All right, we're ready to start. Okay, thank you for joining us here today with our fireside chat with Perspective Therapeutics. We have the CEO, Thijs Spoor, of Perspective. Thijs, I don't know if you have any opening comments, but if not, we can get straight into the questions.
No, I'd like to thank you for inviting us to speak at this conference and have the fireside chat. I always, you know, appreciate the ability to engage more in the discussion versus just going through our standard presentation, which we do actually keep current on our website.
Okay, great. So just to start off a little bit easy here, just wanted to, for you to give an overview of your business, for those of, that in the audience who might be new to your story.
Great. No, thank you. So, we're in the radiopharmaceutical space, but what I want people to think about for radiopharmaceuticals is it's all about how do you actually get the best possible drug to work? And I think that's what people have lost a little bit when we had some of the early discussions. We focus on the best possible drug, and so we spend a lot more time before we get comfortable internally to get the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics of the whole molecule to be best in class.
So we really innovate new chemical entities, new products. We use a whole range of isotopes and technologies and peptides and linkers, but at the end of the day, we're developing really, really clean drugs. It happens that we've also gotten really good at some isotope delivery, and it happens we've got pretty good at some manufacturing. But at our core, we develop new compositions of matter.
How do radiopharmaceuticals differ from existing standards of care? Where are they better on the efficacy and safety, and why is that the case?
So it's a very distinct mechanism of action on the radiopharm space, and it's a very unsubtle, blunt approach. You're gonna literally smash the cell apart. You have a few options when you think about how actually radiation works. A lot of people are historically used to external beam or gamma radiation. You can actually get cells that are radiation resistant, but that's only to a gamma ray. When you actually get particles being emitted in the body, you can actually do a beta, which is a fairly small, lightweight particle.
You need about fifteen hundred of them to actually cause a cell to die, or you can use an alpha particle, which is eight thousand times as massive, and a single alpha particle will actually sort of smash through and kill the cell in a neoantigenic storm and present a lot of debris to the immune system. So it's a different mechanism of action, and where we have to really think about it is the biodistribution radiopharmaceuticals is unforgiving. Meaning that if you actually get drug lingering in a certain off-target organ, such as in the kidneys, or lingering in the liver, or lingering in the blood pool, to that extent, you're gonna get off-target effects, 'cause wherever that drug exists, it's going to actually give off a lot of sort of burning energy.
One way I think about it is if I'm sort of, you know, baking on the weekend and someone hands me a tray out of the oven that's sort of 400 degrees, if I grab it really quickly and drop it, okay, I can survive that. But if I grip it tightly and hold on to it, I'm gonna get really, really damaging sort of, you know, burning in the skin. With the radiopharmaceuticals, you wanna design the drug to then go only to the tumor, or if it's gonna exist in any other organ in the body for such a short period of time that it doesn't cause long-term damage.
Great. So you had some interesting data from an investigator-led study that was presented at SNMMI back in June. Can you talk about those data and what they mean for your programs that you have here in the United States?
Sure. So we had a really interesting, you know, issue presented to us, where in India, they had a lot of difficulty accessing some Western medications, but also kind of more Western-dominant isotopes, such as lutetium or actinium. And there's been a global shortage. It's not a mystery, certainly to investors in the space. There's a shortage of actinium. There's short supply of lutetium, and so India had a lot of trouble accessing either of those isotopes at all. And so we were approached with a true compassionate use case. We're told there's patients here who have no access to any kind of radiopharmaceuticals in patients that are SSTR2 positive, so these are neuroendocrine tumors. And we actually did some initial assessments, imaging driven, to see could we actually then have the drug kind of produced locally and imaged locally, and it could.
That led to a first patient being dosed, and that patient had a very, very strong outcome, where after a single dose of our drug, we actually saw an impact in some of the biochemical markers, and after three, four doses, a really meaningful change on their CT scan as well. We had a combined biochemical response and a RECIST or anatomical response. That led the investigator to then reach out to our IRB and ask for clearance to do more patients. What she ended up doing is effectively an all-comers environment in compassionate use. It's not our study. It wasn't our site.
We facilitated them having access to the drug, but they ended up doing a whole range of patients, and the data came out of SNMMI, covered the range from, sort of, we'll call it first line or second line, meaning prior radiopharmaceutical dosing or without any prior radiopharmaceutical dosing, and in a range of tumor types: medullary thyroid cancer, gastrointestinal, pancreatic NETs, and one breast NET patient. So you really had this true all-comers environment, a mixture of pre- and post-radiopharm exposure, a whole range of tumor types, all of them done in compassionate use, and all of them done within the construct of really trying to follow this: there was a patient that's really sick. Can we help them? Those patients on their own are much sicker than we probably would have enrolled in a U.S. phase I/II trial, as we're doing right now.
And our current U.S. phase I/II program we're doing in patients who are naive to radiopharmaceutical therapy. So these are neuroendocrine tumor patients that are on their normal journey, and instead of going into a Lutathera pathway, they're evaluating what they look like using our drug instead. But the results of that data was really encouraging. Dr. Sen had done a cutoff in May of her patient experience to date. The trial, her study is still ongoing. There's still patients that are being dosed. There's still data that's accruing and maturing, but she felt really compelled to show exactly what that data would look like and then what her patient journey was to date.
Right. There are also several other companies involved in NETs that have shown some data, some have been approved. I'm just curious, with your upcoming data readout, what do you think would be an outcome that would be competitive?
So that's a great question, 'cause there's really what do we need, we think, for the FDA? What do we need internally? What's needed to be competitive? And as we look at, I'll call it the first line and second line space, really what I mean there is radiopharmaceutical therapy, naive or radiopharmaceutical therapy experienced. We initially asked to go into the radiopharmaceutical experience population, call it, quote, "second line," and with discussions, the FDA has agreed we actually go into the first line setting instead. So in that space, we need to look like for like. So what's approved right now is the package insert for Lutathera, and that shows a 13% overall response rate, as evidenced in the NETTER-1 study, and that's the FDA-approved indication.
We have seen that, there's another lead construct that's done a similar patient population, and they're getting a higher ORR, which we think is very, very supportive. That shows that lead can be done safely, distributed, and used with actually pretty decent ORR, north of 50%, which we think is quite encouraging. We have seen some actinium data, but really only in the post-lutetium space, and that post-lutetium space, you don't get up to that 50% threshold, you get a lower number, but you actually do get some results there, and then what we've seen so far with the IIT is a study that you referenced. In a mixture of pre- and post-lutetium environments, we actually got very, very strong overall response rates as identified by the investigator.
So we think there would be some people looking competitively to see, right, how can a response rate look like in this lutetium-naive patient population group? If we do show a response rate, can we show what will the safety profile look like? It feels like some of these other agents are hitting their boundaries from a therapeutic window because those molecules are designed with a narrower therapeutic window. They're not trying for narrow therapeutic windows, the inverse. We've designed ours with a really broad therapeutic window, and so we're gonna really want to explore what's the highest dose we can safely give a patient, and how does the data in aggregate look for either safety or efficacy or both?
Great! And then also at the SNMMI conference, there were some data presented by the University of Iowa, and I'm curious how that data looked and what does that say about your product opportunity?
So the company's origin story really we came as a spin out from the University of Iowa, and the University of Iowa is a really interesting neuroendocrine center of excellence and a strong pediatric program. And so when we first came out with designing a what we were hoping would be a better molecule, was how do we make a safer product for kids? If you do a safer product for kids, you should have it for adults, too. Each of the products in the radiopharm space and any of our competitors, we all have different biodistributions. And the biodistribution really counts 'cause that's gonna determine that safety efficacy trade-off and where you're gonna go, how you actually get things normalized. There's a really common question that we get about dose, and dose can mean one of four things.
It's the amount of material you're injecting into a patient, it's the amount that hits the tumor, it's the amount that hits the kidney, or it's the amount given on a kind of body weight basis. So you really have to think about disaggregate all these things, sort of separately. What was interesting with the University of Iowa is they said, rather than a fixed dose, based on the patient's body weight or just a fixed dose based on every other human that's seen the drug, they said, "Let's normalize to the radiation absorbed dose to the kidneys." And as a reminder to this audience, what the FDA is really focusing on is lifetime kidney dose as being an important metric of overall safety. They don't really want cumulative exposure being north of a certain threshold that they've set as determined by external beam.
The IO researchers said they got three patients, each of them with different tumor volumes, tumor descriptions, all of them post-lutetium. They said, "Well, let's solve for keeping that dose at a really hard 3.5 grays." They ended up with quite variable level of injected patient amount to solve for that human's biodistribution. What's really elegant about lead as an isotope is you can do a Lead-203 imaging-only study a day before a therapeutic study, get a perfect dose map, and perfectly correlate then what that patient should experience the next day when they're treated. The first few patients that they dosed had a very strong safety profile in this post-lutetium setting, and actually, one of the patients received two doses of 6.75 millicuries each.
That's higher than what we've seen with either the Orano Med study. That's higher than we've seen in our early investigator approaches or our U.S. program, but those two doses in this patient actually gave a drastic response on the scan, so only two doses, quite high, gave a pretty sharp reduction in that in the lesions that you saw and a pretty good response there, and so there are a lot of ways to solve for this. We're trying to solve for what's an approvable drug path, and so there's many, many different permutations, combinations that the academic community will start to explore. We're trying to find what's a reasonable way to get a safe product into the clinic.
So what that data showed us from Iowa, you can do higher doses, appears to be done in a safe fashion if you tailor it for that patient, and you can get a pretty good response in the post-lutetium environment. And so again, this is sort of, you know, our first read-through from U.S. generated data according to the drugs that we try and develop.
Great! Can we switch gears and talk about your VMT-01 opportunity in melanoma? What's the opportunity for you, and what kind of patients, the population you're going after? Also curious if you're gonna do monotherapy or combination therapy, and why?
Sure. So, I mean, melanoma is an interesting target. All these... you know, there's so many different kinds of cancer out there that you're trying to figure, and each tumor biology is different. You're trying to identify not just where the tumor is. If you know where the tumor is, you can do an external beam. If you know what the tumor looks like from its biochemical expression, then you should do a radiopharmaceutical therapy because you can actually target it all separately. What we found and what the literature supports is that 50% of melanoma patients express something called MC1R, which is a marker that you find only in some cases. But because melanoma is such a heterogeneous tumor type, you don't get it on every tumor, nor within the patient do you get on every tumor, nor where does every patient have it.
So you really need to be very, very careful to pre-screen and identify patients. We saw some interesting data coming out with the radiopharm in our space last week that didn't pre-select patients. We have the extraordinary ability to pre-select patients and actually get a scan to see, will they actually, will this drug localize in that patient? We're looking at it first in the post second line setting. So these are patients where it's very unfortunate, they have metastatic disease. They've experienced everything in their clinical journey that's standard of care, that's reasonably appropriate, and at that point then we've done the initial assessments in our phase I dose escalation study.
We do want to try and identify monotherapy activity, but we also want to identify the monotherapy safety and efficacy profile because really, when it comes down to synergy, everyone knows what that word means. But is one plus one, one point two? Is it two, or is it six? And that's what we need to disaggregate. On the preclinical side, we've seen extraordinary benefits from this neoantigenic storm, and you don't see that kind of synergy really anywhere else in oncology, where this neoantigenic storm in the animal model is showing really amping up the ability to turn a cold tumor hot, and that's a dream come true, I think in IO.
Everyone would argue IO is such a key part of treating cancer patients. You've got tumors throughout the entire body. You need to assault it with something that's gonna circulate through the entire body, and the more you can get that sort of systemic therapy to work, the better off you are.
Okay, great. I think we have a good sense of what the NET data might look like in terms of what the bars are for success, but for melanoma, I think that's less clear. So how should we think about that? What would be a, you know, a successful outcome in your view?
So as we look at it, we wanna make sure the drug is safe to go into combination settings. So that's our lowest bar is: can we have a safe molecule that gets that can be advanced into a combination study? We have said publicly that we are amending the main protocol to allow for a combination cohort, and we've previously disclosed that BMS has agreed with us to supply Opdivo in that study. When we look at these patients coming in their journey, the post-second line patients, they tend to have a probably on average a two- to three-month PFS. So in a patient population group with a two-month PFS, if there's any impact we can have on that, that's positive, we take that as a win.
It will take a while for any kind of effects to kick through as we look at long-term, any kind of metrics we're looking for PFS or OS. But we're not necessarily counting any of those as a win. If they show up, we'll be thrilled, and we really wanna make sure we can give the drug safely, and we'll be very happy with that as well. And then starting these combination patients enrolling this half, we'll then have a pretty data intense next year.
Great. So the other thing is you have two really important data sets coming up before the end of the year, a NET and then one in melanoma. So the audience and people listening can try to figure out when we might see that data. What did the enrollment look like? When did you close things?
Yeah, so both programs are really running neck and neck. So we started both those programs in the fourth quarter last year, starting to dose, and within a 30-day window, we had both programs, the VMT-01 and the VMT-α-NET study, cleared through the Safety Monitoring Committee, who then gave the support to move then into that second dose level cohort. Those patients were then being screened and enrolled during the first half of this year. At our May fifteenth earnings release in that queue, we identified that the last patient had been enrolled into the NET study. And as we track things through, the melanoma study is three doses, eight weeks apart. The NET program is four doses, eight weeks apart.
And so we trust people to do their own math to figure through when that could kind of roll through and as the data will mature and move forward. What we have seen historically is that you tend to need to wait for all doses in the SSTR2 space, especially to get all possible impacts, and that makes sense logically. We've got this SSTR2 expression. Every time you hit the tumor, you're gonna impact it with these alphas, and so it takes a while to actually get a change on a CT scan to actually manifest.
You'll see all these early markers using something called RECIST, which is really biochemical change to the tumor because of what you're doing impacts what that tumor can do, and then you have to wait for that to roll through before you start to see actual changes on the CT scan. The luxury we have with our study is that we can actually track those biochemical changes real time as well, and that's actually good medicine for the physician. That's the standard of care.
Great. You recently expanded your NET study to include a lot more patients. Are you gonna wait for those patients before you report data, or what was the thought behind doing that?
Yeah, so the Safety Monitoring Committee is pretty active in looking at what we do, and we encourage their feedback quite clearly. We looked at our second cohort, which was the five millicurie dose. So they had previously said very quickly, "Move through from two point five up to five millicuries." That five millicurie dose, those first seven patients, we had previously agreed with the FDA that we would share those results with them, safety and efficacy, to allow us to keep moving forward. Separate from that, the Safety Monitoring Committee has said they're very comfortable and encourage us to do up to an additional forty patients at that five millicurie dose, and they've also said that they encourage us to move up to a higher dose threshold of the seven point five millicurie dose.
So we think both of those are very, very encouraging from the Safety Monitoring Committee. We will be meeting with the FDA, in this half, in order to make sure they understand our results so far and have open discussions with them about what next steps look like for this program.
Thank you. So we do often get a lot of questions on your manufacturing distribution. So curious if you could walk us through what's new there. I know we've talked about it a lot. I saw that there were two additional sites that will probably be built out. You already have two, so the total of four. So what does that mean?
So as we look toward a national footprint, and there was some interesting news that came out with one of our competitors, where a large pharma player sort of came into the space and is making a bet on the ability to distribute lead-212 labeled radiopharmaceuticals across the U.S. That is really hinging off of the single point of manufacturing. We're choosing multiple points of manufacturing distribution. So our management team has a deep, deep experience in radiopharmaceuticals. And so we... You know, 30 years ago, I actually graduated as a nuclear pharmacist before it was cool. And so, but some would argue whether or not it's cool right now, but it's certainly a hot space, and there's a lot of interest in the field.
I've been doing short-lived isotope distribution for my whole career, and so the whole expansion from a two-hour half-life product like FDG and PET scans or a six-hour half-life product such as you get with any of the technetium-99m studies, to a ten-hour half-life program with lead-212, you wanna sort of think about it one step further than there, which is not just the half-life, what's the shelf life of the product? And the shelf life of these agents we're doing is about 24 hours. You basically have a day to get that product from when you finish your synthesis to that patient ready for injection. And so with that 24-hour shelf life, there's an awful lot you can do using a mixture of planes, trains, and automobiles, right? I don't know of anyone who's doing it by trains yet.
But you have a lot of leeway that way, and we're building out our sites. You can probably guess where we're gonna put our next sites. We draw it on our map pretty clearly, where, you know, the big circles are for distribution. We can cover clinical trial work with more sites, we think very, very cleanly, and depending on how the product programs get adopted, with other sites as well. There's also a completely parallel CDMO network that's being built out, and there are four major commercial players in that CDMO space, that are building their own networks to supply national nodal distribution of products. We have... We've previously announced an agreement with one of those players, and there are many other people that are trying to build their own infrastructure as well.
We need to kinda get product out there, not to every Walgreens or CVS or retail pharmacy. We're trying to get drug out to every cancer center. It's a much easier distribution problem to solve for, and you can identify where the sites are based on who's doing PET scans, who's doing Lutathera injections. Solving for those sites is actually a much easier logistical opportunity for us.
Right. And then in terms of your NET, moving forward and towards commercialization, just curious if you think that once you see this data, you can move straight into pivotal studies, or will you have to do some additional studies before you get there?
There's a lot of scenarios that we regularly kind of game play, and we regularly get these questions from investors. We'll have to see what the FDA agrees with us, and so there's a lot of things that we'd like to see. We'll see where the data takes us. Obviously, we'd like to get this in front of patients as early as we can, if it ends up being a safe and effective therapy, and so we'll wait to see what the FDA tells us.
Do you have enough clinical product supply to get you through phase III studies or pivotal studies?
Yep.
Okay.
Clinical product supply, I think, was a great hidden question that usually isn't asked explicitly. In this case, we have batch-based production, and so far, we tend to produce our product, tends to be one patient per batch, because each batch's shelf life is that day. We can increase the number of batches we make per day, we can very soon increase the number of sites that can make batches, and we can also change the activity out of each batch. We do have quite a bit of capacity that's available to us. The amount of actual peptide precursor that's required is in the sort of total all-in milligram level. There's not a lot of physical precursor that's needed.
The isotope precursor on the Thorium-228, we have a very good relationship with the Department of Energy to supply us with that. We draw down as needed what we need. It's one of the few isotopes you can truly stockpile, and so we draw that down about once a quarter and, and sort of have that on hand to then have "daily production," in quotes, of our lead chloride isotope that we then combine through. So we can adjust our capacity up and down, depending on the demand, and it really comes down to how many doses per batch, how many batches per day, and how many batches per site, and how many sites we have.
Okay, great. Are there any strategic partnerships or collaborations that could help you advance your products? Have you thought about that at all?
We think about it quite actively on both the distribution side, on the isotope side, on the clinical development side. I think I'm not speaking out of school here when I say that we probably will not be equipped on our own to commercialize four different products. We have products that, because we invest so much time upfront in the biodistribution and the pharmacokinetics, we're only gonna bring them out into clinical programs once we can de-risk it enough to show very good biodistribution. If you look at that cadence of programs we have coming through, we're gonna have multiple, multiple programs, you know, moving towards hopefully registrational status, and we're not equipped to commercialize this on our own.
We're gonna want a partner to commercialize, and we're multiple partners on a per-program basis at the commercialization side. It's really easy to throw a bullet point on a slide that says: Add in phase III capabilities and launch commercial team. It's a lot more to do it. If we were only a single product company, it'd be a lot more straightforward for how we do that on our own. With multiple products, we're gonna want a really solid partner.
Great. In the next, you know, few minutes that we have left here, I wanted to move towards your earlier stage pipeline assets. I'm curious if you could tell us about your FAP alpha platform and what you plan to do with that.
Thank you. So we love FAP alpha as a target. So FAP on its own shows up in so many different tumors, as we know, and there's multiple imaging studies over the past fifteen years that have shown really clear FAP expression. At a high enough expression level, you can actually get a patient image with tumors. Any one of those we think are wide open for the ability to target with an alpha, and it's the mantra: If you see it, treat it. And so if we can actually see it on a scan, we know we'll get a lot of activity there from the alphas, and we got a lot of damage to those tumors.
A lot of tumor types, a lot of unmet medical needs, breast, sarcoma, prostate, lung, neuroendocrine. It's a wide-open field for us. We're learning as we go, but we're being taught by the imaging studies so far that show an awful lot of tumor types, if the disease gets late enough, will then start to express FAP as a target.
Great. Another technology that I think that you have, which is really impressive, is your pre-targeting platform. And I'm curious, maybe if you could explain to the audience briefly what it is and what you plan to do with it.
Great, so with the pre-targeting, what we're doing is saying, we can always make a choice in any radiopharm. Do you actually hit it with a target with a peptide, which is really fast uptake, or an antibody, which is incredibly high sensitivity, but takes longer to accumulate? If you're doing a longer-to-accumulate targeting vector and you have a really hot payload on board, you're probably gonna get off-target effects, side effects, which we don't like. So by using a non-radioactive antibody, modified with lots of kind of chemical hooks on it, and use that and wait a week, 10 days, for that to accumulate the tumor. Then we put in a peptide that just targets those hooks.
By having multiple hooks per antibody, you can make, you can take an antibody that, you know, hits pretty nicely to a cell and amplify the potential binding sites on that tumor by 10X. So you then turn all these open sites on a tumor, able to hit with a single peptide that goes and lights it up, first, as an image to make sure it's there, and then the next day as a therapy to destroy everything with this hook on it. We have ours is not as limited as other platforms, we think. It's the same radiopharmaceutical every single time. It's an adamantane conjugate, and we then have, on the modified antibody, we have a lot more flexibility for how we modify that, which antibodies or bispecifics that we choose.
Okay, great. So I have a few more questions for you, but I did want to break here and see if there are any questions from the audience before I ask you those. Okay, I'll keep going. So one of the competitive advantages that I think that you have is you have this net-zero charge chelator. So can you tell us about that, how that is a benefit for you, and do your competitors have something like that?
So thank you. With every radioactive metal that you're gonna sort of, you know, bring to a tumor, you have to be careful about how do you bring it there. In the early work in iodine didn't use a chelator because that could be covalently bonded as a halogen. There are other isotopes, like astatine-211, that are also halogens, but halogens can't be chelated, so you always run a risk of either deiodination or deastatination or these other sort of metrics that show up. If you're gonna take a metal like lutetium or actinium, you can put in a chelator that has a charge on it and use that in a patient. When we looked at lead, we know there's one...
There are several players out there that are using generic chelators, that if you look at the overall net structure on the molecule, put either a plus two or a minus two net charge on the molecule. We've designed a chelator for lead that has a net zero charge, and by doing the net zero charge, we make it much easier for the body to clear it through the kidneys. If you have a charged entity or charged protein in the kidneys, the kidneys will pick it up. We don't want our drugs lingering in the kidneys. We don't want it lingering anywhere. So huge differentiators that we hold the lead there and without a charge and have it move through.
We also have the benefit that its first daughter, the Bismuth-212, which is really where the alpha comes, that's also held tightly, and we have less than 2% leakage of that Bismuth daughter, too. So by focusing on the chelator, we have two reasons why we think we can make the drug biod better: less kidney uptake without that charge and also more daughter captivity.
Great. Anything from ESMO that came out this year that impacts your thinking on the treatment landscape for radioligand therapy?
ESMO was a really interesting meeting this year. It, I mean, it always is, but in terms of radiopharm being front and center, and we had some great KOL talks. We had interesting data coming out showing, for example, that radium, radium chloride or Xofigo should actually be used much earlier in patients. A lot of data coming out on the Novartis drugs like Pluvicto, showing you should be using it earlier. And so I think it's great for the medical oncologist to now ask the question: How do we access radiopharmaceuticals earlier? Because it's clinically indicated, and you're thinking about your, what your radiopharmaceuticals can do. You can hit every metastatic site in the body that's surface expressing these receptors, can use it earlier.
So in prostate, there's gonna be a lot of energy on both, PSMA, lutetium, and Radium-223 being used much earlier in patients with really clear benefits. We have the extra bonus where every actually radium batch that's produced, produces more Thorium-228 as a waste product. And so across the board, more activity in the radiopharm space we think is really exciting.
And then last question I have for you here is: looking ahead, what is your vision for the company over the next several years?
The future is wide open for us. We're so excited. We're getting all this external validation from partners, collaborators, patients, physicians, the industry overall. We think there's validating moments for big pharma to really realize that the whole field is. It's not a matter of ADCs or radiopharmaceuticals. At the end of the day, we're going for targeted therapies. If there's a target, let's attack that target as best as we can. There's a lot of money going into on the research space, there's a lot of money going into infrastructure in both isotope production, isotope supply, CDMO production, manufacturing sites, and also there's broader reimbursement pathways that are being identified, too. The future is really wide open for us in the field.
The more data comes out, the earlier it's realized you can actually address these patients, so you can address unmet medical needs with these programs. They are very safe if you target them effectively. People are getting a lot smarter about designing better molecules with composition of matter IP, with better pharmacokinetic properties in new targets outside of just the neuroendocrine space and the prostate space. I was really encouraged by actually one of the major pharma players said they felt that only 7% of all possible tumors have been addressed by the currently approved medical products. There's still an enormous potential that they see in the tumor space with radiopharmaceuticals. We agree with that vision. We think it's a matter of just finding the best possible drug.
Okay. Unfortunately, we're out of time here. So, Thijs, thank you so much for all your insights and hosting this fireside chat with us here today. Thank you.
Thank you.