Alan H. Auerbach
Yes, Marc, thanks for the question. Okay. So in terms of the venue, I think we'd probably do it as a corporate update. Not sure if we do it on an earnings call or something more formal like just a separate presentation to discuss it, but something in a venue, I would gauge November, December time frame for that. To kind of further go into a little more detail on that, on the small cell lung study, I would guess we would probably have somewhere in the neighborhood of 40-ish patients treated at 50 milligrams that we can talk about the safety, the efficacy and the biomarkers on. We're just now enrolling at 60 milligrams, so not sure if we'd have enough data on that yet. On the breast, we would probably by year-end time frame, have, say, 40 to 45 patients across the 3 arms, so like 14 to 15 in each and be able to discuss the safety, efficacy and biomarkers on those. With the breast because it's enrolling a lot faster than we expected, I think it might be a little bit of a challenge to get all the data in by year-end, that might get pushed to 26, but we'll do our best to try to deliver that. To answer your question in terms of development, so in terms of the path in small cell lung cancer, there was a previous study done, which was the Journal Thoracic Oncology study, which was the randomized study of paclitaxel plus alisertib against paclitaxel plus placebo in groups that had biomarkers that were known to have a role in Aurora kinase, looked at retrospectively, and that included like c-Myc, RB1, et cetera, you did see via retrospective analysis, a PFS benefit and OS benefit. So our assumption always was when we bought the drug, we were only looking at it in the tumors where the Aurora kinase pathway played a role. The question we had was, were we seeing this benefit in that randomized study because alisertib had selective activity or that for some reason, there was preclinical data that alisertib could increase the PK of paclitaxel and increase the sensitivity was that just what we were seeing? So as you said, in the monotherapy study, we are indeed seeing a benefit of alisertib in the patients with the biomarker selected for those selected for the Aurora kinase pathway. To answer your question on the bar, look, you have a trial, which is paclitaxel plus alisertib against a paclitaxel placebo. Whatever that magnitude of benefit is, we would hope with the monotherapy to see a similar benefit in PFS, right? If you're not seeing a PFS benefit, it would be difficult to get an OS benefit. So you got to get both. And I think from an approval standpoint, that it's clear in small cell lung cancer, you're getting the PFS benefit and most likely in OS. So that -- to answer your question, that would be the threshold to take forward. On the breast side, there's no pathway in ER-positive breast to get approval based on response rate. It's got to be PFS and OS. So I think, again, we would need to see a PFS in that third-line setting. That would be something we would want to invest in and take forward. That would clearly need to be something better than what is being seen with the endocrine alone. And again, I think we would again look to most likely try to develop that in biomarker subgroups where the Aurora kinase pathway plays a role. And the last part of your question, should any of those fall short, would we immediately go run out and try to bring something else in? No, we probably want to be selective. Look, being a profitable company, we want 100% recognize our fiscal responsibility to the shareholders, spending money on projects that aren't going to result in a benefit to patients and hence, the benefit to shareholders, not something we're looking to do.