Yahoo Finance

Diantha Duvall

Thank you, James Curis reported a net loss of 10.1 million or a dollar 70 per share for the third quarter of 2024. Compared to a net loss of 12.2 million or $2.13 per share for the same period in 2023 pure supported a net loss of 33.8 million or $5.77 per share for the nine months ended September 30th, 2024 compared to a net loss of $35.7 million or $6.96 per share for the same period. In 2023 research and development expenses were 9.7 million for the third quarter of 2024. Compared to 10.4 million. For the same period. In 2023 the decrease was primarily attributable to lower consulting and employee related costs.
R&D expenses were 29.6 million for the nine months ended September 30th, 2024 compared to 29.5 million for the same period in 2023.
General and administrative expenses were 38 were 3.8 million for the third quarter of 2024. Compared to 4.8 million for the same period. In 2023 the decrease was primarily attributable to lower legal and employee related costs.
DNA expenses were 13.4 million for the nine months ended September 30th, 2024 compared to 13.8 million for the same period. In 2023 in October, we completed a registered direct offering and concurrent private placement of unregistered warrants with net proceeds of approximately 10.8 million including the impact of the October 2024 offerings, Curis cash and cash equivalents totaled 31.6 million and the company had approximately 8.5 million shares of common stock outstanding.
Harris expects its existing cash and cash equivalents will enable its planned operations into mid 25.
With that. I'd like to turn the call over for questions, operator.

Question and Answer Session

Operator

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, we will now begin the question answer session. Should you have a question? Please press star followed by number one on your touchtone phone. You'll hear a prompt that your hand has been raised. Should you wish to decline from the holding process? Please press star followed by number two. If you are using a speaker phone, please leave the handset before pressing any keys.
Once again to ask a question, please press star followed by number one on your Touchstone phone you will hear a prompt that your hand has been raised one moment, please. For your first question, your first question comes from the line of Edward White from H.C. Wainwrigh. Your line is now open. Please ask your question.

Edward White

Good morning. Thanks for taking my questions.
Good morning, James. So you had mentioned that you're working to gain alignment with the FDA and PCNSL. So that, you know, sort of implies that you're out of alignment. So what needs to be done right now to get into alignment? And what is the ideal pathway to approval in your mind?

James Dentzer

Sure. So I wouldn't say we're out of alignment by any stretch. No, I just say we're engaging in the discussions. I think what, what we see and we've said this in the past on calls in the early days earlier this year, as we started to get the first data in on these patients, we saw that we were seeing results in salvage line therapy that we were frankly better than we expected and better than second line. And even though it was a small number of patients, we wanted to reach out directly to the FDA to see if we couldn't have an accelerated path for this drug. You know, the normal path of approval is you complete a phase 12 study, you run all the reports, you have an end of phase meeting with FDA.
And then talk with the FDA about the what the registrational design looks like. We thought that given there's such a critical unmet need, no drugs are approved for this. And the salvage line data that we're getting look frankly terrific that, that we might have a faster path. So that's the discussion we're having right now of, can we have an accelerated approval path? And if so what does that look like? My hope is that, you know, what those discussions are, are in my view, hopefully going to be in a position where we'll have some clarity in Q1. But we will remain to be seen. I think at this point, we're just excited by the data and we're pleased that the FDA is engaged with us on identifying an accelerated or at least a faster path.

Edward White

Great. Thanks Tim and the answer, maybe a question for you. You know, GA general administrative costs were down about a million dollars quarter over quarter and R&D was down about a half a million. As, you know, you continue to advance in the clinic. How should we be thinking of expenses going forward? You know, not only for the fourth quarter, but how should we be thinking of the cadence of expenses in 2025? I know it might be difficult as you're waiting for FDA guidance, but just wanted to get your initial thoughts on it.

Diantha Duvall

Yes, thanks. Ed for the question. So, you know, our historical burn has really been in the call it $10million to $12 million range. We did some cost modulation earlier in the year that has brought that burn down. But I would expect that the normal burn for Curis in 2025 should probably stay around that $10 million that 10 million mark. It will, it will vary due to some timing of manufacturing. But for the most part, I would sort of assume that sort of $10 million number.

Edward White

Okay, great. Thanks for taking my questions.

James Dentzer

Thanks, Ed.

Operator

Your next question comes from the line of [Bill Jahangiri from Priest Sec Securities]. Your line is now open. Please ask your question.

Good morning.
We had a question about Emma's potential in HR MDS given the abstract that was posted at ash. There's impressive responses and spices of mutants which isn't surprising at this point given the data you all have shown, but I, what we want to know what the broader potential is Given the specific impacts on gene signatures that you've seen. Like how representative are mutations in the MDS patient population? Is it 10% 15% or more? And given that Verona hasn't read out is pursuing a doublet without V and Hr MDs makes sense. Our HMA and MMOA or additive enough for that.

James Dentzer

Yeah. Hi. Bill. Thanks for calling in. Great question. So first, yeah, MPS is one of these things that not enough people are paying attention to. It's really exciting. And we're really looking forward to it as, you know, it's a challenging population. And until Verona reads out as a is standard of care, but, you know, once, once patients go through that, there's really nothing for those patients. So the opportunity is really terrific. So as you know, we've seen a lot of, we've seen a lot of responses more marrow CRS than CRS. We're seeing activity in patients with foot three mutation, patients with splicing mutations. And at this point, we're exploring the possibilities of different dosing regimens and also perhaps combining m of assertive with other agents. As you say, the, the Verona readouts going to matter, a lot of what that combination looks like. But I would say this is an evolving discussion. We're really looking forward to the data update that Doctor Garcia Manros going to provide at ash. And and hopefully it should be a really exciting discussion going into 2025. But yeah, thank you for paying attention to MDS. Not as many people see that as we do.

Thank you.

Operator

Your next question comes from the line of Li Watsek of Cantor Fitzgerald. Your line is now open. Please ask your question.

Li Watsek

Hi team. This is Daniel Bronder on fully.
We have a question regarding the PCNSL trial and the contribution of parts. Do you think that the FDA might raise that as a question? And also, do you have any historical data on to BTK responses that could help you answer that question?

James Dentzer

Sure. Thank you for the question. Thanks for the call. Yeah, I let me address the first question first and then I'll go to the second one. So the short answer is you know, discussions with FDA are evolving. So we'll have to see how they respond to that. But the design of the study is really meant to address that question implicitly.
So we're taking patients in immediately after they have progressed on BTK.
So the logic would be if you just progressed on a BTK inhibitor, retreating with that same inhibitor should have no effect, should have a zero response rate, you just progressed.
So by definition or by design, maybe more accurately, the benefit that you receive is much more likely to be due to the addition of M of assertive either in its monotherapy capacity or its synergistic effect, which we believe is at least the thesis suggests is powerful with the BTK inhibitor. So the first question is yes, the FDA we know is likely to have that question and we'll have that conversation with them and, and see how that play into the registrational design at the same time we're benefiting from the design of the study that's currently in progress, which, which does by definition or by design highlight the comparative effect of the two agents. And the second question or second part of the question you asked was about BTK and their efficacy. There's a lot of literature out there that the largest clinical study to date that was published was Kaan's study of Iru in PCNSL. And you may remember in that study in second line patients naive to BTK were able to get a 19%CR rate and a 52% Orr.
So I said earlier, we're, we're very encouraged that our salvage line data are outperforming that and they are, it's, it's early days to be fair, but we would not have expected that in any disease, a drug being studied in the salvage line setting would outperform second line. But I would say that's why we and why our clinicians are so excited about the possibility of this regimen.

Li Watsek

Okay. Thank you so much. And if I may ask a follow up or another question, we were just wondering how are you going to go about the prioritization between your different programs? Your PCNSL program versus the AML & MDS program moving forward?

James Dentzer

Yeah, that's a fantastic question. So, I if I tell you about all the high class headaches, we have a curious, I am grateful that we are in the position that the drug works really where we would expect it to in a number of therapeutic areas. As you know, we're studying it in primary CNS lymphoma. We're studying it in AML. We're studying it in MDS. We've also got five it's going on in solid tumors that are reading out over the next 12 months. You know, we, we have this embarrassment of investment opportunities and embarrassment of riches. And maybe the hardest part of the job for the management team at Curis is trying to figure out how to prioritize those I would say at this point in time, because we're in discussions with FDA on primary CNS lymphoma and, and what that registrational path looks like, I think by definition, given the clear unmet need and the data that we're seeing that's got to be a very high priority for us. Coincidentally, it's a very attractive commercial market as well. Beyond that, expanding to the other five types of NHL where BTKS get used, that's a really compelling opportunity for us. AML & MDS, the data are about to read out at ash.
So I'd say with those data in hand, let's have that same discussion that we're having about NHL. What is the best path to approval and how do we engage the regulatory authorities in that discussion? And then shortly thereafter, we're going to start getting data in solid tumors It's a great question. Today, we're prioritizing primary C lymphoma, but it is absolutely a high cost headache for us. How to prioritize all of these opportunities?

Li Watsek

Okay. Thank you so much for taking my question.

Operator

Thank you.
Your next question comes from the line of Dane Leone of Raymond James. Your line is now open. Please ask your question.

Dane Leone

Hi guys. Thanks for taking the questions a couple from me. First, can you walk us through the, your current assessment of what you'll need as far as the data package for primary CNS lymphoma in particular? What do you think will be the sufficient number of patients in the safety database at the go forward, combination with the brute nib and Emma? And how many patients have you currently treated at or above that dose of Emma? Do you think 100 patients is kind of the rough threshold kind of based on precedent? And then secondly, can you speak to some of the challenges you've seen in enrolling the triplet study? You know, whether that be disposition of the MRD positive CR AML patients or just in general issues with AA and then, and timing of the, the treatment of patients with those with those agents? Thanks.

James Dentzer

All right. Thank you Dane. So great questions. Let me start with the primary CNS lymphoma question and then I'll go to the, the triplet study. So the primary CNS lymphoma study. To be Honest, we, that's the whole point of the discussion we're having with FDA. As you know, the normal process for any drug going through studies is you run a phase one to do dose escalation. When you get those data back, follow the patients lock the database, produce all the reports. Go to the FDA, have an end to face meeting, talk about the registrational design and then you go into pivotal I think given the data we have we thought it it should be it was worth having a conversation with the FDA to see if they'd be interested in running a faster process. We're grateful that they agreed to take that call. We're now in discussions in primary CNS lymphoma. There's not a lot of precedent, but we do know that there, there are two studies ongoing right now with a BTK inhibitor. So Ibrutinib is the one that today is the standard of care for BTK inhibitors. But Ono pharmaceuticals has a BTK inhibitor NIB, which is approved in Japan for primary CNS lymphoma and is now in its study to get approval in the US. We know that for that study, it's second line, not salvage. Obviously, they're trying to displace a brut nib and they also have a frontline study that they're using Truab in combination with methotrexate based regimens.
In their study the frontline study was of 75 or is n of 75. The second line study is a of 45 presumably salvage line setting wouldn't need 45.
Now, the question there is, of course, given our data from an efficacy perspective, that might make sense. But we need to recognize that, you know, Truab has a larger safety database simply because it's already approved in Japan.
So I don't exactly know where the FDA is going to come out, but we think it's reasonable suggest that if they're okay with granting us accelerated approval, that that's a smaller study and that then we would have a larger study with perhaps a survival based endpoint in a confirmatory trial. All of that's conjecture at this point, we, we need to finish these discussions and see how the FDA feels about that. But I think given the precedent that Ono has in their study sizes, it makes sense that in this ultra rare indication, a small study would be appropriate. It's one of the reasons of course, that we chose primary C Symp Forma.
Now, on the triplet study, you, you had asked specifically about the design. What question were you looking to have about the design?

Dane Leone

MRD to some of the, yeah, some, just some of the, the challenges you see in terms of enrollment and, and you know, getting patients progressed on that study, you know, whether that's just the disposition of the MRD, positive CRML patients or it's more an issue kind of getting patients who are, have, are receiving or received AB in the front line and are receiving it in the maintenance setting. Any reticence you've seen from docs in terms of adding additional agent to an event in that setting and insight on your strategy moving forward to kind of boost enrollment there.

James Dentzer

Yeah. No, I think you put your finger on it. It's not a reticence at all or a safety issue at all. It's just how do you find patients who are on a, even for NCR and still, I am already positive and stable enough that they can go into, you know, into our study into the triplet, you know, at this point in time, what we really want to try and do is accentuate the safety. We, the long term solution to finding all the patients is of course, go from cycle one day one to get the patients the minute they're diagnosed and go to a lot of sites.
We're at a very small number of sites we're simply looking to, to make sure that this patient that this combination of Emma Asa and then is going to be safe and tolerable as you know, Asa and then are a little tricky, you know, no two sites dose them the same way. Anecdotally. Half of all patients who go on a even at some point have to come off for tolerability, not just efficacy. We want to make sure that, you know, the, the MAN combination is tolerable first. So that's why we're going after these patients. So it won't take long. We just need a handful of patients and we just want to follow them to make sure we understand it. Once we do, then we, then we frankly turbocharge the study, we go to cycle one day one, we expand the number of sites and at that point once it's been shown to be safe and tolerable. No, I think the you'll find the physician community is very eager to find something that will increase the potency of that a regimen.

Dane Leone

Got it. Thank you.

James Dentzer

Thank you. Thanks for your call.

Operator

We do not have further questions at this time, James Dentzer. Please continue.

James Dentzer

Thank you and thank you everyone for joining us on today's call.
And as always a special, thank you to the patients and families participating in our clinical trials to our team at Curis for their hard work and commitment and to our partners, especially at origin in the NCI and the academic community for their ongoing collaboration and support. We look forward to updating you again soon.
Operator.

Operator

Thank you. This concludes today's conference call. Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.