Hello, and welcome to the Pharmaceutical Industries conference call to discuss the positive nine-month update announced last week from the company's ongoing Phase IIa trial of Atebimetinib in first-line pancreatic cancer patients.
Wow.
At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. Following the management's prepared remarks, we will hold a Q&A session. To ensure that we have ample time to address everyone's questions, we would ask each person to limit themselves to one question and one follow-up. As a reminder, this call is being recorded today, Monday, September 29, 2025. I would now like to turn the call over to Lawrence Watts of New Street Investor Relations. Please go ahead.
Thank you, operator. Joining us on the call today from Immuneering are Co Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Ben Zeskind ; Chief Scientific Officer, Brett Hall ; Chief Medical Officer, Igor Matusenski ; Chief Accounting Officer and Treasurer, Mallory Morales ; and Evie Brakewood , our Chief Business Officer. During this call, management will make forward-looking statements, including statements related to its Phase IIa trial of Atebimetinib , as well as the timing of additional data from the study and the company's development plans. Our actual results and the timing of events could differ materially from those anticipated in such forward-looking statements as a result of risks and uncertainties. Factors that could cause these results to be different from those statements include factors the company describes in its security filings, including its annual report on Form 10-K and our quarterly report on Form 10-Q.
Immuneering undertakes no duty or obligation to update any forward-looking statements as a result of new information, future events, or changes in its expectations. With that, I will turn the call over to Ben Zeskind , Chief Executive Officer of Immuneering . Ben.
Thank you, Lawrence, and good morning, everyone. We are excited to hold this call now that our financing is complete and we can share feedback from the PanCAN meeting. I've had a little more time to work on my joke. Please turn to slide three. Today, we're going to discuss four topics: the extraordinary overall survival for first-line pancreatic cancer patients treated with Atebimetinib plus chemo, the favorable tolerability and potential for best-in-class profile, pushing forward to Phase III in first-line pancreatic cancer, new Phase II studies in lung cancer with our deep cyclic inhibitor pipeline, and the financing and strategic investment, which is an unprecedented value creation opportunity for our patients and our shareholders. First, a little context. Seventeen years ago, I started Immuneering to help cancer patients live longer.
Overall survival has been the goal from the very beginning because nothing matters more to cancer patients than to stay alive and to thrive. With that context, it is incredibly gratifying to see that we have figured out how to keep so many pancreatic cancer patients alive longer with Atebimetinib. There's a common word we hear from people who really get to know Atebimetinib, from an investigator giving it to patients to a leading pharma company after extensive diligence to our own team. That word is transformative. Why? Transformative because it has the potential to treat such a broad range of cancers driven by the MAP Kinase pathway. Transformative because it has great durability and is not driving resistance in the same way as typical targeted therapies. Transformative because of great tolerability. It's been described to us that patients feel almost like their pre-diagnosis selves on Atebimetinib.
We believe Atebimetinib is a transformative molecule, and last week was a transformative week for Immuneering. Most importantly, we announced the extraordinary overall survival data that you are about to see, showing that we've nearly doubled survival at nine months in first-line pancreatic cancer patients. In addition, we announced the pricing of a $175 million underwritten offering and a $25 million private placement last week, providing capital from a world-class group of forward-thinking investors and a great strategic partner in Sanofi to not only help fund the Phase III study for Atebimetinib in first-line pancreatic cancer patients, but also to fund planned near-term combination studies in lung cancer and to advance our preclinical pipeline of deep cyclic inhibitors against additional cancer targets. Stay tuned for more details in the near future on those plans.
Based on current operating plans, we expect our current cash and proceeds from the offering to fund the company into 2029. We believe last week was a turning point, and Immuneering is a different company this week than it was one week ago. I think that's just starting to sink in. Frankly, it's just starting to sink in with us, and even more so externally. We presented the data at the PanCAN Summit yesterday, and the most frequent reaction was, "Wow, congratulations." To have this kind of survival data in first-line pancreatic cancer is just unprecedented. We believe we're in a better position than ever before, with a higher probability of success than ever before, led by Atebimetinib in pancreatic cancer, but including many other cancer types and other molecules.
I've never been more excited or more optimistic about this company's potential to transform cancer by keeping patients alive and helping them thrive. With that, let's get into the data. Please turn to slide four. Here are the latest results from our ongoing Phase IIa study of Atebimetinib plus modified gemcitabine nab-paclitaxel in first-line pancreatic cancer patients using an August 26, 2025 data cutoff. The bottom line is that we believe we've figured out how to keep these patients alive longer. Now, with nine months of median follow-up time, you can see we have a 94% overall survival at six months and an 86% overall survival at nine months. These are extraordinary results, and the key question is, how robust are they? Do they rest on shaky ground or a solid foundation?
As I walk you through the data, you'll see that there are many pillars of robustness that we believe support the data, an extremely solid foundation. Starting with the end, this is in 34 patients, which we believe is enough to really say something. In June, with six months of median follow-up time, we shared a six-month overall survival of 94%. I walked you through all the factors supporting the robustness of that number, and I'm happy to report that with three additional months of median follow-up time, we are still at 94% overall survival at six months, with all the patients still on study to the right of it, so it's unlikely to change much at this point. At nine months, we're at 86% overall survival. While the curve also looks great to the right of that, we're careful not to claim anything beyond our median follow-up time.
We were careful in June, and we're careful here. Of course, our median overall survival is not yet reached. In fact, the curve is so flat that it's challenging to model right now when it might be reached. These results, in and of themselves, are compelling because so many of the patients are staying alive, but they become even more compelling when we compare them to the reported benchmark for Standard of Care. Please turn to slide five. Here, we're plotting the cross-trial comparison between our ongoing study and the pivotal study of Standard of Care gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel in first-line pancreatic cancer, the EMPACT study. What you can see is that patients in our study show a 27-point separation from Standard of Care at six months, with 94% overall survival.
That separation grows to 39 points at nine months, with 86% overall survival, nearly double the reported benchmark for Standard of Care. It's great to see the separation growing with additional follow-up time, as the durability that we designed into Atebimetinib, making it harder for the tumor to adapt and develop resistance, really shines through. The sheer magnitude of the separation lends another pillar of robustness to the results. Let's say you want to be an Atebimetinib skeptic. Getting harder and harder to do that, but let's say you do. Even if you want to take the most pessimistic view of the data that's statistically justifiable, you'd take the bottom end of our 95% confidence interval. Even then, we have a 10-point separation at six months, which grows to a 19-point separation at nine months.
The fact that even the bottom of our 95% confidence interval shows such good separation with Standard of Care is another pillar of robustness supporting these incredible overall survival results. Now, gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel is the most relevant Standard of Care benchmark because it's the most common global Standard of Care. It's the control arm in our planned Phase III design. It's what we're combining with, and it's the treatment most commonly given to older patients with a wider range of fitness levels, like the ones in our study. There are two other Standard of Care treatments for first-line pancreatic cancer, so let's see how our results compare to those. Please turn to slide six. Here, we are plotting the cross-trial comparison between our data and the pivotal studies for all three Standard of Care treatments.
You can see that we have clear separation not only from gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel in orange, but also from FOLFIRINOX in green and NALIRIFOX in red. Again, even the bottom end of our 95% confidence interval clears the reported nine-month overall survival for all three Standard of Care treatments. The fact that we show such a strong separation in overall survival compared not only to the most relevant Standard of Care, but even to harsher regimens that are typically reserved for younger, higher fitness patients, adds another pillar of robustness to our results. Overall survival is the gold standard endpoint in oncology. It's the basis upon which pancreatic cancer drugs have been approved. It's the primary endpoint in our planned Phase III trial design. Everything else is a surrogate endpoint that tries to predict overall survival.
It's still helpful to look at those surrogate endpoints to help assess the robustness of the overall survival result. There have been companies that have had interesting OS data, but the other metrics don't show separation with Standard of Care. That's just not the case here. We see a strong separation across many different surrogate endpoints, including progression-free survival, overall response rate, disease control rate, waterfall plots, spider plots, and tolerability, all of which lend robustness to the overall survival result. Let's start with progression-free survival. Please turn to slide seven. Here, you can see our progression-free survival results. We have an excellent 70% progression-free survival at six months and 53% progression-free survival at nine months. At this time, we also have a median progression-free survival that we're very happy with at 9.6 months.
That's more than a four-month separation from gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel in the EMPACT study and more than a two-month separation from NALIRIFOX, which is typically given to the younger, higher fitness patients. I want to point out that we believe this median PFS has the potential to get even better. You can see there are five patients on treatment to the left of this, and we've checked at the time of the data cutoff, and they are generally doing well. We're optimistic that in the coming weeks and months, some are likely to move past 9.6 months, which would pull up the curve and further extend the median progression-free survival. Over the last few days since we announced the data, one of the most frequent questions we've been asked is, to what extent can we help patients with liver metastases?
Historically, pancreatic cancer patients with liver metastases have had a slightly worse prognosis than those with lung metastases when treated with chemotherapy. We took a look. About half of the patients in our study had liver mets, and when we looked specifically at that subset of 16 patients, we found that the median progression-free survival is 9.6 months, the same as in our full 34-patient intent-to-treat population. The median overall survival is also not yet reached in that subset, same as in the full 34-patient intent-to-treat population. We believe this is great news for pancreatic cancer patients with liver mets because it suggests that our results are just as applicable to them.
This doesn't surprise us because we see multiple instances of liver mets shrinking, including in our longest-running patient from Phase I, who has now been on treatment over 18 months with multiple liver mets that have shrank over time. The strength of the progression-free survival data, both in patients with liver mets and in the full population, adds additional pillars of robustness supporting our extraordinary 86% overall survival at nine months. Please turn to slide eight. Here, we plot the cross-trial comparison between our progression-free survival data and the pivotal study of gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel. You can see we have a 26-point separation at six months and a 24-point separation at nine months, with a 53% progression-free survival that's nearly double the benchmark of 29%, lending further robustness to our overall survival results. Please turn to slide nine.
Again, you can see that our progression-free survival is well separated not only from gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel, but from all three Standard of Care treatments. Please turn to slide 10. Here's our waterfall plot, and it's great to see that the vast majority of patients have lesions that are shrinking. Now, there's quite a bit of literature showing that overall response rate is not a great predictor of overall survival in pancreatic cancer, so we acknowledge that this is a surrogate endpoint of limited and questionable value. That said, our overall response rate is excellent. We have a confirmed overall response rate of 39%, which compares favorably with the benchmark of 23% from EMPACT. Our June update included four unconfirmed PRs that have since confirmed.
I'll emphasize that this 39% ORR is based entirely on confirmed responses, and not all reported overall response rates are, so it's important to compare apples to apples. It's also worth noting that we have several patients who are currently stable disease and are continuing on treatment, as indicated by the arrows. Atebimetinib generally shrinks tumors slowly but surely, so we're optimistic that this number could continue to grow over time. In our Phase I, we had a patient who crossed from stable disease to a partial response after 14 months. Slow and steady wins the race. Our disease control rate at 81% compares very favorably to the 48% in the EMPACT study. The waterfall plot, the overall response rate, and the disease control rate all lend additional pillars of robustness supporting the really nice 86% overall survival that we're seeing at nine months. Please turn to slide 11.
Here are our spider plots, showing how the tumors change in size over time. What you can see is that the vast majority of patients have lesions that are shrinking slowly but surely. We're not the typical targeted therapy that bombards the tumor continuously to shrink it 50% - 60% for a month or two, and then the tumor adapts and develops resistance and comes roaring back worse than before. Instead, we typically shrink tumors more slowly but more durably without driving resistance. It's like the old fable of the tortoise and the hare. We believe Atebimetinib is the turtle that slowly but surely wins the race. These spider plots, which, by the way, most companies don't show, lend another pillar of robustness to the 86% overall survival we observed at nine months. Now, let's take a look at tolerability.
Here, you can see the favorable tolerability profile of Atebimetinib plus modified gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel on slide 12. We only saw two categories of adverse events that occurred at the grade III level in more than 10% of the patients: anemia and neutropenia. Both are associated with the chemotherapy we're combining with, and neither were seen in our monotherapy studies. It's not clear if Atebimetinib is adding much, if anything, in the way of grade III adverse events over the chemo alone. Some people see this slide and the fact that many of the adverse event levels are lower than the EMPACT study, and they say, "Is Atebimetinib somehow erasing the side effects of chemo?" We say, "It's good, but it's not quite that good." We're combining with modified gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel, which is every other week versus three weeks on, one week off.
It's common for investigators to start with three weeks on, one week off, and then back off to every other week if needed. A few years ago, Doctors Daniel Ahn and Tony Bekhai Sab at the Mayo Clinic studied this, and they found that the modified regimen is better tolerated and demonstrates comparable survival. They published this in a great paper, Ahn et al., 2017. If you look at the paper, the tolerability profile is similar to what we're seeing here, except we see slightly higher rates of anemia, which we believe are due to older age and perhaps the patients staying on chemo longer. In FDA's draft guidance last month, they emphasized that overall survival is both an efficacy and a safety endpoint, meaning that when patients have poor tolerability, it impacts their performance status, and they don't live as long. The converse is also true.
When patients have better tolerability, they maintain their performance status and live longer. We think this helps contribute to the great 86% overall survival we're seeing at nine months. Don't get me wrong. The main reason our patients are living longer is that we're shrinking their tumors slowly but surely without driving resistance, as you saw on slide 10 or slide 11. We think the tolerability contributes as well, and we have other analyses underway to more fully understand the quality of life benefits we see from Atebimetinib. Please turn to slide 13. Usually, people get to this point in the data and they say, "Aha, show us the baseline demographics. Did you somehow have different patients from the pivotal studies of prior Standard of Care?" The answer is yes. Our population was different. It was actually older.
Our median age was 69, while patients in the pivotal studies were in their low to mid 60s. Two-thirds of our patients were over the age of 65, versus half or less in the pivotal studies. Otherwise, we're pretty well matched across the other baseline characteristics, including location of metastases. We do see a slight imbalance when we look at the astrological signs in favor of more patients that are Pisces, and we're looking into the significance of that. As I mentioned earlier, patients with lung mets historically have a better prognosis, and as you can see in the footnote, we have 35%, which is the same percentage of those in EMPACT, and many overlap with other metastases. Historically, patients with liver or peritoneal metastases have worse prognosis, and as you can see, most of our patients fall in those categories, similar to EMPACT.
As noted earlier, the progression-free survival for those with liver mets is identical to the overall intent-to-treat population progression-free survival in our study, meaning that patients with liver mets do just as well on our study, which is great news for those patients. The fact that we're able to show an 86% overall survival at nine months in a meaningfully older population lends another pillar of robustness to our results. Please turn to slide 14. Our next step is to run a global, randomized, pivotal Phase III study evaluating Atebimetinib plus modified gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel in first-line pancreatic cancer patients. This is a straightforward plain vanilla design with overall survival as the primary endpoint, in line with last month's FDA guidance that said overall survival was the most appropriate endpoint in diseases like pancreatic cancer. This trial has one question and one answer.
This design, of course, is subject to change based on regulatory feedback. Speaking of which, please turn to slide 15. We're guiding to sharing regulatory feedback and initiating the study by the end of the year, then dosing the first patient by mid-next year and a top-line readout approximately two years later. It's not as if we'll go dark for two years. We have combination studies planned in lung cancer, we've got an update from this cohort at a meeting next year, and our preclinical pipeline of deep cyclic inhibitors designed to bring the same tolerability and durability to other targets is progressing steadily as well. Importantly, with last week's funding announcement, we believe we are now funded through the Phase III readout and all the other catalysts I mentioned, with runway expected into 2029.
Slides 16 to 21 have additional information on how we designed Atebimetinib to achieve the kind of durability and tolerability we're seeing. These slides are on our website for reference. I'll just emphasize that we designed Atebimetinib in-house. It's novel composition of matter, and we just had our U.S. composition of matter patent granted, with exclusivity expected into at least late 2042, with additional patent applications pending that extend exclusivity into late 2044. Now, please turn to slide 22. As I mentioned earlier, we're planning two combination studies in lung cancer, the first through an agreement with GENERON to combine with their anti-PD-1 leptide, and the second one through an agreement with Eli Lilly to combine with their second-generation KRAS G12C inhibitor, olomaracid.
We're happy to be working with both of these companies, and of course, we're thrilled to have the strategic investment from Sanofi that we announced a few days ago. Given that the MAP kinase pathway drives the majority of all cancers, we're just getting started with pancreatic cancer and lung cancer, and then likely colorectal cancer, melanoma, AML, breast cancer, and many others. This broad applicability, combined with the unique observed durability and tolerability, make Atebimetinib an ideal backbone for a wide variety of combinations. It truly has the potential to be a pipeline in a product, and we are just getting started. Please turn to slide 23. In conclusion, we've demonstrated an extraordinary ability to keep pancreatic cancer patients alive longer, with overall survival of 94% at six months and 86% at nine months, both dramatically separated from any current Standard of Care in first-line pancreatic cancer.
We believe these results are incredibly robust. We believe they're supported by the 95% confidence interval, the progression-free survival we're seeing, the waterfall plots with overall response rate and disease control rate, the spider plots, our tolerability data, and the fact that we observed all of this in a meaningfully older population and that it worked just as well in liver metastases patients. We have an exciting set of catalysts coming up in the coming weeks, months, and years. Please turn to slide 24. Today, we discussed extraordinary overall survival for first-line pancreatic cancer patients treated with Atebimetinib plus chemo. We discussed favorable tolerability and the potential for best-in-class profile.
We're pushing forward to Phase III in first-line pancreatic cancer, the new Phase II studies in lung cancer, and with our deep cyclic inhibitor pipeline, and we talked about the financing and strategic investment, which enabled unprecedented value opportunity for patients and shareholders. Speaking of which, I want to thank all the patients and their caregivers, the investigators, team members, along with our partners and our investors. We're frequently told that Atebimetinib is a transformative molecule, and last week was a transformative week between sharing these incredible overall survival results and raising enough money to fund not only our Phase III study, but also our two lung combination studies and our preclinical pipeline with runway into 2029.
The impact of last week is still sinking in for all of us, but we believe Immuneering has entered a new era as a well-funded company with a great strategic investor and highly compelling data. I've never been prouder of our team or more excited for the value we can create for our patients and our shareholders. Operator.
Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, we will now begin the question and answer session. If you'd like to ask a question, please press star one on your telephone keypad. If you'd like to withdraw your question, simply press star one again. Thank you. Our first question comes from the line of Jay Olson from Oppenheimer. Please go ahead.
Oh, hey, guys. Congrats on these impressive results, and thank you for providing these additional details, which are super helpful. As our first question, can you talk about subsequent lines of therapy for patients who had progressed on Atebimetinib plus gemcitabine in the study and whether any of those patients who progressed may have subsequently received experimental therapies? As a follow-up, as you look ahead to the eventual approval of Atebimetinib in first-line PDAC, what is the target patient population for Atebimetinib plus gemcitabine? Do you think it will only be used with gemcitabine, or would physicians potentially use Atebimetinib in combination with 5-FU regimens? Thank you.
Let's begin in just about 10 minutes.
Hey, Jay. Thanks for the question.
Are you forward?
Operator, we are getting some background noise from another line.
Oh, okay.
Please look out for that. In terms of your first question on subsequent lines of therapy, it's a great question. We've looked into this, and for the patients where we have that information, about half of them go on to chemotherapy, and about half of them go on to nothing, sadly, which is not surprising in first-line pancreatic cancer. Typically, only about half the patients make it out of that setting. That is why first-line is the real prize in pancreatic cancer, because as the oncologists say, your first shot is your best shot. About half go on to chemo, about half go on to nothing. We only have information on one patient who has gone on to a targeted treatment after this. The vast majority is either chemo or nothing. That is why first-line pancreatic cancer is really the place to be.
That is why we're excited to have shared this overall survival data. We shared it first in June with a 94% overall survival rate at six months, and then we shared now with 86% at nine months. There is nothing we're aware of that has shown anything like this kind of overall survival in first-line pancreatic cancer. Again, mostly chemo, a lot that go on to nothing, and only one we're aware of that went on to an experimental therapy, a targeted agent. That addresses your first question, and I think it really emphasizes why it's so important to be in the first-line setting as we are. In terms of the profile of the patients who will take this, as you saw, we have an older patient population in this study. I think that certainly suggests that we'll be able to treat a broad population of patients.
Frankly, given the separation that we're seeing from all three Standard of Care treatments, it suggests that we can provide a benefit to all patients, not just the older ones like we had in our study, but also to younger, higher fitness patients. We believe ultimately there's going to be a very broad set of patients for whom Atebimetinib plus the modified gemcitabine will be applicable. You see in our design, it's a pretty broad design. I think the other thing about the patients that we're able to take is that we don't have to do any genetic testing, right? Because we target MEC, which is downstream in the MAP kinase pathway, unlike a RAS inhibitor where they have to do genetic testing to confirm there's a RAS mutation, we don't have to do any of that.
That means we can take a broader population, too, from a mutational status perspective, and we can enroll them faster. What we hear from KOLs is that even when a patient comes in with metastatic pancreatic cancer, it's an emergency. Even the week or two that it can take to get those genetic testing results is actually sometimes time that they can't or don't want to wait. We can actually bring it to a broad population of patients. With that, I thank you for the questions, Jay, and we'll take the next question.
Thanks, Ben.
Thank you, Jay.
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Greg Devante from Midaho . The line's open.
Hi there. This is Doug MacPherson on for Greg. Thanks so much for taking my question. Once again, let me offer my congratulations on this just outstanding and impressive data. My first question is contextualizing this data with the recent data that we saw for RevMed's lead asset in pancreatic cancer. Any comments on that comparison?
Thanks, Doug. The first thing I'll say is we support all companies working in pancreatic cancer, right? This is a terrible unmet need, and I think we're all sort of, in a sense, on the same team working against pancreatic cancer. We laud everyone working in this space. What we know is we're the only company we're aware of that has shared overall survival data in the first-line setting in pancreatic cancer. You can see it here. It's extraordinary: 94% survival at six months, 86% survival at nine months with the kind of tolerability that we're seeing. We're just thrilled with this data. Generally speaking, we think it's going to be hard for anyone to really top this, right? There's not a lot of room between this and the top for anyone to show, we believe, a meaningful separation.
Even if some company out there could match this, we think it would come down to tolerability. We clearly have a really very unique tolerability profile. We're really just not that worried about anyone that's out there working in pancreatic cancer. We're happy for as many companies as possible to be working in pancreatic cancer. Certainly, the patients need it. We just don't think, certainly no one has shared overall survival data that comes anywhere close to this in the first-line setting, which again is the real prize in pancreatic cancer. We think it's going to be hard to beat this. Even if someone out there could match it, it would come down to tolerability. We'd win on tolerability, hands down. Thanks for the question, Doug.
I can certainly appreciate that. If I could hit a quick follow-up, I just want to make sure I understand the censoring correctly. At nine months, it looks like 13 patients were censored, and I suppose that means that those patients do not have a nine-month PFS or OS reading. Do I have that correct?
Yeah, Doug. We provide a lot more transparency than most companies in that we color our censoring marks to indicate whether, in the case of overall survival, the patients are still on study or if they're off study. Generally, in the context of overall survival, if they're off study, it means they've withdrawn consent. I think the thing to appreciate mainly is that the rate of censoring that we have, particularly the patients who are off study, we're pretty happy with that rate. Every oncology study has some censoring. If you look at EMPACT or NAPLI-3, about 25% of the patients were censored. We actually have six gray marks, as you can see, so six patients that have withdrawn consent. We're actually doing better than most studies.
In fact, several of those patients did have, some of them, there's one that had lesions that were shrinking, several that did have progression before they withdrew consent, which means that actually they could be censored with regard to overall survival but show up as events on progression-free survival. The fact that we see a great separation from Standard of Care in our progression-free survival, I think, further emphasizes just the robustness of this data. It's great to see that we have a lower rate of censoring than you would expect and just really great separation from Standard of Care in both overall survival and progression-free survival. With that, thank you, Doug, and we'll take the next question.
Thanks so much. Congrats, Ben.
Thank you. Again, if you'd like to ask a question, please press star and the number one on your telephone keypad. A quick reminder, please limit yourself to one question and one follow-up. Our next question comes from the line of Ami Fadia from Needham & Company. The line's open.
Hi, this is Poorna on for Ami. Thank you for taking our question and congratulations on this data update. Can you talk about the monotherapy activity of Atebimetinib and its contribution to the combination? Can you share any updates from the monotherapy cohort if it's still ongoing and what was the efficacy or durability of the last data point collected? Thank you.
Hi, Poona. Thanks for the question. If you turn to slide 19, we have a great example of the kind of activity that Atebimetinib can produce in the monotherapy setting. This is an update on a case study of a patient from Phase I. This is a patient with third-line pancreatic cancer, meaning progressive disease on FOLFIRINOX, progressive disease on gemcitabine. This patient came to us with a baseline tumor burden. If you look at the stoma, longest diameter is 18 centimeters, just a monstrous tumor burden. Look what we were able to accomplish with Atebimetinib monotherapy alone. We were able to shrink that tumor slowly but surely, 14, 17, 20, 22. Over the course of 18 months, shrink that tumor slowly but surely.
As of the data cutoff, this patient is continuing on treatment with over 18 months, improved quality of life, gained weight, reductions in a number of markers, complete resolution of a bone lesion. Complete resolution of a bone lesion. The best part is, because of the exceptional tolerability of Atebimetinib, we hear from the investigator that this patient's been living a normal life, living a normal life with third-line pancreatic cancer, thanks to this slow, steady reduction in the tumors. We believe patients like this give us a glimpse into a future where you could envision cancer being transformed the way HIV was transformed in our lifetimes from a fatal disease to one that's generally now managed with medication. This is really an example of the power of what Atebimetinib can accomplish in the monotherapy setting.
What we showed at AACR last year, as you can see on slide 20, 21, is that by combining it with gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel, we could really bring this kind of deep, durable response to the vast majority of patients. That's what we did. That's what we've taken forward as our top priority. You can see that on slide 11 in the spider plots, right? These are patients where the vast majority have that pattern where their tumors are shrinking slowly but surely because of Atebimetinib's mechanism, which isn't driving resistance. I think that's ultimately the key driver behind the exceptional survival that we're seeing on slide four. Thank you, Poorna, and we'll take the next question.
Thank you.
Thank you. There are no further questions. I'll now turn the call back over to Ben Zeskind for closing remarks.
All right, I want to thank everyone for joining our call today. We would like to thank all the patients and investigators involved in our ongoing studies, and we very much look forward to updating you on further progress. Thanks, everyone, and have a great day.
The meeting has now concluded. Thank you all for joining. You may now disconnect.