in-portfolio combinations. So the intent of bringing a lot of things forward, for example, in lung cancer, is to have a cooperativity that leads to novel and potentially best-in-class combinations. Within the breast cancer space, this has been a very exciting year for us in that this is the first year where we've really had a big development effort in breast cancer. We are approaching our one-year anniversary of the first patient dosed with our CDK4 selective molecule, which we think has the opportunity to be a next-gen or better in class than CDK4/6 based upon greater potency against CDK4 and selectivity over CDK6. So in just under one year, as of earlier this week, we had enrolled approximately 110 patients on that phase I program globally.
We've made tremendous progress in advancing that early phase program. We will be sharing data at San Antonio a week from today on the initial experience with that molecule. We're very pleased with how the data are beginning to evolve. We don't have a lot of maturity yet, but we have enrolled a large number of patients. We're happy with the safety and PK profile that will ultimately mature and give us proof of concept to proceed. We also have made great progress with our B7-H4 targeting ADC that we licensed from Duality that is approaching the end of dose escalation and should be entering into dose expansion relatively soon. We're happy with the activity that we're seeing with that molecule. We're also progressing a highly selective CDK2 molecule that's again going through dose escalation.
And then, as I mentioned before, we're about to start a combination study with our novel BCL2 plus fulvestrant in breast cancer with intent that we will combine both the BCL2 and the CDK2 independent of each other with our novel CDK4 in 2025.
So, tell us a little more about the CDK4. I mean, you have some notable competitors there, you know, some heavy hitters, so to speak.
Yeah.
Pfizer, if I'm not mistaken.
Yeah.
So, you know, what are you doing differently, or do you believe you have a better molecule, or is it the way you're prosecuting the studies or the types of patients? I mean, for example, are those patients that had seen a prior CDK4/6 or?
Yeah. So yeah, we certainly are cognizant of the strength and experience that Pfizer has in breast cancer, both development and commercialization. Nevertheless, we like the preclinical characteristics of our CDK4 selective inhibitor. In preclinical cellular assays, it's 4.2 times more potent against CDK4 the Pfizer molecule of atirmociclib. And that potency leads to greater selectivity for 4 over 6. That leads us to develop certain hypotheses and what we would like to see in the clinical data as it emerges that could be consistent with that greater selectivity for CDK 4 over CDK 6, greater potency for CDK4 over CDK6. We're sharing just the initial data next week at San Antonio that's going to be largely focused on our monotherapy experience in terms of PK safety.
I do think that the in-house operational model that we have built over time is showing its value now and how quickly we've been able to move, and we're hopeful that potentially in just two years from first patient dose, we could initiate our first phase III study and later line if the emerging data continues to support that.
Very good. That's a big phase I over 100 patients. You typically don't s ee that.
Part of the reason for the large size is that we're testing both monotherapy and combinations. So we have monotherapy CDK4. We have a combination with fulvestrant to enable development in later lines. We also have a combination with letrozole to enable development in a front-line setting. Those are all progressing in parallel, well, on schedule. Again, we think that the body of evidence, we're also doing our food effect studies, and the requirements for PK and those sorts of things will be present to address the Project Optimus requirements around dose selection to enable phase III starts as soon as we have confidence in the likelihood of technical success of those studies.
Which other ones would you care to highlight right now in terms of the early- stage compounds? Because this is just a very long list here.
Yeah. So.
There's some that I'm quite familiar with, obviously, like zanub, but.
Yeah. So it's a really exciting time for us because our stated ambition was to bring at least 10 new molecular entities in the clinic this year. Just in the past week, we have met that goal. We had our first patient dosed with our pan-KRAS inhibitor last week. So we are now at 10 with potential of up to three more prior to the end of the year. Certainly, we're very excited about the potential of our pan-KRAS inhibitor. There's terrible unmet need in KRAS mutant malignancies, most notably pancreatic cancer, where Revolution Medicines has disclosed and intends to start phase III study in later lines. We're excited about the EGFR degrader, which would start dosing patients imminently.
We're very excited about our MAT2A cooperative PRMT5 molecule, which also is set to start dosing patients imminently, where we then believe that we have a best-in-class preclinical profile for that molecule.
Oh, okay. Interesting. Because that's also a very interesting area as far as Amgen has a molecule like that. They're working with another company I've covered called IDEAYA.
Yep.
I think IDEAYA actually just announced that they have their own PRMT5 too. So would you consider a strategy to combine with the MAT2A, or that's looking at that pathway as well?
Yes is the simple answer. So it all ultimately links back to an understanding of the biology and the work that's being done by the research organization. So we have looked carefully at that specific combination, and it does appear interesting. But again, we haven't started our phase I experience with our PRMT5, so that would be a question that we could potentially ask in due course based upon what we see with our molecule. The reason why we're excited about the profile is of the disclosed molecules that are currently in clinical investigation. We do believe that our molecule has preclinically the best combination of potency, selectivity, and importantly, CNS penetration, which is, we think very, very important, particularly in lung cancer. We're up to 30% of patients who will ultimately, unfortunately, develop brain metastasis.
Then sort of just a more of a conceptual question in terms of how you think about pipeline construction and relative prioritization of different modalities. I mean, you have a lot of sort of, you know, straightforward small molecule inhibitors here, but you also have ADCs. You also have some T-cell engagers, bispecifics. I don't think I've seen radiopharma yet, but maybe you're working on that. Anyway.
Yeah.
So how are you thinking about, you know, which modality to use and where you want to relatively invest in R&D on the different?
Again, I welcome Aaron's comments on this as well. To speak to the development strategy piece, our view is that over time, what we have done is we have built this almost entirely in-house development research and development organization with a large team of 1,100 preclinical scientists, in-house manufacturing, in-house clinical development, and clinical operations and biostatistics. Our clinical operations now has a global footprint in not just Asia, but here in the United States, in Oceania and Latin America and Europe that enables us to deliver a large number of early phase molecules at a relatively low cost. When you look at the total cost of bringing a drug to market, that entire life cycle, the majority of the cost still sits in phase III . The question that you're asking is totally logical and appropriate.
We do have a bit of an agnostic view of if it's a good target, let's bring it into clinic. We can ask a titrated question for a fairly small amount of money. And then once we get to a milestone that would give us confidence, then we can appropriately value what that opportunity looks like weighed against the other molecules within the portfolio.
Yeah. No, I think that said really well. You know, as I think about it, we're focusing in the most important therapeutic areas. You know, 80% of the cancer prevalence is where we're spending our time. We're building expertise and capabilities in the most important modalities. But ultimately, the biology will dictate the right tools. We are building those capabilities where we could deploy some of the most important modalities, whether it's targeted therapeutics, ADCs, as you said, or degrader platform, which we believe is leading, and bispecifics and trispecifics. And ultimately, that's supported by the foundation of best-in-class chemistry, global capabilities on the clinical development front. Ultimately, that will create value. And that puts our company in a position where we can optimize those assets, advance the ones that certainly are right and worthy of investing behind.
And it also creates optionality from a business development perspective.
So can you expand on that a little bit more in terms of, you know, the globalization of the company? I mean, we talked about the BeOne rebranding, which is a, you know, part of the organization of the company and the name. But then in terms of sort of the percent of R&D effort that's happening ex-China, the percent of clinical trial enrollment that's ex-China, like, what's the progression there in terms of how that's evolving, you know, as you become more global? So people can get a sense as to, you know, the trend.
Do you want to start on the research front, and then I'll follow with commercial or?
Sure. What I would say is that, across the research and development organization, that a substantial portion of our research organization, research and discovery organization, is in Greater China. However, our development organization is unambiguously a global organization. I mentioned the number of the regions where we have offices and employees and indeed are enrolling our studies. Our phase I studies that we are initiating this year, essentially all of our first patients' dose were either in Australia or the United States. We are a globally enrolling country company. My understanding, or at least I was told a few months ago that over the last quarter or two quarters, that the number one enrolling country of the world was here in the United States.
Our global footprint of patient enrollment is, in our view, largely reflective of other major global pharma sponsors. And certainly, when you get to registrational intent studies, it's actually quite formulaic insofar as there's a certain allocation of patients that the FDA expects, there's a certain that EMA expects, there's a certain that China's CDE expects and Japan expects and Algeria expects. The allocation of patients in the registrational intent studies is, again, fairly formulaic. And within early phase, the two countries that are, shall we say, most regulatory friendly from our point of view are Australia and the United States, and we're doing a lot of work there.
And we continue the globalization of the business. We're truly global in nature as you think about our presence all around the world. You look at our manufacturing footprint. We just talked earlier about our investment in Hopewell, New Jersey, which will be a foundational biologics facility, and certainly, our supply chains are global in nature. You look at our commercial profile, more than 50% of the business. If we look at our Q3 results in the United States, approximately 10% in Europe. And rest of world, you know, we're in very early days in the launches of our product. So very important markets like Brazil, Japan, Korea, those are markets that will continue to drive contribution over time.
Even today, you look at the globalization of our revenue. It compares quite favorably, actually, to even the most, you know, mature pharmaceutical companies. We'd expect that trend will continue over time.
Yeah. Because, I mean, we track that if you read some of our reports, you know, the mix shift as you shift away from China, and it's continuing to move away from China. Is it are you getting to a point where it's kind of, you know, plateauing? And I think it's around 60 ex-China, 40 China currently. Is that continuing to move away, or is it going to settle in at some kind of a predictable ratio?
We're in a great position. The business has incredible momentum in every market in which we operate, and they're all important markets. But I would say as you look at where we are on the growth trajectory, whether it be our current state in the United States, whether you think about Europe, which obviously the launches of Brukinsa, you know, the nature of reimbursement and timing in Europe is a little bit behind, and some of the markets that I indicated, those will contribute outsized growth relative to some of our more stable presence. So, I would expect that would, by nature, continue to evolve over time. And like I said, you know, if you look at any of the relevant peer set, it's already quite global in nature, and I expect that'll continue.
Yeah. I wanted to touch on two other sort of macro themes. You mentioned one, manufacturing. So obviously, with the change of the administration and the potential for, you know, a more protectionist foreign policy, you know, there are questions around the ability to import products into the United States. So, you know, based on that, what percent of , you know, your current supply chain is it in China versus in the United States? Obviously, you have Hopewell. You have a facility in Kansas City. So, you know, talk about that a little bit.
Sure. And obviously, we follow what's happening, you know, with the discussion around things like tariffs. I'd say from an industry perspective, I don't see us as any differentiated from, you know, this is a sort of industry issue writ large. You think about our global footprint and our United States supply chain as an example. As you mentioned, our drug product is manufactured in Kansas City. Our packaging and logistics is out of Chicago, so we already have a supply chain that is sourced to support the United States. And obviously, we made the big investment in Hopewell with respect to our biologics capabilities. So, you know, obviously, this is something we're tracking, but we don't see this as particularly differentiated from the industry dynamics in general.
What about just in terms of sort of, you know, intellectual property and the sourcing of IP? Is it important that, you know, some of the core inventions or the IP that those are actually generated in labs outside of China in terms of questions around, you know, taking that technology back into Western markets or does that not really matter if you're filing patents globally?
No, our IP is for our global commercial rights outside of China.
Okay.
And of course, we've announced our re-domiciliation efforts. So ultimately, as a subject of shareholder approval, we will be a Swiss company come early.
When is that? Just so everyone knows.
So we expect to schedule the shareholder vote likely early in 2025, and then the close will happen very shortly thereafter.
Okay. And by the way, was there a particular reason that the redomicile announcement and the name change announcement were staggered, or that's just the way it's working through?
These are things that we've been working on for quite some time. They have different regulatory and legal dynamics, and it's just the nature of when we were in a position to announce.
You don't have to change a lot of strategy. And then the other kind of big big picture question is obviously IRA, you know, we saw in Imbruvica. So, I mean, to what extent is that going to impact your, you know, ability to price in the United States? Obviously, you have very differentiated molecule, and the market is moving there and recognizing both the clinical value proposition, you know, and the value proposition for patients. So how does that factor into your thinking?
Sure. So the disclosed negotiated price that was announced earlier this year was completely in line with our expectations. Given our superiority versus Imbruvica, you know, certainly, we don't see this as a substitutable product in any regard. We don't expect any direct impacts associated with the announced negotiated price, potentially some indirect impacts, but it's certainly within our planning continuum.
Okay, and then as far as capital allocation and, you know, cash management, anything you want to comment there as far as, you know, just the financial stability of the company?
Sure. I'd start with, you know, as you think about the recent performance, we continue to have significant focus on driving the business forward. Obviously, we're still in very significant growth mode, but doing so with discipline, which has led to significant operating leverage and is translating to the non-GAAP operating profit that we have disclosed and improving, and ultimately will translate to sustained cash generation and GAAP profitability. That puts us in a good position as we think about running the business moving forward. We're in a very healthy position from a balance sheet perspective with $2.6 billion in cash as of last quarter. And that provides flexibility for us to support business priorities and strategies as we see it moving forward.
And then sort of last, just more of like a, you know, market stock question. I mean, the stock has done nicely. It was back over 200 for a period of time, and then it kind of retraced a little bit, and it's kind of hovering around there. So, but nonetheless, you know, in the last few minutes here, what do you think? What is the market still not appreciating, or what are they missing about the innovation engine at BeiGene and, you know, the ability to deliver medicines and the strength of this pipeline, which admittedly is, you know, it's a little bit under the radar relative to some of the other pharma competitors. But you do have I mean, you're in the hunt with the same very interesting novel targets.
So, maybe I already sort of answered it, but tell us what you think.
I think that's well said. You know, we're really excited about the business performance, and really kudos to the entire team that have driven the business forward this year. I think continued appreciation for the opportunity that sits in front of us with CLL, both not just with Brukinsa, but with our innovative potential medicines that will come to support patients in this important therapeutic area. I think that's one. Sort of, as the external world sort of continues to appreciate the opportunity that's in front of us to deliver a sustained and growing franchise with these three important potential best-in-class medicines, I think that will continue. It has resonated, and I think it will continue to resonate.
And certainly, as you said, the scale and potential impact of our solid medicines portfolio in early science, that will only continue to gain in its appreciation over time as we release data. Certainly, we have a lot of reason to believe in the quality of these potential innovations based on their potency, their selectivity, our belief in the biology. Ultimately, in this business, data talks, and we're very confident that over time, that data will show itself and will have continued appreciation from the market in terms of the quality. And, you know, and that's on the individual asset front. And then I think further, as we show progress, it will validate the platforms that we had talked about, whether it's around our degraders, our ADC platform, and certainly our capabilities in biologics, both with bispecifics and trispecifics.
I think at the individual asset level, that also supports the platform capabilities. And I think when you combine all three of those items, I have no doubt that the market will continue to appreciate the value of our company.
If I may, I'll just quickly echo the point around we're certainly cognizant of the fact that clinical data is ultimately what's most important. And therefore, within the development organization, we want to get the data out into the public domain and begin to have conversations about why we're excited about our molecules. That, when I'm claiming that we believe we have a best-in-class preclinical profile, that we ultimately back that up with clinical data. That's why we're sharing early data from our CDK4 program. Again, please invite people to, if you're at ASH, look at our degrader data. We're really excited about those data. And I think that there's a certain amount of inertia that once you start to back up the preclinical science with clinical data, that we're confident that that's going to shine through.
It's fortunate that you have two CMOs because you can't be at ASH and SABCS at the same time.
That's right. So I'll be in San Antonio.
Yeah, I will see Matt as well.
But I'll see Mehrdad and Ashley, I suppose.
Yeah.
I could ask a lot more questions, but we'll have to. I'm being told to wrap it up. So, okay. Thank you both so much. Pleasure.
Thank you.
Thank you so much. We appreciate it.