Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by. Welcome to the Boston Scientific Investor Update at Veeva 2019 Conference Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen only mode. Later, we will conduct a question and answer session. Instructions will be given at that time.
Also as a reminder, today's teleconference is being recorded. At this time, I'll turn the call over to your host, VP of Investor Relations, Ms. Susie Lisa. Please go ahead.
Thank you, Tony, and thanks to everyone for joining us for a Veeva update from our peripheral interventions team. Good morning to those of you in Vegas and good afternoon elsewhere here on the East Coast. We'll start we'll jump right in, but I would like to first introduce our lineup, including Jeff Mervis, whom you all know well, our Senior Vice President and President of our Peripheral Interventions business. He's joined by Kat Jennings, our VP of Marketing and Business Development. And then we have a new member of the team.
I'm very pleased to introduce Doctor. Michael Jaffe, who is the incoming Vice President of Clinical Affairs, Innovation and Technology for our peripheral interventions team. And then finally, our Global Chief Medical Officer, Doctor. Ian Meredith, is joining us on the line as well for your questions. As usual, the typical Safe Harbor protections apply, and we will be making forward looking statements on the call.
And with that brief introduction, I'll hand it off to Jeff. Thanks, Jeff.
Great. Thanks, Susie. Hello, everyone, from sunny Las Vegas. It's great to have some time with you to talk about what's going on in peripheral interventions, both generally, but also some new data that we just reported here at Veeva this morning. I thought I'd start on the first slide with just a little bit of a reminder about peripheral and how we see the market in our portfolio.
And I think, 1st and foremost, I'd just like to stress the point that in peripheral, we are serving pretty large and underpenetrated disease states. And we see a ton of room to innovate and an opportunity to help patients. There's a lot of unmet clinical and patient needs. And so as a result of that, we view the market as fundamentally sound and good just fundamentals in terms of growth for the future. 2nd, you know that our strategy is category leadership and it's strengthened by the BTG acquisition, but we're really focused.
We're focused on PAD, venous disease and interventional oncology. And the category leadership strategy is really driving our investments in portfolio and clinical data. And nothing is more visible than today from those investments, which is the new data and new opportunities we have with DCB and the RANGER data that Michael will talk about in a little bit. And then the durable results for the Eluvia drug eluting stent. And so we see lots of opportunities to continue to grow and bring really differentiated technologies in both of those products for the future.
And we see opportunities also outside the United States. So I've talked about in the past just BTG and the opportunity for us to bring those products to more international markets around the world. We have plans both for the short term, medium term and longer term to extend the portfolio from BTG outside the United States. And then of course, our own portfolio, that's always been a part of our plan and helping us with our growth right now in some of the key geographies like China and the emerging markets. So on the next slide just gives you a sense of how we see the market breaking down and then a reminder on our portfolio.
And what's really going to help us next year with the Ranger launch in the United States is being able to come to our customers on the PAD side, which we see as roughly half of our total addressable market in peripheral with both products. And regardless of whether the physician wants to use a scaffold with drug or a drug coated balloon, we're the only company that will be able to serve our customers in that way and provide them whatever they feel is best for their patients. And then of course have the comparative evidence with both of those products with the Imperial trial and then the compare trial that will be coming out in January. And then of course everything else that supports those 2 flagship products like atherectomy and balloons and bare metal stents and the whole portfolio. And then we sort of cut and paste that across venous and interventional oncology.
And now with BTG, we are a scaled player in both of those portfolios with venous and interventional oncology. So we're taking our position that we have in arterial and really doing the same thing in these 2 other higher growing markets with Venus and IO. And we have a good portfolio coming for Venus and in the IO space. So we're excited about not only the current products that are on this page, but the new product launches that we have in 2020 beyond that will support both of these franchises. And then having the commercial team now that's focused and having a scaled portfolio like we have across each of these three franchises, I think bodes well for the opportunities for us for future growth.
And then finally on this next slide before I turn it over to Doctor. Jaff to touch on the clinical data. We view this portfolio as a highly differentiated opportunity to deliver meaningful innovations to our customers, to not only have the type of products that they look for from a clinical perspective, but from an acute handling and deliverability perspective with both Eluvia and RANGER and then eventually SAVAL, low dose, which I think is an important message for us to continue to stress. And then the comparative evidence, which our customers are telling us, these are the type of data that will help them make more evidence based decisions. And so it's exactly the type of trial data that we'll look to build on in years to come with the longer term results in both Eluvia and RANGER and then ultimately SAVAL.
And we still maintain our position that we're on track for a 2020 RANGER launch in the United States and things are going well with the clinical trial enrollment that I mentioned at TCT with SAVAL. And so as of now, we still believe this is a 2020 launch. So a really nice cadence of new launches on the drug eluting side, which is an important part of our growth down the road. So with that, let me turn it over to Doctor. Jeff to share a little bit more color on the data that we just recently announced.
Thank you, Jeff, and hello, everyone. Some of you I've met over my career, for others I look forward to meeting you. It's been quite a morning for Boston Scientific around the field of peripheral artery disease and drug eluting technologies. So if we can go to the next slide, talking about the RANGER 2 SFA trial. This is an important data release for the field because of the fact that this is a highly deliverable 01.8 Sterling balloon.
It's designed specifically to increase efficacy with minimized downstream particulates. And the goal here is with a lower drug dose, get efficient drug transfer in the same scheme. So the trial, as you know, was a randomized trial of the RANGER DCB versus uncoated PTA in the superficial femoral artery in a 3:one fashion as a single blind study. The total cohort 376 patients, 278 received the active RANGER DCB, 98 uncoated PTA. These patients will be followed through 5 years and there was a PK sub study to look at the pharmacokinetics of paclitaxel on the RANGER balloon in 12 patients.
Patients included were the classic Rutherford 2 and 3, those were claudicants and those in Rutherford 4 with ischemic rest pain. Patients were eligible if they had high grade stenosis in the femoral popliteal arteries with lesion lengths up to 18 centimeters in length. Total occlusions would be included with a total lesion length of 100 millimeters, 10 centimeters or less. And again, the treatment was randomized to Ranger DCB or an uncoated PTA balloon. And if we go right to the key result on the next slide, this is a 12 month interim data.
It was pre specified in the study trial design looking at primary efficacy. This was a 12 month Kaplan Meier curve showing you that the primary patency of the RANGER DCB was 89.2% with the PTA uncoated balloon 72.9%, this reached high statistical significance. Important to this is to note that binary primary patency was 82% with the Ranger balloon, 68.8% with the uncoated balloon. That was a p value that was statistically significant. So, this definitely demonstrates that the trial met its primary efficacy endpoint and superior primary patency.
And comparing the RANGER patency results at 12 months to the other drug coated balloons on the market, this is among the highest primary patency rate of any of their competitors. If we go to the next slide, obviously, we're all interested in safety and very pleased to show that, first of all, there was absolutely no difference in mortality at 12 months in these interim results between the RANGER and PTA cohorts. But of great importance, not only to the physicians demonstrating the efficacy of the device, but also the patients is the dramatic reduction, a 2 thirds relative risk reduction in clinically driven target lesion revascularization rates, a 6% TLR rate with the RANGER device versus a nearly 18% TLR rate with the uncoated PTA. So that demonstrates a great benefit because even with a lower dose, this demonstrates a very low TLR rate, which is exactly what patients want to avoid having to come back and have a subsequent procedure. So the major adverse event rate was also strikingly impressive with a 93.5% freedom from major adverse event rate with the RANGER DCB versus 82.1% with the uncoated PTA, that was also statistically significant.
So a highly effective device in a randomized trial with tremendous safety results. The next slide just gives one glance at the 12 patients who were included in the RANGER pharmacokinetics substudy. And out of the 12 patients studied, when blood levels of paclitaxel were assessed at 1 hour, 11 of the 12 had no measurable levels of paclitaxel in their bloodstream. Now obviously, the protocol mandated multiple lab assays over the course of this to truly demonstrate the PK curves. That included 7 days 30 days after the last Ranger DCB treatment and removal of the balloon.
So all these 12 patients obviously received the active device with paclitaxel and the average number of drug coated balloons used per patients was 1.75 on average for the group. So demonstrating that in the vast majority of these patients, there was no detectable paclitaxel in the bloodstream. Moving on to the next late breaking trial that was presented this morning at VIVA is a follow-up 2 year results of the IMperial study. Obviously, you know that the IMperial study was a landmark study that was a head to head trial of the Eluvia paclitaxel coated device versus the Zilver PTX device as the only other available paclitaxel code extent for peripheral use. Obviously, the Eluvia device utilizes a polymer that enables controlled drug release and it offers the lowest drug dose density among all drug eluting technologies.
So remember, it was last year at TCT that we presented the 12 month results of the Imperial study, a randomized study of Eluvia versus Zilver PTX in a 2:one single blind non inferiority study. The trial was designed to show non inferiority of Eluvia versus Zilver PTX. You'll remember there were 465 people in the cohort, 309 received Eluvia, 156 received Zilver PTX. This was an international study involving 65 centers, a very similar inclusion criterion to what you saw from the RANGER study. The only difference I would make here is that the total lesion lengths range from 30 millimeters to 140 millimeters with standard vessel diameters.
And if you go to the next slide, this is the first time you'll see 24 month results from primary patency based on Kaplan Meier estimates. You'll remember that the trial was designed to be non inferior. And despite that, at 12 months, it showed superiority and patency of Eluvia versus Zilver PTX. You'll notice at 24 months, there's continued durable separation of the curves, although statistical significance was not met at 24 months. Again, important to remember this was a non inferiority trial and this is a lower dose agent.
In addition, the clinical outcome improvement rates remained quite robust, 84.4% for Eluvia, 78.2% for Zilver PTX, showing that these patients actually garnered durable clinical benefits, which is clearly the reason why we do these procedures in the first place. Going on to the next slide, looking at 24 month safety results. Looking at purely safety results here, the statistically significant reduction in CD TLR at 24 months remained quite impressive, 12.7 percent TLR rates with Eluvia, 20.1% with silver PTX. And this TLR reduction rate was statistically significant at 2 years. Looking at major adverse events, almost 86% of Eluvia patients were free from major adverse events versus 79.9% of the ZILVA PTX patients.
And important to note that there was no difference in all cause mortality between the Eluvia group and the ZILVA PTX group, 7.1% at 24 months versus 8.3% at 24 months for Zilver PTX. So all in all, excellent safety profile, a statistically significant durable 24 month reduction in clinically driven target lesion revascularization rates. So really great results. So as I look at the next slide summarizing the data that the field has seen today and you're discussing with us today, The RANGER 2 DCB SFA trial at 12 months demonstrates really great safety and efficacy of this platform with an excellent deliverable balloon, a low dose drug that was efficient and good at lowing particulates. And we clearly look forward, as Jeff mentioned, to the commercialization of this in 2020.
And then very rewarding to see the 24 month results of Imperial with durable 2 year efficacy of this technology, controlled release, lower drug dose among all drug eluting technologies, statistically low clinically driven target lesion revascularization rates. So with that, I'll pause Jeff and hand it back to you.
Great. Thanks, Michael. I think we're going to open it up for questions. And as a reminder, we have Cat Jennings here and Ian Meredith on the phone as well. So happy to answer any questions that you may have.
Thank you very much. And we'll take our first question from Robbie Marcus with JPMorgan. Please go ahead.
Great. And congrats on the nice data. I was hoping you could give us what you think the pathway is forward for Ranger given the issues we've seen in the drug coated balloon market? Should we expect a longer processing timeline for this? And just your latest thoughts on the pathway to the market here?
Yes. Thanks for the question, Ravi. I think, the short answer is we don't know precisely. We are working very closely with FDA. The PMA is moving forward.
I wish I could narrow down 2020 a little bit more closely, but at this time we're going to keep it just general in 2020. I do believe we will get approval. We have everything that was discussed at the FDA panel back in June, laying out what they wanted to see or what the panel recommended to FDA that they wanted to see to approve a new device, which is that the product is at least as safe as what's on the market. And so our investment in the COMPARE trial, which has 2 year follow-up in the first 150 patients and we'll have the 12 month follow-up in January, I believe satisfy that requirement. So not only is it sort of the benefit of delivering to the market the 2nd head to head trial in the peripheral field, but it also sort of fortuitously is what's needed to get the product approved.
So I think that's a really, really important sort of milestone for the RANGER program. And then all of the other data that we will submit to FDA, most importantly, the longer term data, we will have long term follow-up, 3 year follow-up from the RANGER-one trial, which was a 100 patient randomized trial against POBA, as well as much long term data as we can get from this RANGER 2 SFA trial because many of the patients have 2 year and beyond follow-up and we will submit all of that data as it comes in to FDA. So I believe we're in good shape. I believe we have what the FDA is looking for. But really, since this is somewhat new, this is the first PMA that will be approved post the paclitaxel panel.
I think it's just unclear exactly what the timing will be. But we are confident we will get there.
Got it. And then Ranger will be 4th market in the U. S. For drug coated balloons balanced against clearly the best peripheral business at Boston Scientific. Maybe you could just spend a minute on your market your go to market strategy here and how you'll drive adoption given some entrenched competitors?
Thanks.
Sure, Robbie. This is Cat Jennings speaking. I love the shout out for the PI business. So for us, as we think about Ranger, it's got a couple of really key differentiators. First, it's the only 18 platform that we'll be launching in the United States that has this low drug dose that also has comparative effectiveness data at the time of launch.
So if you think about us launching into a market that is looking for ever more deliverable products, Ranger really delivers on this particular aspect as well as having demonstrated efficacy similar to the impact balloon while having half the drug dose on the balloon itself. So I think as physicians are thinking about how do I get the easiest to use product, how do I ensure that I'm delivering the right amount of drug to the vessel itself, this is really a product that physicians are going to want to use.
Yes. And I would just add to that, that all along we knew we would be 4th to market. And so one of the value propositions that we can bring to the table for our customers is the fact that we're the only company that has both a contemporary drug coated balloon and drug eluting stent. And it's the combination that we believe will afford our customers an advantage in working with one company with great data. I think it affords us the opportunity to have some creative solutions for our customers and ultimately recommend what's best for the patient.
And we're the only company that is in a position to be able to do that. And I think that does set us apart.
Great. Thanks a lot.
Thank you. We'll take the next question in queue from Larry Biegelsen with Wells Fargo. Please go ahead.
Hey guys, thanks for taking the question. Jeff, a couple of questions on the PE market, if that's okay. First, Jeff, how many device based procedures are done in the U. S. Each year?
And what's the growth outlook for procedures? And I have one follow-up on ECOS. Yes.
You want to handle that, Cat?
Sure. No problem. So a couple of comments. It is a little bit difficult to accurately describe how many interventional procedures are done simply because there are a lot of different products that physicians use in this particular segment. So what I would maybe point you to is that we've seen tremendous amount of growth in this market.
However, the market itself continues to be tremendously under penetrated. So just a quick stat for you. There are 100,000 patients that die every year in the U. S. Because of PEs.
And that was a stat that was recently discussed at the PERT meeting. And as you think about our opportunity here continue to further penetrate this market through some of our market development activities, driving therapy awareness with physicians and being able then to take this to more global markets. We believe that this is a market that has a lot of continued room for growth, recognizing that there are more competitors that are going to be entering this market over time.
That's helpful. So, Cath, do you see this as a double digit growth market from a procedure standpoint? And just second, on ECOS, what are your expectations for that product going forward from a growth standpoint given that there is more competition as you mentioned? Thank you for taking the questions.
Sure. So I'd say that we continue to expect double digit growth in the PE market. And I don't believe that we are breaking out echo's revenue separately at this
time. Thank you.
Thank you. Next in queue is Jason Mills with Canaccord Annuity. Please go ahead.
Hey, Jeff. Thanks for taking the question. So I have one question for either you or Doctor. Jaff and then one for Cap reps on that peripheral thrombectomy side. And the question the first question is just how these data from both BRAINGR and Eluvia, how it contributes to the body of evidence and the argument I suppose that was made at TCT and even before that at CRT throughout the years since the meta analysis data came out and disrupted this market.
How do these data contribute to the argument in favor of drug eluting technologies, and the debate that will continue to rage on? I think at TCT, Renu, Vermani and others were fairly vocal and somewhat unbiased opinions as they seem to be, especially Raymond's, about perhaps an overshoot in reduction in use in drug eluting technologies. And so since then, our checks would suggest that we're seeing a bit of an improving market for durability technologies. And I'm just curious if you could confirm that? And also what you think these data will do in support of perhaps additional use of drug eluting technologies going forward?
Yes, thanks for the question. I'll make a few comments and then ask Michael to weigh in with his opinion as well. I can confirm that the market is beginning to recover. I think it's been a slow movement in a positive direction. I think post panel, as I mentioned at the TCT analyst call, I was a bit more bullish based on the 24 hour summary.
Then when the 3rd letter came out from FDA, I think it was sort of walked back from the 24 hour summary. I think that's helped. And there still are a lot of institutions where we're putting Eluvia, for example, on the shelf for the first time. So we're opening up new accounts on a regular basis. We do see a beginning of more of utilization in the accounts where we're at.
And so it's going in the right direction. I don't think it's a big catalyst where it's all of a sudden going to get back to where it was or all of a sudden flip overnight. But it's heading in the right direction. And I think where these data help is one of the questions we had over the past year is, what happens when the drug stops releasing? Because as you know, the sustained release for Eluvia is for roughly a year.
And so the answer to that question is, what you get is when the drug stops releasing is you get statistically significant reduction in TLR, which is what the patient cares the most about. And so I think when a physician is trying to understand the risk benefit trade off, now they know at least at 2 years and then we'll have 3, 4 5 years with Eluvia. They know that the clinical efficacy results are durable and that there's no difference in terms of safety between these two devices. And I think that builds a lot of confidence for physicians who are going to choose a drug eluting stent. Michael, any comments from your perspective?
Thanks, Jeff. I'd just say a couple of things in addition. At TCT, I ran a panel and asked the members of the panel about 6 or 7, given that the FDA letter talks about use of these devices for patients at high risk for restenosis, what percentage of their practice or the patients they see would meet that definition of high risk for restenosis? And the answer was anywhere between 90% 100%. So I think the days of seeing chip shot mid SFA 2 centimeter long lesions is rapidly disappearing.
And the patients that we're seeing who were included in these studies and more represent those patients in which durability is key. Reduction in TLR rates is the name of the game. And the fact that this data shows that we now have 24 months durability really helps. So that's number 1. Number 2, I guess I'd agree with all of you.
I find all of this of statistical interest, but clinical irrelevance, but the data is what the data is. And I do think that the market will rebound. I'm skeptical to believe that it will come back to how it was, let's say, when we announced the Imperial at TCT in 2018.
Thank you. That's unbelievable color. Cat, if I could ask you a question following up on the peripheral thrombectomy discussion. Could you talk about the market in total, not just PE, but also addressable disease states outside of PE and where Boston Scientific is and frankly where the market is with respect to addressing clot where it is in the lung, where it is in the leg, even where it is in the heart to some extent. And the extent to which it's penetrated or not penetrated now with mechanical thrombectomy.
And the second part of that question is, what do you believe is the most important inflection point? Is it technology? Is it data? Is it a combination of both? And then I guess the third part because I'm great at asking multipart questions that people forget is, do you see competitors yet?
Or is the market so under penetrated its land grab and it's plenty of room of land out there to grab for the primary competitors that we all know about? Thank you.
Sure, sure. I appreciate the question. So first, I'd say with regards to the total addressable market, so the current belief is that there's 10,000,000 cases annually globally of venous thromboembolism around the world and with 1,000,000 of those in the U. S. Alone.
So I think when you think about the broader underpenetrated market that we're talking about here, there's a tremendous continued opportunity. I think when you think about inflection points, which was your second question, one of the things that I think is incredibly important in this space is continuing to deliver the clinical evidence that will help support interventions, appropriate interventions in this patient population. So for example, we at Boston Scientific are investing in a clinical trial called CLEAR DVT that is meant to help produce more of that evidence around value of using thrombectomy in DVT patients in particular, hoping to further clarify some of the data that we saw from the ATTRK trial a few years back. And I think those type of data patients leads to better outcomes. And then I think with regards to your third question around competitors, I think that there are different needs in this market that some of these different devices can address, whether you're looking to be able to deliver a short lytic based therapy that has been proven to be safe like with ECHOs, whether you're looking to mechanically remove the clot or a DVT like you do with AngioJET, whether you're looking to prevent PEs in patients that have a high risk for PE with a vena cava filter, like our new SENTRI device, I think all of these instances require different types of tools.
And so I do think that there's room for many of these competitors to really coexist in this market address different needs.
Thank you, guys. Thank
you.
Jeff or Cat, this is Susie. I wonder if you could just expand a little bit on the vena cava filter opportunity, that's the SENTRI product and I think one that, perhaps people aren't as familiar with. Can you just talk about that market or the advantages of SENTRI a bit would be helpful? Thank you.
Sure, Susie. So the vena cava filter market, as many folks know, has is a $200,000,000 plus market globally. And one of the things that physicians have really struggled with in this market has been retrieving these filters for a number of reasons. One is that sometimes patients aren't very compliant with their follow-up. 2nd is that sometimes these filters can become very challenging to retrieve if they tilt or have other complications.
And so what we have acquired as part of the BTG acquisition bio convertible filter. And what makes this filter unique is that it doesn't require retrieval, but converts into an open stent effectively in patients, therefore, reducing the need for a repeat intervention in patients where you're trying to address a potential acute risk of pulmonary embolism within a 60 day period. And so as we've talked to physicians about this product, we've been able to really get some interest and excitement from the physician community about something that's very novel in a space where there hasn't been a lot of innovation over the past few years. So I think that that's a space that is really ripe for some growth and some new technologies.
Yes, Michael, I was just going to say, Michael, I know that you are an author on a paper looking at the health economic burden of retrievable filters. So I wonder if you have any comments from that perspective, as well as just the number of filters that are supposed to get removed, but actually end up staying in patients either permanently or much longer than anticipated?
Sure, Jeff. So this has been area I've spent a lot of time in my life on. And the practical aspect of this is that, it used to be when all you had was a permanent indwelling filter, the procedure was owned by the doctor who did it. Once it was in, there was nothing you could do. So that was the end of that.
Now the supposition is that the vast majority of patients who get a filter placed ought to have it retrieved. And so in order to do that, it requires a whole process of flow that doesn't classically exist. The proceduralist, once done, has to communicate with the primary care doctor or whoever the captain of the ship is to make sure that that's tracked and retrieved. And that's an added burden that most primary care docs have not had to do in their careers. And so even when I was at Mass General, we built a computerized system that forced reminders to the interventionists that, hey, that filter needs to be retrieved.
And if not, you need to come up with a reason why not. So there's a lot of work that has to go into this. And obviously, the total medical expense burden that this places is not inconsequential, because the cost is significantly greater when you put the filter in and then have to retrieve it. So from a health economic standpoint, it becomes challenging as well.
Great. Thank you.
Any other questions, Tony?
No additional questions.
I have one more. Maybe, Cat, if you could just round out the rest of the Venus portfolio from BTG and highlight the Verathena system on the superficial venous side of things? And maybe just any color commentary on VICI, if that's our venous stent, if that's a highlight at VIVA or any color
to mention there? Thanks. Sure. I'm happy to, Susie. Thanks.
So maybe I'll start with Vici and then I'll talk a bit about Verzena. So with Vici, we continue to see really terrific physician feedback on the product. We continue to open new accounts and we're extremely excited about this technology. We had a a standing room only symposium here at Veeva talking about our interventional treatments in the venous space and a lot of discussion about VICI and the really great results physicians are having with that venous stent. So we're continuing to be very excited about that product.
With regards to Verathena, the largest SVI Congress is going on at the end of this week, AVLS, We'll be traveling there to talk with physicians about Verathena. This is a product that has really enjoyed tremendous growth over the last few years. They're really driven by 2 factors. 1 is phenomenal physician experience with the product. I can't tell you the number of physicians wonderful patient results they are seeing with Verathena in really challenging patient population.
And that's incredibly rewarding. And as many of you know, they received a reimbursement code and are enjoying really good coverage in this space. And so they have really demonstrated some very nice growth over the last few years. And this is an area that we continue to be very excited about with regards to being able to treat now not only deep venous disease, but also superficial venous disease.
Great then. I think that there are no additional questions in the queue. We very much appreciate all your time. Jeff, I think while we have it, maybe just a quick, highlights of the interventional oncology franchise. So we have everyone's ears, if you want to talk about potentially 2020 catalyst or the outlook there and then we'll close the call, if that's okay.
Yes. Thank you. So I always say that we should probably start with interventional oncology on some of these calls because we sort of talk about our franchises and our sort of strategies in terms of arterial venous and IO. And IO is really going to be a strong growth future, now that we're becoming the scaled player across the therapies as well as the delivery tools. And so obviously Y90, the TheraSPHERE product is the flagship product.
This is enjoying strong growth. We look forward to the clinical data when it comes out whenever that is in the next, say, year or so. And I think what's new for us and what will be a nice catalyst going forward is just the fact that we're so scaled relative to the competition. And we're really the only company that can sort of cover the vast procedural approaches that IRs are doing to treat cancer. And we will also have sort of the broad footprint.
So one of the nice elements of the BTG acquisition is when the coming together of our sales force is we're sort of like doubling the feet on the street. And I think that will give us more focus in IL and more coverage across the U. S. And geographies outside the U. S.
And give us the opportunity to get pull through and bring along both sides of the business from legacy BTG and BSC. We have a terrific lineup of new launches coming over the next year or so. Probably the highlight is a new ablation modality and our ablation business from BTG is growing strong double digits. So I think we have some differentiation there with the cryo device. And then we'll be launching a microwave ablation sometime mid next year.
And so kind of back to being the scaled player, all of a sudden we'll have some scale in the ablation side of the business to go along with our strong beads portfolio, whether it's drug eluting beads, bland beads or radiation beads. And then of course, pulling through all the other devices that were legacy Boston Scientific. And then we have other sort of portfolio additions that will be coming in terms of like new catheters and new coils. And so I'm very pleased with just the lineup of new innovations that will be coming to serve the IR. So I'm excited about just broadly the portfolio across all three franchises.
But I think IO in particular, is a bright spot for Boston Scientific PI. Great.
Thank you, Jeff. Thank you, Cat. Thank you, Michael. Thank you, Ian. We appreciate all of your dialing in.
And Tony, if you could close us out.
Thank you
very much. And ladies and gentlemen, that does conclude your conference call for today. We do thank you for your participation and for using AT and T's teleconference services. May now disconnect.