UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

☒ ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021

OR

☐ TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

Lantern Pharma Inc.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

(972) 277-1136

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: Common Stock

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes ☐ No ☒

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. Yes ☐ No ☒

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes ☒  No ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit such files). Yes ☒ No ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ☒

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed a report on and attestation to its management’s assessment of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting under Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (15 U.S.C. 7262(b)) by the registered public accounting firm that prepared or issued its audit report. ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes ☐ No ☒

State the aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates computed by reference to the price at which the common equity was last sold, or the average bid and asked price of such common equity, as of the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter: $121,719,704.

As of March 1, 2022, the registrant had 10,780,490 shares of common stock, $0.0001 par value per share outstanding.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Portions of the registrant’s definitive proxy statement for the registrant’s 2022 Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be filed pursuant to Regulation 14A within 120 days of the registrant’s year ended December 31, 2021 are incorporated herein by reference into Part III of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Table of Contents

SPECIAL NOTE CONCERNING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains forward-looking statements that involve substantial risks and uncertainties. We make such forward-looking statements pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and other federal securities laws. All statements, other than statements of historical fact, contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including statements regarding our strategy, future preclinical studies and clinical trials, future financial position, projected costs, prospects, plans and objectives of management, are forward-looking statements. The words “anticipate,” “believe,” “contemplate,” “could,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “seek,” “may,” “might,” “plan,” “potential,” “predict,” “project,” “target,” "objective," “aim,” "upcoming," “should,” ‘will” “would,” or the negative of these words or other similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements, although not all forward-looking statements contain these words. Forward-looking statements reflect our current views with respect to future events and are based on assumptions and subject to risks and uncertainties.

The forward-looking statements in this Annual Report on Form 10-K include, among other things, statements relating to:

We may not actually achieve the plans, intentions, or expectations disclosed in our forward-looking statements, and you should not place undue reliance on our forward-looking statements. Actual results or events could differ materially from the plans, intentions, and expectations disclosed in the forward-looking statements we make. Factors that may cause actual results or events to differ materially from current plans, intentions, and expectations include, among other things:

These factors could cause actual results or events to differ materially from the forward-statements that we make. Furthermore, we operate in a competitive and rapidly changing environment. New risks and uncertainties emerge from time to time, and it is not possible for us to predict all risks and uncertainties that could have an impact on the forward-looking statements contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

You should read this Annual Report on Form 10-K and the documents that we file with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC, with the understanding that our actual future results may be materially different from what we expect. These forward-looking statements are based on management’s current expectations. These statements are neither promises nor guarantees, but involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other important factors that may cause our actual results, performance or achievements to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements. Factors that may cause actual results or events to differ materially from current plans, intentions, and expectations include, among other things, those listed under Part I, Item 1A. “Risk Factors,” Part II, Item 7. “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Given these uncertainties, you should not rely on these forward-looking statements as predictions of future events. The forward-looking statements contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K are made as of the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, and we do not assume any obligation to update any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by applicable law.

In addition, statements that “we believe” and similar statements reflect our beliefs and opinions on the relevant subject. These statements are based upon information available to us as of the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, and while we believe such information forms a reasonable basis for such statements, such information may be limited or incomplete. Our statements should not be read to indicate that we have conducted an exhaustive inquiry into, or review of, all potentially available relevant information. These statements are inherently uncertain and investors are cautioned not to unduly rely upon these statements.

Unless the context requires otherwise, references to the “Company,” “Lantern,” “we,” “us,” and “our” in this Annual Report on Form 10-K refer to Lantern Pharma Inc., a Delaware corporation, and, where appropriate, its wholly-owned subsidiaries.

RISK FACTOR SUMMARY

Our business is subject to numerous risks and uncertainties, including those described in Part I, Item 1A. “Risk Factors” in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. These risks include, but are not limited to the following:

PART I

Item 1. Business

Overview

We are a clinical stage biotechnology company, focused on leveraging artificial intelligence (“A.I.”), machine learning and genomic data to streamline the drug development process and to identify the patients that will benefit from our targeted oncology therapies. Our portfolio of therapies consists of small molecules that others have tried, but failed, to develop into an approved commercialized drug, as well as new compounds that we are developing with the assistance of our proprietary A.I. platform and our biomarker driven approach. Our A.I. platform, known as RADR^®, currently includes more than 18 billion data points, and uses big data analytics (combining molecular data, drug efficacy data, data from historical studies, data from scientific literature, phenotypic data from trials and publications, and mechanistic pathway data) and machine learning to rapidly uncover biologically relevant genomic signatures correlated to drug response, and then identify the cancer patients that we believe may benefit most from our compounds. This data-driven, genomically-targeted and biomarker-driven approach allows us to pursue a transformational drug development strategy that identifies, rescues or develops, and advances potential small molecule drug candidates at what we believe is a fraction of the time and cost associated with traditional cancer drug development.

Our strategy is to both develop new drug candidates using our RADR^® platform and other machine learning driven methodologies, and to pursue the development of drug candidates that have undergone previous clinical trial testing or that may have been halted in development or deprioritized because of insufficient clinical trial efficacy (i.e., a meaningful treatment benefit relevant for the disease or condition under study as measured against the comparator treatment used in the relevant clinical testing) or for strategic reasons by the owner or development team responsible for the compound. Importantly, these historical drug candidates appear to have been well-tolerated in many instances, and often have considerable data from previous toxicity, tolerability and ADME (absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion) studies that have been completed. Additionally, these drug candidates may also have a body of existing data supporting the potential mechanism(s) by which they achieve their intended biologic effect, but often require more targeted trials in a stratified group of patients to demonstrate statistically meaningful results. Our dual approach to both develop de-novo, biomarker-guided drug candidates and “rescue” historical drug candidates by leveraging A.I., recent advances in genomics, computational biology and cloud computing is emblematic of a new era in drug development that is being driven by data-intensive approaches meant to de-risk development and accelerate the clinical trial process. In this context, we intend to create a diverse portfolio of oncology drug candidates for further development towards regulatory and marketing approval with the objective of establishing a leading A.I.-driven, methodology for treating the right patient with the right oncology therapy.

A key component of our strategy is to target specific cancer patient populations and treatment indications identified by leveraging our RADR^® platform, a proprietary A.I. enabled engine created and owned by us. We believe the combination of our therapeutic area expertise, our A.I. expertise, and our ability to identify and develop promising drug candidates through our collaborative relationships with research institutions in selected areas of oncology gives us a significant competitive advantage. Our RADR^® platform was developed and refined over the last five years and integrates millions of data points immediately relevant for oncology drug development and patient response prediction using artificial intelligence and proprietary machine learning algorithms. By identifying clinical candidates, together with relevant genomic and phenotypic data, we believe our approach will help us design more efficient preclinical studies, and more targeted clinical trials, thereby accelerating our drug candidates’ time to approval and eventually to market. Although we have not yet applied for or received regulatory or marketing approval for any of our drug candidates, we believe our RADR^® platform has the ability to reduce the cost and time to bring drug candidates to specifically targeted patient groups. We believe we have developed a sustainable and scalable biopharma business model by combining a unique, oncology-focused big-data platform that leverages artificial intelligence along with active clinical and preclinical programs that are being advanced in targeted cancer therapeutic areas to address today’s treatment needs.

Scientific literature offers a definition for “drug rescue” as research involving abandoned small molecules and biologics that have not been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”). These rescued molecular compounds are often abandoned by pharmaceutical companies in the drug discovery or preclinical testing phase, typically because they do not prove effective for the specific use for which they were developed. Some of these compounds may be useful in treating other diseases for which they have not been tested. See, Hemphill, Thomas A., “The NIH Promotes Drug Repurposing and Rescue,” Research Technology Management, v. 5, no. 5, pp. 6-8 (2012). Our use of the term “rescue”, “drug rescue”, or “drug rescuing” refers to, “…a system of developing new uses for chemical and biological entities that previously were investigated in clinical studies but not further developed or submitted for regulatory approval, or had to be removed from the market for safety reasons.”, which is a definition we believe is recognized in the drug discovery, drug development and pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries. See, Naylor, S. and Schonfeld J., “Therapeutic Drug Repurposing, Repositioning and Rescue,” DDW (Drug Discovery World) Winter 2014, and Mucke, HAM, A New Journal for the Drug Repurposing Community. Drug Repurposing, Rescue & Repositioning 1, 3-4 (2014). The use of the term “drug rescue,” “rescuing,” or words of similar meaning in this report should not be construed to mean that our RADR^® platform has resolved all issues of safety and/or efficacy for any of our drug candidates. Issues of safety and efficacy for any drug candidate may only be determined by the U.S. FDA or other applicable regulatory authorities in jurisdictions outside the United States.

Our current portfolio consists of four compounds and an Antibody Drug Conjugate (ADC) program: two drug candidates in clinical phases, one in preclinical studies and one candidate and our ADC program in research optimization. One of the two drug candidates in clinical development, LP-100, was previously out-licensed by us to Allarity Therapeutics A/S. In July 2021, we entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement to reacquire global development and commercialization rights for LP-100 from Allarity. All of these drug candidates and our ADC program are leveraging precision oncology, A.I. and genomic driven approaches to accelerate and direct development efforts. We currently have two drug candidates in clinical development, LP-100 and LP-300, where we are leveraging data from prior preclinical studies and clinical trials, along with insights generated from our A.I. platform, to target the types of tumors and patient groups we believe will be most responsive to the drug. Both LP-100 and LP-300 showed promise in important patient subgroups, but failed pivotal Phase III trials when the overall results did not meet the predefined clinical endpoints. We believe that this was due to a lack of biomarker-driven patient stratification. LP-300 has been studied in multiple randomized, controlled, multi-center non-small cell lung cancer, or NSCLC, trials that included administration of either paclitaxel and cisplatin and/or docetaxel and cisplatin, and we are currently preparing LP-300 for the launch of a targeted phase II trial, in never smoking patients with NSCLC in combination with chemotherapy, under an existing investigational new drug application. LP-100 is in a Phase II clinical trial in metastatic, castration-resistant, prostate cancer that was previously managed by Allarity Therapeutics. As a result of the Asset Purchase Agreement we entered into with Allarity in July 2021, we obtained full authority to manage and guide future clinical development and commercialization of LP-100.

Additionally, we have one new drug candidate, LP-184, in preclinical development for multiple potentially distinct indications where we are leveraging machine learning and genomic data to streamline the drug development process and to identify the patients and cancer subtypes that will best benefit from the drug, if approved. Subject to regulatory clearance to move forward under a future IND application, we are planning a Phase I clinical trial for LP-184 to begin later in 2022. Our drug candidate, LP-284, the stereoisomer (enantiomer) of LP-184, has shown promising in-vitro anticancer activity in a range of hematological cancers, which are distinct from the indications targeted by LP-184. Our ADC program commenced in early 2021 is aimed at identifying targeted or therapeutic antibodies to conjugate with selected compounds.

Our development strategy is to pursue an increasing number of oncology focused, molecularly targeted therapies where artificial intelligence and genomic data can help us provide biological insights, reduce the risk associated with development efforts and help clarify potential patient response. We plan on strategically evaluating these on a program-by-program basis as they advance into clinical development, either to be done entirely by us or with out-licensing partners to maximize the commercial opportunity and reduce the time it takes to bring the right drug to the right patient.

As part of our overall growth strategy, we plan to grow our pipeline by identifying new drug candidates and pursuing potential indications for LP-184, LP-300, and LP-100 while leveraging our RADR^® platform. We are also pursuing the identification and design of potential combination therapies in cancer for our compounds by leveraging our RADR^® platform to analyze synergistic genomic networks and biological pathways with other currently approved drugs.

We have an extensive multi-national portfolio of intellectual property directed to our drug candidates, and to protect the targeted use and development of our portfolio of compounds in specific patient populations and in specific therapeutic indications. In addition, as our RADR^® platform and other machine learning driven methodologies progress and mature, we will continue to evaluate additional ways to further protect these assets.

As of March 2022, we own or control over 80 active patents and patent applications across 14 patent families whose claims are directed to our drug candidates and what we plan to do with our drug candidates. We have in-licensed or acquired patents from AF Chemicals, and BioNumerik that are directed to the compounds, LP-100, LP-184 and LP-300. Additionally, we have also filed patent applications to further enhance, and extend the use of these in-licensed compounds. Our 14 patent families are directed to our drug candidates, their usage, manufacturing and other matters. These matters are essential to precision oncology and relate to: (a) uniquely powerful, data-driven, biologically relevant biomarker signatures, (b) patient selection and stratification approaches that rely on prediction of response derived from these signatures and, (c) the ability to develop novel, combination therapy approaches with existing therapeutics.

Our Drug Candidate Pipeline

One of the ways we are building our drug candidate pipeline is by in-licensing clinical stage drug candidates that may have been discontinued for development. We use our RADR^® platform to assist in analyzing prior clinical research conducted by others to identify small-molecule oncology drug candidates that have (i) a well-tolerated profile evidenced by completion of phase I clinical trials, and (ii) demonstrated at least limited antitumor or anticancer activity in clinical trials. We intend to advance the drug candidates in our pipeline as potential precision medicine treatments for cancer. Our targeted development workflow includes preclinical studies where drug activity and associated gene signatures are identified, in part through strategic collaborations with some of the top academic institutions and clinical translational centers in the world. Using this collaborative approach, together with innovative observations from our RADR^® platform, we intend to develop and add drug candidates to our pipeline with the objective of treating the right patient populations with the right oncology therapies.

We use our RADR^® platform to identify potential biomarkers for patient response to a drug candidate and we further intend to validate the selected drug candidate and potential associated biomarkers by conducting small, focused early phase clinical trials. We intend to create various exit opportunities for each drug candidate that progresses successfully. For each drug candidate that progresses, along with its newly identified biomarker diagnostic potential for drug response, we intend to partner, out-license, or internally develop the drug.

Our current pipeline of development programs involves four small molecule drug candidates: LP-100, LP-300, LP-184, and LP-284, and an Antibody Drug Conjugate (ADC) program.

We currently have an existing IND in the U.S. for LP-300 that was transferred to us as part of our in-licensing and agreement with BioNumerik to acquire the rights to the compound. There is currently no active IND in the U.S. for LP-100, LP-184 and LP-284.

Our Precision Cancer Therapy Development Using Our Innovative RADR^® Platform

Historically, cancer treatment protocols include surgery, chemotherapy and radiation therapy. Treatments have been selected based on histologic type and disease spread, irrespective of genetic differences among patients. With the advent of precision therapies, cancer treatments increasingly target specific genes or mechanisms of action for a more personalized approach to patient care. This trend represents a substantial advance in cancer treatment because tumor growth is highly dependent on genetic changes and the genetic profile of the individual and the progression of the disease is highly variable amongst patients.

Our RADR^® platform is core to our drug development approach for identifying the desired candidates to in-license and develop. According to a recent article in JAMA (Estimated Research and Development Investment Needed to Bring a New Medicine to Market, 2009-18, JAMA, March 3, 2020) oncology drug development is costly, risky, and highly competitive with an average success rate of 4% to 8% and average developmental costs of over $1 billion per successful drug. There is a critical need to rescue clinical research on drugs that have failed clinical trials in order to provide additional possible therapies for patients while reducing the overall cost of therapeutic development. Many drug failures within oncology may be attributed to the heterogeneity of the tested patient population, even though there may be a strongly positive therapeutic impact on certain patient subgroups within that population.

As data-centric and machine learning approaches begin to change the pace and scale of drug discovery and development, research and development (“R&D”) we believe efforts in large biopharma companies will begin to shift away from traditional approaches towards new data and A.I.-centric approaches. According to Deloitte Consulting, in Ten Years On | Measuring the return from pharmaceutical innovation 2019, “decades of advances in science and technology have driven improvements in health care outcomes and influenced stakeholder expectations of the role of the biopharmaceutical industry (biopharma). However, the past decade has seen increasing pressures undermine the productivity of biopharma R&D, leading to a decade of decline in the return on investment. At the same time, innovative new treatments are changing the face of disease management. New treatment modalities and an increasing understanding of precision medicine have led to the need for new R&D models...” The Deloitte Consulting report further describes that R&D costs will, “shift from traditional discovery and trial execution to a process driven by large datasets, advanced computing power and cloud storage”.

Analysts estimate that this shift from traditional screening, and trial-based studies to leveraging in silico, data and A.I. methodologies has driven a significant increase in the spending on A.I. by the biopharma and drug discovery community to approximately $4 billion by 2021, increasing by about 40% annually from $730 million in 2019 according to PMLive and Global Market Insights. As a result of these trends and changes in the R&D model in biopharma, we believe that we, and companies that are using data-centric and A.I. centric approaches to drug discovery and development, are in an ideal position to benefit from this industry shift that has the potential to help deliver drugs to the right patients faster, with a higher degree of personalization and a potentially lower amount of average costs in the development cycle.

Our drug rescue approach leverages substantial prior research and development investments in candidates that were withdrawn from development prior to submission for FDA approval. The large volume of failed compounds, recent developments that permit increased access to validated genomic and biomarker data, and the rapid evolution of AI technology creates an opportunity to efficiently capitalize on these investments.

Our RADR^® platform is rapidly emerging as a robust and scalable platform for targeted cancer therapy development. Through the use of AI and machine learning, RADR^® is designed to quickly identify and guide the development of compounds that we can develop as potential oncology agents through either a process of drug rescue, drug repositioning or de-novo development. RADR^® is being developed on a routine basis through an accumulation and curation of genomic and biomarker data that is directly relevant to the measurement and classification drug-tumor interaction, and clinical datapoints related to patient response and patient stratification.

Predicting optimal drug responses in cancer patients requires the identification and validation of predictive biomarkers. Our RADR^® platform seeks to identify biomarkers to assist in selecting patients who have the highest likelihood to respond to our drug candidates. For example, the targeted indications for our drug candidate LP-184 were chosen in part because they are known to highly express the protein coding gene PTGR1. Our planned clinical trial for LP-184 is intended to provide additional information regarding biomarkers related to LP-184’s molecular and cellular targets. This method of using and validating targeted biomarkers during development and then using these biomarkers during clinical trials can lead to shortening of the development timeline and compression of costs associated with oncology drug development.

Similarly, we believe LP-300 targets molecular pathways that are more common in never smokers than in other groups and also targets kinases involved in key signaling pathways involving enzymes critical for DNA synthesis and repair, such as Excision Repair Cross-Complementation Group 1 (ERCC1), Ribonucleotide Reductase 1 (RNR1), Ribonucleotide Reductase 2 (RNR2), as well as enzymes and proteins important in regulating cell redox status, such as Thioredoxin (TRX), Peroxiredoxin (PRX), Glutaredoxin (GRX), and Protein Disulfide Isomerase (PDI).

Our RADR^® Platform

The human genome consists of 19,000 to 20,000 protein coding genes. One input record derived from available data bases and analyzed by our RADR^® platform consists of datapoints (expression values) from approximately 20,000 genes, another input record type is drug sensitivity data (IC20, IC50), and other sets include key clinical parameters from HIPAA compliant patient data and clinical histories. Our RADR^® platform uses a data-driven gene feature selection methodology that is a combination of biology, informatics, and statistics – computational biology. The architecture and modules of our platform are depicted in the image below.

We developed our platform using primarily open-source third party supervised algorithms such as Neural Networks, Support Vector Machine, Random Forest, K-Nearest Neighbors, Logistic Regression and Penalized Multivariate Regression. Each algorithm is trained with input data to predict drug sensitivity (regressor models) and stratify patient response as responder or non-responder (classifier models). Model tuning and optimization is then performed using a hyperparameter search algorithm in order to produce the predicted lowest cross validation error. The models are then evaluated using traditional performance metrics such as accuracy, area under the curve, sensitivity, specificity, precision, root mean square error and mean absolute error calculations. 

A feature reduction algorithm is then used to reduce the number of genes under analysis to a biomarker gene panel of less than approximately 50 genes. This set of genes is intended to carry the highest coefficient to predict drug sensitivity and the highest variable importance in classifying a responder from a non-responder. Genes that do not help in predicting the output variable are eliminated sequentially.

Our RADR^® Platform Workflow

Our RADR^® platform’s proprietary workflow involves preliminary statistical analysis on approximately 18,000 features typically from whole transcriptomic datasets reducing the set to approximately 2,000 features. This is followed by gene filtering via biological and statistical methodologies yielding approximately 200 significant genes. The platform currently contains 6 feature selection methods and 13 machine learning methods to analyze the drug and omics data, in order to fine tune the model and get better and improved prediction accuracy. Feature selection ensures that genes that do not contribute to response prediction are excluded from the output dataset. The prediction component subsequently applies an A.I.-driven reduction algorithm to the previously filtered genes generating a targeted set of typically less than 50 candidate biomarkers predictive of response to a particular molecule.

A distinct and unique benefit of the RADR^® platform is its ability to integrate biological knowledge and data-driven feature selection to generate hypothesis-free biomarker signatures. This can then aid in identifying novel targets for predictive screening and drug development.

Our RADR^® platform is enabled through access to, and analysis of, a number of key datasets: (i) publicly available databases (ii) data from commercial clinical studies and trials and (iii) our proprietary data generated from ex vivo 3D tumor models specific to drug-tumor interactions. We incorporate automated supervised machine learning strategies along with big data analytics, statistics and systems biology to facilitate identification of new correlations of genetic biomarkers with drug activity.

The value of the platform architecture is derived from its validation through the analysis of over 18 billion oncology-specific clinical and preclinical data points, more than 154 drug-cancer interactions, and over 100,000 patient records from 16 databases, one of which is our internal database. Our long-term objective is to collect and analyze over 25 billion oncology-specific clinical and preclinical data points to further enhance the prediction power of our RADR^® platform. We use cancer cell line gene expression profiles and drug sensitivity data (IC50) as one of its input types. In a population of 10 case studies our platform was able to distinguish responders from non-responders with an average historical accuracy of over 80%. We have also used our platform to generate genetic signatures that we believe to have applicability for the majority of FDA approved drug-tumor indications. External validation, through retrospective data analysis, of patient datasets from 10 independent clinical studies achieved an average response prediction accuracy greater than 80%, and internal analysis of 120 drug-tumor interactions in cell lines achieved an accuracy of greater than 85%.

We have developed our platform in a cloud environment that efficiently uses parallel processing to analyze patient stratification and biomarker selection. Best software engineering practices are followed while designing and developing our platform’s architecture. Each component of the platform’s architecture is unit tested and then integration tested to ensure functions and programs are working as designed. In order to track modifications in the software, a version control system is in place. Detailed documentation has been created to record the design and architecture of our platform.

Our platform uses a simple user input and GUI based AI architecture that can be used in many pharmaceutical research areas such as biomarker identification, patient stratification, drug rescue and reposition by bioinformaticians, clinicians and trained wet-lab scientists.

In late 2021, the Code Ocean Platform, a secure cloud-based computing environment manager, was integrated into RADR^®. The Code Ocean environment has upgraded RADR^®’s data organization, synchronization, scalability and accessibility. These architecture changes have enhanced the reproducibility of RADR^® aided insights and analysis and created an environment that improves the ability to collaborate and share insights within Lantern and with Lantern’s collaborators.

Actuate Therapeutics Collaboration Utilizing RADR Platform

In May 2021, we entered into a Collaboration Agreement with Actuate Therapeutics, Inc. (“Actuate”), a clinical stage private biopharmaceutical company focused on the development of compounds for use in the treatment of cancer, and inflammatory diseases leading to fibrosis. Pursuant to the agreement, we are collaborating with Actuate on utilization of our RADR® platform to develop novel biomarker derived signatures for use with one of Actuate’s product candidates. As part of the collaboration, we received 25,000 restricted shares of Actuate stock, subject to meeting certain conditions of the collaboration, as well as the potential to receive additional Actuate stock if results from the collaboration are utilized in future development efforts.

Our Strategy

Our mission is to bring the right cancer drugs to the right patients by transforming the drug development process through the use of artificial intelligence and data-driven development approaches. Our proprietary A.I.-enabled, and precision oncology approach, which focuses on developing our own pipeline of compounds by rescuing drug candidates that have previously failed and developing new compounds that are targeted to specific biological activity and genomic pathways, has the potential, we believe, to bring drugs to market faster, with lower costs, and with reduced risk, thereby enabling a change in the cost and availability of precision cancer therapy. We work with leading research laboratories, translational medicine and cancer centers to develop our studies and clinical trials for our portfolio, and actively update and improve our RADR^® platform to incorporate additional biomarker data, patient outcome data, cancer drug efficacy studies and computational models that relate to oncology drug development and prediction of patient response.

As part of our growth strategy, we plan to:

LP-300

General Overview

We are currently advancing LP-300 towards launch of a Phase II clinical trial (the “HARMONIC™ Study”) of LP-300 in combination with carboplatin and pemetrexed in never smoker patients with relapsed advanced primary adenocarcinoma of the lung after treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs).

LP-300 is a cysteine-modifying molecular entity that works to modulate multiple cellular pathways simultaneously and is a potential combination agent for targeted indications in NSCLC. LP-300 is a small molecule (molecular weight 326.4 Da) that was in-licensed from BioNumerik Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in May 2016, and subsequently acquired by us in 2018. We are focused on repositioning LP-300 as a potential combination therapy for non-smoking (or never-smoker) NSCLC patients with histologically defined adenocarcinoma. Since obtaining LP-300 rights from BioNumerik, we have not yet conducted further clinical testing of LP-300. Prior clinical trials conducted by BioNumerik for LP-300 did not meet their primary clinical endpoints, and at least one or more future clinical trials that meet their pre-specified primary endpoints with statistical significance will be required before we can obtain a regulatory marketing approval, if any, to commercialize LP-300. Safety and efficacy determinations are solely within the authority of the FDA in the U.S. or other regulatory agencies in other jurisdictions. Currently there is no approved therapy specifically for the growing indication of never-smokers with NSCLC, and female never smokers appear to be uniquely responsive to LP-300. With both chemosensitizing and chemoprotective activity, LP-300 has potential as a combination agent or adjuvant in front line, second line or salvage therapy in newly diagnosed, relapsed, metastatic or advanced NSCLC for overall survival enhancement and toxicity alleviation from primary chemotherapy or standard of care. We are currently in the early stages of defining a specific biomarker signature that correlates with heightened sensitivity to LP-300. We believe that this signature may help accelerate the clinical development of LP-300 and has the potential to guide patient selection for targeted clinical trials.

Prior clinical trials conducted by BioNumerik for LP-300 did not meet their primary clinical endpoints and at least one or more future clinical trials that meet their pre-specified primary endpoints with statistical significance will be required before we can obtain a regulatory marketing approval, if any, to commercialize LP-300. Prior clinical trial observations are not necessarily predictive of the outcome of any future clinical trials we may conduct.

LP-300 has been administered in multiple clinical trials to more than 1,000 patients and has been generally well-tolerated.  Retrospective analyses of the results of a multi-country phase III lung cancer trial (study ID DMS32212R) in subgroups of adenocarcinoma patients receiving LP-300, paclitaxel and cisplatin demonstrated substantial improvement in overall survival, particularly among female never smokers, where a 13.6 month improvement in overall survival (p-value 0.0167, hazard ratio 0.367) in favor of LP-300 was observed, as compared to placebo in the subgroup of paclitaxel/cisplatin-treated patients. Similar retrospective findings of increased overall survival in the subgroup of LP-300/paclitaxel/cisplatin treated female Asian patients with adenocarcinoma of the lung were observed in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in Japan. Prior historical clinical trial observations are not necessarily predictive of the outcome of future trials. No assurances can be given that we will be successful in obtaining marketing approval for LP-300. The chemical structure of LP-300 is depicted below.

LP-300 Chemical Structure

Upcoming LP-300 Phase II Clinical Trial

We are preparing to launch a Phase II clinical trial (the “HARMONIC™ Study”) of LP-300 in combination with carboplatin and pemetrexed in never smoker patients with relapsed advanced primary adenocarcinoma of the lung after treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Our purpose in conducting the study is to determine the potential clinical advantages for this drug combination in the study-defined patient population.

The trial is designed as a multicenter, open label, Phase II trial with planned enrollment of approximately 90 patients. Patients who are never smokers with lung adenocarcinoma and have relapsed after prior treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors will be eligible for enrollment. Following a six-patient safety lead-in stage, the trial will consist of randomization in a 2:1 allocation ratio to one of two arms: Arm A (consisting of carboplatin, pemetrexed, and LP-300) or Arm B (consisting of carboplatin and pemetrexed).

The primary objective of this study is to determine progression-free survival and overall survival in the study-defined patient population when co-administered LP-300 with combination chemotherapy (carboplatin and pemetrexed) versus carboplatin and pemetrexed alone. The secondary objectives of the study are to evaluate tumor response measured by objective response rate, duration of objective response, and clinical benefit rate. We will also determine any associations between the efficacy endpoints and patient biomarkers (e.g., circulating tumor DNA and tumor genome characteristics) as an exploratory objective. Other exploratory objectives for the study may include evaluating quality of life in all patients and performance of patients based on the type, duration, and number of tyrosine kinase inhibitors received.

Key Findings from Prior LP-300 Clinical Trials

Summarized below are some key findings from LP-300’s prior clinical trials:

Background-Scope of Prior Phase III NSCLC Adenocarcinoma Trial (LP-300)

LP-300 was studied in a randomized, multi-center (trial locations in four US states and five European countries), double-blind and placebo-controlled Phase III trial from 2010 to 2013 in patients with adenocarcinoma of the lung (the “Phase III NSCLC adenocarcinoma trial”). The aim of the trial was to determine whether LP-300, combined with a standard combination of chemotherapy drugs, would increase survival in patients with advanced NSCLC adenocarcinoma. The secondary aim of the trial was to determine if the chemoprotective properties of LP-300 were effective in preventing or reducing common side-effects of cancer treatment, including kidney damage, anemia, nausea and vomiting that can occur with these drug combinations. The trial enrolled NSCLC patients with newly diagnosed or recurrent advanced (stage IIIB/IV) primary adenocarcinoma of the lung. Patients with confirmed histopathological diagnosis of inoperable and measurable advanced primary adenocarcinoma (including bronchioalveolar cell carcinoma) of the lung, and no prior systemic treatment for NSCLC including chemotherapy, immunotherapy, hormonal therapy, targeted therapies or investigational drugs, were included in the trial. Overall survival was the primary outcome measure. Patients in the control arm received standard of care (cisplatin and either paclitaxel or docetaxel) plus placebo, whereas patients in the treatment arm received standard of care (cisplatin and either paclitaxel or docetaxel) plus LP-300. The primary results of the trial for patients receiving cisplatin and paclitaxel are outlined in the table below. While the overall results of the Phase III NSCLC adenocarcinoma trial did not meet the specified endpoint of the trial in increasing overall survival in all patients, when the data were retrospectively separated by gender and smoking status, the trial data demonstrated that all never smokers, especially female never smokers, saw increased survival with LP-300 combination treatment with paclitaxel and cisplatin. Furthermore, the LP-300 group in the phase III NSCLC adenocarcinoma trial exhibited well-tolerated advantages relating to the potential to protect against chemotherapy-induced nephrotoxicity, neuropathy and nausea along with reduced anemia.

The figure below depicts the survival curves for cisplatin/paclitaxel subgroups for the Phase III NSCLC adenocarcinoma trial that ended in 2013, as summarized. The Kaplan Meier curves maintain consistent separation between treatment arms for the never smokers, females, and female never smokers.

Rationale Behind LP-300 Rescue and Repositioning Efforts

Based on the results from the prior Phase III NSCL adenocarcinoma trial, we are preparing to launch a new LP-300 Phase II clinical trial to target the subpopulation of never smokers with adenocarcinoma that saw strong benefit in the previous Phase III trial. Although the incidence of never-smokers with NSCLC is rising currently there is no approved therapy specifically for the growing indication of never-smokers with NSCLC. Preclinical observations support that LP-300 preferentially modulates ALK and EGFR, two commonly mutated genes in non-smokers with adenocarcinoma. Based on the findings from the previous Phase III NSCL adenocarcinoma trial, it is possible that the benefits of combining LP-300 with standard of care chemotherapy could be further improved by identifying additional molecular biomarkers in patients who respond well to LP-300 combination treatment. We continue to seek additional opportunities for LP-300. Some of our considerations include a never smoker population with a specific genetic signature that correlates to increased LP-300 sensitivity.

Disease Background and Opportunity

Lung cancer remains one of the most common and deadly cancers worldwide. Lung cancer accounts for 13% of all new cancer diagnoses, but 25% of all cancer deaths. Lung cancer kills more people annually than cancers of the breast, prostate, colon, liver, kidney, pancreatic, and melanoma combined. The American Cancer Society’s estimates for lung cancer in the US for 2022 are:

The most common type of lung cancer is called non-small cell lung cancer (“NSCLC”), which represents about 84% of all lung cancer.

Lung adenocarcinoma, a histological subtype of NSCLC that originates within the glands that line the lung, is the most common subtype of lung cancer in the world inflicting approximately 50% to 65% of non-Asians and approximately 70% to 85% of Asians diagnosed with lung cancer. According to the SEER Cancer Statistics Review (November 2018) published by the National Cancer Institute and other published literature, 60% to 65% of all new lung cancer diagnoses are among people who are former smokers or have never smoked, while 10-15% of new lung cancer cases are among never-smokers.

Over one-half of the patients diagnosed with NSCLC in any given year will present with inoperable advanced (stage IV) disease, for which there is no cure. Patients with stage IV NSCLC exhibit a median overall survival time of 8 to 10 months; approximately one-third of patients will survive for year, and only 10% to 21% of those patients will survive for two years.

Lung cancer is the most common cause of global cancer-related mortality, leading to over a million deaths each year and adenocarcinoma is its most common histological subtype. Worldwide, lung cancer occurred in approximately 2.2 million patients in 2020 and caused an estimated 1.8 million deaths. NSCLC is described as any type of epithelial lung cancer other than small cell lung cancer (“SCLC”). The 5-year survival rate for NSCLC is 25%.

Rapid advances in understanding the molecular pathogenesis of NSCLC have demonstrated that NSCLC is a heterogeneous group of diseases. Although the initial treatment of localized disease is the same, the molecular characterization of tumor tissue in patients with NSCLC serves as a guide to treatment both in those who present with metastatic disease and in those who relapse after primary therapy. Molecularly targeted therapies have dramatically improved treatment for patients whose tumors harbor somatically activated oncogenes such as mutant EGFR1 or translocated ALK, RET, or ROS1. Mutant BRAF and ERBB2 are also investigational targets. Smoking is the major cause of lung adenocarcinoma but, as smoking rates decrease, proportionally more cases occur in never-smokers (defined as less than 100 cigarettes in a lifetime). KRAS mutations in lung cancer cases are nearly exclusive to smokers. KRAS, “Kristen rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog,” is a protein involved in regulating cell division. KRAS mutation is a gain-of-function mutation (i.e. somatic mutation turns RAS, a benign gene “proto-oncogene” into KRAS, an oncogenic driver of many tumors). KRAS-mutated non-small cell lung cancer represents 20% to 25% of all NSCLC. There are no current KRAS-mutated NSCLC-targeted therapies but there are targeted therapies for the indication by targeting downstream pathways - for example mTOR inhibition. Tumor suppressor gene abnormalities, such as those in TP53, STK11, CDKN2A8, KEAP1, and SMARCA4 are also common but are not currently clinically actionable.

In reviewing lung cancer incidence and mortality rates among never-smokers in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, Wakelee, H.A. et al. have reported that the age-adjusted incidence rates of lung cancer among never-smokers aged 40 to 79 years from large population-based cohorts ranged from 14.4 to 20.8 per 100,000 person-years in women and 4.8 to 13.7 per 100,000 person-years in men, supporting earlier observations that women are more likely than men to have never smoking-associated lung cancer. The biology of lung cancer in never-smokers is apparent in differential responses to epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors and an increased prevalence of adenocarcinoma histology in never-smokers. Lung cancer in never-smokers is an important public health issue needing further exploration of its incidence patterns, etiology, and biology. Due to the fact that there are no known therapy options for this group, we believe that aggressive development of therapy options is needed and is a high unmet clinical need.

In the US in 2021, there were an estimated 15,750 diagnosed cases of NSCLC in female non-smokers, accounting for approximately 6.7% of all lung cancer cases. Globally in 2021, there were an estimated 147,027 adenocarcinoma cases of NSCLC in female non-smokers. Due to the specificity of this indication, it may be possible to classify it as a rare disease. When attempting to explain some gender susceptibility differences, research has demonstrated that women with NSCLC tend to be:

The high rate of adenocarcinomas in non-smoking women suggests the possible existence of other etiological factors in addition to smoking. Some factors that have been considered include gender-specific genetic alterations and predispositions, passive smoke effects, different nicotine metabolism in women, occupational exposure, diet, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Based upon 2018 estimates published by Global Cancer Observatory and 2021 estimates published by the American Cancer Society, below is an overview of relevant potential patient population and market sizes that we believe LP-300 could address, if approved:

Limitations on Current Treatment

Treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC in the first-line setting usually includes chemotherapy (including taxanes, vinorelbine, or gemcitabine) in combination with a platinum doublet (cisplatin or carboplatin). According to the clinical practice guidelines published by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, many of these combinations have reached a plateau in terms of overall response (≥ 25% to 35%), time to progression (four to six months), median survival time (eight to ten months), one-year survival rate (30% to 40%), and two-year survival rate (10% to 15%) in patients with good performance status. Treatment remains palliative and is limited due to inherent toxicities that may affect the quality of life resulting from treatment. Toxicities can be life-threatening or cause treatment delays, thereby limiting the intensity of treatment delivered and affecting its efficacy. Common and serious chemotherapy-induced toxicities, such as anemia, emesis, and peripheral neurotoxicity resulting from treatment with platinum and taxanes, and nephrotoxicity due to cisplatin can result in treatment delays, dose modifications, and in severe cases, discontinuation of treatment.

The identification of gene mutations in lung cancer has led to the development of molecularly targeted therapy to improve the survival of subsets of patients with metastatic disease. In particular, genetic abnormalities in EGFR, MAPK, and PI3K signaling pathways in subsets of NSCLC may define mechanisms of drug sensitivity and primary or acquired resistance to tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). To date, approximately 21 TKIs have been approved for use in treating NSCLC with identified tyrosine kinase (TK) mutations; the TKs targeted by these inhibitors include EGFR, ALK, ROS1, BRAF/MEK, RET, and MET. If patients are found to have specific TK mutations to which inhibitors are known to respond, treatment with such TKIs is currently standard-of-care for this population of advanced NSCLC. Most tumors will respond to initial treatment with TKIs, exhibiting tumor shrinking or delayed progression. Unfortunately, most patients will eventually develop resistance to the inhibitory effects of initial used inhibitors. Therefore, second- or third-line therapy often involves treatment with alternate inhibitors targeting the same kinase but with differing mutations. Such treatment again is often initially successful, but further kinase mutations, or mutations arising in different kinases, often leads to relapse and the need to switch to alternative treatment schemes. This next therapy usually involves chemotherapy (often carboplatin plus pemetrexed), sometimes used in combination with immunotherapy, or enrollment in clinical trials testing new treatment approaches.

We believe it is important to pursue the development of novel therapies and combinations thereof that can substantially improve patient survival and quality of life by potentiating the antitumor activity of chemotherapy treatment while protecting against chemotherapy-induced toxicity.

Market Opportunity

Most never-smoker patients with lung cancer are women, and adenocarcinoma is the most common type. Non-smoker patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (“NSCLC”) generally have a better response to inhibitors of epidermal-growth-factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase, including without limitation gefitinib and erlotinib, than do those with a history of tobacco smoking. Studies have identified differences in chromosomal aberrations, genetic polymorphisms, gene mutations, and methylation status between lung cancer in non-smokers and tobacco-associated lung cancer. These clinical and biological differences suggest that the two cancers have overlapping but unique pathways of carcinogenesis. The EGFR mutation is one of the most important genetic change in lung cancer in people who have never smoked because it is more common in lung cancer in never-smokers than in tobacco associated lung cancer and is associated with greater therapeutic benefit from inhibitors of EGFR. Other alterations associated with never-smokers include mutations, fusions or amplifications in ALK, ROS1, RET and MET genes. Based upon published articles in CA: Cancer Journal for Clinicians and Nature Review Cancer, incidence in never-smokers is 10% to 15% of all lung cancers and globally, NSCLC in never-smokers comprises 15% to 20% of cases in men and greater than 50% in women. In Asia, never-smokers with NSCLC are 60% to 80% women and 20% to 40% men.

We are focused on advancing LP-300 as a potential combination therapy for non- or never smoking NSCLC patients with adenocarcinoma by leveraging our A.I. platform to help uncover the genomic and biomarker networks that are associated with response in the never-smoker and non-smoker groups.  Additionally, through our early, preclinical work to define a gene signature that correlates with heightened sensitivity to LP-300, we believe there is potential to further expand the indication to include all NSCLC patients that have this identified genetic profile in their cancer. Currently there is no approved therapy specifically for the growing indication of never-smokers with NSCLC, and female never smokers appear to be uniquely responsive to LP-300. If successful, LP-300 could provide improved patient benefit in terms of improved survival, and secondarily through the concurrent prevention and mitigation of common and serious chemotherapy-induced toxicities.

Prior Completed Trials of LP-300

Phase I. LP-300 has been evaluated in five Phase I studies (DMS10001, BioNumerik, 09/1997 through 04/2004; DMS10002, BioNumerik, 12/1997 through 08/2001; DMS12209, ASKA Pharmaceutical, 04/2000 through 12/2001; DMS10011, BioNumerik, 02/2006 through 07/2006; and DMS12307, Baxter, 07/2002 through 07/2005) to determine the maximum tolerated dose (“MTD”), and to evaluate the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and potential efficacy of LP-300 (alone or in combination with cisplatin, cisplatin/paclitaxel, or carboplatin/paclitaxel). An MTD for LP-300 was not reached in any of the Phase I studies at dose levels of up to 41 g/m².

 Phase II. In a U.S. multi-center, randomized, open-label trial (n=160 patients) with advanced (Stage IIIB and IV) NSCLC treated with LP-300 or no LP-300 (DMS22210/CALGB 30303, Cancer and Leukemia Group B, 08/2004 through 03/2007), although the overall population did not meet the pre-specified primary endpoint, an analysis of a subgroup of patients with adenocarcinoma revealed that the difference in the median overall survival period between the 2 treatment groups was statistically significant (LP-300 = 15.6 months, no LP-300 = 8.9 months; Log-rank p=0.0326), and the median overall survival for patients who received LP-300 was 6.7 months longer than that of those who did not receive LP-300.

Phase III. LP-300 has been evaluated in five Phase III studies: two in patients with metastatic breast cancer, with a primary endpoint examining the ability to reduce platinum/taxane induced peripheral neuropathy, and three in patients with NSCLC or advanced primary lung adenocarcinoma. (DMS32205R, ASKA Pharmaceutical, 08/2005 through 02/2008; DMS30203R, BioNumerik, 09/2001 through 10/2006; DMS30204R, ASKA Pharmaceutical, 04/2003 through 03/2006; DMS32206R, Baxter, 10/2002 through 04/2006; and DMS32212R, BioNumerik, 04/2010 through 06/2013) Although the overall population did not meet the pre-specified primary endpoints in any of the trials, analysis of subgroups of patients in one multi-country lung adenocarcinoma trial and one Japanese NSCLC trial revealed differences in the median overall survival between the two treatment arms (with or without LP-300 treatment). The results from the two key lung cancer trials obtained from retrospective analyses are described below:

The LP-300 arm of the multi-country Phase III NSCLC adenocarcinoma trial also demonstrated safety profile advantages in terms of the potential to protect against chemotherapy-induced kidney toxicity and chemotherapy-induced anemia. These observations complemented earlier clinical observations regarding LP-300’s potential to protect against neuropathy and other chemotherapy-induced toxicities. Results from these trials indicate that treatment with LP-300 may, in further clinical testing, lead to improved survival in female and non- or never smoking patients with primary adenocarcinoma of the lung receiving cisplatin/paclitaxel combination chemotherapy.

Phase II and III LP-300 Adverse Events Summary

The following summarizes adverse events reported from a total of 1,712 patients enrolled in five randomized multi-center phase II and phase III studies with chemotherapy, with or without LP-300. A total of 1,712 patients were enrolled in these studies, of which 856 patients received LP-300 with chemotherapy.

Clinical Evidence of Toxicity Protection by LP-300

The data from randomized multicenter studies of LP-300 and chemotherapy demonstrates objective evidence of several instances where treatment with LP-300 appears to provide potential benefit in terms of preventing and mitigating chemotherapy-induced toxicities, particularly in studies of LP-300 and chemotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC. These data support that LP-300 has the potential to protect against chemotherapy-induced toxicities, including gastrointestinal, renal, electrolyte disturbances, and anemia; and there is data supporting the potential for LP-300 to protect against severe forms of these toxicities. In addition, treatment with LP-300 may protect against severe platinum-induced hearing loss and dehydration.

LP-300 Mechanism of Action

LP-300 is a water-soluble disulfide compound that lacks a free thiol or sulfate moiety. We postulate this unique structure of LP-300 may allow it to potentiate antitumor activity of certain types of cytotoxic chemotherapy, and exert chemoprotective effects, through distinct and interrelated mechanisms. In plasma, the lack of a free thiol prevents untoward reactivity and drug-drug interactions, and thereby may allow chemotherapeutic agents to retain their efficacy. Once inside the tumor cell, LP-300 is metabolized and may then potentiate antitumor activity of cytotoxic certain types of chemotherapy. A significant fraction of LP-300 is taken up by the kidneys, where LP-300’s metabolites can interact with chemotherapy drugs, such as cisplatin, and potentially diminish the chemotherapy drug’s ability to cause organ damage. We believe the postulated mechanisms that can enhance tumor directed chemosensitivity include restoration of apoptotic sensitivity thereby countering drug resistance; oxidative stress enhancement; anti-angiogenesis; decreased DNA synthesis and gene expression; and decreased glutathione and precursors (limiting glutathione tumor-mediated drug resistance). When LP-300 accumulates in the kidneys it appears to reduce the toxicity of certain drugs, such as cisplatin, that are excreted through the renal system.

As depicted in the model below, we believe LP-300 and its metabolites can modulate key components of the thioredoxin and glutaredoxin systems, which are believed to be involved as major mechanisms of the potentially enhanced antitumor effects of LP-300 with chemotherapy. The thioredoxin pathway is commonly upregulated in adenocarcinomas, and examination of primary lung tumors from non-smokers have shown significantly increased gene expression of thioredoxin. Overexpression of thioredoxin in cancer cells has been postulated to lead to resistance to apoptosis, increased cellular proliferation, increased gene expression, increased angiogenesis, increased conversion of DNA into RNA, and resistance to oxidative stress induction. We believe the modulation of thioredoxin expression is important for the observed increases in patient survival identified in retrospective analyses of certain subgroups of patients with primary adenocarcinoma of the lung receiving LP-300 in conjunction with cisplatin and paclitaxel chemotherapy. Different glutaredoxin transcript variants have been found to be elevated in transformed cells, and glutaredoxin isoforms (e.g., variants of glutaredoxin 2) have been found to be elevated in NSCLC cell lines, lending evidence for potential roles of glutaredoxin in tumor progression.

We believe LP-300 and its metabolites may potentiate the antitumor activity of chemotherapy by:

(1) shifting the redox balance and concentrations of reduced forms of thioredoxin and glutaredoxin to inactive oxidized forms of thioredoxin and glutaredoxin, thereby restoring apoptotic sensitivity, increasing sensitivity to oxidative stress, inhibiting cell growth and angiogenesis, RNA to DNA synthesis, and growth signaling, and

(2) forming thioredoxin or glutaredoxin adducts, which as inactive forms lead to thioredoxin- and glutaredoxin-mediated reduction of downstream targets in the cell that are important for tumor resistance to chemotherapy, angiogenesis and cell growth.

We believe that LP-300 may potentiate antitumor activity of certain types of cytotoxic chemotherapy, and exert chemoprotective effects through several distinct and interrelated mechanisms of action. LP-300 is a cysteine-modifying agent that appears to modulate multiple cellular pathways simultaneously. Experimental data indicate that LP-300 modifies and/or modulates the following key pathways:

The following key mechanisms have been observed to support our belief that LP-300 has potential to play an important role in the treatment of females and never smokers with NSCLC adenocarcinoma. We believe these mechanisms help to explain the retrospective subgroup observations for females and never smokers receiving LP-300 together with cisplatin and paclitaxel in the Phase III NSCLC adenocarcinoma trial:

Using various in vitro experimental approaches, LP-300 has been observed to form adducts on cysteines of various protein targets such as those listed below. For several of these targets, studies evaluating enzyme activity associated with the targets have demonstrated inhibition, modulation or impairment of such activity. In addition, X-ray crystallographic studies support LP-300 derived adducts at specific cysteines on these proteins.

Targeted Proteins Modified by LP-300

Mechanistic evaluation of LP-300 revealed that it has cysteine-modifying activity on select Receptor Tyrosine Kinases (RTKs) initiating proliferative signaling such as ALK, EGFR, MET and ROS1. LP-300 may also serve as a potential chemosensitizer for certain combination chemotherapies by inactivating proteins such as Thioredoxin (TRX), Glutaredoxin (GRX) and Peroxiredoxin (PRX) that are important in modulating cellular redox status and in turn drug resistance. Higher levels of PRX gene expression have been shown to correlate significantly with the absence of smoking history and with the female gender.

We believe well-tolerated profile advantages of LP-300 are imparted through its chemoprotective action via production of inactive LP-300-chemotherapeutic conjugates and preventing toxic taxane/platinum metabolites in the kidney, and targeting toxicity-inducing molecules and pathways (e.g. APN, GGT, and Tubulin).

Our RADR^® Platform’s Approach to LP-300 Repositioning

Our RADR^® platform is being implemented with the objective of uncovering insights from LP-300 rescued preclinical data as well as from lung cancer clinical trial data regarding actionable bioinformatics, biomarkers, target population demographics and smoking history. Differential expression analyses of RNAseq data on LP-300 pre- and post-exposure in selected NSCLC cell lines has revealed gene sets that could be upregulated and downregulated in response to LP-300 treatments involving the mapping of genes performing cellular redox functions, kinases involved in proliferating signaling, and apoptotic markers. We are currently in the early stages of defining a specific biomarker signature that correlates with heightened sensitivity to LP-300. We believe that this signature may help accelerate the clinical development of LP-300 and has the potential to guide patient selection for targeted clinical trials. We are also developing a list of approved cancer drugs that, when used in combination with LP-300, may have potential to improve the overall benefit to patients through either potentially greater anticancer properties or improved tolerability. We believe identifying such combinations would be attractive to established pharmaceutical and biotech companies.

Acquisition of Tavocept^® (LP-300) Rights from BioNumerik

In January 2018, we entered into an Assignment Agreement (the “Assignment Agreement”) with BioNumerik Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“BioNumerik”), pursuant to which we acquired rights to domestic and international patents, trademarks and related technology and data relating to LP-300 for human therapeutic treatment indications. Mr. Margrave, our Chief Financial Officer and Secretary, formerly served as the President, Chief Administrative Officer, General Counsel and Secretary of BioNumerik and has a minority ownership interest in BioNumerik. The Assignment Agreement replaced a License Agreement that was entered into between us and BioNumerik in May 2016. We made upfront payments totaling $25,000 in connection with entry into the Assignment Agreement.

If we commercialize LP-300 internally, we will be required to pay to the BioNumerik-related payment recipients designated in the Assignment Agreement a percentage royalty in the low double digits of cumulative net revenue up to $100 million, with incremental increases in the percentage royalty for net cumulative revenue between $100 million and $250 million, $250 million and $500 million, and $500 million and $1 billion, with a percentage royalty payment that could exceed $200 million for net cumulative revenue in excess of $1 billion. In addition, we have the right to first recover certain designated portions of patent costs and development and regulatory costs before the payment of royalties described above. We are obligated to make royalty payments under the Assignment Agreement during the “Agreement Term” that started on January 5, 2018 and continues (on a country-by-country and product-by-product basis) until the later to occur of (i) five (5) years after the expiration of the last to expire Patent Rights, as defined in the Assignment Agreement, in an applicable country in the Territory, as defined in the Assignment Agreement, and (ii) if no Patent Rights exist in such country, fifteen (15) years after May 31, 2016.

If we enter into a third party transaction for LP-300, we are required to pay the BioNumerik-related payment recipients a specified percentage of any upfront, milestone, and royalty amounts received by us from the transaction, after first recovering specified direct costs incurred by us for the development of LP-300 that are not otherwise reimbursed from such third party transaction. In addition, the Assignment Agreement provides that we will use commercially diligent efforts to develop LP-300 and make specified regulatory filings and pay specified development and regulatory costs related to LP-300. The Assignment Agreement also provides that we will provide TriviumVet DAC (“TriviumVet”) with (i) specified data and information generated by us with respect to LP-300, and (ii) an exclusive license to use specified LP-300-related patent rights, trademark rights and related intellectual property to support LP-300 development in non-human (animal) treatment indications. Under the Assignment Agreement, we are required to pay all patent costs on covered patents related to LP-300. These patent costs are fully recoverable at the time of any net revenue from LP-300, with up to 50% of net revenue amounts to be applied towards repayment of patent costs until such costs are fully recovered. In addition to the recovery of patent costs, we have the right to recover the $25,000 upfront payments made in connection with entry into the Assignment Agreement, which payments are recoverable prior to making any royalty or third-party transaction sharing payments. We also have the right to recover all previously incurred LP-300 development and regulatory costs, with up to a mid-single digit percentage of net revenue amounts to be applied towards repayment of development and regulatory costs until such costs are fully recovered.

LP-184

General Overview

LP-184 (hydroxyureamethylacylfulvene) is a small molecule that preferentially damages DNA in cancer cells that overexpress certain biomarkers or that harbor mutations in DNA repair pathways. LP-184 is converted into an active alkylating agent by the enzyme prostaglandin reductase 1 (PTGR1), which is overexpressed in many tumor types that are resistant to current standard of care treatments. The FDA has granted LP-184 Orphan Drug Designation for the treatment of pancreatic cancer, glioblastoma and ATRT (Atypical Teratoid Rhabdoid Tumors). We believe cancer cells are less likely to develop resistance to LP-184 because of its mode of action that is independent of efflux pumps and oncogene/tumor suppressor mutations. We also believe that LP-184 has the potential to address a significant unmet need in the current treatment landscape for multiple important cancer types.

LP-184 has nanomolar potency and it is a member of a new generation of acylfulvenes, a family of naturally-derived anticancer drug candidates. Earlier generations of acylfulvenes showed great promise in preclinical studies, but were hampered in human clinical studies because of the inability to deliver effective therapeutic doses due to unacceptable toxicities to normal cells. In preclinical studies, LP-184 has shown significantly enhanced antitumor activity as compared to earlier generation acylfulvenes. In addition, we have used our RADR^® platform, together with work of collaborators, to develop a patient-specific biomarker test we believe will be predictive of LP-184’s anticancer activity in targeted patient populations. The chemical structure of LP-184 is depicted below.

LP-184 Chemical Structure

Planned Phase I Clinical Trial for LP-184

We are advancing LP-184 towards a Phase I clinical trial in patients with late-stage solid tumors, and we expect to include patients with pancreatic, breast, lung, bladder, prostate, and ovarian cancers with high expression of the protein coding gene PTGR1 (Prostaglandin Reductase 1). We expect to include up to 40 patients in the Phase 1A portion of the study from up to four clinical sites. Expansion to additional sites will be considered based on the enrollment rate of the study. Patient eligibility will be determined based on the presence of DNA damage repair deficient (DDR) mutations in specific identified genes. For the Phase 1A (dose escalation safety) portion of the study, all-comer solid tumor patients with known DDR mutations based on genetic profiling are expected to be included.

Upon completion of enrollment in Phase IA and analysis of patient safety, PK, and therapeutic data, we, together with the clinical investigators participating in the study, will review the study data package to determine the recommended dose to be used in further clinical testing of LP-184.

LP-184 Development Opportunities

LP-184 in Pancreatic Cancer

Pancreatic cancer is the 4th leading cause of cancer death in the U.S. Despite rigorous highly cytotoxic therapies and a few approved targeted therapies, typical life expectancy for advanced pancreatic cancer remains below 1 year, leaving a large number of patients with no additional treatment options. LP-184 has demonstrated significant potency in multiple preclinical studies focused on pancreatic cancer, and we are positioning LP-184 for areas of high unmet need in genetically targeted pancreatic cancers.

Data and observations supporting the development of LP-184 for pancreatic cancer include the following:

LP-184 in Glioblastoma

Glioblastoma is an aggressive type of cancer that begins in the brain and accounts for more than half of all brain cancers. Glioblastoma has an overall five-year survival rate of 5%, meaning that only approximately 5 in 100 people survive GBM for five years and beyond. We believe that LP-184's molecular features and distinct mechanism of action, anti-tumor efficacy and strong correlation with specific biomarkers have the potential to provide a unique and powerful approach aimed at addressing high unmet needs in GBM and other aggressive CNS tumors.

Data and observations supporting the development of LP-184 for pancreatic cancer include the following:

The standard treatment for glioblastoma includes radiation and chemotherapy with temozolomide. Based on an article in the journal Genes and Diseases (Temozolomide resistance in glioblastoma multiforme, Genes Dis., 2016 May 11;3(3):198-210) and other publications, at least fifty percent of temozolomide treated patients do not respond to this treatment, and others often form resistance to temozolomide based regimens. We have obtained preclinical data supporting the observation that LP-184 can be an effective treatment in GBM regardless of the MGMT (a DNA repair enzyme) status of the cancer. This has significant potential to provide a much-needed alternative to the standard-of-care drug, temozolomide (TMZ), especially in GBMs that over-express MGMT — which can be up to 50% of GBM cancers. Patients that have GBMs that over-express MGMT are generally unresponsive to TMZ and need new therapy options that can exploit other molecular pathways and mechanisms.

We believe LP-184's ability to cross the blood-brain barrier, together with its anti-tumor efficacy and sensitivity correlations with relevant biomarkers, highlight LP-184's potential for use as both monotherapy as well as a synergistic agent in combination with other drugs to address the unmet needs in GBM and other aggressive central nervous system tumors.

LP-184 in ATRT and Pediatric Rare Disease Designation

ATRTs (Atypical Teratoid Rhabdoid Tumors) are rare neurological tumors that primarily affect children under the age of three. These clinically aggressive tumors are associated with a very poor prognosis, including a median survival of 6-12 months and a 5 year survival rate of 30%. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) estimates that in the U.S. there are 600 living ATRT patients with 60 new patients diagnosed annually. These tumors are typically pathogenetically driven by loss of function of the SMARCB1 or SMARCA4 genes. We believe that LP-184's molecular features and distinct mechanism of action, observed preclinical anti-tumor efficacy and correlation with specific biomarkers have the potential to provide a unique and powerful approach aimed at addressing unmet needs for this ultrarare pediatric cancer. We plan to pursue further preclinical studies of LP-184 in this indication.

Data and Observations supporting the development of LP-184 for ATRT include the following:

The FDA grants rare pediatric disease designation for serious and life-threatening diseases that primarily affect children ages 18 years or younger and fewer than 200,000 people in the United States. The Rare Pediatric Disease Priority Review Voucher Program is intended to address the challenges that drug companies face when developing treatments for these unique patient populations. Under this program, companies are eligible to receive a priority review voucher following approval of a product with rare pediatric disease designation if the marketing application submitted for the product satisfies certain conditions, including approval prior to September 30, 2026 unless changed by legislation. If issued, a sponsor may redeem a priority review voucher for priority review of a subsequent marketing application for a different product candidate, or the priority review voucher could be sold or transferred to another sponsor.

Additional LP-184 Background

We have evaluated LP-184 in a number of solid tumors that overexpress certain biomarkers that have been identified as correlating with potential response to LP-184. Our analysis indicates that LP-184 is expected to be a pro-drug activated by the enzyme Prostaglandin Reductase 1 (“PTGR1”). We believe LP-184’s mechanism of action is to alkylate DNA and protein macromolecules, form adducts, and arrest cells in the S-phase of the cell cycle. 

Using our RADR^® platform, we have derived a 10-gene signature composed of candidate biomarkers determining sensitivity to LP-184. Genes from this signature, such as PTGR1, were found to be implicated in the potential induction of bioactivation of LP-184. We believe LP-184 may be well positioned as a new drug candidate for individual patient genetic profiles identified as having DNA repair complex deficiencies or other commonly prevalent gene signatures. LP-184 displayed less bone marrow toxicity in preclinical studies (dog and mouse), had an improved pharmacokinetic profile (increased bioavailability as reflected by increased AUC), was stable in plasma, and had an increased shelf life or stability in pharmaceutical grade material (sterile glass containers) for its class of compounds. LP-184 retained selective cytotoxicity towards solid tumor derived cell lines in vitro.

We believe LP-184 is a non-hormone, next generation alkylating agent with nanomolar potency that preferentially damages DNA in cancer cells that overexpress certain biomarkers indicated primarily in solid tumors such as those in prostate, pancreatic and ovarian cancers. LP-184 was developed using combinatorial chemistry approaches. Based on screening against conventional therapies both in vitro and in vivo, LP-184 cytotoxicity appears to be mediated through the Transcription Coupled Nucleotide Excision Repair (TC-NER) pathway, via alkylation of DNA leading to cell cycle arrest in S phase. Additional cytotoxic effects on tumors may include the generation of reactive oxygen species, chemical modification of various intracellular proteins, and induction of the Mitogen Activated Protein Kinase (“MAPK”) pathway followed by apoptosis. A proposed model for the mechanism of action of LP-184 is illustrated below.

Our RADR^® platform has identified multiple solid tumor cancer indications that highly express PTGR1, including prostate, ovarian, kidney, liver, lung, pancreatic and thyroid cancers. Our RADR^® platform has and will be employed to correlate results from ongoing preclinical studies with gene expression data with the aim of determining the likely anticancer activity of LP-184 in these cancer indications. With the assistance of insights from RADR^®, we have also conducted studies in patient derived xenografts (PDX) models to further elucidate precise targets and potential patient groups for future LP-184 clinical trials.

LP-184 Biomarker Background Using Our RADR^® platform

LP-184 biomarker studies have and are being conducted by us to investigate the validity of relevant biomarkers. An NCI-60 cell line panel has been used to obtain gene expression data and sensitivity data (GI₅₀). Determination of potential biomarkers for LP-184 target indications is performed by correlation analysis between normalized gene expression and GI₅₀ values followed by biological and statistical filtering.

Our RADR^® platform was used to analyze our dataset on preclinical LP-184 sensitivity to and baseline gene expression profiles of 57 cell lines from the NCI-60 panel. Panel A in the figure below highlights the comparison of LP-184 sensitivity prediction accuracy across a range of biomarker numbers. Starting from greater than 18,000 genes, our RADR^® platform identified the 10 most significant genes as predictive of response to LP-184 treatment. As depicted in panel B below, out of 18 cell lines included in the blinded test set, our RADR^® platform correctly predicted all 10 out of the actual 10 sensitive cell lines. Panels C and D show model performance metrics such as area under curve (AUC) and confusion matrix representation, respectively. Model training was performed using an initial set of 66 genes derived from 39 cell lines from the NCI-60 dataset. Model testing was conducted on 18 cell line records isolated as the blinded hold-out set.

We believe that genes from the 10 identified by our RADR^® platform have been shown to be functionally involved in the postulated mechanism of action of LP-184, thereby reaffirming our belief in the utility and value of our RADR^® platform. We intend to further extend and validate these cell line-derived preliminary biomarker analyses using LP-184 sensitivity and gene expression data derived from fresh tumor biopsy samples. Our goal is to determine the molecular profiles of patient tumors that predict potential drug response and to derive a diagnostic assay for stratifying patients. We believe that precision biomarker approaches increase the likelihood that a treatment will be found to be effective in a relatively small phase II cohort by eliminating the most likely non-responders and selecting the most likely responders. We anticipate that our RADR^® platform driven determination of molecular profiles of tumor tissues that are sensitive to LP-184 will greatly assist with stratification of patients in a future phase II clinical trial.

Numerous studies have determined that PTGR1 expression is elevated in several tumor types, including prostate. Our RADR^® platform analyses indicate that tumor cells with high PTGR1 expression may be more sensitive to DNA damaging drugs like LP-184. Independent studies suggest that PTGR1 may be responsible for converting LP-184 to its active form. These two results support our belief that PTGR1 is the most prominent biomarker for predicting LP-184’s potential anticancer activity in targeted tumor types. Clinical mapping of PTGR1 expression profile was performed in independent historical datasets of unselected prostate cancer patients. Using our RADR^® platform, we analyzed historical data from a total of 2,204 prostate cancer patients from 14 different studies and identified that on average 30% of the patient population showed high PTGR1 expression, and 39% of the patient population showed intermediate PTGR1 expression, representing a group of patients that has the potential to be at least partial responders to LP-184.

Disease Background for Pancreatic Cancer, Glioblastoma, Atypical Teratoid Rhabdoid Tumors (ATRT), and Prostate Cancer

Initial target patient populations for LP-184 include pancreatic cancer, glioblastoma, atypical teratoid rhabdoid tumors (ATRT) and prostate cancer.

Pancreatic Cancer

Pancreatic cancer is the fourth leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States with a five-year survival rate of 10.8% and a 10-year survival rate of just 1%. This means that only approximately 11 in 100 people will have survived for five years and beyond. Pancreatic cancer has among the lowest 5-year survival rate of any of the 22 common cancers. GLOBOCAN estimates that for pancreatic cancer there are approximately 460,000 new cases of pancreatic cancer globally, with over 62,000 occurring in the U.S. annually. Targeting a specific subset of pancreatic cancer patients that are genetically defined has the potential to increase beneficial therapeutic options for patients and may ultimately improve survival for those with this cancer.

Glioblastoma

Glioblastoma is a fast-growing, aggressive type of CNS (Central Nervous System) tumor that forms on the supportive tissue of the brain. Glioblastoma is the most common grade IV brain cancer. The American Cancer Society estimates that approximately 25,050 malignant tumors of the brain or spinal cord (14,170 in males and 10,880 in females) will occur in the U.S. in 2022. It also estimates that in 2022, approximately 18,280 deaths will occur from brain and other nervous system cancers. Approximately 250,000 new glioblastoma cases are estimated to occur each year worldwide, with approximately 11,000 to 13,000 new glioblastoma cases estimated to occur each year in the U.S. Glioblastomas usually affect adults. Treating glioblastoma is very difficult due to the brain-blood barrier and treatment often focuses primarily on relieving symptoms.

ATRT

Atypical Teratoid Rhabdoid Tumors (ATRT) are rare, rapidly progressing, and malignant pediatric tumors of the central nervous system and are primarily found in children under the age of three. The National Cancer Institute estimates there are 60 cases of ATRT diagnosed per year and 600 patients currently living with ATRTs, of which only 25% are in adults 15 years or older. Patients with ATRTs have a very poor prognosis including a median survival of 6-12 months and a 5 year survival rate of approximately 32%. ATRTs are difficult to treat due to the very rapid onset of these tumors as well as a requirement for therapies that can penetrate the blood-brain barrier. The U.S. is expected to capture the majority share of the ATRT market with ~65%.

Prostate Cancer

Prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in men in the US and the second leading cause of cancer-related death in men in the US. The American Cancer Society’s estimates for prostate cancer in the United States for 2022 are:

Approximately 50% of patients who die from prostate cancer have metastases at diagnosis. The survival gains over the last decade have been modest with acceleration in life-extending drug development occurring in the last three years. Hormonal therapy works to reduce testosterone levels in the body to a level equal to that seen if physical castration were to occur. However, hormonal therapy can become refractory after one to three years and tumor growth may resume. This is referred to as Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer (“CRPC”). About 10 - 20 % of prostate cancer patients develop CRPC within five years. According to JP Morgan, in 2011, approximately 136,000 men were treated for CRPC. Typically, standard hormonal therapy involving Androgen Deprivation Therapy (ADT) was prescribed in the past for all comer patients. Current prescribed regimens involve intensified therapy for most patients (docetaxel for high volume disease, and Zytiga for low and high volume disease) whereas upcoming molecularly selected agents in addition to hormonal therapy are used in an individualized approach to metastasis-directed or local therapy. Standard of care agents for prostate cancer include without limitation (i) Androgen production suppressors, such as Leuprolide (Lupron, Eligard), Goserelin (Zoladex), Triptorelin (Trelstar), Histrelin (Vantas), Abiraterone (Zytiga), (ii) Androgen signaling blockers, such as Flutamide (Eulexin), Bicalutamide (Casodex), Nilutamide (Nilandron), and Enzalutamide (Xtandi), and (iii) chemotherapeutics such as docetaxel and cabazitaxel. Drug classes of new small molecules in development include PARP inhibitors, PI3K inhibitors and DNA Damage Repair (DDR) inhibitors. The PARP inhibitor rucaparib (Rubraca) has recently been approved by the FDA. The identification and characterization of new molecular targets, agents exploiting new or non-parallel mechanisms of action, and the discovery of predictive biomarkers for mCRPC, are three of the major unmet needs in the prostate cancer space in the era of precision medicine that we believe LP-184 may address.

Market Opportunity for LP-184

We are targeting a set of indications for LP-184 based on combining the factors of predicted response, unmet clinical need and market opportunity. These include pancreatic cancer, glioblastoma, prostate cancer, and ATRTs. Below is an overview of relevant patient numbers and estimated market sizes of some of the indications that we believe LP-184 may potentially address, if approved, based upon published estimates by the Global Cancer Observatory and other published sources:

Strategic Academic Collaborations for LP-184

We are or have been involved in the following academic collaborations for LP-184:

Ongoing pre-IND Enabling Animal Studies

We are conducting IND enabling studies in rats and Beagle dogs to provide supporting information regarding safety profile and selection of the starting dose in humans in connection with the planned IND application for LP-184. These studies include (i) non-GLP dose range finding in rats, (ii) GLP analysis of toxicity in rats, (iii) non-GLP dose range finding in dogs, (iv) GLP analysis of toxicity in dogs, (v) analytical method development for the determination of LP-184 levels in rat and dog plasma, (vi) analytical method validation, and (vii) pharmacokinetic profiling of LP-184 in the plasma of dosed rats and dogs.

LP-100

General Overview

LP-100 or 6-Hydroxymethylacylfulvene (or irofulven) exploits cancer cells’ deficiency in DNA repair mechanisms. LP-100 is in an existing phase 2 clinical trial for patients with metastatic, castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) that has enrolled 9 of 27 patients. Median overall survival (OS) for the initial group of 9 patients was 12.5 months, which is an improvement over other similar fourth-line treatment regimens for mCRPC. We believe LP-100 has the potential to be an important compound — either as monotherapy or in combination — for several challenging cancers that are impacting patients globally.

In July 2021, we entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement to reacquire global development and commercialization rights for LP-100 from Allarity Therapeutics A/S, which previously managed the current Phase 2 trial for LP-100. As a result of the Asset Purchase Agreement, we obtained full authority to manage and guide future clinical development and commercialization of LP-100.

In the current Phase 2 trial conducted in Denmark, 9 patients, out of a targeted enrollment of 27, were treated based on meeting criteria established by Allarity's DRP® (Drug Response Predictor) companion diagnostic technology. The focus of the current Irofulven clinical trial has been to evaluate the anti-tumor effect after treatment of Irofulven in combination with prednisolone in patients who progressed on androgen receptor (AR)-targeted therapy and docetaxel-pretreated metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients. Results from the initial 9 patients showed a median overall survival (mOS) of 12.5 months, which is substantially greater than other 4th line (and later) regimens of metastatic castration-resistant treatment that have generated mOS ranging from 7.1 to 9.9 months.

Based on overall survival observations, and other observations from discussions with study investigators, we are evaluating possibilities for further enrollment in the current Phase 2 trial as well as other potential clinical development opportunities for LP-100. This evaluation includes consideration of other improvements guided by data and publications, suggesting enhanced efficacy of LP-100 in tumors with mutations in certain DNA repair genes. We believe that using DNA repair gene mutations or deficiency as an additional selection criteria has the potential to enhance the selection of patients that can respond to and benefit from LP-100 therapy. Our goal is to build upon information from the existing trial in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients and evaluate additional possibilities in other cancers with mutations in ERCC2/3, BRCA, PTEN, ATM, and other DNA-repair pathway genes. Several studies have shown efficacy of LP-100 in these pathways, especially in prostate and bladder cancers. To further this effort, we are collaborating with the Danish Cancer Society Research Center to explore the future clinical potential of LP-100 across 9 different solid tumor types that have known deficiencies in DNA repair pathway mechanisms.

History of LP-100

LP-100 shows multiple cytotoxic effects on tumor cell biology such as DNA adduct formation, RNA polymerase stalling and redox protein modification. It demonstrates enhanced sensitivity in DNA repair deficient (e.g. ERCC3 mutant or knockout) in vitro and in vivo models. In historical testing, clinical antitumor activity for LP-100 was observed in approximately 10-12% of patients with multidrug resistant advanced prostate cancer with notable resolution of bone metastases.

LP-100 belongs to the family of compounds and small molecular entities (molecular weight <330) that represent a class of anticancer agents derived from fungal toxins called Illudins. Acylfulvenes were originally synthesized and developed by Drs. Michael J. Kelner and Trevor C. McMorris at University of California at San Diego (“UCSD”). In 1987, Professor McMorris published the first preclinical evaluation of the Illudins as anticancer agents and a library of hundreds of acylfulvene derivatives was created, many with significant in vitro and in vivo antitumor activity and potentially improved selectivity for tumor cells versus normal cells. The compound Illudin S was found to be highly cytotoxic against cancer cells, but demonstrated a poor therapeutic index. Better understanding of the mechanism of action led to the development of a novel family of semisynthetic antitumor agents, or next-generation acylfulvenes such as 6-hydroxymethylacylfulvene, now designated as LP-100. LP-100 is a semisynthetic derivative of Illudin S, one of a series of sesquiterpene natural products (Illudins) isolated from the Lantern mushroom Omphalotus illudens. LP-100 was selected for further study based on its potential to demonstrate promising antitumor activity while maintaining a more favorable therapeutic index, compared to previously studied Illudins. The chemical structure of LP-100 is depicted below.

LP-100 Chemical Structure

Mechanism of Action

LP-100 leads to rapid inhibition of DNA synthesis and induction of DNA damage. LP-100 is a monofunctional covalent DNA binder that inhibits DNA synthesis and replication, affects cell cycle and induces apoptosis. DNA repair of LP-100-induced lesions is mediated by components of the transcription-coupled nucleotide excision repair (TC-NER) pathway. LP-100 produces damage to DNA that can only be repaired by the TC-NER pathway. The DNA damage is unique, as two enzymes, RNA Polymerase III and Topoisomerase I (Topo 1), associated with the TC-NER are displaced leading to irreversible inactivation of the repair pathway. Other conventional DNA damaging chemotherapeutic agents, such as cisplatin, etoposide, doxorubicin and others, produce general damage that can be repaired by the Global Genome Nucleotide Excision Repair (GG-NER) pathway. Tumor cells often develop multidrug resistance (MDR) making them impossible to kill using conventional drugs. LP-100 appears to retain activity against MDR tumor cells regardless of the mechanism of resistance and tumor cells appear less likely to become resistant to LP-100. Killing of MDR tumor cells by LP-100 reflects its unique mechanism of disrupting the TC-NER pathway. Cell-based studies have demonstrated selective cytotoxicity of LP-100 towards a variety of solid tumor cell lines. The tumor cells cannot recover from this damage, undergo S-phase arrest, and then irreversibly initiate both caspase-dependent and –independent apoptosis pathways. LP-100 produces DNA damage and induces apoptotic DNA fragmentation in several tumor cell lines. Normal diploid cells, in contrast, do not normally need repair by the TC-NER pathway unless exposed to UV light. Treatment of mouse xenografts of human tumors with LP-100 results in tumor shrinkage. Synergistic or additive activity is observed when LP-100 is combined with various traditional anticancer agents.

LP-100 acts as a DNA damaging agent by causing alkylation of DNA and adduct formation. It modulates the TC-NER DNA repair pathway further activating the MAPK signaling cascade followed by apoptosis of target cells. Also, LP-100 induces RNA Polymerase II stalling in actively transcribed regions, triggering cell death possibly due to collisions between transcriptional machinery and the replication fork. LP-100 is not a substrate for drug efflux pumps, which helps to counteract chemoresistance to LP-100. Sensitivity to LP-100 is unlikely to be influenced by common resistance-inducing phenomena observed for other DNA damaging agents like cisplatin. Antitumor activity of LP-100 is independent of cellular p53 and p21 tumor suppressor gene status (such as loss of p53 or p21). LP-100 also produces redox protein modifications by targeting key redox-controlling proteins TrxR/ GrxR. Distortion of the redox status of cellular proteins serves as a pro-apoptotic stimulus in cancer cells.

LP-100 Clinical Profile

Clinical studies of LP-100 have been conducted in multiple solid tumor indications including prostate, ovarian, colorectal, pancreatic, thyroid, lung, breast and gastric cancers. More than 38 Phase I or Phase II trials involving > 1,300 patients have been conducted with LP-100. In prior clinical trials, LP-100 showed activity and produced regression in a variety of cancers, but failed to meet required endpoints for clinical trial success. Objective responses were reported for LP-100 single agent therapy in drug-resistant prostate (hormone and taxotere refractory), ovarian (platinum resistant), pancreatic, sarcoma, kidney, endometrial, and lung cancers. LP-100 also showed cancer treating potential when administered in combination with a variety of conventional chemotherapeutics including Camptosar, GemZar, Taxotere, Xeloda, Cisplatin, and Oxaliplatin. In a study of patients who failed prior conventional therapies, two rounds of LP-100 therapy led to rapid resolution of ovarian cancer metastasis. In a randomized Phase IIb study of patients with metastatic hormone refractory taxotere-resistant prostate cancer, LP-100 was compared to mitoxantrone. A total of 138 patients were enrolled and specified endpoints included overall survival, response rate, and safety assessment. The median one-year survival increased from 22% in the mitoxantrone-treated control group to 41% in the LP-100-treated group. Median overall survival was 10.1 months for treatment arm (LP-100 + Prednisone) and 7.4 months for control arm (Mitoxantrone + Prednisone), i.e. a 37% increase over standard of care. Treatment was well-tolerated in all arms. The most frequent Grade 3–4 toxicities (as % of patients in treatment/control arms) were asthenia (8%/0%), and vomiting (4%/0%). Grade 3–4 hematological events included neutropenia (22%/61%) and thrombocytopenia (23%/4%).

In 2001, LP-100 received FDA’s fast track status and a Phase III international clinical trial for LP-100 in refractory pancreatic patients was started. Clinical trials looked promising in shrinking tumors of drug-resistant pancreatic cancer. However, MGI Pharma stopped the Phase III clinical trial because it was unlikely for the trial to reach its objective due to a greater than expected survival benefit associated with the comparator agent (5-FU). In 2005, Phase II clinical trial results of LP-100 in women with recurrent and heavily pre-treated ovarian cancer revealed retinal toxicity. This retinal damage was associated with dose and administration of drug.

LP-100 has been well-tolerated, based on initial observations from the phase II clinical trial in Europe that was managed by Allarity Therapeutics in patients with metastatic, castration-resistant, prostate cancer. The aim of this Phase II trial has been to evaluate the antitumor effect of LP-100 treatment in combination with Prednisolone in patients who have progressed on androgen receptor (AR)-targeted therapy and in docetaxel-pretreated metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer (mCRPC) patients. Allarity Therapeutics dosed the first patient in the trial in the fourth quarter of 2018. 9 patients, out of a targeted enrollment of 27, were treated based on meeting criteria established by Allarity's DRP® (Drug Response Predictor) companion diagnostic technology. Continuing enrollment for this Phase II clinical trial slowed during the COVID-19 pandemic. In July 2021, we entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement to reacquire global development and commercialization rights for LP-100 from Allarity.

Recently published data (also supported by prior publications on (Irofulven) indicates that tumors carrying mutations in ERCC2 and ERCC3 genes are likely to be sensitive to LP-100, and that the drug will be synthetically lethal in these tumors, in a fashion similar to the activity of PARP inhibitors in BRCA deficient tumors. These observations expand the potential treatment indications for LP-100 to include urothelial tumors, including bladder cancers, since as many as 10% of bladder cancers carry ERCC2/ERCC3 mutations. These indications may represent a more rapid and efficient path to potential approval of LP-100, and we are continuing to evaluate possibilities aimed at maximizing the value of these additional observations.

AF Chemicals

In January 2015, the Company entered into a Technology License Agreement to exclusively license domestic and international patent rights from AF Chemicals, LLC (“AF Chemicals”) for the treatment of cancer in humans for the compounds LP-100 (Irofulven) and LP-184. In February 2016, the Company and AF Chemicals entered into an Addendum (the “Addendum”) providing for additions and amendments to the Technology License Agreement. In December 2020, the Company and AF Chemicals entered into a Second Addendum (the “Second Addendum”) providing for further additions and amendments to the Technology License Agreement. The Technology License Agreement, Addendum and Second Addendum are collectively referred to as the “AFC License Agreement”.

Pursuant to the Second Addendum, the Company made specified payments to AF Chemicals during the three months ended March 31, 2021. The Second Addendum also provides that, from December 30, 2020 until January 15, 2025, the Company will have no obligation to pay annual licensing fees, development diligence extension payments, or patent maintenance fee payments to AFC under the AFC License Agreement.

As part of the Second Addendum, the Company has agreed to apply for specified orphan drug designations for LP-184 in the US and EU. The Second Addendum also amends and clarifies other provisions of the Technology License Agreement, and provides the Company with the ability to recover a portion of initial payments made under the Second Addendum from sublicense fees or royalty payments that may be made to AFC by the Company or third parties prior to January 15, 2025.

Pursuant to the AFC License Agreement, the Company made annual licensing fee payments to AF Chemicals during the year ended December 31, 2020 relating to LP-184. Such amounts are included in research and development expenses in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations for the year ended December 31, 2020. In addition, the Company is obligated to make milestone payments to AF Chemicals at the time of an Investigational New Drug Application (“IND”) filing relating to LP-184 and also upon reaching additional specified milestones in connection with the development and potential marketing approval of LP-184 in the United States, specified countries in Europe, and other countries.

The AFC License Agreement also provides that the Company will pay AF Chemicals a royalty of at least a very small single digit percentage of specified net sales of LP-184 and other analogs. In addition, the AFC License Agreement contains specified time requirements for the Company to file an IND, enroll patients in clinical trials, and file a potential NDA with respect to LP-184, with the ability for the Company to pay AF Chemicals additional amounts ranging up to an amount in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars for each one, two, three and four year extension to such development time requirements, with additional extensions beyond four years to be negotiated by the Company and AF Chemicals.

Pursuant to the Second Addendum, no additional payments of annual licensing fees or development diligence extension payments are required to be made by the Company until January 15, 2025, at which time these obligations will resume. The Company will also be obligated to make annual licensing fee payments to AF Chemicals relating to LP-100 beginning January 15, 2025, as described below under Allarity Therapeutics.

In the event of a sublicense of the LP-184 rights, the Company is obligated to pay AF Chemicals (a) a low double digit percentage of the gross income and fees received by the Company with respect to the United States in connection with such sublicense, and (b) a lower double digit percentage of the gross income and fees received by the Company with respect to Europe and Japan in connection with such sublicense.

The amounts to be paid to AF Chemicals with respect to LP-100 under the AFC License Agreement are in many ways similar to the amounts to be paid with respect to LP-184 as described above. In addition, the AFC License Agreement contains specified time requirements for the Company to enroll patients in clinical trials, and file a potential NDA with respect to LP-100. Extension fees may be paid by the Company to AF Chemicals from time to time related to these requirements. Pursuant to the Second Addendum with AF Chemicals, no additional payments of annual licensing fees or development diligence extension payments are required to be made by the Company with respect to LP-100 until January 15, 2025, at which time these obligations will resume.

Allarity Therapeutics

In May 2015, the Company licensed various rights to LP-100 to Oncology Venture (now known as Allarity Therapeutics) pursuant to a Drug License and Development Agreement. In February 2016, the Company and Allarity Therapeutics entered into an addendum and an amendment providing for additions and amendments to the Drug License and Development Agreement. In connection with the Drug License and Development Agreement, as amended (collectively, the “Allarity License and Development Agreement”), Allarity Therapeutics agreed to directly pay to AF Chemicals on behalf of the Company certain amounts to satisfy the Company’s milestone obligations to AF Chemicals with respect to LP-100 under the AFC License Agreement. Amounts paid by Allarity Therapeutics to AF Chemicals on behalf of the Company would then be deducted from amounts owed by Allarity Therapeutics to the Company.

On July 23, 2021, the Company entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement to reacquire global development and commercialization rights for Irofulven (LP-100) from Allarity. The transaction includes global rights to LP-100, as well as the developed clinical protocol for an intended study in bladder and prostate cancer patients who have a mutation in the ERCC2/3 genes. As a result of this transaction, the Company obtained full authority to manage and guide future clinical development and commercialization of LP-100. Under the terms of the Asset Purchase Agreement, the Company paid an initial upfront payment of $1,000,000 to Allarity. The Company determined there was no planned alternative future use for these assets outside of the clinical development of LP-100 and therefore the full amount of the upfront payment was included in research and development expense during the year ended December 31, 2021. Future payments of up to $1,000,000 currently held in escrow also have the potential to deliver an additional amount to Allarity based on drug manufacturing and trial enrollment milestones within the 24 months following the date of the transaction. Allarity is also eligible to receive additional milestone payments over the life of the program based on IP license milestones and regulatory filings and approvals in the US and EU, and low- to mid-single-digit royalties on future commercial net sales. As part of the Asset Purchase Agreement, the Allarity License and Development Agreement was terminated.

Additional Portfolio Opportunities

LP-284

LP-284 Chemical Structure

LP-284 belongs to the new generation of acylfulvenes, a family of naturally derived anti-cancer drug candidates and is the stereoisomer (enantiomer) of our drug candidate LP-184. In comparison to our other acylfulvenes, LP-100 and LP-184, LP-284 has distinct anti-tumor activities in a variety of hematological cancers including lymphoma, multiple myeloma, and leukemia. LP-284 has the potential to be developed as a monotherapy or combination therapy with other drugs to treat a broad array of hematological cancers.

In early preclinical studies, LP-284 has shown nanomolar potency in several hematological cell lines. Of the hematological cell lines tested, LP-284 had the highest potency against all 6 of the mantle cell lymphoma cell lines tested. LP-284 is also being explored for use as a combination therapy with spironolactone. In the multiple myeloma cell line RPMI8226, combination of 10 mM spironolactone with LP-284 significantly reduced LP-284’s IC50 by 2.4 fold. The absence of ataxia telangiectasia mutated (ATM) function in these lymphomas and the need for new agents in the setting of relapsed refractory mantle cell lymphomas support the development of LP-284 in this indication.

ADC Program

We initiated an ADC program in early 2021, based on the recognition of antibody drug conjugates as a promising therapeutic approach for cancer treatment, and one that has growing interest due to the potential to increase targeted cancer cell death.

We are currently evaluating various cytotoxic agents and classes of agents to be used as potential ADC payloads. We have also selected and ranked multiple targeting antibodies of interest with potential to be linked to selected cytotoxic payloads. Our activities in coming months will be targeted at further evaluation of potential linker technologies as well as manufacturing and preclinical testing of potential ADC candidates to select for advancement to Phase I testing.

ADCs can provide the ability to take advantage of the high potency of cytotoxic payloads and the superior specificity of antibodies. The drug antibody conjugate thus provides the potential to maximize efficacy and minimize systemic toxicity. Recent years have seen multiple FDA approvals in the growing class of ADCs for therapeutic use. This has driven increased deal-making and portfolio additions by large pharma companies. Two of the four largest oncology licensing transactions in 2020 were for ADC assets. In addition to the acquisition of Immunomedics by Gilead, Merck acquired Velos Bio in November of 2020 and NBE Therapeutics was acquired by Boehringer Ingelheim in December of 2020. It is notable that both NBE and Velos, at the time of their acquisition, had just successfully completed Phase 1 trials using their ADC approach in specific cancer subtypes.

In December 2020, we entered into an Evaluation and Limited Use Agreement (the “Evaluation Agreement”) with Califia Pharma, Inc. aimed at collaborating on the in vitro and in vivo testing and evaluation of novel Califia linker technology and related payloads to be conjugated to a Lantern targeting entity. The Evaluation Agreement expired on December 31, 2021 and we have determined not to extend it.

Additional Research and Development Collaborations for Our Drug Candidates

Virtually all of our developmental work is expected to be performed in contract labs in the near future, and most of it requires close collaboration with these groups. Our strategic collaborations have specialized focus areas tailored to advancing our pipeline drug candidates and provide expertise benefits.

Manufacturing Overview

We do not currently own or operate any manufacturing facilities or have any manufacturing personnel. We currently rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third party contract manufacturing organizations (“CMOs”) for the manufacturing of our drug candidates for preclinical uses, clinical trials as well as for commercial manufacturing if our drug candidates receive marketing approval. We require that our CMOs produce bulk drug substances and finished drug products in accordance with current Good Manufacturing Practices (“cGMPs”) and all other applicable laws and regulations. We maintain agreements with our manufacturers that include confidentiality and intellectual property provisions to protect our proprietary rights related to our drug candidates. We obtain our supplies from these CMOs on a project by project basis and do not have long-term supply arrangements in place. We do not currently have arrangements in place for redundant supply. For all of our drug candidates, we intend to identify and qualify additional manufacturers to provide the active pharmaceutical ingredient and fill-and-finish services prior to seeking regulatory approval.

LP-184 Manufacturing

We have contracted to Southwest Research Institute^® (“SwRI^®”) the development of a fully synthetic route to (-) and (+) LP-184. The synthesis process involves development and optimization of novel chemistry via multiple intermediates to produce (-) and (+) enantiomers of LP-184. We have contracted to SwRI^® the production of pre-GMP batch of the desired enantiomer of fully synthetic LP-184. We intend to continue with SwRI^® for manufacturing the GMP API material intended for phase I clinical testing.

LP-300 Manufacturing

For the supply of LP-300 for our phase II clinical program, we have contracted with Patheon API Services, Inc., a division of Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc., to manufacture a sufficient quantity of the active pharmaceutical ingredient for LP-300 to conduct our planned phase II trial. We are also contracting with third party CMOs for manufacturing of LP-300 finished drug product for our phase II clinical program. 

Commercialization

We retain worldwide commercialization rights for our product candidates LP-184, LP-300, LP-100, and LP-284. We plan to continue considering out-license and collaboration opportunities in order to maximize returns and pursue successful development of our key candidates. We currently have no sales, marketing or product distribution capabilities. However, once we have key candidates closer to FDA approval, we may build our own specialty sales force, partner with a larger pharmaceutical organization, or out-license our drug candidates.

We are continually evaluating out-license opportunities for our candidates at later stages of development in order to focus on identifying and licensing additional drug candidates for novel indications and/or patient subpopulations with an oncology focus for expansion of our pipeline.

Our commercial plans and strategy for each particular program may change as our programs advance, the markets change, we receive more clinical data, and depending on availability of capital.

Intellectual Property

We have an extensive multi-national portfolio of intellectual property rights directed to our drug candidates, and their targeted use and development in specific patient populations and in specific therapeutic indications.

As of the date of this report, we own or control rights in over 80 active patents and patent applications across over 14 patent families whose claims are directed to ur drug candidates and what we plan to do with our drug candidates. We have in-licensed or acquired patents from AF Chemicals, and BioNumerik directed to the compounds, LP-100, LP-184, LP-284 and LP-300. Additionally, we have also filed patent applications to further enhance and extend the use of these in-licensed compounds. Our patents are directed to our drug candidates, their usage, manufacturing, and other matters. These matters are essential to precision oncology and relate to: (a) uniquely powerful, data-driven, biologically relevant biomarker signatures, (b) patient selection and stratification approaches that rely on prediction of response deriving from these signatures and, (c) the ability to develop novel, combination therapy approaches with existing approved therapeutics. We intend to pursue additional patent coverage relating to the use of LP-300 as a potential linker or linking technology.

We rely on a combination of patents, trade secrets, copyrights, trademarks, license agreements, nondisclosure and other contractual provisions and technical measures to protect our intellectual property rights. Additionally, we also rely on the patent applications, trade secrets, and other contractual provisions and technical measures to protect the development of our genomic and biomarker signatures that help us in making predictions about the sensitivity to our drug candidates, our patient stratification approaches, and the development of potential combination therapies with our drug candidates.

Intellectual Property Portfolio by the Numbers

As of March 2022, our intellectual property portfolio consisted of over 14 patent families covered by:

Our policy is to protect the proprietary technologies, inventions, and improvements that are commercially important to our business in the United States, Europe, Japan and other key jurisdictions important to our business.  We fully expect that additional advances will come out of our ongoing work in developing biomarker signatures and patient stratification approaches and that these advances will form the basis of additional intellectual property protection through new patent filings, trademarks, trade secrets, and copyrights. We will continue to file patent applications and use trade secret laws to protect the uses of our genomic and biomarker signatures, response prediction and patient stratification discoveries. We plan to rely on these intellectual property advances to develop, strengthen, and maintain our proprietary position for novel therapeutics and novel formulations and uses of existing and new compounds across multiple therapeutic areas. We also plan to rely on data exclusivity, market exclusivity and patent term extensions when available.

Patent Portfolio

We have an extensive multi-national portfolio of intellectual property rights directed to our drug candidates, and their targeted use and development in specific patient populations and in specific therapeutic indications. Our portfolio consists of 14 patent families across issued patents and pending patent applications. For LP-100, we own and control two in-licensed patent families, including issued US Patents, Japan Patents, and various issued EU Patents directed to LP-100. We have also filed 12 patent applications directed to our proprietary drug programs together with biomarkers and sensitivity parameters, two of which are being consolidated into one application, and two additional patent applications directed to our RADR^® platform. These filings include patent applications directed to LP-300 and additional patent applications directed to new manufacturing methods for novel, synthetic illudins, and gene signatures and biomarker profiles indicating sensitivity to LP-100, LP-184, LP-284 and novel synthetic illudins.

We typically file a non-provisional patent application within 12 months of filing the corresponding provisional patent application. While we intend to timely file non-provisional patent applications relating to our provisional patent applications, we cannot predict whether any of our existing or future patent applications for our existing or future drug candidates will result in the issuance of patents that effectively protect these candidates, or if any of our issued patents or if any of our licensor’s issued patents will effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive products. Patent protection for the composition of matter of the LP-300 compound itself is unavailable because the compound was first identified many years ago.  For more information regarding the risks related to our intellectual property, see “Risk Factors – Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property.”

RADR^® Platform

We do not own or in-license any patents on our RADR^® platform, but we have filed two patent applications directed to our RADR^® platform and rely on trade secrets and confidential procedures directed to protecting:

LP-100

Our portfolio directed to LP-100 consists of two families of in-licensed patents that were filed in 2006. The patents include European, Japanese and US patents.  US Patent No. 7655695 relates to acylfulvene analogs that are directed to tumor solid tumor growth inhibition.   The nominal expiration for our patents directed to LP-100 is August 2026 and does not account for any applicable patent term adjustments or extensions.

LP-184 & other Novel, Synthetic Illudin Derivatives

Our portfolio directed to LP-184 consists of six families of patents and patent applications and includes five PCT applications.   US Patent No. 7655695 relates to acylfulvene analogs that are directed to solid tumor growth inhibition.  The patent applications include claims directed to use of LP-184, synthetic illudin analogs or derivatives to treat glioblastoma or other CNS cancers as either a mono or combination therapy, to treat rhabdoid tumors, brain cancer, brain metastases, and pancreatic cancer also as either a mono or combination therapy. The nominal expiration for patents and patent applications directed to LP-184 ranges from 2026 to as late as 2040 and does not account for any applicable patent term adjustments or extensions.  We intend to nationalize our patent applications in the US, Canada, EU, China, and Japan.

We have in-licensed patents from AF Chemicals related to the composition of matter of LP-184. We have also developed additional intellectual property for this class of compounds related to the development of novel synthetic routes and the preparation of certain illudin derivatives having therapeutic value. Additionally, in April of 2020, we filed a provisional patent on the use of LP-184 and these novel synthetic illudin derivatives in the treatment of glioblastoma and other CNS cancers.

LP-284 & other Novel, Synthetic Illudin Derivatives

Our portfolio directed to LP-284 consists of three patent and patent application families and includes two provisional patent applications. US Patent No. 7655695 relates to acylfulvene analogs that are directed to solid tumor growth inhibition. The PCT application filed in 2019 is related to the molecule itself and synthetic preparation methods of the same and has been nationalized in the US, Canada, Brazil, Mexico, EU, India, China, Japan and Australia. A provisional patent application filed in 2021 is directed to using LP-284 to treat leukemia and blood cancers as either a mono or combination therapy.

LP-300

Our portfolio directed to LP-300 consists of seven families of owned patents. A more recent PCT patent application filed in 2020 is directed to treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in nonsmokers and never smoking patients using disodium 2,2’-dithio-bis-ethane sulfonate (dimensa) and has been nationalized in the US, Canada, Brazil, Mexico, EU, India, China, Japan and Australia. The nominal expiration for NSCLC related patents and patent applications directed to LP-300 ranges from 2028 to as late as 2040 and does not account for any applicable patent term adjustments or extensions.

We filed an additional PCT application in March 2020 directed to LP-300 and its application to NSCLC, as well as biomarkers that correlate to heightened response or sensitivity to LP-300. A recent application is directed to the use of LP-300 as a potential disulfide linker.

Confidentiality & Trade Secrecy

Although we enter into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to confidential or patentable aspects of our research and development output, such as our employees, collaborators, contract research organizations, contract manufacturers, consultants, advisors and other third parties, any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose such output before a patent application is filed, thereby jeopardizing our ability to seek patent protection. These agreements provide that all confidential information developed or made known during the course of an individual or entities’ relationship with us must be kept confidential during and after the relationship. These agreements also provide that all inventions resulting from work performed for us or relating to our business and conceived or completed during the period of employment or assignment, as applicable, shall be our exclusive property. Third parties may also be able to develop substantially equivalent proprietary information, platforms or compounds, or otherwise gain access to our trade secret

Trademarks

We own various trademarks, applications and unregistered trademarks in the United States and other commercially important markets, including our company name, our A.I. platform, and certain compounds in development. Our trademark portfolio is designed to protect the brands for our Company, our A.I. platform and our portfolio of compounds.

Other Intellectual Property

We believe that our intellectual property rights on the RADR^® platform are valuable and important to our business. We rely on a combination of trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, license agreements, confidentiality procedures, non-disclosure agreements, employee disclosure, and invention assignment agreements, and other legal and contractual rights to establish and protect our proprietary rights.

Competition

We exist at the intersection of rapidly moving, global industries, namely, the biotechnology industry and the A.I. drug development industry. This is a unique and rapidly moving category with a variety of business models being developed globally. The pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries are characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition and a strong emphasis on intellectual property. A.I. is disrupting and changing all industries, including the biotechnology industry. Although these are competitive industries, we believe we are uniquely positioned due to our focus on oncology drug development, prediction of patient response, use of computational biology, and the ability to both rescue and develop compounds.

We face potential competition from many different sources, including major pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, academic institutions and governmental agencies, and public and private research institutions.

Many of the companies against which we may compete have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical studies, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals and marketing approved products than we do. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical, biotechnology and diagnostic industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel and establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs.

Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize medicines that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, and are more convenient or less expensive than any medicines we may develop. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their medicines more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market. In addition, our ability to compete may be affected in many cases by insurers or other third-party payors seeking to encourage the use of generic medicines.

Any drug candidates we successfully develop will compete with current and new therapies that may become available in the future. The key competitive factors affecting the success of all of our drug candidates, if approved, are likely to be their efficacy, combinability, safety profile, convenience, cost, the effectiveness of companion diagnostics in guiding the use of related therapeutics, if any, the level of generic competition, level of promotional activity, intellectual property protection, and the availability of reimbursement from government and other third-party payors. If any drug candidates under development are approved for the indications in which we are currently planning clinical trials, they will compete with the drugs discussed below and will likely compete with other drugs in development.

Artificial Intelligence and Drug Development

We believe our proprietary RADR^® platform gives us a significant competitive advantage by using AI to select and license drugs with a well-tolerated safety profile to quickly and cost-effectively bring drugs to market. Recently, there has been an increase in the use of AI for drug development that we face competition in both for developing new drugs and in biomarker development. This includes competition to the pool of already existing drug candidates that may be eligible for patient stratification. Our competition in AI-driven drug development for oncology includes, but is not limited to, the following:

Pancreatic Cancer

There are approved standards of care agents for treating pancreatic cancer that are dominated by FOLFIRINOX (consisting of leucovorin calcium (folinic acid), fluorouracil, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin) and gemcitabine-based cytotoxic chemotherapeutic regimens. However, these regimens cause dose limiting toxicities. Liposomal irinotecan (Onivyde®) in combination with 5-FU and LV is recommended in patients that progressed on gemcitabine therapy. In a small subset of patients exhibiting genetic mutations such as those with neurotrophic receptor tyrosine kinase (NTRK) gene fusions, breast cancer gene (BRCA) 1/2 mutations, or patients with elevated microsatellite instability (MSI)-DNA mismatch repair (MMR) status, recently approved targeted therapies such as Vitrakvi and Rozlytrek (approximately 1% of pancreatic cancer patients), poly ADP-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitor Lynparza (approximately 5-8% of pancreatic cancer patients) and Keytruda (approximately 1-2% of pancreatic cancer patients) are currently included in treatment guidelines. For eligible patients, paclitaxel (Abraxane®) or docetaxel has been used in the third-line setting in combination with gemcitabine. We believe that currently, no adequate treatment options are available for as much as 76% of advanced stage pancreatic cancer patients.

New agents are also being actively developed for the potential treatment of pancreatic cancer. The competition we may face regarding LP-184 for the potential treatment of pancreatic cancer includes without limitation the following agents that have not yet received marketing approval for the treatment of pancreatic cancer: the chemotherapeutic agent-glufosfamide; the glucocorticoid receptor antagonist-CORT 125134 (relacorilant); the CTGF inhibitor-FG-3019 (pamrevlumab); and the tyrosine kinase inhibitor-Masiviera (masitinib).

Glioblastoma

The standard treatment for glioblastoma includes radiation and chemotherapy with temozolomide. Based on an article in the journal Genes and Diseases (Temozolomide resistance in glioblastoma multiforme, Genes Dis., 2016 May 11;3(3):198-210) and other publications, at least fifty percent of temozolomide treated patients do not respond to this treatment, and others often form resistance to temozolomide based regimens. Bevacizumab is frequently used for recurrent glioblastoma.

New agents are also being actively developed for the potential treatment of glioblastoma. The competition we may face regarding LP-184 for the potential treatment of glioblastoma includes without limitation the following: the chemotherapeutic agents Berubicin, and VAL-083 (Dianhydrogalactitol); and the protein kinase inhibitors Paxalisib, Stivarga (Regorafenib) and DB102 (Enzastaurin hydrochloride). There are also several immunotherapies in late-stage development for glioblastoma, including peptides and tumor cell vaccines.

Prostate Cancer

New agents are being actively developed to treat specific subtypes of prostate cancer. Our approach is to leverage A.I. and biomarker data to discover subtypes of prostate cancer and treatments for those subtypes of cancer. We believe our approach and our compounds take advantage of this improved characterization of prostate cancer.

There are approved standard of care agents for treating solid tumor prostate cancer, but there are a lack of approved therapeutic options for non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (“nmCRPC”) patients and castration-resistant disease in metastatic hormone-naïve prostate cancer (“mHNPC”). The competition we may face in regards to LP-100 and one of the indications of LP-184, specifically mCRPC, includes without limitation the following drugs:

We believe LP-184 is unique and has promise for potential use in multiple proposed biomarker profile targeted indications where there are unmet treatment needs.

Non Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC)

We believe LP-300 may have an advantage to approved drugs on the market by serving as a well-tolerated agent in combination with multiple existing standards of care drugs for the NSCLC patient population or female NSCLC patient population. Beyond traditional chemotherapies (carboplatin/ pemetrexed and/or cisplatin/paclitaxel), NSCLC treatments with potential use for the never smoker patient population include targeted small molecules and biologics, which include, without limitation, the approved EGFR inhibitors erlotinib, gefitinib, afatinib, and osimertinib; the approved ALK inhibitors brigatinib, ceritinib, and crizotinib; the approved MET inhibitor tepotinib; and the approved immune checkpoint inhibitors pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, and ramucirumab. Many of these agents are used in specific NSCLC subtypes either as single agents or in various combinations. Many patients with NSCLC receive treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI’s). Most patients treated with 1st or 2nd generation TKI's will eventually develop resistance to treatment, therefore requiring additional therapeutic options. H002, a fourth generation EGFR inhibitor entering phase 1/ 2 trials may have potential for treatment of NSCLC subtypes with various EGFR activating mutations that are common among never smokers and that also underlie resistance to other therapies.

Government Regulation

Government authorities in the United States at the federal, state and local level and in other countries regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, quality control, approval, labeling, packaging, storage, record-keeping, promotion, advertising, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, marketing and export and import of drug and biological products. Generally, before a new drug can be marketed, considerable data demonstrating its quality, safety and efficacy must be obtained, organized into a format specific for each regulatory authority, submitted for review and approved by the regulatory authority.

U.S. Drug Development

In the United States, the FDA regulates drugs under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”). Drugs also are subject to other federal, state and local statutes and regulations. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations requires the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. Failure to comply with the applicable U.S. requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process or post-market may subject an applicant to administrative or judicial sanctions. These sanctions could include, among other actions, the FDA’s refusal to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, a clinical hold, untitled or warning letters, product recalls or market withdrawals, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, restitution, disgorgement and civil or criminal penalties. Any agency or judicial enforcement action could have a material adverse effect on us.

Our drug candidates are considered small molecule drugs and must be approved by the FDA through the NDA process before they may be legally marketed in the United States. The process generally involves the following:

The data required to support an NDA are generated in two distinct developmental stages: preclinical studies and clinical trials. The preclinical and clinical testing and approval process requires substantial time, effort and financial resources, and we cannot be certain that any approvals for any future drug candidates will be granted on a timely basis, or at all.

Preclinical Studies and IND

Preclinical studies generally involve laboratory evaluations of drug chemistry, formulation and stability, as well as studies to evaluate toxicity in animals, which support subsequent clinical testing. The sponsor must submit the results of the preclinical studies, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and a proposed clinical protocol, to the FDA as part of the IND. An IND is a request for authorization from the FDA to administer an investigational product to humans, and must become effective before human clinical trials may begin. 

Preclinical studies include laboratory evaluation of product chemistry and formulation, as well as in vitro and animal studies to assess the potential for adverse events and in some cases to establish a rationale for therapeutic use. The conduct of preclinical studies is subject to federal regulations and requirements, including GLP regulations for safety/toxicology studies. An IND sponsor must submit the results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and plans for clinical studies, among other things, to the FDA as part of an IND. Some long-term preclinical testing, such as animal tests of reproductive adverse events and carcinogenicity, may continue after the IND is submitted. An IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless before that time the FDA raises concerns or questions related to one or more proposed clinical trials and places the trial on clinical hold. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. As a result, submission of an IND may not result in the FDA allowing clinical trials to commence.

Clinical Trials

The clinical stage of development involves the administration of the investigational product to healthy volunteers or patients under the supervision of qualified investigators, generally physicians not employed by or under the trial sponsor’s control, in accordance with GCP requirements, which include the requirement that all research subjects provide their informed consent for their participation in any clinical trial. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the clinical trial, dosing procedures, subject selection and exclusion criteria and the parameters to be used to monitor subject safety and assess efficacy. Each protocol, and any subsequent amendments to the protocol, must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. Furthermore, each clinical trial must be reviewed and approved by an IRB for each institution at which the clinical trial will be conducted to ensure that the risks to individuals participating in the clinical trials are minimized and are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits. The IRB also approves the informed consent form that must be provided to each clinical trial subject or his or her legal representative, and must monitor the clinical trial until completed. There also are requirements governing the reporting of ongoing clinical trials and completed clinical trial results to public registries.

A sponsor who wishes to conduct a clinical trial outside of the United States may, but need not, obtain FDA authorization to conduct the clinical trial under an IND. If a foreign clinical trial is not conducted under an IND, the sponsor may submit data from the clinical trial to the FDA in support of an NDA. The FDA will accept a well-designed and well-conducted foreign clinical trial not conducted under an IND if the trial was conducted in accordance with GCP requirements and the FDA is able to validate the data through an onsite inspection, if deemed necessary, and the practice of medicine in the foreign country is consistent with the United States.

Clinical trials in the United States generally are conducted in three sequential phases, known as Phase I, Phase II and Phase III, and may overlap.

Post-approval trials, sometimes referred to as Phase IV clinical trials, are conducted after initial marketing approval. These trials are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication. In certain instances, the FDA may mandate the performance of Phase 4 clinical trials as a condition of approval of an NDA.

Progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials, among other information, must be submitted at least annually to the FDA and written IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA and the investigators for serious and unexpected suspected adverse events, findings from other studies suggesting a significant risk to humans exposed to the drug, findings from animal or in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk for human subjects and any clinically important increase in the rate of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure.

Phase I, Phase II and Phase III clinical trials may not be completed successfully within any specified period, if at all. The FDA or the sponsor may suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research subjects or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the drug has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients. Additionally, some clinical trials are overseen by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the clinical trial sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board or committee. This group provides authorization for whether a trial may move forward at designated check-points based on access to certain data from the trial. Concurrent with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional animal safety studies and also must develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the drug as well as finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of our drug candidates. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that our drug candidates do not undergo unacceptable deterioration over their labeled shelf life.

NDA Review Process

Following completion of the clinical trials, data is analyzed to assess whether the investigational product is safe and effective for the proposed indicated use or uses. The results of preclinical studies and clinical trials are then submitted to the FDA as part of an NDA, along with proposed labeling, chemistry and manufacturing information to ensure product quality and other relevant data. In short, the NDA is a request for approval to market the drug for one or more specified indications and must contain proof of safety and efficacy for a drug.

The application must include both negative and ambiguous results of preclinical studies and clinical trials, as well as positive findings. Data may come from company-sponsored clinical trials intended to test the safety and efficacy of a product’s use or from a number of alternative sources, including studies initiated by investigators. To support marketing approval, the data submitted must be sufficient in quality and quantity to establish the safety and efficacy of the investigational product to the satisfaction of FDA. FDA approval of an NDA must be obtained before a drug may be marketed in the United States.

Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (“PDUFA”), as amended, each NDA must be accompanied by a user fee. The FDA adjusts the PDUFA user fees on an annual basis. According to the FDA’s fiscal year 2022 fee schedule, effective through September 30, 2022, the user fee for an application requiring clinical data, such as an NDA, was approximately $3.11 million. PDUFA also imposes an annual program fee for each marketed human drug ($369,413 in 2022) and an annual establishment fee on facilities used to manufacture prescription drugs. Fee waivers or reductions are available in certain circumstances, including a waiver of the application fee for the first application filed by a small business. Additionally, no user fees are assessed on NDAs for products designated as orphan drugs, unless the product also includes a non-orphan indication.

The FDA reviews all submitted NDAs before it accepts them for filing, and may request additional information rather than accepting the NDA for filing. The FDA must make a decision on accepting an NDA for filing within 60 days of receipt. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth review of the NDA. Under the goals and policies agreed to by the FDA under PDUFA, the FDA has 10 months, from the filing date, in which to complete its initial review of a new molecular-entity NDA and respond to the applicant, and six months from the filing date of a new molecular-entity NDA designated for priority review. The FDA does not always meet its PDUFA goal dates for standard and priority NDAs, and the review process is often extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification.

Before approving an NDA, the FDA will conduct a pre-approval inspection of the manufacturing facilities for the new product to determine whether they comply with cGMP requirements. The FDA will not approve the product unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. The FDA also may audit data from clinical trials to ensure compliance with GCP requirements. Additionally, the FDA may refer applications for novel drug products or drug products which present difficult questions of safety or efficacy to an advisory committee, typically a panel that includes clinicians and other experts, for review, evaluation and a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions, if any. The FDA is not bound by recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations when making decisions on approval. The FDA likely will reanalyze the clinical trial data, which could result in extensive discussions between the FDA and the applicant during the review process. After the FDA evaluates an NDA, it will issue an approval letter or a Complete Response Letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the drug with specific prescribing information for specific indications. A Complete Response Letter indicates that the review cycle of the application is complete and the application will not be approved in its present form. A Complete Response Letter usually describes all of the specific deficiencies in the NDA identified by the FDA. The Complete Response Letter may require additional clinical data, additional pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial(s) and/or other significant and time-consuming requirements related to clinical trials, preclinical studies or manufacturing. If a Complete Response Letter is issued, the applicant may either resubmit the NDA, addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter, or withdraw the application. Even if such data and information are submitted, the FDA may decide that the NDA does not satisfy the criteria for approval. Data obtained from clinical trials are not always conclusive and the FDA may interpret data differently than we interpret the same data.

Orphan Drugs

Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan designation to a drug or biological product intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally a disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or more than 200,000 individuals in the United States and for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making the product available in the United States for this type of disease or condition will be recovered from sales of the product.

Orphan drug designation must be requested before submitting an NDA. After the FDA grants orphan drug designation, the identity of the therapeutic agent and its potential orphan use are disclosed publicly by the FDA. Orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in or shorten the duration of the regulatory review and approval process.

If a product that has orphan designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the disease or condition for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan drug exclusivity, which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications to market the same drug for the same indication for seven years from the date of such approval, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan exclusivity by means of greater effectiveness, greater safety or providing a major contribution to patient care or in instances of drug supply issues. However, competitors may receive approval of either a different product for the same indication or the same product for a different indication but that could be used off-label in the orphan indication. Orphan drug exclusivity also could block the approval of one of our products for seven years if a competitor obtains approval before we do for the same product, as defined by the FDA, for the same indication we are seeking approval, or if a drug candidate is determined to be contained within the scope of the competitor’s product for the same indication or disease. If one of our products designated as an orphan drug receives marketing approval for an indication broader than that which is designated, it may not be entitled to orphan drug exclusivity. Orphan drug status in the European Union has similar, but not identical, requirements and benefits.

Expedited Development and Review Programs

The FDA has a fast track program that is intended to expedite or facilitate the process for reviewing new drugs that meet certain criteria. Specifically, new drugs are eligible for fast track designation if they are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening condition and preclinical or clinical data demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the condition. Fast track designation applies to both the product and the specific indication for which it is being studied. The sponsor can request the FDA to designate the product for fast track status any time before receiving NDA approval, but ideally no later than the pre-NDA meeting with the FDA.

Any product submitted to the FDA for marketing, including under a fast track program, may be eligible for other types of FDA programs intended to expedite development and review, such as priority review and accelerated approval. Any product is eligible for priority review if it treats a serious or life-threatening condition and, if approved, would provide a significant improvement in safety and effectiveness compared to available therapies.

A product may also be eligible for accelerated approval, if it treats a serious or life-threatening condition and generally provides a meaningful advantage over available therapies. In addition, it must demonstrate an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit or on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than irreversible morbidity or mortality (“IMM”), which is reasonably likely to predict an effect on IMM or other clinical benefit. As a condition of approval, the FDA may require that a sponsor of a drug or biologic receiving accelerated approval perform adequate and well-controlled post-marketing clinical trials. If the FDA concludes that a drug or biologic shown to be effective can be safely used only if distribution or use is restricted, it may require such post-marketing restrictions as it deems necessary to assure safe use of the product.

Additionally, a drug may be eligible for designation as a breakthrough therapy if the product is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs or biologics, to treat a serious or life-threatening condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product may demonstrate substantial improvement over currently approved therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints. The benefits of breakthrough therapy designation include the same benefits as fast track designation, plus intensive guidance from the FDA to ensure an efficient drug development program. Fast track designation, priority review, accelerated approval and breakthrough therapy designation do not change the standards for approval, but may expedite the development or approval process.

Post-Approval Requirements

Following approval of a new product, the manufacturer and the approved product are subject to continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, monitoring and record-keeping requirements, requirements to report adverse experiences and comply with promotion and advertising requirements, which include restrictions on promoting drugs for unapproved uses or patient populations, known as “off-label use,” and limitations on industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities. Although physicians may prescribe legally available drugs for off-label uses, manufacturers may not market or promote such uses. Prescription drug promotional materials must be submitted to the FDA in conjunction with their first use. Further, if there are any modifications to the drug, including changes in indications, labeling or manufacturing processes or facilities, the applicant may be required to submit and obtain FDA approval of a new NDA or NDA supplement, which may require the development of additional data or preclinical studies and clinical trials.

The FDA may also place other conditions on approvals including the requirement for REMS, to assure the safe use of the product. A REMS could include medication guides, physician communication plans or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. Any of these limitations on approval or marketing could restrict the commercial promotion, distribution, prescription or dispensing of products. Product approvals may be withdrawn for non-compliance with regulatory standards or if problems occur following initial marketing.

The FDA may withdraw approval if compliance with regulatory requirements and standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the market. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in revisions to the approved labeling to add new safety information; imposition of post-market studies or clinical studies to assess new safety risks or imposition of distribution restrictions or other restrictions under a REMS program. Other potential consequences include, among other things:

The FDA strictly regulates marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of products that are placed on the market. Drugs may be promoted only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant liability.

Other U.S. Regulatory Matters

Manufacturing, sales, promotion and other activities following product approval are also subject to regulation by numerous regulatory authorities in the United States in addition to the FDA, including the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, other divisions of the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Justice, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Occupational Safety & Health Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, and state and local governments.

For example, in the United States, sales, marketing and scientific and educational programs also must comply with state and federal fraud and abuse laws, false claims laws, transparency laws, government price reporting, and health information privacy and security laws. These laws include the following:

Pricing and rebate programs must also comply with the Medicaid rebate requirements of the U.S. Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 and more recent requirements in the ACA. If products are made available to authorized users of the Federal Supply Schedule of the General Services Administration, additional laws and requirements apply. Products must meet applicable child-resistant packaging requirements under the U.S. Poison Prevention Packaging Act. Manufacturing, sales, promotion and other activities also are potentially subject to federal and state consumer protection and unfair competition laws.

The distribution of pharmaceutical products is subject to additional requirements and regulations, including extensive record-keeping, licensing, storage and security requirements intended to prevent the unauthorized sale of pharmaceutical products.

The failure to comply with any of these laws or regulatory requirements subjects firms to possible legal or regulatory action. Depending on the circumstances, failure to meet applicable regulatory requirements can result in significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, including damages, fines, disgorgement, individual imprisonment, exclusion from participation in government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, integrity oversight and reporting obligations, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, injunctions, requests for recall, seizure of products, total or partial suspension of production, denial or withdrawal of product approvals or refusal to allow a firm to enter into supply contracts, including government contracts.

U.S. Patent-Term Restoration and Marketing Exclusivity

Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of FDA approval of any future drug candidates, some of our U.S. patents may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Hatch-Waxman Act. The Hatch-Waxman Act permits restoration of the patent term of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during product development and FDA regulatory review process. Patent-term restoration, however, cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the product’s approval date. The patent-term restoration period is generally one-half the time between the effective date of an IND or the issue date of the patent, whichever is later, and the submission date of an NDA plus the time between the submission date of an NDA or the issue date of the patent, whichever is later, and the approval of that application, except that the review period is reduced by any time during which the applicant failed to exercise due diligence. Only one patent applicable to an approved drug is eligible for the extension and the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent. The USPTO, in consultation with the FDA, reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension or restoration. In the future, we may apply for restoration of patent term for our currently owned or licensed patents to add patent life beyond its current expiration date, depending on the expected length of the clinical trials and other factors involved in the filing of the relevant NDA.

Market exclusivity provisions under the FDCA also can delay the submission or the approval of certain applications. The FDCA provides a five-year period of non-patent marketing exclusivity within the United States to the first applicant to gain approval of an NDA for a new chemical entity. A drug is a new chemical entity if the FDA has not previously approved any other new drug containing the same active moiety, which is the molecule or ion responsible for the action of the drug substance. During the exclusivity period, the FDA may not accept for review an abbreviated new drug application (“ANDA”), or a 505(b)(2) NDA submitted by another company for another version of such drug where the applicant does not own or have a legal right of reference to all the data required for approval. However, an application may be submitted after four years if it contains a certification of patent invalidity or non-infringement. The FDCA also provides three years of marketing exclusivity for a NDA, 505(b)(2) NDA or supplement to an existing NDA if new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability studies, that were conducted or sponsored by the applicant are deemed by the FDA to be essential to the approval of the application, for example, new indications, dosages or strengths of an existing drug. This three-year exclusivity covers only the conditions of use associated with the new clinical investigations and does not prohibit the FDA from approving ANDAs for drugs containing the original active agent. Five-year and three-year exclusivity will not delay the submission or approval of a full NDA. However, an applicant submitting a full NDA would be required to conduct or obtain a right of reference to all of the preclinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials necessary to demonstrate safety and effectiveness.

European Union Drug Development

Similar to the United States, the various phases of preclinical and clinical research in the European Union are subject to significant regulatory controls. Although the EU Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC has sought to harmonize the EU clinical trials regulatory framework, setting out common rules for the control and authorization of clinical trials in the EU, the EU Member States have transposed and applied the provisions of the Directive differently. This has led to significant variations in the member state regimes. Under the current regime, before a clinical trial can be initiated it must be approved in each of the EU countries where the trial is to be conducted by two distinct bodies: the National Competent Authority (“NCA”), and one or more Ethics Committees (“ECs”). Under the current regime all suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions to the investigated drug that occur during the clinical trial have to be reported to the NCA and ECs of the Member State where they occurred.

The EU clinical trials legislation currently is undergoing a transition process mainly aimed at harmonizing and streamlining clinical-trial authorization, simplifying adverse-event reporting procedures, improving the supervision of clinical trials and increasing their transparency. Recently enacted Clinical Trials Regulation EU No 536/2014 ensures that the rules for conducting clinical trials in the EU will be identical. In the meantime, Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC continues to govern all clinical trials performed in the EU.

European Union Drug Review and Approval

In the European Economic Area (“EEA”), which is comprised of the 27 Member States of the European Union (including Norway and excluding Croatia), Iceland and Liechtenstein, medicinal products can only be commercialized after obtaining a Marketing Authorization (“MA”). There are two types of marketing authorizations.

Under the above described procedures, before granting the MA, EMA or the competent authorities of the Member States of the EEA make an assessment of the risk-benefit balance of the product on the basis of scientific criteria concerning its quality, safety and efficacy. Similar to the U.S. patent term-restoration, Supplementary Protection Certificates (“SPCs”) serve as an extension to a patent right in Europe for up to five years. SPCs apply to specific pharmaceutical products to offset the loss of patent protection due to the lengthy testing and clinical trials these products require prior to obtaining regulatory marketing approval.

Coverage and Reimbursement

Sales of our products will depend, in part, on the extent to which our products will be covered by third-party payors, such as government health programs, commercial insurance, and managed healthcare organizations. There is significant uncertainty related to third-party payor coverage and reimbursement of newly approved products. In the United States, for example, principal decisions about reimbursement for new products are typically made by CMS. CMS decides whether and to what extent a new product will be covered and reimbursed under Medicare, and private third-party payors often follow CMS’s decisions regarding coverage and reimbursement to a substantial degree. However, no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for drug products exists. Accordingly, decisions regarding the extent of coverage and amount of reimbursement to be provided for any of our products will be made on a payor-by-payor basis.

Increasingly, third-party payors are requiring that drug companies provide them with predetermined discounts from list prices and are challenging the prices charged for medical products. Further, such payors are increasingly challenging the price, examining the medical necessity and reviewing the cost effectiveness of medical drug candidates. There may be especially significant delays in obtaining coverage and reimbursement for newly approved drugs. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific drug candidates on an approved list, known as a formulary, which might not include all FDA-approved drugs for a particular indication. We may need to conduct expensive pharmaco-economic studies to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost effectiveness of our products. As a result, the coverage determination process is often a time-consuming and costly process that will require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our products to each payor separately, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be obtained.

In addition, in most foreign countries, the proposed pricing for a drug must be approved before it may be lawfully marketed. The requirements governing drug pricing and reimbursement vary widely from country to country. For example, the European Union provides options for its member states to restrict the range of medicinal products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal products for human use. A member state may approve a specific price for the medicinal product or it may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the medicinal product on the market. There can be no assurance that any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for pharmaceutical products will allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements for any of our products. Historically, products launched in the European Union do not follow price structures of the United States and generally prices tend to be significantly lower.

Healthcare Reform

The United States government, state legislatures, and foreign governments have shown significant interest in implementing cost containment programs to limit the growth of government-paid healthcare costs, including price-controls, restrictions on reimbursement, and requirements for substitution of generic products for branded prescription drugs. For example, in March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (collectively, the “ACA”), was passed which substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both the government and private insurers, and significantly impacts the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. The ACA contains provisions that may reduce the profitability of drug products through increased rebates for drugs reimbursed by Medicaid programs, extension of Medicaid rebates to Medicaid managed care plans, mandatory discounts for certain Medicare Part D beneficiaries and annual fees based on pharmaceutical companies’ share of sales to federal health care programs. The Medicaid Drug Rebate Program requires pharmaceutical manufacturers to enter into and have in effect a national rebate agreement with the HHS Secretary as a condition for states to receive federal matching funds for the manufacturer’s outpatient drugs furnished to Medicaid patients. The ACA made several changes to the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, including increasing pharmaceutical manufacturers’ rebate liability by raising the minimum basic Medicaid rebate on most branded prescription drugs from 15.1% of average manufacturer price (“AMP”), to 23.1% of AMP and adding a new rebate calculation for “line extensions” (i.e., new formulations, such as extended release formulations) of solid oral dosage forms of branded products, as well as potentially impacting their rebate liability by modifying the statutory definition of AMP. The ACA also expanded the universe of Medicaid utilization subject to drug rebates by requiring pharmaceutical manufacturers to pay rebates on Medicaid managed care utilization and by enlarging the population potentially eligible for Medicaid drug benefits. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”), have proposed to expand Medicaid rebate liability to the territories of the United States as well. Additionally, for a drug product to receive federal reimbursement under the Medicaid or Medicare Part B programs or to be sold directly to U.S. government agencies, the manufacturer must extend discounts to entities eligible to participate in the 340B drug pricing program. The required 340B discount on a given product is calculated based on the AMP and Medicaid rebate amounts reported by the manufacturer.

Some of the provisions of the ACA have yet to be implemented, and there have been judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA Congress has recently considered legislation that would repeal or repeal and replace all or part of the ACA. While Congress has not passed comprehensive repeal legislation, two bills affecting the implementation of certain taxes under the ACA have passed. On December 22, 2017, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the “Tax Act”) was enacted, which includes a provision repealing, effective January 1, 2019, the tax-based shared responsibility payment imposed by the ACA on certain individuals who fail to maintain qualifying health coverage for all or part of a year that is commonly referred to as the “individual mandate.” The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (the “BBA”), among other things, amended the ACA, effective January 1, 2019, to close the coverage gap in most Medicare Part D drug plans. In July 2018, CMS published a final rule permitting further collections and payments to and from certain ACA-qualified health plans and health insurance issuers under the ACA risk adjustment program in response to the outcome of federal district court litigation regarding the method CMS uses to determine this risk adjustment. On December 14, 2018, a Texas U.S. District Court Judge ruled that the ACA is unconstitutional in its entirety because the “individual mandate” was repealed by Congress as part of the Tax Act. On December 18, 2019, the United States Court of Appeal for the Fifth Circuit ruled that the “individual mandate” of the ACA is unconstitutional, but remanded the case to the U.S. District Court to reconsider whether the entire ACA is unconstitutional. In June 2021, the Supreme Court concluded that the challenge to the ACA should be dismissed. It is unclear how this decision, subsequent appeals and decisions, and other efforts to repeal and replace the ACA will impact the ACA.

Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted. These changes included aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of up to 2% per fiscal year, effective April 1, 2013, which, due to subsequent legislative amendments, will stay in effect through 2027 unless additional congressional action is taken. In January 2013, President Obama signed into law the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, which, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several providers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. These new laws may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding, which could have a material adverse effect on customers for our drugs, if approved, and accordingly, our financial operations.

Additionally, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny recently over the manner in which drug manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products. For example, At the state level, legislatures have increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing.

Moreover, the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (“MMA”), established the Medicare Part D program to provide a voluntary prescription drug benefit to Medicare beneficiaries. Under Part D, Medicare beneficiaries may enroll in prescription drug plans offered by private entities that provide coverage of outpatient prescription drugs. Unlike Medicare Part A and B, Part D coverage is not standardized. While all Medicare drug plans must give at least a standard level of coverage set by Medicare, Part D prescription drug plan sponsors are not required to pay for all covered Part D drugs, and each drug plan can develop its own drug formulary that identifies which drugs it will cover and at what tier or level. However, Part D prescription drug formularies must include drugs within each therapeutic category and class of covered Part D drugs, though not necessarily all the drugs in each category or class. Any formulary used by a Part D prescription drug plan must be developed and reviewed by a pharmacy and therapeutic committee. Government payment for some of the costs of prescription drugs may increase demand for products for which we receive marketing approval. However, any negotiated prices for our products covered by a Part D prescription drug plan likely will be lower than the prices we might otherwise obtain. Moreover, while the MMA applies only to drug benefits for Medicare beneficiaries, private third-party payors often follow Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own payment rates. 

Employees

As of the date of this report, we employ a total of 16 professionals: 14 full-time and two part-time employees. None of our employees are represented by a labor union or covered under a collective bargaining agreement. We believe that we maintain strong relations with our employees.

We also engage outside consultants to assist with research and development, clinical development and regulatory matters, business development, operations and other functions from time to time.

Human Capital Resources.

Our employees drive our mission, and we place a high level of importance on employee engagement and corporate culture. Fostering and maintaining a strong, healthy culture is a key strategic focus for us, and we regularly engage in independent third-party surveys to gauge the satisfaction and engagement of our team.

Our compensation approach is aimed at attracting, retaining, motivating and rewarding superior employees who operate in a highly competitive and technologically challenging environment. The structure of our compensation aims to balance incentives for both short-term and long-term performance.

Some examples of the benefits we offer include medical insurance, dental insurance, vision insurance, and an unlimited paid-time off policy.

A substantial portion of our employees are focused on leading and advancing our drug development, biology and data science efforts. As we progress our product candidates and grow and expand our team, we intend to continue to place a significant focus on our human capital resources.

Available Information

We maintain a website at www.lanternpharma.com. The contents of our website are not incorporated in, or otherwise to be regarded as part of, this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We make available, free of charge on our website, access to our Annual Report on Form 10-K, our Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, our Current Reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), as soon as reasonably practicable after we file or furnish them electronically with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”).

Copies of our Annual Report on Form 10-K, our Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, our Current Reports on Form 8-K and other filings we make with the SEC are also available at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20549. Please call the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330 for further information on the Public Reference Room. Our SEC filings are also available on the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov. Statements contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K concerning the contents of any contract or any other documents are not necessarily complete. If a contract or document has been filed as an exhibit to this Annual Report on Form 10-K, please see the copy of the contract or document that has been filed. Each statement in this this Annual Report on Form 10-K relating to a contract or document filed as an exhibit is qualified in all respects by the filed exhibit.

Item 1A. Risk Factors

An investment in our common stock involves a high degree of risk. You should give careful consideration to the following risk factors, in addition to general economic and business risks and the other information included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including our financial statements and related notes, before deciding whether to invest in shares of our common stock. The occurrence of any of the adverse developments described in the following risk factors could materially and adversely harm our business, financial condition, results of operations or prospects. In that case, the trading price of our common stock could decline, and you may lose all or part of your investment. Additional risks or uncertainties not presently known to us or that we currently deem immaterial may also materially and adversely harm our business, financial condition, results of operations or prospects.

Risks Related to Financial Position and Need for Capital

We have a limited operating history and have never generated any revenues other than from research grants, which may make it difficult to evaluate the success of our business to date and to assess our future viability.

We were incorporated in November 7, 2013, and to date have been largely focused on organizing and staffing our company, raising capital, developing the RADR^® platform and acquiring the rights to, and advancing the development of, our drug candidates, including conducting preclinical studies and early phase clinical trials on our drug candidates. We have not yet demonstrated an ability to successfully complete clinical trials, obtain marketing approvals, manufacture drugs on a commercial scale, or arrange for a third party to do so on our behalf, or conduct sales and marketing activities necessary for successful commercialization. Consequently, predictions about our future success or viability may not be as accurate as they could be if we had a longer operating history or a history of successfully developing and commercializing drugs.

We expect our financial condition and operating results to continue to fluctuate from quarter to quarter and year to year due to a variety of factors, many of which are beyond our control. We will need to eventually transition from a company with a research and development focus to a company capable of undertaking commercial activities. We may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications and delays, and may not be successful in such a transition.

We have incurred significant operating losses since inception and anticipate that we will continue to incur substantial operating losses for the foreseeable future and may never achieve or maintain profitability.

Since our inception, we have incurred losses. Our net losses were approximately $12,363,000 and $5,908,000 for the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively. We expect to continue to incur significant expenses and increasing operating losses for the foreseeable future. None of our current drug candidates have been approved for marketing in the United States, or in any other jurisdiction, and may never receive such approval. It could be several years, if ever, before we have a commercialized drug that generates significant revenues. As a result, we are uncertain when or if we will achieve profitability and, if so, whether we will be able to sustain profitability. The net losses we incur may fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter and year to year. We anticipate that our expenses will increase substantially as we:

To become and remain profitable, we must develop and eventually commercialize one or more drug candidates with significant market potential or license one or more of our drug candidates to an industry partner. This will require us to be successful in a range of challenging activities, including completing clinical trials of our drug candidates, publishing our data and findings on our drug candidates with peer reviewed publications, developing commercial scale manufacturing processes, obtaining marketing approval, manufacturing, marketing and selling any current and future drug candidates for which we may obtain marketing approval, and satisfying any post-marketing requirements. We are only in the preliminary stages of most of these activities and, in some cases, have not yet commenced certain of these activities. We may never succeed in any or all of these activities and, even if we do, we may never generate sufficient revenue to achieve profitability.

Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with drug development, we are unable to accurately predict the timing or amount of expenses or when, or if, we will obtain marketing approval to commercialize any of our drug candidates. If we are required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, or other regulatory authorities such as the European Medicines Agency, or EMA, to perform studies and trials in addition to those currently expected, or if there are any delays in the development, or in the completion of any planned or future preclinical studies or clinical trials of our current or future drug candidates, our expenses could increase and profitability could be further delayed.

Even if we do achieve profitability, we may not be able to sustain or increase profitability on a quarterly or annual basis. Our failure to become and remain profitable would decrease the value of our company and could impair our ability to raise capital, maintain our research and development efforts, expand our business or continue our operations. A decline in the value of our company also could cause investors to lose all or part of your investment.

We will need substantial additional funding, and if we are unable to raise capital when needed, we could be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate our drug development programs or commercialization efforts.

We anticipate that our expenses will increase substantially as we continue to develop and begin and continue clinical trials with respect to LP-300, LP-184, LP-100our other drug candidates; seek to identify and develop additional drug candidates; acquire or in-license other drug candidates or technologies; seek regulatory and marketing approvals for our drug candidates that successfully complete clinical trials, if any; establish sales, marketing, distribution and other commercial infrastructure in the future to commercialize various drugs for which we may obtain marketing approval, if any; require the manufacture of larger quantities of drug candidates for clinical development and, potentially, commercialization; maintain, expand and protect our intellectual property portfolio; develop, maintain, and expand our RADR^® platform; hire and retain additional personnel, such as clinical, quality control and scientific personnel; add operational, financial and management information systems and personnel, including personnel to support our drug development and help us comply with our obligations as a public company; and add equipment and physical infrastructure to support our research and development programs.

We will be required to expend significant funds in order to advance the development of LP-184, LP-300, LP-100 and our other drug candidates. In addition, while we may seek one or more collaborators for future development of our current drug candidates or any future drug candidates that we may develop for one or more indications, we may not be able to enter into a partnership or out-license for any of our drug candidates for such indications on suitable terms, on a timely basis or at all. In any event, our existing cash, cash equivalents and other capital resources will not be sufficient to fund all of the efforts that we plan to undertake or to fund the completion of development of our drug candidates or our other preclinical studies. Accordingly, we will be required to obtain further funding through public or private equity offerings, debt financings, collaborations and licensing arrangements or other sources. We do not have any committed external source of funds. Further financing may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all. Our failure to raise capital as and when needed would have a negative impact on our financial condition and our ability to pursue our business strategy.

Based on our anticipated expenditures and capital commitments as of the date of this report, we believe our existing cash and cash equivalents as of December 31, 2021 will enable us to fund our operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements for at least 12 months from the filing of this Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021. Our estimate as to how long we expect our existing cash, cash equivalents and other capital resources to be able to continue to fund our operations is based on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could use our available capital resources sooner than we currently expect. Further, changing circumstances, some of which may be beyond our control, could cause us to consume capital significantly faster than we currently anticipate, and we may need to seek additional funds sooner than planned. Our future funding requirements, both short-term and long-term, will depend on many factors, including:

Risks Related to the Discovery and Development of Drug Candidates

We have limited experience in drug discovery and drug development and may not receive regulatory approval to market our drug candidates.

Prior to the acquisition of our drug candidates, we were not involved in and had no control over their preclinical and clinical development. In addition, we rely upon the parties from whom we have acquired our drug candidates from to have conducted such research and development in accordance with the applicable protocol, legal, regulatory and scientific standards, having accurately reported the results of all clinical trials conducted prior to our acquisition of the applicable drug candidate, and having correctly collected the data from these studies and trials. To the extent any of these has not occurred, our expected development time and costs may be increased, which could adversely affect our prospects for marketing approval of, and receiving any future revenue from, these drug candidates.

In the near term, we are dependent on our ability to advance the development of LP-184, LP-300, andLP-100. If we are unable to initiate or complete the clinical development of, obtain marketing approval for or successfully commercialize LP-184, LP-300, LP-100 and our other drug candidates, either alone or with a collaborator, or if we experience significant delays in doing so, our business could be substantially harmed.

We currently do not have any drugs that have received regulatory approval and may never be able to develop marketable drug candidates. We are investing a significant portion of our efforts and financial resources in the advancement of our drug candidates and in the development of our RADR^® platform. Our prospects are substantially dependent on our ability, or those of any future collaborator, to develop, obtain marketing approval for and successfully commercialize drug candidates in one or more disease indications.

The success of LP-184, LP-300, LP-100 and our other drug candidates will depend on several factors, including the following:

Many of these factors are beyond our control, including the results of clinical trials, the time required for the FDA or any comparable foreign regulatory authorities to review any regulatory submissions we may make, potential threats to our intellectual property rights and the manufacturing, marketing and sales efforts of any future collaborator. If we are unable to develop, receive marketing approval for and successfully commercialize our drug candidates, on our own or with any future collaborator or experience delays as a result of any of these factors or otherwise, our business could be substantially harmed. The regulatory approval processes of the FDA and comparable foreign authorities are lengthy, time consuming, expensive and inherently unpredictable, and if we are ultimately unable to obtain regulatory approval for our drug candidates, our business will be substantially harmed.

The time required to obtain approval by the FDA and comparable foreign authorities is unpredictable but can take many years following the commencement of clinical trials and depends upon numerous factors, including the substantial discretion of the regulatory authorities. The results of preclinical studies and early clinical trials of our drug candidates may not be predictive of the results of later-stage clinical trials. Drug candidates in later stages of clinical trials may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy traits despite having progressed through preclinical studies and initial clinical trials. It is not uncommon for companies in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries to suffer significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials due to nonclinical findings made while clinical studies were underway and safety or efficacy observations made in clinical studies, including previously unreported adverse events. Our future clinical trial results may not be successful, and notwithstanding any potential promising results in earlier studies, we cannot be certain that we will not face similar setbacks. The historical failure rate for drug candidates in our industry is high. In addition, approval policies, regulations, or the type and amount of clinical data necessary to gain approval may change during the course of a drug candidate’s clinical development and may vary among jurisdictions. We have not obtained final regulatory approval for any drug candidate and it is possible that none of our existing drug candidates or any drug candidates we may seek to develop in the future will ever obtain regulatory approval.

Our drug candidates could fail to receive regulatory clearance or marketing approval for many reasons, including the following:

We have not previously completed all clinical trials for any of our drug candidates. Consequently, we may not have the necessary capabilities, including adequate staffing, to successfully manage the execution and completion of any clinical trials we initiate in a way that leads to our obtaining marketing approval for our drug candidates in a timely manner, or at all. This lengthy approval process as well as the unpredictability of future clinical trial results may result in our failing to obtain regulatory approval to market our drug candidates, which would significantly harm our business, results of operations and prospects.

In addition, even if we were to obtain approval, regulatory authorities may approve any of our drug candidates for fewer or more limited indications than we request, may not approve the price we intend to charge for our drugs, may grant approval contingent on the performance of costly post-marketing clinical trials, may approve a drug candidate with a label that does not include the labeling claims necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of that drug candidate or may restrict its distribution. Any of the foregoing restrictions or requirements could materially harm the commercial prospects for our drug candidates.

We have not previously submitted a new drug application (an “NDA”) to the FDA or similar drug approval filings to comparable foreign authorities, for any drug candidate, and we cannot be certain that any of our drug candidates will be successful in clinical trials or receive regulatory approval. Further, our drug candidates may not receive regulatory approval even if they are successful in clinical trials. If we do not receive regulatory approvals for our drug candidates, we may not be able to continue our operations. Even if we successfully obtain regulatory approvals to market one or more of our drug candidates, our revenues will be dependent, in part, upon the size of the markets in the territories for which we gain regulatory approval and have commercial rights. If the markets for patients that we are targeting for our drug candidates are not as significant as we estimate, or if the price we charge for our drug candidate is too high, we may not generate significant revenues from sales of such drugs, if approved.

We plan to seek regulatory approval to commercialize our drug candidates both in the United States and the European Union and in additional foreign countries. While the scope of regulatory approval is similar in other countries, to obtain separate regulatory approval in many other countries we must comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of such countries regarding safety and efficacy and governing, among other things, clinical trials and possible limitations placed upon commercial sales, pricing and distribution of our drug candidates, and we cannot predict success in these jurisdictions.

Our business strategy to rescue previously failed drug candidates may not be successful, and important issues relating to safety and efficacy remain to be resolved for all of our drug candidates. Our strategy also involves risks and uncertainties that differ from other biotechnology companies that focus solely on new drug candidates that do not have a history of failed clinical trials.

Our drug candidate portfolio includes small molecules that others have tried, but failed, to develop into an approved commercialized drug. Our strategy to rescue previously failed drug candidates may not be successful, and the use of the term “drug rescue,” “rescuing,” or words of similar meaning in this report should not be construed to mean that our RADR^® platform has resolved all issues of safety and/or efficacy for any of our drug candidates. Issues of safety and efficacy for any drug candidate may only be determined by the U.S. FDA or other applicable regulatory authorities in jurisdictions outside the United States.

Our business strategy includes a focus on leveraging A.I. to streamline the drug development process and to identify patients that will benefit from drug candidates that other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies have abandoned or shelved after initiating clinical trials under an IND application filed with the FDA, including candidates that have failed to achieve statistical significance on the original endpoints established in the clinical trials. We use our RADR^®platform to assess drug candidates together with big data sources of information to both target and evaluate sub-populations and identify new therapeutic indices and gene signatures that will potentially correlate with drug efficacy and patient response to treatment. While we have not yet successfully received regulatory or marketing approval for any of our drug candidates, and while we believe that our approach has the potential to reduce the cost and time of drug development through the identification and selection of patient populations more likely to respond to therapy, our strategy involves risks and uncertainties that differ from other biotechnology companies that focus solely on new drug candidates that do not have a history of failed clinical development. These risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to, the following:

We may depend on enrollment of patients with specific genomic or biomarker signatures in our clinical trials in order for us to continue development of our drug candidates. If we are unable to enroll patients with specific genomic or biomarker signatures in our clinical trials, our research, development and commercialization efforts could be adversely affected.

The timely completion of clinical trials in accordance with their protocols depends, among other things, on our ability to enroll a sufficient number of patients with genomic or biomarker signatures we have identified and who remain in the study until its conclusion. We may experience difficulties in patient enrollment in our clinical trials for a variety of reasons. Patient enrollment is affected by many factors including the size and nature of the patient population with the specific genomic or biomarker signature we have identified, the proximity of patients to clinical sites, the eligibility criteria for the trial, the design of the clinical trial, the size of the patient population required for analysis of the trial’s primary endpoints, the proximity of patients to study sites, our ability to recruit clinical trial investigators with the appropriate competencies and experience, our ability to obtain and maintain patient consents, the risk that patients enrolled in clinical trials will drop out of the trials before completion, and competing clinical trials and clinicians’ and patients’ perceptions as to the potential advantages of the drug being studied in relation to other available therapies, including any new drugs that may be approved for the indications we are investigating. We will compete with other pharmaceutical companies for clinical sites, physicians and the limited number of patients who fulfill the stringent requirements for participation in oncology clinical trials. Also, due to the confidential nature of clinical trials, we do not know how many of the eligible patients may be enrolled in competing studies and who are consequently not available to us for our clinical trials. Our clinical trials may be delayed or terminated due to the inability to enroll enough patients. The delay or inability to meet planned patient enrollment may result in increased costs and delay or termination of our trials, which could have a harmful effect on our ability to develop drugs.

Delays in clinical testing could result in increased costs to us and delay our ability to generate revenue.

Although we are planning for certain clinical trials relating to LP-300, LP-184, LP-100 and our other drug candidates, there can be no assurance that the FDA or other regulatory authorities will accept our proposed trial designs. We may experience delays in our clinical trials and we do not know whether planned clinical trials will begin on time, need to be redesigned, enroll patients on time or be completed on schedule, if at all. Clinical trials can be delayed for a variety of reasons, including delays related to:

We may also experience numerous unforeseen events during, or as a result of, clinical trials that could delay or prevent our ability to receive marketing approval or commercialize our drug candidates, including:

If we are required to conduct additional clinical trials or other testing of our drug candidates beyond those that we currently contemplate, if we are unable to successfully complete clinical trials of our drug candidates or other testing, if the results of these trials or tests are not positive or are only modestly positive or if there are safety concerns, we may:

Furthermore, we intend to rely on CROs, cancer research centers and clinical trial sites to ensure the proper and timely conduct of our clinical trials and we intend to have agreements governing their committed activities. They may not perform as required or we may face competition from other clinical trials being conducted by other pharmaceutical companies.

We could encounter delays if a clinical trial is suspended or terminated by us, by the Institutional Review Board or IRB of the institutions in which such trials are being conducted, by the Data Safety Monitoring Board, or DSMB, for such trial or by the FDA or other regulatory authorities. Such authorities may impose such a suspension or termination due to a number of factors, including failure to conduct the clinical trial in accordance with regulatory requirements or our clinical protocols, inspection of the clinical trial operations or trial site by the FDA or other regulatory authorities resulting in the imposition of a clinical hold, unforeseen safety issues or adverse side effects, failure to demonstrate a benefit from using a drug, changes in governmental regulations or administrative actions or lack of adequate funding to continue the clinical trial.

Further, conducting clinical trials in foreign countries, as we may do for our current and future drug candidates, presents additional risks that may delay completion of our clinical trials. These risks include the failure of enrolled patients in foreign countries to adhere to clinical protocol as a result of differences in healthcare services or cultural customs, managing additional administrative burdens associated with foreign regulatory schemes, as well as political and economic risks relevant to such foreign countries.

If we experience delays in the completion of, or termination of, any clinical trial of our drug candidates, the commercial prospects of our drug candidates will be harmed, and our ability to generate revenues from any of these drug candidates will be delayed. In addition, any delays in completing our clinical trials will increase our costs, slow down our drug candidate development and approval process and jeopardize our ability to commence drug sales and generate revenues. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly. In addition, many of the factors that cause, or lead to, a delay in the commencement or completion of clinical trials may also ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of our drug candidates.

Our drug candidates may cause undesirable side effects or have other properties that could delay or prevent their regulatory approval, limit the commercial profile of an approved label, or result in significant negative consequences following marketing approval, if any.

Undesirable side effects caused by our drug candidates could cause us or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials and could result in a more restrictive label or the delay or denial of regulatory approval by the FDA or other comparable foreign authorities. The clinical evaluation of LP-184 and our other drug candidates in patients is still in the early stages and it is possible that there may be side effects associated with their use. In such an event, we, the FDA, the IRBs at the institutions in which our studies are conducted, or the DSMB could suspend or terminate our clinical trials or the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities could order us to cease clinical trials or deny approval of our drug candidates for any or all targeted indications. Treatment-related side effects could also affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete the clinical trial or result in potential product liability claims. In addition, these side effects may not be appropriately recognized or managed by the treating medical staff. We expect to have to train medical personnel using our drug candidates to understand the side effect profiles for our clinical trials and upon any commercialization of any of our drug candidates. Inadequate training in recognizing or managing the potential side effects of our drug candidates could result in patient injury or death. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly.

Additionally, if one or more of our drug candidates receives marketing approval, and we or others later identify undesirable side effects caused by such drugs, a number of potentially significant negative consequences could result, including:

Any of these events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of the particular drug candidate or for particular indications of a drug candidate, if approved, and could significantly harm our business, results of operations and prospects. Our approach to the discovery and development of drug candidates based on our RADR^® platform is innovative and in the early stages of development; and we do not know whether we will be able to develop any drugs of commercial value.

We are leveraging our RADR^® platform in an attempt to create a pipeline of drug candidates using biomarker identification and patient stratification for the development of oncology drugs. While we believe that applying our RADR^® platform to drugs that have failed, been abandoned or otherwise failed to meet clinical endpoints and then developing a precision oncology approach that identifies the mechanism of action, potential combination drug usage and potentially responsive patient population is a powerful strategy, our approach is both innovative and in the early stages of development. Because our approach is both innovative and in the early stages of development, the cost and time needed to develop our drug candidates is difficult to predict, and our efforts may not result in the successful discovery and development of commercially viable medicines. We may also be incorrect about the effects of our drug candidates on the diseases of our defined patient populations, which may limit the utility of our approach or the perception of the utility of our approach. Furthermore, our estimates of our defined patient populations available for study and treatment may be lower than expected, which could adversely affect our ability to conduct clinical trials and may also adversely affect the size of any market for medicines we may successfully commercialize. Our approach may not result in time savings, higher success rates or reduced costs as we expect it to, and if not, we may not attract collaborators or develop new drugs as quickly or cost effectively as expected and therefore we may not be able to commercialize our approach as originally expected.

Our RADR^® platform may fail to help us discover and develop additional potential drug candidates.

Any drug discovery or drug development that we are conducting using our RADR^® platform may not be successful in identifying compounds that have commercial value or therapeutic utility. Our RADR^® platform may initially show promise in identifying potential drug candidates, yet fail to yield viable drug candidates for clinical development or commercialization for a number of reasons, including:

Any failure by us to comply with existing regulations could harm our reputation and operating results.

We will be subject to extensive regulation by U.S. federal and state and foreign governments in each of the markets where we intend to sell LP-300, LP-184, and LP-100 if and after they are approved. For example, we will have to adhere to all regulatory requirements including the FDA’s current GCPs, Good Laboratory Practice, or GLP, and GMP requirements, or that of applicable foreign regulatory authorities. If we fail to comply with applicable regulations, including FDA pre-or post- approval cGMP requirements, then the FDA or other foreign regulatory authorities could sanction us. Even if a drug is FDA-approved, regulatory authorities may impose significant restrictions on a drug’s indicated uses or marketing or impose ongoing requirements for potentially costly post-marketing studies.

Any action against us for violation of these laws, even if we successfully defend against it, could cause us to incur significant legal expenses, divert our management’s attention from the operation of our business and damage our reputation. We will need to expend significant resources on compliance efforts and such expenses are unpredictable and might adversely affect our results.

The FDA’s and other regulatory authorities’ policies may change and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of our drug candidates. For example, in December 2016, the 21st Century Cures Act, or Cures Act, was signed into law. The Cures Act, among other things, is intended to modernize the regulation of drugs and spur innovation, but its ultimate implementation is unclear. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any marketing approval that we may have obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability, which would adversely affect our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

In addition, we cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative or executive action, either in the United States or abroad. If future legislation or administrative or executive actions impose restrictions on FDA’s ability to engage in oversight and implementation activities in the normal course, our business may be negatively impacted. In addition, if we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any marketing approval that we may have obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability.

We may be subject to extensive regulations outside the United States and may not obtain marketing approvals for drugs in Europe and other jurisdictions.

In addition to regulations in the United States, should we or our collaborators pursue marketing approvals for LP-184, LP-300, LP-100 and our other drug candidates internationally, we and our collaborators will be subject to a variety of regulations in other jurisdictions governing, among other things, clinical trials and any commercial sales and distribution of our drugs. Whether or not we, or our collaborators, obtain applicable FDA regulatory clearance and marketing approval for a drug, we must obtain the requisite approvals from regulatory authorities in foreign countries prior to the commencement of clinical trials or marketing of the drug in those countries. The requirements and process governing the conduct of clinical trials, drug licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary from country to country.

Subject to obtaining necessary clinical data, we intend to pursue marketing approvals for LP-184, LP-300, LP-00 and our other drug candidates in Europe and other jurisdictions outside the United States with collaborative partners. The time and process required to obtain regulatory approvals and reimbursement in Europe and other jurisdictions may be different from those in the United States regulatory and approval in one jurisdiction does not ensure approvals in any other jurisdiction; however, negative regulatory decisions in any jurisdiction may have a negative impact on the regulatory process in other jurisdictions.

Additionally, June 23, 2021 marked five years since the people of the United Kingdom voted in a referendum to leave the European Union, commonly referred to as Brexit. Today, the United Kingdom is outside the European Union and mostly no longer subject to its rules. Significant portions of the regulatory framework in the United Kingdom have been derived from European Union directives and regulations and the impacts from Brexit could materially impact the regulatory regime with respect to the approval of our drug candidates in the United Kingdom or the European Union. Any delay in obtaining, or an inability to obtain, any marketing approvals, as a result of Brexit or otherwise, would prevent us from commercializing our drug candidates in the United Kingdom and/or the European Union and restrict our ability to generate revenue and achieve and sustain profitability. If any of these outcomes occur, we may be forced to restrict or delay efforts to seek regulatory approval in the United Kingdom and/or European Union for our drug candidates, which could materially and adversely affect our business.

If we are found in violation of federal or state “fraud and abuse” laws, we may be required to pay a penalty and/or be suspended from participation in federal or state health care programs, which may adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

In the United States, we will be subject to various federal and state health care “fraud and abuse” laws, including anti-kickback laws, false claims laws and other laws intended to reduce fraud and abuse in federal and state health care programs, which could affect us, particularly upon successful commercialization of our drugs in the United States. The federal Anti-Kickback Statute makes it illegal for any person, including a prescription drug manufacturer (or a party acting on its behalf), to knowingly and willfully solicit, receive, offer or pay any remuneration that is intended to induce the referral of business, including the purchase, order or prescription of a particular drug for which payment may be made under a federal health care program, such as Medicare or Medicaid. Under federal government regulations, some arrangements, known as safe harbors, are deemed not to violate the federal Anti-Kickback Statute. Although we seek to structure our business arrangements in compliance with all applicable requirements, these laws are broadly written, and it is often difficult to determine precisely how the law will be applied in specific circumstances. Accordingly, it is possible that our practices may be challenged under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute. False claims laws prohibit anyone from knowingly and willfully presenting or causing to be presented for payment to third-party payers, including government payers, claims for reimbursed drugs or services that are false or fraudulent, claims for items or services that were not provided as claimed, or claims for medically unnecessary items or services. Cases have been brought under false claims laws alleging that off-label promotion of pharmaceutical drugs or the provision of kickbacks has resulted in the submission of false claims to governmental health care programs. Under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, we are prohibited from knowingly and willfully executing a scheme to defraud any health care benefit program, including private payers, or knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for health care benefits, items or services. Violations of fraud and abuse laws may be punishable by criminal and/or civil sanctions, including fines and/or exclusion or suspension from federal and state health care programs such as Medicare and Medicaid and debarment from contracting with the U.S. government. In addition, private individuals have the ability to bring actions on behalf of the government under the federal False Claims Act as well as under the false claims laws of several states.

Many states have adopted laws similar to the federal anti-kickback statute, some of which apply to the referral of patients for health care services reimbursed by any source, not just governmental payers. Neither the government nor the courts have provided definitive guidance on the application of fraud and abuse laws to our business. Law enforcement authorities are increasingly focused on enforcing these laws, and if we are found in violation of one of these laws, we could be required to pay a penalty and could be suspended or excluded from participation in federal or state health care programs, and our business, results of operations and financial condition may be adversely affected. We may be unable to maintain sufficient clinical trial liability insurance.

Our inability to obtain and retain sufficient clinical trial liability insurance at an acceptable cost to protect against potential liability claims could prevent or inhibit our ability to conduct clinical trials for drug candidates we develop.

We will be securing clinical trial liability insurance coverage before commencing patient enrollment for our planned clinical trials for LP-300 and LP-184. Any claim that may be brought against us could result in a court judgment or settlement in an amount that is not covered, in whole or in part, by our insurance or that is in excess of the limits of our insurance coverage. We expect we will supplement our clinical trial coverage with product liability coverage in connection with the potential commercial launch of our drug candidates; however, we may be unable to obtain such increased coverage on acceptable terms or at all. If we are found liable in a clinical trial lawsuit or a product liability lawsuit in the future, we will have to pay any amounts awarded by a court or negotiated in a settlement that exceed our coverage limitations or that are not covered by our insurance, and we may not have, or be able to obtain, sufficient capital to pay such amounts.

The FDA and other regulatory agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses.

If we are found to have improperly promoted off-label uses of our drugs or drug candidates, if approved, we may become subject to significant liability. Such enforcement has become more common in the industry. The FDA and other regulatory agencies strictly regulate the promotional claims that may be made about prescription drug products, such as our drug candidates, if approved. In particular, a drug may not be promoted for uses that are not approved by the FDA or such other regulatory agencies as reflected in the drug’s approved labeling. If we receive marketing approval for our drug candidates for our proposed indications, physicians may nevertheless use our drugs for their patients in a manner that is inconsistent with the approved label, if the physicians personally believe in their professional medical judgment it could be used in such manner. However, if we are found to have promoted our drugs for any off-label uses, the federal government could levy civil, criminal and/or administrative penalties, and seek fines against us. The FDA or other regulatory authorities could also request that we enter into a consent decree or a corporate integrity agreement, or seek a permanent injunction against us under which specified promotional conduct is monitored, changed or curtailed. If we cannot successfully manage the promotion of our drug candidates, if approved, we could become subject to significant liability, which would materially adversely affect our business and financial condition.

We may not experience a faster development or regulatory review or approval process with potential Fast Track designation.

If a drug is intended for the treatment of a serious condition and nonclinical or clinical data demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical need for this condition, a drug sponsor may apply for FDA Fast Track designation. If we seek Fast Track designation for a drug candidate, we may not receive it from the FDA. However, even if we receive Fast Track designation, Fast Track designation does not ensure that we will receive marketing approval or that approval will be granted within any particular timeframe. We may not experience a faster development or regulatory review or approval process with Fast Track designation compared to conventional FDA procedures. In addition, the FDA may withdraw Fast Track designation if it believes that the designation is no longer supported by data from our clinical development program. Fast Track designation alone does not guarantee qualification for the FDA’s priority review procedures.

Risks Related to Commercialization of Our Drug Candidates

Even if we are successful in completing all preclinical studies and clinical trials, we may not be successful in commercializing one or more of our drug candidates.

Even if we complete the necessary preclinical studies and clinical trials, the marketing approval process is expensive, time-consuming and uncertain and may prevent us from obtaining approvals for the commercialization of some or all of our drug candidates. If we are not able to obtain, or if there are delays in obtaining, required regulatory approvals, we will not be able to commercialize our drug candidates, and our ability to generate revenue will be materially impaired.

Our drug candidates and the activities associated with their development and commercialization, including their design, testing, manufacture, safety, efficacy, recordkeeping, labeling, storage, approval, advertising, promotion, sale and distribution, export and import are subject to comprehensive regulation by the FDA and other regulatory agencies in the United States and by the EMA and similar regulatory authorities outside of the United States. Failure to obtain marketing approval for a drug candidate will prevent us from commercializing the drug candidate. We have not submitted an application for or received marketing approval for any of our drug candidates in the United States or in any other jurisdiction.

We have only limited experience in filing and supporting the applications necessary to gain marketing approvals and expect to rely on third-party clinical research organizations or other third-party consultants or vendors to assist us in this process. Securing marketing approval requires the submission of extensive preclinical and clinical data and supporting information to regulatory authorities for each therapeutic indication to establish the drug candidate’s safety and efficacy. Securing marketing approval also requires the submission of information about the drug manufacturing process to, and inspection of manufacturing facilities by, the regulatory authorities. Our drug candidates may not be effective, may be only moderately effective or may prove to have undesirable or unintended side effects, toxicities or other characteristics that may preclude our obtaining marketing approval or prevent or limit commercial use. New cancer drugs frequently are indicated only for patient populations that have not responded to an existing therapy or have relapsed. If any of our drug candidates receives marketing approval, the accompanying label may limit the approved use of our drug in this way, which could limit sales of the drug.

The process of obtaining marketing approvals, both in the United States and abroad, is expensive, may take many years, if approval is obtained at all, and can vary substantially based upon a variety of factors, including the type, complexity and novelty of the drug candidates involved. Changes in marketing approval policies during the development period, changes in or the enactment of additional statutes or regulations, or changes in regulatory review for each submitted drug application, may cause delays in the approval or rejection of an application. Regulatory authorities have substantial discretion in the approval process and may refuse to accept any application or may decide that our data is insufficient for approval and require additional preclinical, clinical or other studies. In addition, varying interpretations of the data obtained from preclinical studies and clinical trials could delay, limit or prevent marketing approval of a drug candidate. Any marketing approval we ultimately obtain may be limited or subject to restrictions or post-approval commitments that render the approved drug not commercially viable.

If our drugs do not gain market acceptance, our business will suffer because we might not be able to fund future operations.

A number of factors may affect the market acceptance of our drugs or any other products we develop or acquire, including, among others:

If our drugs do not gain market acceptance, we may not be able to fund future operations, including developing, testing and obtaining regulatory approval for new drug candidates and expanding our sales and marketing efforts for our approved drugs, which would cause our business to suffer.

We may rely on orphan drug status to commercialize some of our drug candidates, and even if orphan drug status is approved, such approval may not confer marketing exclusivity or other commercial advantages or expected commercial benefits.

We may rely on orphan drug exclusivity for our drug candidates. In the United States, orphan drug designation entitles a party to financial incentives such as opportunities for grant funding towards clinical trial costs, tax advantages and user-fee waivers. In addition, if a drug that has orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first FDA marketing approval for the disease for which it has such designation, the drug is entitled to orphan drug exclusivity. Orphan drug exclusivity in the United States provides that the FDA may not approve any other applications, including a full NDA, to market the same drug for the same indication for seven years, and except in limited circumstances the applicable exclusivity period is ten years in Europe. The European exclusivity period can be reduced to six years if a drug no longer meets the criteria for orphan drug designation or if the drug is sufficiently profitable so that market exclusivity is no longer justified.

Even if we, or any future collaborators, obtain orphan drug designation for a drug candidate, we, or they, may not be able to obtain or maintain orphan drug exclusivity for that drug candidate. We may not be the first to obtain marketing approval of any drug candidate for which we have obtained orphan drug designation for the orphan-designated indication due to the uncertainties associated with developing pharmaceutical products, and it is possible that another company also holding orphan drug designation for the same drug candidate will receive marketing approval for the same indication before we do. If that were to happen, our applications for that indication may not be approved until the competing company’s period of exclusivity expires. In addition, exclusive marketing rights in the United States may be limited if we seek approval for an indication broader than the orphan-designated indication or may be lost if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if we are unable to assure sufficient quantities of the drug to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition. Further, even if we, or any future collaborators, obtain orphan drug exclusivity for a drug, that exclusivity may not effectively protect the drug from competition because different drugs with different active moieties may be approved for the same condition. Even after an orphan drug is approved, the FDA can subsequently approve the same drug with the same active moiety for the same condition if the FDA concludes that the later drug is clinically superior in that it is shown to be safer, more effective or makes a major contribution to patient care or the manufacturer of the drug with orphan exclusivity is unable to maintain sufficient drug quantity. Orphan drug designation neither shortens the development time or regulatory review time of a drug nor gives the drug any advantage in the regulatory review or approval process, nor does it prevent competitors from obtaining approval of the same drug candidate as ours for indications other than those in which we have been granted orphan drug designation.

On August 3, 2017, the U.S. Congress passed the FDA Reauthorization Act of 2017, or FDARA. FDARA, among other things, codified the FDA’s preexisting regulatory interpretation, to require that a drug sponsor demonstrate the clinical superiority of an orphan drug that is otherwise the same as a previously approved drug for the same rare disease in order to receive orphan drug exclusivity. The legislation reverse prior precedent holding that the Orphan Drug Act unambiguously requires that the FDA recognize the orphan exclusivity period regardless of a showing of clinical superiority. Congress or the FDA may further reevaluate the Orphan Drug Act and its regulations and policies. We do not know if, when or how congress or the FDA may change the orphan drug regulations and policies in the future, and it is uncertain how any changes might affect our business. Depending on what changes congress or the FDA may make to orphan drug regulations and policies, our business could be adversely impacted.

A Breakthrough Therapy designation by the FDA for our drug candidates may not lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process, and it does not increase the likelihood that our drug candidates will receive marketing approval.

We may seek a breakthrough therapy designation for some of our drug candidates. A breakthrough therapy is defined as a drug that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. For drugs and biologics that have been designated as breakthrough therapies, interaction and communication between the FDA and the sponsor of the trial can help to identify the most efficient path for clinical development while minimizing the number of patients placed in ineffective control regimens. Drugs designated as breakthrough therapies by the FDA are also eligible for accelerated approval.

Designation as a breakthrough therapy is within the discretion of the FDA. Accordingly, even if we believe one of our drug candidates meets the criteria for designation as a breakthrough therapy, the FDA may disagree and instead determine not to make such designation. Even if we receive Breakthrough Therapy designation, the receipt of such designation for a drug candidate may not result in a faster development process, review or approval compared to drugs considered for approval under conventional FDA procedures and does not assure ultimate approval by the FDA. In addition, even if one or more of our drug candidates qualify as breakthrough therapies, the FDA may later decide that the drugs no longer meet the conditions for qualification or decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened.

A Fast Track designation by the FDA may not lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process.

We may seek Fast Track designation for some of our drug candidates. If a drug is intended for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening condition and the drug demonstrates the potential to address unmet medical needs for this condition, the drug sponsor may apply for FDA Fast Track designation. The FDA has broad discretion whether or not to grant this designation, so even if we believe a particular drug candidate is eligible for this designation, we cannot assure you that the FDA would decide to grant it. Even if we do receive Fast Track designation, we may not experience a faster development process, review or approval compared to conventional FDA procedures. The FDA may withdraw Fast Track designation if it believes that the designation is no longer supported by data from our clinical development program.

Failure to obtain marketing approval in foreign jurisdictions would prevent our drug candidates from being marketed abroad.

In order to market and sell our drugs in the European Union and many other foreign jurisdictions, we or our potential third-party collaborators must obtain separate marketing approvals and comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements. The approval procedure varies among countries and can involve additional testing. The time required to obtain approval may differ substantially from that required to obtain FDA marketing approval. The regulatory approval process outside of the United States generally includes all of the risks associated with obtaining FDA approval. In addition, in many countries outside of the United States, it is required that the drug be approved for reimbursement before the drug can be approved for sale in that country. We or our potential third-party collaborators may not obtain approvals from regulatory authorities outside of the United States on a timely basis, if at all. Approval by the FDA does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions, and approval by one regulatory authority outside of the United States does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions or by the FDA. However, a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one country may have a negative effect on the regulatory process in other countries. We may not be able to file for marketing approvals and may not receive necessary approvals to commercialize our drugs in any market.

If we are required by the FDA to obtain approval of a companion diagnostic in connection with approval of a therapeutic drug candidate, and we do not obtain or face delays in obtaining FDA approval of a diagnostic device, we will not be able to commercialize the drug candidate and our ability to generate revenue will be materially impaired.

According to FDA guidance, if the FDA determines that a companion diagnostic device is essential to the safe and effective use of a novel therapeutic drug or indication, the FDA generally will not approve the therapeutic drug or new therapeutic drug indication if the companion diagnostic is not also approved or cleared for that indication. Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or FDCA, companion diagnostics are regulated as medical devices, and the FDA has generally required companion diagnostics intended to select the patients who will respond to cancer treatment to obtain Premarket Approval, or a PMA, for the diagnostic. The PMA process, including the gathering of clinical and preclinical data and the submission to and review by the FDA, involves a rigorous premarket review during which the applicant must prepare and provide the FDA with reasonable assurance of the device’s safety and effectiveness and information about the device and its components regarding, among other things, device design, manufacturing and labeling. A PMA is not guaranteed and may take considerable time, and the FDA may ultimately respond to a PMA submission with a “not approvable” determination based on deficiencies in the application and require additional clinical trial or other data that may be expensive and time-consuming to generate and that can substantially delay approval. As a result, if we are required by the FDA to obtain approval of a companion diagnostic for a therapeutic drug candidate, and we do not obtain or there are delays in obtaining FDA approval of a diagnostic device, we may not be able to commercialize the drug candidate on a timely basis or at all and our ability to generate revenue will be materially impaired.

While it is possible that one or more of our drug candidates may require a companion diagnostic to select the patients who will likely respond to a cancer therapy involving one of our drug candidates that would require a PMA for the companion diagnostic as a condition to obtaining marketing approval from the FDA, it is too early in our drug candidates development to identify which drug candidate, if any, would require a PMA.

Any drug candidate that we obtain marketing approval for could be subject to post-marketing restrictions or withdrawal from the market and we may be subject to substantial penalties if we fail to comply with regulatory requirements or if we experience unanticipated problems with our drugs, when and if any of them are approved.

Any drug candidate for which we obtain marketing approval, along with the manufacturing processes, post-approval clinical data, labeling, advertising and promotional activities for such drug, will be subject to continual requirements of and review by the FDA and other regulatory authorities. These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, registration and listing requirements, cGMP requirements relating to manufacturing, quality control, quality assurance and corresponding maintenance of records and documents, requirements regarding the distribution of samples to physicians and recordkeeping. Even if marketing approval of a drug candidate is granted, the approval may be subject to limitations on the indicated uses for which the drug may be marketed or to the conditions of approval, including the requirement to implement a REMS. New cancer drugs frequently are indicated only for patient populations that have not responded to an existing therapy or have relapsed. If any of our drug candidates receives marketing approval, the accompanying label may limit the approved use of our drug in this way, which could limit sales of the drug.

The FDA may also impose requirements for costly post-marketing studies or clinical trials and surveillance to monitor the safety or efficacy of the drug, including the adoption and implementation of REMS. The FDA and other agencies, including the Department of Justice, or the DOJ, closely regulate and monitor the post-approval marketing and promotion of drugs to ensure they are marketed and distributed only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved labeling. The FDA and DOJ impose stringent restrictions on manufacturers’ communications regarding off-label use, and if we do not market our drugs for their approved indications, we may be subject to enforcement action for off-label marketing. Violations of the FDCA and other statutes, including the False Claims Act, relating to the promotion and advertising of prescription drugs may lead to investigations and enforcement actions alleging violations of federal and state healthcare fraud and abuse laws, as well as state consumer protection laws.

In addition, later discovery of previously unknown adverse events or other problems with our drugs, manufacturers or manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may have various consequences, including: