Agenus Inc (AGEN) 2003 Q1 法說會逐字稿

Good morning. My name is Jimici [ph], and I will be your conference facilitator today. At this time, I would like to welcome everyone to the Antigenics First Quarter Financial Results Conference Call. All lines have been placed on mute to prevent any background noise. After the speakers' remark, there will be a question and answer period. If you would like to ask the question during this time, simply press "*" than the number "1" on your telephone keypad. If you would like to withdraw your question, press "*" then the number "2" on your telephone keypad. Thank you. I will now turn the call over to, Tanya Turponich.

Thank you operator, and good morning. Welcome to Antigenics conference call to discuss our corporate and clinical projects as well as our financial results for the first quarter of 2003. This is Tanya Turponich from the Investor Relations department. And with me today are Garo Armen, Chairman and CEO of Antigenics; Russell Herndon, our President and Chief Operating Officer; Elma Hawkins, our Vice Chairman, Jonathan Lewis, our Chief Medical Officer; and Jeff Clark, our Chief Financial Officer. We hope that all of you have had a chance to read our earnings release that was announced this morning. We will review these results as well as recent highlights in this call and then open it up for questions. Before I turn the call over to Garo, I would like to remind you that during this conference call, Antigenics representatives will make forward-looking statements including statements about expectations for development programs and clinical trials , anticipated regulatory filings and actions, and future financial performance. These statements are subject to risk and uncertainties, and Antigenics' actual results may differ materially from these projected in the forward-looking statements. Additional information about these risks and uncertainties can be found on company's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Antigenics undertake no obligations to update the forward-looking statements made on this call. I'll now turn the call over to Dr. Armen.

Thank you, Tanya. I am pleased to provide you today, an update on the company's progress. First, I will review the financial and corporate highlights with you; and then Dr. Lewis will report on our clinical program and progress of our released clinical candidates. And, finally, we will open it up to questions. On the financial front, for the first three months ended, March 31st 2003, Antigenics incurred a net loss of 13.5 million, or 36 cents per share. This compared with the net loss of 11.9 million, or 37 cents per share for the same period in 2002. Revenues for the three months ended March 31st 2003 were 1.8 million, compared with 0.9 million for the three months ended, March 31st 2002. Total research and development expenses for the three months ended March 2003 were 10.3 million compared with 8.2 million for the same period in 2002. Total and general and administrative expenses for the three months ended March 31st 2003 were 4.9 million compared with 4.5 million for the same period in 2002. Cash and cash equivalent and short time investment amounted to 103 million on March 31st 2003. This balance includes proceeds from the completion over follow on offering with common stock, which was in January of 2003, raising net proceeds of approximately $59.6 million. We were successful with our financing in the middle of very difficult condition in the overall financial market and particularly the Biotech sector. We would like to thank our shareholders for their continuing confidence in Antigenics and in our mission, proceeds from this offering and in addition to our other working factor will find the company to an important period during which we expect to achieve critical clinical milestones from multiple program. Our business development effort has been excess focused on laying the ground work for potential pharmaceutical partners we are work Onco-base programs, or some had non -- some have congratulate [ph] with this programs and for our cloth pattern program which will include worldwide right. Our current partnership related to QS-21 and their multiple partners on this bond are also still progressing and we continued to supply product for our partners. And some of the sales increased in their first quarter reflected an increase in demand for QS-21. In addition, for example, Elan [ph] will be returning to the clinic this year with an R&D filing plan for the end of the year with a more refined formulation of their Alzheimer vaccine which will also include QS-21 as an agilant . Our research and development team has also made a great stride.

The development of our next generation Onco-based program is accelerating with a planned R&D filing by the end of this year. As you recall with our next generation product we expect to be able to manufacture sufficient quantities of Vaccine from substantially smaller quantities of tissue, perhaps, as small as a single needle or corpse biopsy. Our market development effort is also well on the way through such ongoing programs such as publication planning, conference activity and development of key opinion leaders, which were very active in. We're seeking to ready the markets for the arrival of Oncophage. We also continue to build relationships with numerous professional organizations and patient advocacy groups. For example, last week, our press release regarding the initiation of our Phase II AG-858 trial for CML patients in combination with Gleevec was featured on the homepages of both ESCO [ph] and Leukemia and Lymphoma Society webpages. This kind of visibility not only serves to increased patient awareness of our product but also affects trial recruitment in the most positive way. During this past quarter, Antigenics has also expanded our leadership scheme. In March of 2003, we had three new board members joined our board. Margaret Eisen, Bill Jordan, and Mark Kessel who have all had very distinguished careers. In addition, we also brought on board some management talent, Jeff Clarke in March was promoted to the newly created position of Chief Financial Officer; and John Cerio joined our management team as Vice President of Human Resources, which we expect should be an increasingly important function in the development of Antigenics into the next phase. I would like to now introduce Dr. Jonathan Lewis, our Chief Medical Officer, who will give you our progress report on the clinical program. Jonathan.

Thank You, Garo. I will update you on our lead programs, Oncophage, AG-858, Aroplatin, and the AG-702 7-RX as well as share highlights with you regarding upcoming presentations. I will begin with the progress report on the lead product Oncophage and Renesol [ph] trial. Enrollment for the Phase III trial in renal cell carcinoma is well on track with over 80 % of patients enrolled as of today in approximately 130 centers worldwide. Based on this, we remain confident that we will achieve our previously reported milestone for completed enrollment by midyear. We are well on track to perform an internal analysis of these data from this trial by the end of this year. If there is a statistically significant separation of the recurrence free survival curves between the two arms of the trial in favor of Oncophage, we expect to file the interim data in our BLA filing with possible FDA approval and product launch in late '04.

I will now speak to you about the melanoma trial. As you know, we opened enrolment for the Phase III trial of Oncophage in metastatic melanoma in the middle of '02. This is the second total trial with Oncophage and this trial is currently about 113 rolled in 30 clinical centers worldwide. We expect significant ramp up of enrolment in the coming months. There are currently, approximately 160 clinical sites opened worldwide for both of our Phase-III Oncophage trial, including sites in the United States, Canada, Europe, Australia, Israel and Russia. I will now review the new heat shock protein based vaccine program and that is AG-858. As you recall in December of '02, we reported data from our pilot study, combining the personalized cancer vaccine, AG-858 with Gleevec for patients with chronic myelogenous leukemia or CML. AG-858 is based on the heat shock protein 70 and again this differs from gp96, being the newer vaccine. Initially, in this trial, five out of five of the evaluable patients showed objective clinical responses, including two patients who had complete molecular responses as measured by PCR of preliminary chain reaction, which is the most sensitive measure available to detect the presence of leukemia cells. Prior to their treatment with our product, four of five initial patients in the study had been determined to be unresponsive to treatment with Gleevec alone. The cruel in this pilot study has continued and we continue to see promising results. Updated findings will be announced at the ASCO meeting in May in an oral presentation. Based on the encouraging data from its ongoing pilot study, we have recently initiated a Phase-II trial, evaluating AG-858 in combination with Gleevec and this trial will be conducted in leading medical centers in the United States and in the United Kingdom. This single on trial will evaluate the safety and efficacy of this combination treatment up to 120 patients with chronic phase CML, who are currently receiving Gleevec treatment but have not achieved a complete [indiscernible] generic response. Due to the large existing addressable patient population of Gleevec non-responders currently interconnect. We expect a swift ramp up of enrolment in this trial with completion of enrolment expected by the end of this year.

I would now shift gears and review Aroplatin. As you know, there continues to be a tremendous amount of excitement around Aroplatin due to the approval of oxaliplatin for use in colon cancer. In July of '02, we initiated a Phase-II study of Aroplatin as a monotherapy for colorectal cancer. This trial is being conducted under the supervision of Dr. Dan Varahalf [ph] at the Arizona Cancer Center. Although data are not expected until the second half of this year, we have not seen any of the new accessory associated with oxaliplatin and we have already begun to see positive clinical activity in the first co-order patients using Aroplatin as a single agent. Additionally, in January of this year, we initiated a phase I/II study of Aroplatin as a monotherapy for advanced solid tumors amenable to Datplatinum [ph] therapy. This study is being conducted by Dr. Lee Rosen at the John Wayne Cancer Center.

I will now shift gears and review with you the AG 702/70X series. The genital herpes program AG 702X continues to progress. We are continuing to enroll the next dose cobot [ph] of our AG 702 pilot phase I trial at the University of Washington. Based on the proof of principle, we are demonstrating with AG 702, we intend to launch the next phase of our herpes program by filing an I&D and beginning clinical testing this year of the multi avalanche for these vaccine AG 70X, which will contain in excess of 30 HSV2 antigens versus the one that is contained in AG 702. Let me now review with you upcoming meetings and focus on ASCO. And, anti-generics will be presenting five abstracts at the ASCO meeting in May of this year. Data from the AG 858 pilot phase-I trial for CMO will be presented in all presentation. We will also have four-poster presentations. These will include data from the Oncophage Phase II trial in a renal cell carcinoma. Data from the Oncophage phase-II trial in low-grade non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, preliminary data from a breast cancer study using QS 21 as an adjuvant, and data from a phase-II trial for prostrate cancer using QS 21 as an adjuvant. Let me summarize and say that anti-generics continues to accelerate with progress in the clinic. We have two pivotal Phase-III trials well under way, with interim data expected in one of these trials by the end of this year. We have begun enrolments in two additional Phase II trials in our lead cardiac programs. We continue to succeed in increasing our presence in the oncology community. And, we also continue to accelerate our progress in bring Oncophage to market in 2004. That's concludes the clinical development update. Thank you.

Thank you, Jonathan. We'll open the session through Q&A, before we do that let me make a couple of concluding remarks, as you heard we made progress on a number of fronts. We're trying to get to the finishing line, now accompanying all of the issues that you have been updated on. There also a significant number of other things that need to be addressed in a functioning and operating company. And we are making a substantial amount of progress in so called behind all the things, activity in fact, most of investors don't necessarily get involved in. But I am very heartened by the fact that we had made substantial progress towards preparing Antigenics to become a commercial company with a launch of our first generations products. So with that I'll be happy to take any questions for any one of us here. And operator, if you could start the process.

If you would like to ask a question please press "*" then "1" on you telephone keypad. We'll pause for just a moment to compile our Q&A roster. Your first question comes from Cory Kasimov of Ryan, Beck.

Yes. Thanks. Good morning, guys. Few questions for you, first of all with regard to 858. You talked through the Phase II study, you'd mentioned that - you still to expect to complete enrolment by yearend, because of all the excitement surrounding this drug right now. In terms of data however when do expect we could have our first look?

Cory I will get John to answer the details of this. But one of reasons the enrollment is expected to be quick is because many of you may know that there is a inventory of patients out there. Who has been on Gleevec and who already stop responding to Gleevec or had not responded appropriately to the drug. And so we will have onto that resource well. And given the enthusiasm and the excitement that have been express by some of the leading investigators of this year. We are hopeful that the enrollment will be quick. And once it is, because this particular disease has a marker associated with response. Within 3 months of completion of vaccination we'll get - start getting results. So John, when do you think the data will be out?

Just to echo what Garo has said, it's going to be a very short while afterwards; and we expect to have either interim or final data at the beginning of '04, so I think in the first quarter of '04.

Okay. Great. Then secondly, for Aroplatin, that data, what you said in the second half of this year. Would that be -- would that likely be presented at a conference or is it something you guys would release as a press release.

We expect to present that at a conference and then around us as well there will be a press release.

Okay. And then finally a couple of comments, if you will, on your corporate development strategy. Really regarding both the Aroplatin and your heat shock protein technology. Aroplatin partners, I'm assuming, you've had a lot of contacts with potential partners to date and of course this would be something that's data driven, but is this something that we can expect way possibly later this year once the data is out. And then with regards to the Oncophage and 858 programs, is this just to try and get an initial read on your strategy are these two products that would be lumped together, because I'm sure that would be very attractive as a combination pair for potential partners, XUS, or is it something that you're going to treat as two distinct partners and out license separately?

Sure. Let me address the issue more generically, if you will. With our overall business development efforts, as you know, until about six months ago, we did not have a VP level person in-charge of this business. We're trying to all chip in and conduct some business development activity, but it wasn't a major undertaking, as we expressed to you many times. But in the last six months, we have a VP of business development, who we think is a high quality star level person in that function. And there has been a very substantial pickup in activity, as defined by the number of companies that has contacted, have expressed interest, and meeting that had been consummated, and follow on meetings that had been engaged in. There has been a flow of activity on this for in the last six months. And so with that, we expect to see some results of these activities over the next 9 to 15 months in that time frame. With regards to Aroplatin, there has been interest in the product as you can imagine because of the success of oxaliplatin since it's introduction in summer. Aroplatin had certain positive attributes that we think are more advantageous that are oxaliplatin are. And based on that we are moving forward with a number of discussion. In addition, we have said we will be interested in licensing our heat up-warding technology as applied to cancer, namely Oncophage for now and AG-858 either together or separately outside of North America and although discussions are also proceeding on a number of calls with multiple candidates. Further more our AG-702 and 70X efforts for genital herpes is just starting to pick up momentum in terms of discussion and that's a little bit earlier phase because we're in earlier stages of clinical development of product. So I would expect anything on that front not to come to fruition until some time late next year.

Great thank you very much.

Our next question comes from Mark Monane of Needham.

Hi, good morning. Please could you comment some more - a lot of my questions have been asked -- answered. Thank you. But could you comment please on the 856 -- 858 program in some more detail? How big is the problem of Gleevec resistant, and how've you mobilized both the resources of Antigenics and the outside community as you mentioned in order to address this issue?

I'll have Jon answer the question one could comment on that as you know Gleevec is a wonderful product because of a very essential annotations we expand to a by-cytogenetic [ph] criteria. However a very small percentage of a cytogenetically negative patients become long-term response [ph] and that's what the issue is. Product is being used as a standard of care today because it's a generic product but a very substantial portion of Asian who are predominantly buying initially are either not responding completely or they are relaxed. John, if you would like to say something on this.

Sure. So just to expand on that, you asked for the exact miniature of the problem. That is not known at this time because Gleevec users are new. It is the estimate of many hematologists who are specialized CML that the proportion will be at least 50% and possibly even higher and possibly even much higher in terms of patients who have either responded and then become non-responsive or the others who initially just don't respond Gleevec therapy. The answer to the second part of your question is what have we done. And the answer for that is very surprising, because it's done actually very little in terms of mobilizing people out there. What has amazed us has been the word of mouth that has spread around and this really have been driven primarily by patients but also by the community of doctors who treat this disease. And so, from this pilot study, patients don't speak amongst each other via the internet and then via various other means and the news spread extremely quickly. At the same time, there were so many investigators who have referred patients in; and these patients have responded to this treatment. So again amongst these physicians, the news spread very quickly. The answer to your question we've done surprising little. It is something that has taken off by itself, mediated by both patients and physians and particularly patients who responded and the physians of those patients we have responded.

Your next question comes from Greg Ekizian of Goldman Sachs.

Thanks a lot. You were talking about AG-858 and if you could may be provide a further update on the old Phase I trial that's in combination with Gleevec. That'd be great.

Greg, thank you very much. I will update you by telling you that we've continued to accrue patients and treat them on that trial, these data will be presented in our presentation at the upcoming ASCO Meeting. And at that time, a comprehensive update on all the patients that has been treated and already valuable will be done.

Okay. Thank you.

Your next question comes from Glen Benjamin [ph] of Rodman and RenShaw [ph].

Thank you, good morning. Can you talk just a little bit about the Woburn facility and in particular the capacity of the plant, as we reach Phase III results in the eventual commercialization?

Certainly, Glen. As you know, we are in the processing of moving at Woburn. By the end of this year, that move will be completed. Woburn was built five years ago, part of the current facility building were done was to demonstrate that one can practice the business of personalized medicine and one can make our product efficiently, cost effectively in large quantities. And I think we've demonstrated all of that, and we're now in the process of moving our facilities to Lexington and the reason for the move is several points. One it's cheaper to do business in Lexington than it is in Woburn. Two, the Lexington facility offers us expansion into more than two and a half times space that we have in Woburn right now in stages without having to take at the whole thing at once, one, three, it allows us to be able to make products for approximately of the 40 to 50 thousand cancer patients. Personalized products or as much a s 40 to 50 thousand cancer patients which will translate to a revenue stream of upwards of a billion dollar annually should we be successfully launching these products and that's a significant consideration. So initially to answer your question we will be set up in Lexington to accommodate about 10,000 patients per year and that will bring easily or quickly expandable to 40,000 patients a week.

Terrific. Thanks and one last question on the AGA pivot [ph] trial what are the end points for this phase II trail?

Well thank you very much. The end points are complete [indiscernible] response as measured by chromosomal analysis. In addition in the patients who have responded we will be measuring PCR.

Thank you and congrats on the continued progress.

Your next question comes from Mike Powell of Smith Barney.

Hi, thank you. I have three questions regarding the phase III renal cell study. First of could you identify the statistical significant hurdles needed for success at both the interim and final analysis? Secondly were there any penalties for building the infirm analysis into the study versus the final analysis and finally could you be able to us any details from the interim analysis of its opened closed and then continue to final analysis? Thank you.

Let me address them in a slightly different order than you ask Mike. Firstly the interim in this trial was built into our analysis prospectively and as a result any hint that you are talking about was taken day 1, so in essence if we look at the interim way back and we decided that the trend is positive but the statistical significance has not yet been achieved by the interims, which is a possibility and continue onto the final analysis. We will not have to enroll any additional patients than this trial design suggests right now. So it's important to realize that any penalty has been built prospectively into this site. No further penalties will be taken, should the statistical analysis at the in term look not the sufficient device. In terms of the statistical significant requirement, Elma will do have to elaborate on that. Elma is here. She is the Vice Chairman of the company, has done a number of projects -- one of them.

I think probably the easiest way to look at it is to take a look at the recurrent three survival and the anticipated medium with the observation on, as have stated in protocol is currently at about 6.8 years. That is the data that we obtained from a dated set from a study conducted by E-coke [ph] in that are approximately the same, as the patient that we are treating in this study here. The difference that we are looking for the patients who are treated with Oncophage would take that medium were currently survival then from 6.8 years to 12.1 year. That is essentially the difference that we're looking for.

Okay. Let me elaborate on some of your other questions, Mike. In terms of what are the likely outcomes? Certainly one possible outcome is that in-term analysis is physically significant at that point and we filed with the FDA for the approval of our BLA. The other possibility is that the trend is positive, but we haven't quite yet achieved this cyclical significance and at that point we have a number of option available to us including those that will make the use of our product available to larger numbers of patients outside of the trial, and it will allow us to charge for our products for those patients that's a another possibility. The third possibility is that product shows no difference and it doesn't work and we terminate the trial. And we know how this kinds of thing that we look at on an ongoing basis and we have contingency plans in place to be able to deal with each one of them. The contingency plans include a diversified product pipeline that is expected to mature within a short time line for one another and that's one of the reasons I characterize our company as a unique company and that for a company our size and means we have rare number of projects ongoing that will come to maturity over the next 12 to 18 months. Including, Oncophage, for renal cell carcinoma, including Oncophage for melanoma, including AG-858 for CML and Aroplatin. So we are looking at all of these programs. And figuring out, what is the likely scenario for each one and should the likely scenario not occur, how do we resolve to continue sequence. And all of these issues are always discussed on an ongoing basis when considered and the implementation planned by in placed already.

Thank you, very much Garo.

Can I adjust something, I just wanted add something on what Elma had said and just again to make it quite clear that the [indiscernible] which is when 50 % of patients recur, other numbers as stated, but again just to reiterate that we told this to many of you, but again just clear that everyone understand. We are looking at numbers over a much shorter time course. And we're looking at approximately 75 % of patients with the treatment remaining without disease during the time that we're measuring it versus 60 % in the control room. So, we're looking to change from 60 % to about 75 % and that again will result in a positive analysis.

And that will be captured obviously within timeframe that we outline.

Right.

Okay.

Your next question comes from Mark Monane of Needham.

Hi, I'm sorry, I got disconnected. Please would you give us your state of the art in terms of cancer vaccines, where are we in the field of developing the therapeutics and maybe we can hear from Russell little bit about the manufacturing challenges which have to be addressed for cancer vaccine?

Sure. In terms of where we are with cancer vaccine Mark, as you know, our cancer vaccine, as also other therapeutic vaccine have not yet been successful. And one can look at that and say, well cancer vaccines or therapeutic vaccines will never be successful. That's a very narrow or blinded way of looking at it in our feelings. Cancer vaccines have not been successful not because the body doesn't have the capacity to immunologically deal with cancer, not because of that, but rather We have not yet discovered the right mousetrap and developed the right mousetrap. Now in our case, with our [indiscernible] technology based on the times that has been outlined, published by us, and published by many others. As you know, we are the most advanced, scientifically driven company with over 60 publications in giving you journals by Antigenics and an additional 50 or so publications in prereview journals on the same subjects that are covered by our intellectual property by other investment agents and some of the world's leading institutions. Because of all of that, because of the evidence so far, we believe, we strongly believe that we have discovered right mousetrap and that mousetrap now need to meet the challenge of being developed properly, which is not a small challenge. It's just because you have the right mousetrap, that does not mean to guarantee in succeeding in clinical trials and that's a big challenge. And we had worked very hard, very diligently, think very hard about meeting this challenge. But, we are comfortable that we have discovered the right mousetrap based on, not my conjecture, but based on solid data for those who obviously have reviewed it, which is also posted in our website. And Russ, if you could elaborate on the manufacturing challenges?

Sure. Garo, that's a great sort of lead into what I would sort of discuss is Mark's question. When you think about mousetrap, you can divide them into three general categories. One would be cell life where you just make or that cleans out of products where the cells are liberated of their proteins and given back to a patient. This [indiscernible] manufactured in that, which is probably the least likely to succeed mousetrap is that there is no consistency from a patient-to-patient basis. Then you really don't know what it is you're giving to a patient and whether or not any particular patient's product would be active. So in that respect, those are going to be a very challenging technologies to reach commercial end. The next mousetrap would be mousetraps that you cell expansion technology or fusion technologies to cells [indiscernible] and then are applied to patients. And this goes for specific peptide-type vaccines or for multiple peptide vaccines. These are incredibly challenging, because of the cell culture aspects of the processes. The redundancy required that drives up the cost of goods in these types of manufacturing environment and the potential for cost contamination that occurs because of the expansion necessary. You know, the time to expand and do process material is prior to giving the patient. As Garo pointed out, what We have here is definitely the best mousetrap there is no cell expansion in our process at all. We were not so [indiscernible] they are purified cellular protein. They are well characterized and well identified. We have something much more keen to our competitive product -- protein production process and separation technology. And so therefore our cost of good are -- cost-based, this is much smaller or much less than what we would experienced by other manufactures. Now, because of this when you look at the whole - the total package not only that the technology allow us to provide a product that has the greatest potential for success, because they contain all of the appropriate Antigenic peptide that exist in that particular patient. But we also have the type of process that produces the less over all cost associated with the manufacture and therefore better pension margin for the company as well as the more realistic price for the patient.

Terrific. Thanks for the clarification and congratulations on your progressive so far.

One other issue if I may address is that there is a lot of confusion in the marketplace about you know how does - you know this is an extension of the question Mark, how do [indiscernible] so forth. I'll just take a minute to explain how well this happen, the way the body works is [indiscernible] cell that are residing in the body or activated that's how the immune system checks out. And once the cells are activated [indiscernible]. In the cell beginning of this casket [ph] means the activity of this [indiscernible] casketal [ph] reactions that are required for immunization. There is no immunization [indiscernible] and what we do is we by means of administer a heat shock we jump start that process, what happens is that in the body the dangerous [ph] cell get exposed to heat shock proteins and has created a [indiscernible]. So we do a lot of these things within the body by the administration of the heat shock protein, as opposed to taking dangerous cells out of the body activating them outside of the body, putting them back in which has other complication that vastly associated. But the whole casket is not different from one company to another, it just how we fill into what portion of the casket is different.

Very helpful. Thank you.

Any other questions?

Your next question comes from Pascal Busman [ph] of UBS.

Hi, good morning. Carole or Jonathan, could you perhaps go over a little bit how at this point that we gone into the renal trial the community is sort of responding to the results we are seeing and perhaps? And could you tie that also into I believe there's a change in the formulation coming along the allow Oncophage to be stored rather than at the minus 80 at minus 20?

Okay. Now let me ask - I'll answer the second one and then John will answer with answer the first one. As I alluded to at the end of my presentation [indiscernible] the last of so-called mandating that we intent to [indiscernible] activity, that are not [indiscernible] attention if you will. Among that is what you spoke about ourselves, there isn't any substantial efforts within the company to input the formulation of Oncophage, so that we can make this product a patient friendly or physician friendly as possible. Right now the protocol is that it is stored at minus 80 freezer, which is available to most major medical centers as evidenced by the factor, we are conducting our renal cell carcinoma at a 130 centers in the US and overseas. So, that gives you an idea of the available. But obviously, if we were able to improve the self-life storing Oncophage at a lower temperature not only at minus 20 but even lower than that, which is a target we're working with a terrific results so far and it will make life a lot easier for a lot of people. And so these activities are ongoing with some very, very specific results so far. John, if you would like to address the two perception issues, and better way just to as a little clarification not only - can we discussed results so far, but we also don't see results either because the results are reviewed by the Stacy and Martin [ph] committee, others have been set up in the Novena [ph] committee. By internal perception I think John could share important points.

Pascal, the perceptional overall level has been positive. It has been a very strongly positive amongst the sites that have had the highest approval. Again as Garo said, we don't know what the exact data are? We do not know though that the perception off several of these sites have been strongly positive in terms of what they have experienced. And I think that's the best answer that I can give you at this point in time.

By the way, I mean just to further along on that as John said, our enrollment has exceeded the enrollment of any other trail ever conducted in this disease in this patient population. We have enrolled patients in a record break and then certainly the proxy all the fact that the clinical community is very receptive to what we're doing and how we're doing it without [indiscernible] it.

Thanks.

If you would like ask a question, please press "*" then the number "1" on your telephone keypad.

Okay. If there are no further questions, I would like to thank everyone for your interest in our company. And, as always, if you have other questions, please do not hesitate to contact us through our Investor Relations department, and they will put you in touch with the appropriate personnel at Antigenics. Tanya have some closing remarks.

Before we close the call, I'd like to mention that we will be launching our new website shortly after this call. The new site is faster and offers much more information and functionality than our current and I guess previous size. You can still find it at www.antigenics.com. A replay of this call will available for approximately two hours after the call through midnight Eastern Time on April 30th 2003. Please dial 1-800-642-1687 from the US or through the international number, which is 706-645-9291. The access code for both numbers is 963005. A replay is also available on our website and again that will take about 2 hours put up thank you.

This concludes the Antigenics first quarter financial result conference call. You may now disconnect.

END