Hello, and welcome to this webinar with Chosa Oncology. My name is Thomas Pedersen, and I'm an independent communications consultant helping Chosa setting up this webinar and moderating it. Together with me here today, we have the CEO and Co-Founder of Chosa, Peter Buhl Jensen, and after the presentation we are furthermore joined by Chosa's Chief Commercial Officer, Claus Frisenberg Pedersen, who is also a Co-Founder of Chosa. The reason Chosa has invited for this webinar today is that Chosa has presented some new data at the European Lung Cancer Congress earlier today. Before Peter starts the presentation, I would like to add that we'll hold a Q&A session after the presentation. If you want to submit questions for that Q&A session, you must use the chat box in the lower right corner of the screen. I will also inform you that your name will not appear on the screen if you submit questions. Finally, I should mention that this session will be recorded. With all that being said, please go ahead, Peter, and let us know more about today's interesting news. Thank you, Thomas, and thank you for joining this webinar. As you may know or you all know that CHOSA, our goal is to help cancer patients getting the right treatment, and today we presented the positive data on our Platin-DRP predicting overall survival in advanced non-small cell lung cancer at European Lung Cancer Congress. Advanced is basically metastatic so that those patients cannot be helped by surgery. It is a medical treatment only opportunity. We have a technology that predicts benefit of cisplatin and carboplatin, and it is the first and only platform to predict response to platinum chemotherapy. The problem, basically treatment with platinum is today without guidance. You can say it's blind. Those two products, cisplatin and carboplatin, they are very similar, and they are essential in treating several different cancers. Lung cancer is the largest sort of disease. Liver cancer, breast cancer, head and neck cancer, and other cancers. In lung cancer there are more than 2.4 million people every year that is being diagnosed with lung cancer. It is estimated that more than 1 million of those patients are treated with cisplatin and carboplatin as the first line treatment. However, it's obvious that not all benefit. In fact, it may be less than half of them. Today, it's important to have this separation. Years ago we only had platinum, either cisplatin or carboplatin, but today there are other treatment options, and being able to choose another treatment is important for patients if platinum doesn't work. We've been focusing on this problem for years, and now have proven in a high quality study that we can in fact predict the value of platinum. I will write about it, but this is solving one of the bigger inefficiencies in modern cancer. Precision medicine is now possible at the largest chemotherapy class. We have previously shown both in lung cancer, in you could say the situation where patients have received surgery for lung cancer. There has been a lot of people coming back with a relapse of the tumor, and it was demonstrated that platinum was able to improve survival. We previously in two studies demonstrated that if patients are in fact predicted to be sensitive to platinum, they have a better survival than the ones that don't. We also have data in breast cancer, metastatic breast cancer, demonstrating that we can predict the benefit of platinum. We then got the opportunity to test our system into a large phase III trial that was performed in a large European collaboration, where a pharmaceutical company was evaluating their product, denosumab, together with cisplatin or carboplatin to the lung cancer patients. They all had advanced lung cancer, so this is patients where surgery is not being used. You can see on the number of sites and doctors that were involved in that study, it was a large study. You would also see in the right-hand side bottom that the disease is very serious. The OS, that means the overall survival, the median overall survival, that is when if you have 100 patients, when is patient number five dying and the median overall survival, whether they got this product together with chemotherapy or got chemotherapy alone, the median survival was only sort of approximately 8 months. We got biopsies from this study and could read into the biopsies basically who benefited from carboplatin and who benefited from cisplatin. This is the results are here. This is some of the overall results. We looked at 82 patients with biopsies, and you can see in the left-hand side 82 patients. You can also see when the evaluation was done, sort of 73% of those patients had died. We can see at the right-hand side that this is highly significant, highly statistically significant that we can predict who benefits from platinum. The more useful is the next slide where we look at different thresholds. We have a system of 205 genes, so we are in a way embracing the complexity with this 205 gene profile. We have sort of translated that into a threshold between 0 and 100. If we go above the threshold 50, see with the red circle, the patients that are above 50, that means that they have, you can say, the good genes and not the bad genes in their tumor, not so many. They have an overall survival, median overall survival of 16.9 months, whereas the patients in the bottom, the ones that have a lower score on their biopsy, they only have a survival of 5.5 months. Remember that the patients going into this study, the overall survival was median overall survival of eight months. There are patients here that only had 5.5 months. That's actually not enough to switch to another therapy. You just get this one chance. It takes some months to go through therapy, and those patients didn't benefit from platinum. This is the study that we have presented today together with the European group here at European Lung Cancer Congress. We're very proud to be able to go into this very scrutinized study where things have been curated, where things have been done according to inclusion criteria and exclusion criteria. This is what we've done until now was, you could say, more in real world data, but this is from a clinical trial. The trial didn't show any value of the pharmaceutical company's product, but you can see that we actually can see a value of the predictor. If we go to the next slide, you can see on the right-hand corner, I'll just enlarge that in the next slide. This is the overall survival of the low and the high. Here you can see that the median OS, the median overall survival in the middle there, the high is 16.9, and at the bottom is 5.5. There is a significant statistical difference between these two. We have shown with statistical significance a very meaningful difference between those two curves. If we compare, let's say that we were developing a new cancer drug, and we were able to increase the median overall survival by as little as 2 months, we would expect to see this product going to approval by both in Europe, European and American and Chinese regulatory authorities. Here we have a difference between low and high of almost a year. We are very proud. This is, very, very good data. We can also say that the team we work with, the doctors are also very excited about this. You can say the takeaway from the study, what the investigators write is that a high DRP score were associated with improved PFS, progression-free survival. That means from the tumor is treated to it starts growing. It's more important that there is an association with the OS, the overall survival in platinum-treated advanced lung cancer patients. They also say that there is no validated predictive biomarker out there. There's nothing for cisplatin, carboplatin. These results suggest that the DRP may offer guidance both in clinical trials but also in clinical practice. We're very happy about how they view this. We are because of modern chemotherapy, there is a use of immune therapy also. That is in the, you could say, in the richer Western world. We know that there is 1 million lung cancer patients annually getting a platinum. Approximately 200,000 of those patients in U.S., Europe, and all over the world get also immune therapy plus chemotherapy. Immune therapy is a very sort of a growing area, and there is a synergy with platinum. This is, you can say, the validation studies that we will also go into now, but it's obvious that this, what we already have is very fruitful. If you look at it from a sort of broader perspective, it's not only in lung cancer that platinum and immune therapy have synergy. It's also in bladder cancer. It's in a subtype of breast cancer. It is in head and neck cancer. It's in ovarian, that's the urinary cancers and esophageal cancer. That's all of these cancers, it's the gold standard to treat with platinum and immune therapy. What we say is stop treating patients like they were all the same. 40% have a clear benefit, 30% have no benefit of platinum and this is now things that we can measure. That was the presentation and we'll now go into the question and answer session. All right. Peter, I think I just disconnected your camera by mistake when I wanted to connect Claus. I think I- Very nice. I hope Claus will be also joining us on the screen in a very short while. Should be. Yes. Now I think we have also resolved the echo problem. Thank you very much, Peter. I would repeat that to the audience that if you have questions, please put them in the chat box down in the lower right corner. Before we dive into those, I have an opening question, and that is, you can use your imagination and do some guesswork, but who will use this unique DRP that you have shown the data for here? Who do you imagine will use it? You know, actually, is it? Yeah, that's the question. Should I start, Peter? Yeah. Thanks for the question, Thomas, and I think I will start out, and Peter, maybe you're welcome to add on if you have something that I've forgotten. I think we see two major users where this is a relevant algorithm to work with. One is of course the doctors, the oncologists that are preparing and deciding the treatment plan for the patients. We give them a very strong support tool, a guidance, a second opinion, whatever you call it, that they can use in their planning of the treatment of the patients. That is one very significant user group. There is the other one, which is the pharma companies that either already have, for example, a PD-L1 in the market, or they have a pipeline where chemotherapy may be included in some kind of a combination treatment. They would also benefit significantly from working with our algorithm as they can speed up their development process and also reduce the number of patients due to the strong statistical outcome of our when working with our algorithm. I would say these two, it's difficult to say customer groups, but those two kind of areas where this would make a lot of sense to work with our algorithm. Peter, did you want to add something or should we take the next question? I do think that this can be a burning question for the patient as well. We know that patient advocacy groups are also very keen to be sure that what we're doing as doctors in the hospitals actually benefits the patient. We know that the chemotherapy, the platinum is toxic, and having that kind of information could also be very important in deciding what I am going to do. I think the whole thing about that is 1 million patients annually with lung cancer treated with cisplatin or carboplatin. I just think that if we are able to, you could say, address 10% of the market with a test of a $1,000 and are able when we collaborate with diagnostic companies and we can see a 20% sort of margin to us, this is a huge potential for the company and also a huge help to the individual patient. Great. We have another question. How do you translate this into revenue? What's your approach to that going forward? It's very good we have the CCO with us too, I think. Claus? I think there are several roads and some of them are coming with a increased complexity and others maybe with less complexity. I think what some of the things that we are considering right now is to work with the diagnostic companies, for example, that are already having a sales force out there that's already working with hospitals in a region or in a country, and then do an out-licensing of our algorithm to have our algorithm included in the panels that they are selling to the hospitals. That's definitely one way where we would commercialize. We would get a royalty for them using our algorithm per use of patients. That's definitely one. One is also to out-license to pharma companies. It might be different, more complex business model because one patient has significant value for the pharma companies. There it might not be the same royalty stream as we see in diagnostic companies. That's probably gonna be on a case-by-case negotiation. Pharma companies directly sell to them and then also the diagnostic companies. All right. Thank you. How come there's no one has been able to do this before? Peter, maybe that's your Yeah. That's a good question. Basically, those products have been on the market for, I guess, almost 50 years to our patients. There's been numerous attempts to do, you can say, finding one explanation. There's been so many different one explanations. In fact, there was a publication a couple of years ago showing that there had been in the literature, the scientific literature, more than 900 proteins and genes had been sort of linked to platinum resistance or sensitivity. I think the way that we've been working is more to say, "How can we come up with a model that is embracing that complexity?" We are actually working with 205, and we believe they are the 205 most important genes for this. It's obvious that cancer has many ways of surviving an attack, and also there can be several ways that works and doesn't work for the individual patient. It goes into individual patients with different mechanisms of sensitivity and resistance, so you have to go into taking a broader view, and that's the 205 genes. I think that's basically the difference is that people have tried to come up with a simple solution, and we have now a complex solution, but it's not complex anymore. We can read this very easily with different platforms because modern technology. This is not. It used to be rocket science, but now it's really sort of, I wouldn't call it plain vanilla, but it's definitely for the diagnostic companies, this is what they do. Peter, here it's probably relevant to say that we have patent that runs until 2038 on those 205 genes. So nobody can copy what we have, at least for the foreseeable future. So that's also important to emphasize. Thank you, Klaus. There's another question. What is your geographical priority? Is that the U.S., is it Europe, is it China? What are your thoughts on this? I can try to shed some light on that question, and it's very relevant. I think for a long time we believe that Europe and U.S. would be our focus areas. However, the last 12-18 months we have had to put more and more emphasis also on China. Two-thirds of all new immune therapies are being developed in China. It's clear that there is a huge and a very strong development power, innovation power out there. That means that we are more balanced between the three major continents. We are not forgetting China, but we also know that there might be a stronger commercial upside per patient in the U.S. market. All right. Now actually I would like to ask a question then because I think you... We've now two times talked about other products which I assume are not the platinum products. Can you maybe share a bit of your thinking about how if this DRP, Platin-DRP can be, you know, integrated in some kind of combination? Because combination treatments are more and more becoming the standard. Yeah. I think that's, I mean, today's most modern and most advanced therapy in lung cancer is a cisplatin or carboplatin together with the immune therapies products like Keytruda and Opdivo. They are some of the. Keytruda is actually the highest selling, the best-selling product overall in the whole pharmaceutical industry. Also selling better than any obesity products. So that's where half of it is used together with platinum, and it's obvious that this is also. I mean, all the studies we've done is basically in cisplatin or carboplatin together with a partner. But that partner has not been strong, so it doesn't really influence. With the immune therapies we have another strong partner, but we also have some data here showing that there is. If you use sort of platinum alone or chemo alone, you're getting an effect of certain value. If you use immune therapy alone. We saw that wave a couple of years ago, and then they realized it was kind of lacking out. They added platinum on top of those, and this is today's development plans. If you look at all the, as Claus says, the Chinese, a lot of those Chinese products, a lot of those new immune therapies also are used together with platinum because they've learned that the platinum part is apparently irreplaceable. I mean, we need to use platinum in those combinations in the future also. Thank you. We have another question. Are you expecting grants or financing from local or European institutions such as the European Investment Bank? I think we don't have any discussions on that topic right now. We are always looking for various EU grants. Sometimes it's a difficult position being a listed company. They tend to focus on smaller companies and even though we are small, being listed actually puts us in a certain category. We are looking into the opportunities whenever we see it and then evaluate what the opportunities and the chances are for getting a grant. All right. Well, I think there's another question here which is quite close to that. How does your capital needs look going forward? On the increase or the as previously communicated, or how does it look? I think we are currently a small and very efficient team, and then we are collaborating with externals that we bring in whenever needed. We have a modest spend, but it's also obvious that with the strong data that we actually get and that we have presented today, then we get confident that we should actually speed up our process and also look into areas where this could actually be relevant. I would say we currently are working with an annual burn of around SEK 7 million. We have opportunities that could also include a significantly higher amount. We are always taking good care of our liquidity and making sure that we fulfill what we have communicated to the market. Okay. Thank you. Another question, do you have intentions to increase the visibility further of the company through roadshows, broker coverage, et cetera, that may help the liquidity of the stock going forward? I think that's a very good question. You are hitting on a very relevant point. Everybody can look at our volume, the trading volume, and it's on the lower end. We would have liked to see it somehow higher. There is also a large portion of our owners that we know are long-term owners, so they are not in the market selling every day. We will try. Actually, today we just spoke earlier this week that a webinar like this one is something that we would evaluate if it would be relevant to do after each quarterly report. We are also engaging in more investor roadshows with either or also some of the here in Denmark and also some of the activities that are going on in the Swedish markets. That's where I would say 98% of our shareholders they are located in Denmark and Sweden. Of course we would like to spread the good words and the more good and positive data that we are able to present, the more we would also like to communicate to our investors and the market. I can comment also that the results we have today are also results that we will send out to our potential partners. I think that is very important for moving forward, that they haven't seen those results. We have had a lot of interest both from diagnostic companies and pharma companies, and we think that this is going to nourish quite a lot. We see this as a, you can say, a very important task forward to say we are out here in the partnering market and we have a very nice asset for partnering. All right. I think I can combine two questions possibly. There's one question about, you know, how does the future look? You know, is it one partner, more partners, or would you prefer to do more yourself, or is it, you know, a technology partnership or what kind of partnership would you be looking towards? Another question which is, I think, somewhat related, that is what thoughts or ideas can you share about a possible exit scenario? Just on the partners, I can take that part. The partners are, as Claus also explained, they are the pharmaceutical partners, the ones that are developing immune therapies and using Platin-DRP in their lung cancer treatments or other treatments. There is also the diagnostic companies, and they are a little different. The diagnostic companies are more regional, many of them, meaning that there are potential partners in the U.S. and other potential partners in other parts of the world. This is a little bit where the pharma companies are more global. The diagnostic companies are sort of spread in regions, in the U.S. and China and Europe. There is also different technologies that those diagnostic companies use. A couple of months ago, we announced that we can use our system also on another platform called NanoString, and that has sort of opened up for other partnerships. The partnering is sort of. There are several opportunities for how we can see this. A big pharma company could, of course, you can say swallow us, absolutely, and that would be a trade sale. There is also potential for different partnerships going forward. Claus, have you- I think you mentioned here that these are the two possibilities that we are looking into. I think we are agile. We haven't set our minds on one of the models. It can be a trade sale. It can be a license driven business where we get some good license income based on providing our algorithm. Maybe sometimes we take charge of the full supply chain, and then it comes with a bigger income, but also more complexity and more cost. Sometimes we are just providing the algorithm, and then the company where we out-license our algorithm, they take charge of the logistics, because they potentially have already a network of labs and they have the competency. We basically provided the algorithm that runs on the computer. Okay. Thank you. I think there's a question here which concerns that. To apply this technology that you have, you need to take a test, do a tissue sample of some kind. Will that delay the actual treatment from starting for the patient? Will there be a delay in the process when people will have to, you know, get the tumor sample analyzed first? It's a good question and very necessary that we don't delay that process. In the clinical setting, there is a diagnostic part where people are diagnosed with lung cancer. Then there is a decision part because you have the pathologist has to evaluate and say, "This is a lung cancer. What subtype is it?" That typically takes maybe 10 days and this is in the process of where you actually meet with the surgeon, and you know what's going on. At that time point, we have the opportunity, you can say, to come up with a predictor for the surgeon or for the medical oncologist what's gonna happen. It takes time to identify what to do with the patients, and it typically takes at least 10 days. An hour, you can say, from delivery to the lab and from getting the result is a three-day period. We have, of course, the test that can be delivered when the decisions are made. You said we are actually, even though we need the physical biopsy, we are actually among some of the faster biomarkers. Like our turnaround time is faster than most other biomarkers. Yeah. You can say the pathology departments typically take 10-14 days to do all the stainings, and in the meantime, we can certainly deliver the algorithm's result. Thank you. Another question. What hurdles do you need to solve on the scientific side, or do you already trust the test enough to currently apply in a hospital setting with the right setup? Yeah. We've used this test, unchanged, and I think that's the important part for the regulatory authorities that we don't sort of switch horses in the middle of the stream or whatever we call it. We've used exactly the same test now in those five different studies where we've demonstrated that the test works. That is, there's a lot of, you can say, work on the regulatory pathway, and that's also why, you can say, when we talk to the diagnostic companies, that some of that burden could be on other shoulders than ours. If we want to do everything ourselves, we would have to do the regulatory work. We work with Alere as a laboratory, and they have a very... lot of experience in working with the FDA and the EMA on those regulatory requirements. There is requirements on the software, on the hardware, on the handling of the biopsies, and all that stuff needs to be sort of very, very precisely specified. We feel comfortable both with working with diagnostic companies, pharma companies, but also to sort of basically being able to do it ourselves, which is not our, you can say, preferred route. All right. Thank you. Another question here is how involved will the doctor be in deciding the treatment after getting the test result? So what do you imagine will happen when the results come in, and what's the role of the patient and the doctor and so forth? The modern lung cancer is actually decided in a multidisciplinary team. That means that you sit with all the data. When all the data has been collected, the surgeon is there, the oncologist is there, the radiologist, sort of all the X-ray work, and the pathologist. That's where you sit with all the information. I mean, this is a very positive development that's coming for the last, I don't know, the last five or six years, that we have those multidisciplinary teams to look at all the elements and come up with a solution. This is where you wanna have the biopsy answers and our algorithm answers, so the oncologist and the surgeon can decide, okay, we give chemo before surgery, or we go directly to surgery, give chemo afterwards, or this patient is not for the surgery, should have T-cell therapy immediately. You could say the experts are together and make the decision, and that means that actually the doctor at the oncology department already has sort of a guideline of how to treat my patient. All right. Thank you. I would like to inform the audience that we have no further questions lined up. I will ask Peter a question meanwhile, and if you have a question, please go ahead and type it, then we will of course address it afterwards. Peter, you've been around in this biotech cancer drug development industry for quite a while. With these data that you presented here today with the poster, I'm a bit curious, how did that make you feel more in an emotional sense, when you kind of first heard about that these data were so convincing? I think we were looking into this study and we didn't really know, except that we had had some good data before, but we really didn't know how it would look in such a very nicely performed study. We were very happy, and so were the team in ETOP. I mean, that was a very nice moment where the statisticians from the ETOP, doctors, statisticians disclosed what was the results here. We'd received the biopsies, we'd done the estimations on the likelihood of benefit, and then they had got all the results, and then we opened the computers and had this Teams call, and it was great. I don't think I've had a better in my career, and I'm proud to say that I have been sort of behind two products that have been approved by the FDA, and they are also very interesting. The reach that we have with this predictor is far bigger than what I've done before, and the results are very clear. I'm excited. Very excited about it. Well, congratulations. Thank you. All right. We have no further questions from the audience. I would like to ask the both of you if you have any final comments that you would like to add to our conversation. Not from my side. I don't think either. I think it was. We've also covered. Good questions. ... a quite wide range of topics, so that has just been great. I would like to thank you both for sharing this information and taking the time to share it with everybody else. I would like to thank the audience for showing up and asking questions. I think I will wish everyone a wonderful evening. Peter and Claus, you can also just say goodbye to everyone. Bye. Bye-bye. All right. I will end the webinar here. Thank you very much, everyone.