... for being here today at the 2025 Citi Biopharma Conference in Boston. Happy to have with us this afternoon our good friends from Exelixis. Michael, I guess you could just introduce yourself and the company.
Sure, sure.
I'm sure anyone listening to this already knows who you are and knows about the company, but if you want.
I'll say a few words, but it's great to be here on just a beautiful day in Boston. Really appreciate the opportunity to come chat with you and your colleagues here today. So I'm Mike Morrissey, I'm Chief Executive at Exelixis. We're a cancer-focused commercial company that really is dedicated in our mission to improving the standard of care in the treatment of cancer for patients with cancer. And we're excited about having leading molecule in kidney cancer called CABOMETYX, cabozantinib by its generic name, and have a lot of great data there, and certainly strong commercial platform to be able to get that to patients.
The newest news this year is around the NET indication that came online at the end of Q1, and we launched in Q2. And obviously, you know, our story, you know, certainly aspirationally, is to go beyond Cabo and to build a pipeline of franchise molecules, essentially. You know, the learnings from Cabo and building that franchise over the last decade, I think has really set us up well to be able to build a multi-compound, multi-franchise business in the future with zanzalintinib. That's the next molecule up in a variety of pivotal trials, as well as in a deep pipeline of both small molecules and biologics.
We have big goals, big dreams for the company and being able to take standard of care to the next level for patients, and thrilled to be able to talk about that today.
So in a lot of ways, for years, Exelixis, the constant has been cabo, and it's been growing and growing and kind of growing incrementally, adding new indications over time, and it's shown a lot of endurance, so to speak. Could you tell us about how it started from COMETRIQ, cabozantinib, and ultimately how you incrementally grew the franchise, and where things stand today?
Mm-hmm.
You're still growing the franchise, but also there's the intellectual property kind of exploration.
Yeah, for sure. Yeah, you know, it's in some ways a classic story in the biotech business. The journey to discover, you know, novel innovative matter in a way that again moves the needle for patients. You know, the cabo story goes back to, you know, the mid 2000 s, when we asked, I think, a number of very simple questions around what drives tumor resistance to anti-angiogenic therapy, namely, you know, VEGF modulation. You know, what are the key drivers for resistance in tumors?
And if you look at the, you know, at the data at the time with bevacizumab, with some of the small molecule, VEGF-R targeting TKI, sunitinib, pazopanib, axitinib, there was, some really, I think, interesting emerging themes around the idea that tumors will, drive, redundant pathways to VEGF to get around, VEGF inhibition. And those revolve primarily around, the RTK, the receptor tyrosine kinase, MET and AXL.
And the relatively simple, but I think very elegant approach that we had at the time, the hypothesis was that if we could inhibit VEGF and MET and AXL as the primary growth drivers for not just the tumor, but also the tumor vasculature, the growth and the you know resistance mechanisms, then we would be able to you know basically build a better molecule that could both be anti-tumoral as well as anti-angiogenic. Along the way, we've learned more about cabo and that class of molecules in terms of its impact on a variety of other signaling pathways that are involved in you know tumor immunomodulation, as well as other types of tumor growth signals. That has really packed a lot of punch into that molecule and that scaffold.
That was the original impetus for actually designing the molecule that we made. You know, we started out looking at the lowest of low-hanging fruit. That was medullary thyroid cancer with COMETRIQ at the time. We had a capsule formulation, and that was based upon some very interesting signals we saw even in the first handful of patients in phase I. It's a very rare tumor type. We ran a pivotal trial in that. That was clear big win from a PFS point of view, and that was after a couple of big failures in prostate cancer.
You'll recall back in the early twenty-ten, eleven timeframe, we saw some pretty compelling activity in prostate cancer, both in terms of directly inhibiting tumor growth with, you know, prostate, either primary tumor or metastases, but also very interesting activity in the, you know, bone scans, in the bone mets that, you know, those prostate cancer normally targets. So the interesting point is, you know, that didn't actually work, that we ran two pivotal trials in prostate cancer. Both of those failed. On top of that, you know, we had discovered Cabo as part of a collaboration with GSK. They gave it back to us. They didn't want it.
Then we partnered with BMS based upon some additional data we had in GBM and other tumor types. They did a little bit of work and gave it back to us. So it was, you know, a twice rejected, you know, failed pivotal trial in prostate cancer molecule that, you know, didn't look always the best. They had somewhat of a tarnished profile. And you'll recall, this goes back in ancient history, in the 2014, 2015 timeframe, we shrunk the company down. We focused on, you know, on one last shot in renal cancer. We were down to less than 100 people.
I think we had 80 people in the company that covered basically the RCC trial and then the minimal G&A that we needed to be able to run the business. But, that worked, right? The METEOR trial was not only a success in RCC, but, you know, the trifecta of winning in overall survival and progression-free survival and response rate was the first time a molecule actually did that in RCC. So it set in some ways a whole new standard for not only small molecules, but at the time other modalities, even like checkpoint inhibitors, which obviously improved survival didn't hit PFS right away.
So we were off and running in the, you know, in the 2015 timeframe, when that in July of 2015 , when that METEOR trial read out. And had that momentum then to move forward and then added indications beyond that in terms of second-line liver cancer, differentiated thyroid cancer. And then really, most importantly, we collaborated with BMS, with nivolumab in a study that was called CheckMate 9ER, that was looking at Cabo plus Nivo versus sunitinib head-to-head. And again, won across the board in terms of response rate of PFS and overall survival. I think the key there is that we used a little bit lower dose.
Instead of starting at 60 milligrams, started at 40 milligrams in that combination, and the impact on quality of life was significant. We actually had quality-of-life benefit as well compared to sunitinib. So that profile was very compelling. You know, we had a leading second-line share up until then. I think our revenues in 2019 were in the $700 to 750 million range. And we thought that was a great way to then really, you know, double down and build the business. Over the last, you know, 4 or 5 years, revenues have tripled based upon the strength of that data and based upon our ability to, I think, really educate docs on the opportunity in the first line and second line level. So great story.
You know, the company and the employees showed tremendous resilience and, you know, this is a game that we play that kind of borders on, gotta have the right data, but you never have enough data. You also have to believe in what you're doing and believe in the possibilities of what you know, small, you know, small data sets can offer in terms of aspirationally trying to, you know, improve the outcome for patients. So, so great team efforts. Certainly, you know, navigating COVID and all those challenges were a big part of the early twenties, and here we are today in the, you know, middle of 2025 , with Cabo. You know, the net indication, as I mentioned, is certainly a very important part of the story.
I'm sure we'll talk about that more, and then we have this pipeline with Zanza and other small molecules, other biologics that we're super excited about. So, but Cabo, Cabo is the driver. You know, we have the lens by which, you know, Cabo provides insight into us more broadly that we use every day, and certainly frames our idea of what success could look like.
So at this point, you know, clearly, you issued guidance this year, $2.25 billion to 2.35 billion. Obviously, the driver of that is RCC. How much room is there left in RCC first, in the renal cell carcinoma? And then towards that end, one of the things I think investors have kind of been trying to get their hands around is what, you know, what is the net opportunity?
Yeah.
How significant is it?
Yeah, so let's talk about the base business first, right? 'Cause RCC is a big part of it, but it's not all of it. You know, certainly the... You know, we started the year with a midpoint of guidance for net product revenue, not total revenue, which you mentioned, but net product revenue of $2 billion. Plus or minus 50 was the range. We had a super strong Q1, and we raised that midpoint from $2 billion to 2.1 billion, and that's majority of the base business. A little bit of net built in there, but it's the majority of the base business. You know, question is, how much more can we grow, right?
As you would imagine, we've been getting that question every year, every quarter, since, you know, I would say the middle of, you know, 2022, right? Because if you look at the longitudinal data across most oncology molecules, small molecules, biologics, whatever, in the commercial setting, you normally hit that kind of peak share, peak plateau revenue within four, five, six quarters. That's what you normally see. And, you know, with Cabo in the first line setting, that's been very different, right? We have been growing quarter after quarter after quarter. In fact, if you look at Q2 2025 versus Q2 2024, we grew four points in market share, which is pretty incredible and really just speaks to, I think, the quality of the data, the quality of the team-...
the energy and the urgency and the intensity by which we educate physicians. We understand the market dynamics really well. We have just phenomenal analytics in terms of understanding prescribing trends for cabo, for other molecules, where we're strong, where we're weak. You know, we're a big, small company, so we have this nimble approach to being able to shift priorities and resources really, really quickly. It's just it's a conversation between whatever the topic, whatever the part of the organization, me and the, you know, the department head, and then maybe a small cadre of people, and, you know, off we go. So it's a phenomenal way to maneuver in a very dynamic environment, where, you know, in the RCC space, we're competing with the big guys, right?
With, you know, with the BMS, and with Merck, and with Pfizer, and with Eisai. The list just goes on and on, so we need to be at the top of our game every single day, and we have been, and that needs to continue, and that will continue, so how do we grow in the future? We keep doing what we've been doing, and we keep asking the hard questions, and then we maneuver effectively. What's the limit? I don't know. I wouldn't feel comfortable giving you a number because I don't think there is a limit, so in the first-line setting, we probably have a 25% market share, so there's room to grow there.
You know, in the second and second-plus line setting, we're probably in the 45% plus market share, so there's room to grow there. The question is just how do we, you know, how do we maneuver in those two different opportunities? How do we move more upfront? Because obviously, we have a much longer duration of therapy, and the stacking potential is a real phenomenon here. Compounding works, right? When you talk about, you know, patients being on drug for 13, 14, 15, whatever months. So that really drives important benefit for them and for us, too. So that's the focus, and we have a sales team that's committed, and I would argue, best in class, to making sure that we maximize the value of that opportunity every single day.
On the NET side, you know, NET is, it's super interesting, for us. You know, we've been in that space with collaborators. In fact, Jennifer Chan is here at Dana-Farber. You know, she ran a phase II study in NET with, you know, a handful of 35 or so patients, years ago, generated some really interesting phase II data. We saw PFS in the 15 to 20 month range. That was really compelling and really out of the box from what you would normally see with, you know, with a small molecule, everolimus, sunitinib, whatever. So that prompted her to work with the Alliance Cooperative Group to run a pivotal trial called CABINET.
Actually, two different trials in one: one in pancreatic NETs, one in EP or extra-pancreatic NETs, kind of bundled into the same overall trial. That read out positive for a PFS in both of those, quote, unquote, "cohorts." You know, all the filing data's been released, public papers have been published, filings have been done, and we got approved in that here in the U.S. at the end of Q1, and I think in the E.U. right around ASCO, maybe a little bit after ASCO.
So that was actually a really, really good approach, where, you know, through a very strong collaboration with our academic colleagues, we're able to bring, you know, the first new molecule to the NET space in ten years. There hasn't been an approval in NET since 2015, 2016. So that's pretty exciting, too. The opportunity there, we think, is significant. By our math, if you look at the oral therapy basket, which is basically comprises everolimus, sunitinib, and CAPTEM, and those are all generic now. So you use contemporaneous pricing, you use CABINET-type duration. That basket is about $1 billion in value.
So you know, we would like to be able to capture as much of that as we can, and we have, you know, the mindset and the mandate to go out and do that. So we launched at the very end of Q1, had a real strong start to Q2. Again, Q1's mostly new patient starts, not a lot of refills in a couple of months, but that's gotten off to a great start. We're seeing things grow, I think, at a pretty good pace in Q3. So, you know, we're off to the races.
But again, using 9ER as an example, to go from, you know, launching in basically January of 2021 to what we saw in Q2 of 2025, you know, that kind of a ramp, it's been dramatic in some ways, but it's also been a steady grind to get market share built up and to get patient stacking and those kinds of things. It just really reinforces the kind of value you can bring if you just, you know, stay in there, execute perfectly, have the right team that can engage, and just get the job done.
When you talk about the basket of these different oral therapies-
Mm-hmm
... out there, are there pockets of preference where each one gets used? And towards that end, which do you see one as being a kind of a lower-hanging fruit to go after those particular populations versus the other, or is it, is it much more complicated?
Yeah, well, I'm not sure it's more complicated. I think everybody look, every physician, every treater has their own preference based upon personal experience. The feedback that we're getting, and this is from, again, formal market research from talking to docs, from, you know, kind of anecdotal feedback, is that, you know, people are really excited about Cabo, and why is that? Number one, the, you know, the CABINET data, you know, with all the caveats across product comparisons, and we should never do that. Everybody does it. And the data looks certainly very compelling, based upon people's experiences with, you know, kind of real-world data with other compounds. So there's a high level of enthusiasm based upon the CABINET data. It's been presented a couple of times.
We had a New England Journal of Medicine paper. So it's certainly very been very well documented publicly and very well received. Secondly, you know, Cabo's been around long enough where a lot of people have used it in their practice already. So, by our analysis, about 80% of the current NET prescribers have actually written a Cabo script, you know, in the past, you know, six to nine months, right? So there's a high level of experience with Cabo and a real comfort with how to use it, what dose to use, how to watch for adverse events, how to manage through that. You know, 'cause it's been so well utilized and so successful in other indications: renal cancer, liver cancer, thyroid cancer, and so on.
So it's not, it's not a brand-new drug, it's just a new indication, right? And then finally, and I think really importantly, is there's just a level of interest in you know the opportunity for patients. Every patient who has advanced metastatic NETs, right? It's an indolent disease, but they all need therapy, right? And they're all on an active therapy. So the rate-limiting step is basically patients progressing on their current therapy. And we've been told by again market research, talking to docs, you know kind of anecdotal feedback that you know Cabo is number one on their list. All you know all things being equal, to try when their patients progress on their current therapy. So in some ways, rate-limiting step is just available patients coming up for the next drug, right?
And the way CABINET was run, and partly I think it was just because it took a while to enroll, it was a U.S.-only study run by the, you know, by U.S. cooperative group. It enrolled over, I think, about a six, seven-year period. So every possible framework of patient experience in terms of prior therapies, tissue of origin, age, you know, the demographics were probably as wide as it could have been. So the physicians really have a very good, a basket of information to choose from based upon how their individual patients progress, and we probably have data there in some shape, manner, or form from CABINET. So all in all, we're getting off to a great start. We're super excited.
You know, we have a, you know, we have a strong GI team that's in place that covers thyroid, covers liver, and now covers NET with support from the GU team. And certainly, you know, as Zanza comes online, again, the first opportunity there is gonna be in GI and CRC. So if we can double down and build another either part of that GI team or augmented to that to be able to help us get the word out around NETs, so much the better.
Got it. With that, we'll jump over to Zanza. I have to tell you, I always call it Zanza, and I'm thinking Sansa Stark. GOT friends out there. Terrible joke, I apologize, but I had to say it.
It's late in the day, just-
But I'm-
Go for it, man.
You're gonna hear me refer to it as Zanza, and-
Okay.
It sounds-
It sounds very elegant, so just have at it.
So, when we talk Zanza, we've had some data recently. Could you update us as to... You know, this is clearly a major product. It's kind of the next generation-
Yep
... of Cabo. There’s differences. Actually, before we even get to the data, how is it different than-
Yep
... than Cabo?
Yeah. So Zanza was designed to phenocopy Cabo's intrinsic inhibitory activity. You know, any multi-targeted molecule, it's actually really hard to tease out what's driving the anti-tumor, anti-vascular, kind of pro-inflammatory activities when you're hitting a number of RTK's at the same time, right? So we didn't wanna mess with that because, you know, while we have, I would say, pretty strong hypotheses and pretty strong beliefs about why things are happening, you know, we don't actually exactly know because it's a pleiotropic agent across, you know, really every relevant pathway and cell type and, you know, kind of covers the entire tumor microenvironment in a way that is potentially good. So we wanted to keep the inhibitory activities similar between Cabo and Zanza.
We did that through in vitro assays, through pharmacodynamic assays, approved that early in the clinical setting as well. So we have a good sense of, you know, being able to, you know, kind of, again, reinforce the attributes of Cabo that we think are important. The one downside from Cabo that we've heard over the years is that its long half-life, four- to five-day half-life in man, complicates dose reductions, which are, you know, invariably gonna happen with a VEGF-R targeting molecule. That's true for biologics, that's true for small molecules.
You know, you have to find the right dose, and you actually have to individually titrate every patient for their best dose, based upon, you know, physical characteristics, you know, metabolizing enzymes, you know, any other kind of predisposition that they might have. So doing that might involve with Cabo, you know, seven to 10-plus-day hold while the molecule kind of washes out, and then do you restart? Do you move to another molecule, et cetera? So very early on, very simple, but again, very elegant approach here was to simply introduce a metabolic liability into the Cabo scaffold that would basically, we could fine-tune the half-life.
We made a variety of different molecules, and we had a very, I think, clever and, you know, kind of very exhaustive design and SAR analysis to be able to pick the Zanza modification out. That gave us about, you know, one day plus or minus half-life.
Mm-hmm.
So that potentially makes all those kinds of things much easier to then operate in terms of dose reductions and, you know, adverse event management. So that was the whole plan. So, and we, like you said, we've had, I think, some pretty compelling data over the last, like, couple years now in kidney cancer, monotherapy combination with, say, checkpoint inhibitors like nivolumab in RCC, where we see very good activity, very good duration, good response rates, good tolerability, low discontinuation rates, all those kinds of things you want to see.
And then we had some data at ASCO GI earlier this year in third line plus colorectal cancer, which is the population that we're studying in STELLAR-303, that allows us to feel good about, you know, kind of the overall activity profile and adverse event profile in that tumor type. While we were doing the STELLAR-303 study, that first pivotal trial to enroll and to read out in late June, where we had positive top line results in the ITT population against regorafenib, and that was in combination, zanzalintinib in combination with atezolizumab versus Rego head-to-head, so notable in that it's the first successful trial against an active control head-to-head that's been done in this space, to my knowledge, forever, right?
There have been four other pivotal trials that have failed over the last block of time. Two checkpoint WAG one combinations that failed. There was a Atezo, cobimetinib, so a MEK inhibitor, trial that failed, and then LenPem versus standard of care failed as well. So, so notable that, you know, you'd think late line, something here is gonna work. The reality is the bar has been super, super high, and you've seen the standard of care increase over time, too, which is certainly part of the challenge. As patients get or as physicians and patients, you know, have more experience with any standard of care, that gets better.
So the bar actually doesn't stay static to where the first approval was, but it actually grows over time, and you've seen this in liver cancer and renal cancer and others. So it's a moving target to a certain degree, but we're thrilled with that and, you know, hoping to have data out to share, both in terms of presentation and publication, soon. You know, waiting to see when abstracts get submitted and actually say when they get accepted, they have been submitted and have a sense on kind of what's gonna happen in terms of presentations and stuff. So get a lot of questions about that today, and people wanna know when the data is coming out, and the answer is to stay tuned.
When we have an accepted abstract that we have details to share, we'll be talking about that ASAP.
For those particular conference, what are the deadlines of the abstracts?
It's a good question. I don't actually know. It's a good question.
Yeah.
It's way above my pay grade.
We can back into timing. So there's also the head and neck. Can you tell us about that experience, as well?
Yeah, sure. So we've started three pivotal trials in the last few years, right? STELLAR-303 was in CRC, STELLAR-304 is in non-clear cell RCC and STELLAR-305 was in head and neck. STELLAR-304 finished enrollment in the Q2, and based on event rates, we think that'll read out in the first half of 2026. STELLAR-305 was Zanza plus Pembro versus Pembro in frontline head and neck cancer. That was a phase II, III design. We had a gate between phase II and phase III . We hit that gate, and we looked at the data and just didn't think we were gonna have a competitive profile. It was really as much of a data issue as it was a simple resource allocation issue.
In the ensuing months, over the last, you know, six or so months or so, we have some really, I think, interesting new opportunities in colon cancer, in meningioma, potentially others that we think are higher value in terms of their commercial potential, have little to no competition, whereas head and neck has a lot of emerging competition with other trials and pivotal trials - other compounds and pivotal trials. And the overall, I think, was just a good way to build a franchise in CRC, knowing that we had, you know, the colon first signal in colon that looked so positive. So look, it's a high attrition game. We're not gonna win every time. It's okay. You know, we're still interested in head and neck.
That's a tough tumor type based upon, you know, how those patients present. Normally, we think we have the appropriate insights. If we wanna go back, if we choose to go back based upon how we prioritize indications, we can, if we're interested in that. But, we're really, really focused on building franchise molecules and reinforcing franchises around indications. I think that's been the success story of Exelixis, is doubling down in Cabo, finding the winning indications, finding the winning combinations. So building a franchise within a molecule is, you know, classic way of doing it. The other way is to focus on indications. And when I think about net, I think about colorectal cancer, I think about even something as really unstudied as meningioma.
You know, those are all areas that we think we can really, you know, play in fields, work in fields that are less, less populated with competition. So some of those, there's no existing standard of care. So to be able to understand the biology, understand how Zanza and/or other molecules could work in those spaces, I think is a really, really important way to go, right? So think about colon cancer, you know, move up in line, post-adjuvant in some of these high-risk patients would be a great way to provide real benefit in kind of a maintenance setting, post, post-adjuvant and post-surgery. You know, I think about colon, you know, we have a molecule now in the clinic, XB371, that is a tissue factor targeting ADC with a topotecan payload.
So that's specifically designed for topo-sensitive tumor types, like non-small cell lung cancer, like you know, colon cancer. So to be able to think about doing, you know, Zanza, XB371 combinations could be really, really attractive too, right? So different ways to you know, slice and dice things here, but again, we're always focused on, you know, multiple shots within building a franchise, whether it be within a molecule hierarchy or across any other axis in-
Mm-hmm
... terms of the indication.
Now, of course, renal cell has been such a big part of Cabo. That's been clear cell, and you have non-clear cell going on as well. Can you tell us, you know, more about the differences? I think there's a tendency by investors to kind of confound renal cell, the clear cell and the non-clear cell. How are these similar? How are these different? What's the challenge of-
Yeah
... studying in one population versus the other?
Certainly, clear cell is the major histological type of RCC. You know, 75% to 80% of all kidney cancers are clear cell. There's non-clear cell is a mix of different, either genetically defined tumor types or histologically defined tumor types. There, it's, it's they can be tougher to deal with, tougher to actually impact pharmacologically in terms of actual responses, and long-term impact clinical benefit. What has happened historically is the two travel together from a regulatory point of view. Everybody has a label for advanced RCC, so clear non-clear cell just kinda comes along for the ride. Interestingly, there's never been a randomized pivotal trial in non-clear cell RCC, right? There's been a number of single arm, non-randomized studies.
We've done one with Cabo and atezo, as well as I think Cabo nivo. Other people have done them, but no one's ever really invested in looking in terms of running a pivotal trial. So level one evidence doesn't actually exist. So we're very excited about the opportunity to be able to, you know, generate the appropriate data in a randomized global randomized pivotal trial in what, you know, is 20 plus or minus percent of the population in RCC. And if we're able to generate that level one evidence, we think we'd be in a really strong position to be able to then market that drug post-approval.
To this point, given the way the labels are actually set up, what proportion? All these patients are essentially being treated by drugs that were tested more in clear cell?
In clear cell, right.
So when you look at the non-clear cell opportunity, if 304 ultimately-
Mm
... were successful, is the first thing it would do is basically pluck these patients that are being treated with one set of drugs out from a prior label to this-
Right
... now nonspecific, 'cause they'd have to be treated under something that's more specific.
Yeah, yeah. So I think the way to look at it is we would have the evidence, you know, in terms of global randomized pivotal trial to show clear benefit, if that was the case, in those trials, right? So, so I think it's a pretty compelling way to then get reimbursed, the way to market the drug, having that level one evidence, which no one else really has.
Would that allow for premium pricing over the current?
Yeah, I wouldn't wanna get into that right now, but certainly we're always thinking about pricing in the, you know, IRA, MFN, world that we live in. Sure.
Of course, people always speculate when it comes to Zanza versus Cabo. Let's do it again.
It's Zanza.
They always speculate that one is essentially trying to take over for the other, but of course, initially, you're not really studying overlapping indications. You're studying different indications.
Yeah, exactly. Yeah.
And so where do you see this ultimately going? I mean, obviously, at the beginning, it'll be an incremental growth for the whole franchise, but eventually, you wanna kind of-
I think the way-
... take it so.
the way we look at it, and certainly this has taken a lot of thought going into how we have designed the pivotal trial program for Zanza, right? The three initial second three, and then the next wave with post-adjuvant, meningioma, et cetera, to be able to balance the trade-off between building the Zanza franchise, but not cannibalizing the Cabo franchise at the same time, while we have exclusivity. So I think there's been some very careful analysis. Certainly, I'm not sure even end of the day, we're gonna have overlapping indications, in terms of, say, indication statements for RCC. We'll see how that plays out at the end of the day.
But the way they're kind of juxtaposed and staged, staggered, you know, I would expect if the Zanza RCC trials read out and are successful and are launched, they'll be fundamentally different in the late twenties, more importantly, early thirties, than what Cabo is currently doing today, because standard of care will, of course, have evolved. I mean, if we're doing our jobs as a company and as an industry correctly, I would hope standard of care improves over the next five years, next ten years, right? And then as we hit kind of terminal velocity from the standpoint of marketing and sales, you know, it'll be past the Cabo exclusivity, and we won't have to worry about that. If we cannibalize that, then so be it. It won't be a problem.
Mm-hmm.
So we're trying to, you know, looking downstream, and again, big error bars, lots of caveats, but we're, we're certainly modeling, you know, how this could work over the next decade. But thinking about that very carefully in terms of, you know, the non-overlapping indications, doing those quickly and doing those soon, and then some of the potential overlapping indications, doing those later when we're past the Cabo LOE in terms of actually commercializing.
Got it. Got it. So we got a couple minutes here left. Freestyle, and you're good, you're good at freestyle. So what do you want to talk about that the street's missing?
You know, I think it's the, again, it's the franchise potential of the company. I think that's the goal. Look, the street is always focused on the minutiae, and I appreciate that. You know, we spent 2019, we probably had 1,000 buy-side meetings, hedge fund meetings, talking about how, you know, asking the question about how we're going to compete in frontline RCC with Cabo and nivo. Are we going to get survival? If you get survival, are you going to compete with, you know, LenPem and AxiPem and Nivo and Pembro and Ipi/ Nivo, blah, blah, blah? Impossible to answer that question without data, but we were in this spin cycle around that topic for literally a year, right? Which is just the way it goes, and I appreciate that.
You know, that's just the game that we're in. So, I'm all about, you know, kind of playing that game and be able to navigate those discussions, knowing that there's no answer until you get data and until you see the data, and you're launched, and you see how that goes, and then you build that launch over time. So, but we are absolutely myopically focused about two things. Everything we do at the end of the day is revolves around how we define success, and the only definition of success that matters to us is improving, can we improve the standard of care for patients with cancer? That simple.
Any indication, any trial we do, the output has to actually raise the bar, because if we don't do that, then the chances of us actually moving the needle for patients and for the company in terms of revenues is relatively low. And that's been the Cabo story, juxtaposed to the, you know, fifty or a hundred or so molecules that have been approved over the last decade. If you don't move the needle, you're not going to make a difference, and that's what we're focused on. That, and then doing it in a franchise setting in either dimension. Franchise in a molecule, franchise in a, in that specific indication, and we got to pick those indications very carefully. So that's it.
Excellent.
All right.
Thank you very much for your time.
You bet. Thank you.
Always glad to have you-
Good to see you.
And, you know, chat again soon.
Okay, I hope so. All right. Thank you.