Novartis Revenue
Q: What’s the revenue cadence from Novartis?
A: Management explained that the upfront payment has been amortized over this year while deferred revenue and milestone payments will continue to flow in over coming years, ensuring solid revenue visibility [Andrew Saik, 20].

Cost Outlook
Q: How will costs change with new programs?
A: The CFO noted that expenses will rise as more clinical programs are advanced, but the company’s robust $1.1B cash balance supports operations into 2027 [Andrew Saik, 19].

ARV-766 Prostate
Q: What’s the update on ARV-766 with Novartis?
A: Management confirmed a smooth data handover for ARV-766, with Novartis set to advance its development in both early- and late-stage prostate cancer [John Houston, 14].

VERITAC-2 Efficacy
Q: What PFS is expected for the control arm?
A: They expect the fulvestrant control arm to show a median PFS of about 3–4 months, aiming for a few months’ improvement with the vepdeg treatment [Noah Berkowitz, 10][Noah Berkowitz, 17].

CDK4 Combo Strategy
Q: Will Pfizer move with CDK4 combos for vepdeg?
A: Management expressed enthusiasm for evaluating both palbociclib and atirmociclib combinations, with ongoing studies guiding the optimal path forward [John Houston, 8].

Market Opportunity
Q: How significant is the market for vepdeg?
A: With approximately 40,000 second-line and 40,000 first-line metastatic breast cancer patients annually, vepdeg has the potential to reshape treatment paradigms [John Houston, 12].

Non-ESR1 Success Threshold
Q: Can non-ESR1 patients benefit from vepdeg?
A: Although the trial is powered for ESR1 mutant patients, management is optimistic that a significant subset of wild-type patients may also benefit, even if analyzed post hoc [Noah Berkowitz, 11].

First-Line Combo Design
Q: How will first-line combo trials differ?
A: They plan to test novel combinations—using atirmociclib or palbociclib—to deliver a superior therapeutic profile compared to current SERD treatments [Noah Berkowitz, 18].

Combo Selection Criteria
Q: What factors drive combo partner selection?
A: Decisions will be entirely data-driven, focusing on overall efficacy, safety, and strategic fit to select the best partner for advancing vepdeg [John Houston & Noah Berkowitz, 22].

Statistical Plan
Q: What is the VERITAC-2 statistical approach?
A: The trial uses two co-primary endpoints with hierarchical testing, expecting stronger outcomes in the ESR1 mutant population, though detailed hazard ratios remain under wraps [Noah Berkowitz, 23].

KRAS Programs
Q: How do KRAS degraders compare with inhibitors?
A: Their KRAS G12D and pan-PROTAC programs show a favorable nonclinical profile and may sidestep issues like liver toxicity seen with some inhibitors, suggesting a potentially differentiated treatment [Angela Cacace & Noah Berkowitz, 25].

ARV-102 Biomarkers
Q: What is the target PD population for ARV-102?
A: Approximately one-third of Parkinson’s patients show elevated LRRK2, and the team is refining biomarker strategies in collaboration with key partners to better stratify patients [Angela Cacace, 15].

Abemaciclib Combo Data
Q: How will abemaciclib combo results compare?
A: Early findings from the abemaciclib combination, though with shorter follow-up, are expected to complement earlier palbociclib data by providing additional insights into efficacy and safety in a 100% post–CDK4/6 setting [Bradley Canino & Noah Berkowitz, 9].

Phase 3 Combo Regulatory
Q: What regulatory inputs are needed for combo trials?
A: Further discussions with health authorities will clarify patient selection, comparator arms, and overall study design as the data from ongoing trials mature [Li Wang Watsek, 13].

Front-Line Study Design
Q: Will trials test different front-line combos?
A: They indicated a focus on novel agents—with an AI combination strategy—steering away from traditional fulvestrant comparators to optimize efficacy [Yigal Nochomovitz, 21].

Enrollment Criteria Clarification
Q: Are there differences in fulvestrant arm criteria?
A: Management clarified that variations in median PFS may stem from differing patient treatment histories, with most participants expected to be in a pure second-line setting [Michael Schmidt, 24].

ARV-102 Phase 1 PD Study
Q: How will healthy volunteer data guide ARV-102 dosing?
A: The Phase 1 study will define PK/PD relationships and confirm CNS penetration, setting the stage for adapting dosing strategies once patients with Parkinson’s are enrolled [Michael Schmidt & Noah Berkowitz, 16].