Hi @Davisite (before you put your RAC hat back on) and anyone...

Hi @Davisite (before you put your RAC hat back on) and anyone else who may be able to contribute.

One thing that confused me about the strategic update was the two additional phase 2 AML combination trials (RAC-009?) and why they make sense doing in the absence of any confirmed partnership/license agreement with a pharma company with the specific intent of commercialising bisantrene for that indication and combination.

My reasoning is that 12-18 months ago, RAC-006 made sense, as RC-220 was a year or more away, as was any reporting from Nagler/Dominissini/Sheba 2, and RAC-006 if successful in recruiting would have given us some additional early FTO and phase 2 combination data. However, both of those things are no longer true. Sheba 2 should be reporting before the end of the year, and RC-220 availability hopefully some time soon after that.

With the (anecdotally 'compelling') results from Sheba 2, as well as Sheba 1, we have clinical phase 2 data on bisantrene in both a single agent and combination context, in addition to all of the other pre-clinical etc. data. Shouldn't we have enough data at this point to garner (no pun intended) the interest of someone to take AML further into commercialisation and partner with us to fund those further trials? If not, why not? What will these two additional trials tell us that we don't already know? With the exception of course of the performance of the particular combination - but RAC can't afford to test all combinations in advance with the hope of someone licensing one or some of them in the future.

I know partnership(s) discussions around commercialisation were hinted at happening, but announcing the trials as part of the strategy in the absence of such an agreement to me seemed premature. In concert with a partnership/funding arrangement to go to commercialisation it would potentially have been amazing news (and still would be). But if we can't get a partnership happening around AML with the data we have already, is it really worth spending additional RAC funds on more AML trials at this point in time?

This would then allow RAC to dedicate it's remaining funding to proving out cardio-protection (and possibly further proving out FTO data from Dominissini as well at the same time) via the breast cancer trial, and would allow us to take our dollar further than what we could if we are funding the two AML trials as well.

Finally, if we can't get a commercialisation agreement around AML happening at the moment, what is the reason? Is the potential market just not worth it, or is bisantrene not 'compelling' enough compared to SoC treatments, or something else?

Any feedback or comments appreciated, and best of luck (for all of us) in your new role at Race!