@johndprent are you able to provide any insight on if or how the...

@johndprent are you able to provide any insight on if or how the fact that (as I understand it) IV decitabine is off-patent may play into potential collaborations with Astex? Unless I am mistaken, the primary benefit of Inqovi seems to be that it can be taken orally rather than via IV, however bisantrene in any combo would (for the foreseeable future at least) need to be given via IV anyway in which case wouldn't IV bisantrene plus IV decitabine offer a similar level of convenience at a reduced cost and reduced exclusivity to Astex?

I do say primary benefit above as I did note that in one of @Mason14's posts this morning that Inqovi may have some bioavailability advantages that make it more suitable for solid tumours, but I'm not sure if that is enough to mean that IV decitabine would not be effective at all.

I understand that Astex are supplying Inqovi for the upcoming bisantrene and Inqovi combo trial, but if Astex were to take it to the next level and fully fund a solid tumour bisantrene/decitabine trial, would there be anything to stop someone capitalising on a favourable outcome using IV bisantrene and IV decitabine, and if so may that reduce the incentive for Astex to do so.

Obviously there's only one supply of bisantrene and potentially multiple sources of decitabine, so Race are in the driver's seat here whatever happens, but I'm interested in how that may play into funding and involvement in any such trials.

@Davisite are you able to comment?