That's not the impression I got from the interview with RA...

That's not the impression I got from the interview with RA yesterday. He talked about being disappointed that Elanco didn't take up the option but it was the high % of dogs with tumor regression that was needed to impress them, and PAA did not provide this- only that it could happen with the right dose- and PAA will need to optimize MPL to prove this. Elanco was not convinced enough to give them the deal they wanted- that's my belief. This is a quote I took from the interview.

Roger- "Most of the dogs showed some stability of disease... we didn't regress the tumors, but they stopped growing. We had one dog where 60% regression of tumors was achieved and one tumor completely disappeared, which is really what we want to show in a number of animals, and if we can show that then I think we're back on the rails and can potentially negotiate a much better deal for the company than we could with just one flagship dog showing regression. So it's all about the data"

There's a lot more work to be done and the plan is to go back to Elanco in future. I'm waiting patiently, but it's a reality check.