Seeking Alpha
We cover over 5K calls/quarter
Profile| Send Message|
( followers)  

TESARO, Inc. (NASDAQ:TSRO)

Q1 2013 Earnings Call

April 25, 2013 4:30 PM ET

Executives

Jennifer Davis – Senior Director, Corporate Development and IR

Lonnie Moulder – CEO and Co-Founder

Mary Lynne Hedley – President and Co-Founder

Rick Rodgers – EVP, CFO and Co-Founder

Analysts

Robyn Karnauskas – Deutsche Bank

Jim Birchenough – BMO Capital

Howard Liang – Leerink Swann

Laura Chico – Robert W Baird

Operator

Good afternoon and welcome to the TESARO’s First Quarter 2013 Conference Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. As a reminder, this call is being recorded and webcast.

I’ll now turn the conference over to Jennifer Davis, Senior Director of Corporate Development and Investor Relations at TESARO. Please go ahead.

Jennifer Davis

Thank you, Pablo. Good afternoon and thank you for joining us today to review TESARO’s first quarter operating results. I’m joined today by our Chief Executive Officer, Lonnie Moulder, our President, Dr. Mary Lynne Hedley, and our Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Rick Rodgers.

Before we begin I would like to remind you that discussions during this conference call will include forward-looking statements. These statements are neither promises nor guarantees and are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties that could cause our actual results to differ materially from those described in these forward-looking statements. The that could cause actual results to differ are discussed in the press release issued today and in our SEC filings including our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012.

We may refer to certain non-GAAP financial measures that involve adjustments to GAAP figures. These non-GAAP financial measures are not a substitute for GAAP financial measures and are unlikely to be comparable to non-GAAP information provided by other companies. We believe non-GAAP measures may be useful to investors as a supplement to, but not as a substitute for the applicable GAAP number.

Now I’ll turn the call over to Lonnie Moulder, Chief Executive Officer of TESARO. Lonnie?

Lonnie Moulder

Thank you, Jen, and good afternoon everyone. We continue to make significant progress during the first quarter and advancing our oncology portfolio and positioning TESARO for success with the completion of a follow-on offering of common stock and the addition of several new associates to the TESARO team.

And today, we are very pleased to announce our plan to initiate our Phase 3 trial of Niraparib, our PART inhibitor in patients with HER2 negative breast cancer, who have Germline BRCA Mutations.

We remain on track to initiate our Phase 3 study of Niraparib in Ovarian cancer mid-year. We believe that Niraparib could be both a first and best-in-class agent, given its compelling pharmacologic profile and convenient once daily dosing. And we look forward to the presentation of the final results for the initial clinical trial of Niraparib at the upcoming ASCO Annual Meeting.

Before I turn the call over to Mary Lynne, for a detailed update on our Niraparib and TSR-011 programs I will briefly discuss Rolapitant, NK1 receptor antagonist for the prevention of Chemotherapy Induced Nausea and Vomiting, or CINV.

Enrollment continues in each of our three Phase 3 trials of Rolapitant. As you know, this global registration program is targeted to enroll approximately 2,400 patients in total at more than 200 clinical trial sites across 25 countries. This pivotal program is comprised of three Phase 3 trials, all of which are randomized, double-blind placebo controlled studies that will evaluate the efficacy and safety of a single 200 mg oral dose of Rolapitant.

We are conducting two pivotal trials and patients receiving Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy or HEC and one pivotal trial in patients receiving Moderately Emetogenic Chemotherapy or MEC.

We believe that rolapitant maybe a differentiated produce which when added to the standard of care may improve to control CINV. Rolapitant has a long half life and rapid onset of activity.

Based upon on Phase I and two data, we believe that a single dose of Rolapitant administered to a patient prior to chemotherapy may provide protection from CINV for up to five days, offer a low risk for interactions with co-administered drugs, and could significantly reduce the nausea experience by patients receiving chemotherapy.

This potentially differentiated profile along with our extensive knowledge and experience in the CINV field serves as a basis for our enthusiasm for the commercial potential of Rolapitant. We are also advancing the clinical development of an Intravenous formulation of Rolapitant in support of a future regulatory submission. We expect to submit a regulatory application through IV Rolapitant, at a approximately the time of approval of the oral formulation.

Finally, we remain on track to report top-line data from the Rolapitant pivotal program during the second half of this year. And we are pleased that an abstract describing the reduced potential of drug interactions for Rolapitant will be presented at the upcoming Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer or MASCC symposium in June.

I’ll now turn the call over to Mary Lynne for a detailed update on Niraparib and 011. Mary Lynne?

Mary Lynne Hedley

Thank you, Lonnie and good afternoon everyone. I’m pleased to update you today on the progress we are making with Niraparib, our PARP inhibitor and TSR-011 our ALK inhibitor. I will start by describing the Phase 3 trial of Niraparib that we intend to initiate in patients with breast cancer in the second half of this year.

As you know, Niraparib is a potent PARP inhibitor that has demonstrated single agent clinical activity in patients who carry Germline BRCA Mutations and have breast or ovarian cancer.

Following the extensive conversations with regulatory authorities, potential investigators and breast cancer experts and based on our knowledge of Niraparib and data published for other PARP inhibitors, we are very pleased to announce today that we are planning a Phase 3 study to evaluate Niraparib compared to physician’s choice in patients with breast cancer who also have Germline BRCA Mutations.

It is estimated that 5% to 10% of our women who are diagnosed with breast cancer or more than 15,000 women each year carry a Germline mutation in either the BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes.

The development of cancer in these women involves the dysfunction of a key DNA repair pathway, known as homologous recombination. While cancer cells can maintain viability despite disruption of the homologous recombination pathway, they become particularly vulnerable if an alternative DNA repair pathway is disrupted. This is known as synthetic lethality, a situation where the individual loss of either repair pathway, it’s compatible with cell viability but the simultaneous loss of both pathways resulting cancer cell death.

Since PARP inhibitors block DNA repair, in the context of cancer cells with the BRCA mutation, PARP inhibition results in synthetic lethality. For this reason, patients with Germline mutations and a BRCA gene show marked clinical benefit that follows treatment with a PARP inhibitor.

As we considered expanding our Niraprib development plans to include indications beyond ovarian cancer, the population of breast cancer patients with Germline BRCA Mutations stood out as one best position for success.

The Phase 1, 2 Niraparib study included such patients and the response rate, at least as good as that previously reported in the literature with a different PARP inhibitor was observed.

After discussions with multiple physicians and thought leaders and following a successful meeting with the FCA, we are pleased to report today that we will initiate a randomized controlled Phase 3 study in breast cancer patients with Germline BRCA Mutations. This study will include approximately 300 patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease who have received previous treatment with an Anthracycline anti-toxine.

In addition, patients may have had up to two prior chemotherapy regimens for advanced or metastatic disease. Patients will be randomized 2-1 to receive daily oral dosing of 300 mg Niraparib or physician’s choice of capecitabine, gemcitabine, nelarabine or eribulin.

The primary end-point of this study is progression free survival or PFS, and overall survival is the secondary end-point. The study side provides greater than 95% of power to detect a hazard ratio of 0.5 for the PFS primary end-point.

And early interim analysis based on PFS will enable us to test our assumptions for this specific patient population. Preparations for this study are well underway and we intend to initiate the study in the second half of this year.

Turning to our Phase 3 study of Niraparib in patients with ovarian cancer, the process is nearing completion. We are actively engaged with investigators in 13 countries and as Lonnie mentioned, we are on track to begin enrolling patients by mid-year.

As a reminder the ovarian study will enroll two independent cohorts of 180 patients each. The two independent cohorts are first patients with high grade cirrus platinum sensitive ovarian cancer who are not Germline BRCA Mutation carriers.

And the second cohort includes those patients who are Germline BRCA Mutation carriers. The study is a double-blind placebo controlled randomized international study. Within each cohort, patients will be randomized 2-1 Niraparib to placebo and will be treated continuously with placebo or 300 mgs of Niraparib until progression. The primary outcome of this study is progression free survival. And second end points include patient reported outcomes, chemotherapy free interval and overall survival.

We are very pleased to be advancing Niraparib which we acquired less than one year ago into phase 3 programs for two indications where significant patient need exists. And we look forward to updating you as the year progresses.

I will now provide a brief update on TSR 011 our Highly Emetogenic and selective ALK inhibitor. We are very pleased with the rapid progress we are making with this phase 1, 2 trial and have initiated the fiscal level of the dose escalation phase of this study.

Preliminary data shows that we have achieved a dose in which drug plasma levels are maintained above the target threshold required for inhibition of the out protein in xenograft studies.

Once the maximum tolerated dose of 011 is identified, we plan to evaluate it in three parallel cohorts of patients, those with ALK positive, non small cell lung cancer, who have not previously been treated with an ALK inhibitor, those with ALK positive non small cell lung cancer who have progressed during treatment with an ALK inhibitor and those patients with other tumor types that express ALK. We look forward to updating you on the progress of this phase 1-2 trial and hope to provide further data disclosure at medical meetings later this year.

I’ll now turn the call over to Rick to discuss our first quarter financial results. Rick.

Rick Rodgers

Thank you, Mary Lynne. Good afternoon everyone. Earlier this afternoon we issued a press release detailing our financial results for Q1 2013. We reported a net loss of $18.9 million or $0.66 per share for the first quarter of 2013 compared to a net loss of $9.3 million or $0.59 per share for the first quarter of 2012.

Research and development expense increased $16.5 million for first quarter of 2013, compared to $8.2 million for the first quarter of 2012. We expect quarterly research and development expense to increase in 2013 from our first quarter 2013 run rate. This increase will be primarily driven by ongoing global registration trials for Rolapitant, initiation of phase 3 development programs for Niraparib and continued phase 1-2 clinical development of our ALK inhibitor, TSR 011.

General and administrative expenses increased to $2.4 million for the first quarter of 2013, compared to $1.2 million for the comparable period in the previous year, primarily as a result of increases in both personnel cost and professional fees.

We ended the first quarter with a strong balance sheet. Following the completion of our follow-on offering of stock generated net proceeds of approximately $91.3 million, as of March 31, 2013 TESARO had $198.6 million in cash and cash equivalents and no debt.

With that, I’ll turn the call back over to Jen.

Jennifer Davis

Thanks Rick. Operator, at this time, could you please call for questions.

Question-and-Answer Session

Operator

Thank you. (Operator Instructions). And our first question is from Robyn Karnauskas of Deutsche Bank. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

Robyn Karnauskas – Deutsche Bank

First, congratulations on getting another path for your PARP up and running, that sounds great. I guess, a couple of questions around that trial. So, can you give us a sense maybe how many breast cancer patients might fit this inclusion criteria every year, so of those 15,000 how many might fit, the refractory nature of the patients enrolled in the study?

And second, does the interim look, does that have a futility analysis or how does it allow you to amend the protocol to expand enrolment for better powering?

Lonnie Moulder

Hi Robyn, this is Lonnie, and then I’ll turn it over to Mary Lynne. As far as the patient population, what Mary Lynne mentioned, I think most people are well aware of that in the breast cancer population, of those diagnosed each year with breast cancer about 5% to 10% actually have Germline BRCA Mutations.

Now, when we look at trial enrollment, ultimately the potential for the market, we also mentioned a number of about 15,000, but that would be the annual number from a maintenance perspective. If we move over to prevalence, obviously breast cancer is a disease that’s managed with multiple rounds of chemotherapy, so in any one year there were many more patients that present with breast cancer with the Germline BRCA Mutations that would be eligible for trial or for the market. And frankly we’ll be doing some more work to define that a bit closer.

And even in the case where patients had to have had at least two regimens considering that some of those patients may have received a regimen even in the act of incensing earlier and what we’re targeting is obviously more advanced disease. There is still a much larger patient population and that approximate 15,000 when it comes to trial enrollment and market sizing. Mary Lynne?

Mary Lynne Hedley

Sure. So, your question related to the interim analysis is the futility analysis and the instance that we are not able to detect a reasonable delta to achieve the PFS that we’re hoping to.

In terms of altering the sample size, I would just point out that we were fairly conservative in the way that we powered this study. As I said, we believe that we have greater than 95% power to detect of hazard ratio of 0.5. Anything less than hazard ratio of 0.69 would be statistically significant. So, I don’t think we would be in the position of having to increase the sample size.

Robyn Karnauskas – Deutsche Bank

That’s helpful. And one quick follow-up is, so do you have any sense to describe just a little bit about BRCA breast versus BRCA ovarian. There has been some people talking about how one indication might be easier than the other, might have less resistance over time. Certainly some of the data looks like the responses with PARPs maybe better in ovarian versus breasts, I don’t know if you have any thoughts on that?

Mary Lynne Hedley

Yeah. I think given that the general treatment pattern is different for breast and ovarian. Obviously platinum playing a large role in the ovarian patient population and being in a bit of a harbinger for responsiveness to PARP, clearly, platinum sensitivity as we talked about before on our calls is a sign that a patient might in fact benefit from the PARP inhibitors so just given a natural treatment of ovarian cancer patients to receive platinum.

After they do that and they’re responding they’re likely to respond to a PARP inhibitor and now that we’ve seen very high response rates in the ovarian setting. And then we also know based on the cancer gene analysis project that even the non Germline BRCA ovarian patients have a very high preponderance of deficiencies and homologous recombination repair. So it’s a very different type tumor type.

And now if we go over and we look at breast, where patient don’t seem to have at least the data that we’ve seen today don’t seem to suggest that as a general population outside of BRCA, there is a high preponderance of mutations in HR deficiencies which is why, we have seen that most of the responses in the breast population are really limited to the Germline BRCA population, at least as we can define it today.

And we are typically seeing platinum being used in those patients so if that was ever to change, you might see a higher response rate of breast cancer patients in the platinum setting just like we do in the ovarian.

Breast cancer patients don’t seem to respond to the typical anti-metabolites or taxing, any micro-tubular agents, any better than the general patient population of breast cancer patients, which is also what we might expect given the particular BRCA Mutation and its mechanism of action. Does that help?

Robyn Karnauskas – Deutsche Bank

Really awesome, thank you.

Operator

Thank you. Our next question is from Marshall Urist of Morgan Stanley. Your line is open.

Unidentified Analyst

Hi, good afternoon this is (inaudible) standing in for Marshall. Two related questions on the new announced phase 3 and breast cancer. The first is, could you give us some additional color on the level of evidence for homologous recombination repair defect in HER2 negative breast cancer versus other receptor expression sub-type such as triple negative? And then secondly, some potentially additional color on the strength of existing data with other PARP inhibitors showing activity in breast cancer and in particular against HER2 minus? Thanks.

Mary Lynne Hedley

Right. So, just starting with the amount of evidence for homologous recombination and repair deficiency in breast cancer outside of BRCA. In overall breast cancer population there is not a way to suggest that that it is a very high preponderance outside of BRCA. Now, the combination of tripe negative breast cancer patients there is a higher preponderance of HR deficiencies and for example BRCA represents about 10% to 20% of tripe negative breast cancer patients. However, BRCA, breast cancer about 50% to 60% of those are triple negative.

So I think the preponderance that we know today in HR deficiencies is really the BRCA population. There is this phenotype/genotype referred to as BRCA-ness but which is really trying to get at, do these chemo-cells have HR deficiencies and you can measure it in variety of ways, either gene signatures like ICGH, functional assays like GRAD51 and you will see that in the triple negative patient population, a higher preponderance of HR deficiency but no one has really classified it more specifically other than BRCA.

And there are no definitive classifiers that have tied BRCA-ness to responsiveness to PARP inhibitors so it’s still an evolving field with really the most definitive information in the BRCA and to your point related to what do we know about the responsive BRCA breast and other PARP inhibitors.

There was a paper published in Alanson in 2010 in which 54 BRCA patients were treated with a lab rate and the response rate was 41% at the 400 mg BID dose. There was another paper published in the Alanson Oncology 2011, in which 10 BRCA patients were treated with a similar dose.

And here all of the BRCA patients had tumor shrinkage and 53% had stable disease for greater than or equal to eight weeks. And then we have information that will be presented on our poster at ASKL this year.

Unidentified Analyst

Thank you.

Lonnie Moulder

As a reminder and maybe this is obvious for everyone but I just want to make this clear that the patient population were enrolling in this trial is HER2 negative breast cancer that all had Germline BRCA mutations. And I know you knew that but I just wanted to clarify that for the general audience.

Unidentified Analyst

Okay, thank you. And just one follow-up on the ovarian study, could you just confirm that you are sort of assuming a similar efficacy differential for what you saw with Niraparib in the Letterman study in terms of powering. And as we know, there is going to be data at ASKL from Astra on Niraparib and that could potentially impact powering considerations, I’m wondering if you have any comments on that?

Mary Lynne Hedley

Yes, so the general way that we powered the study was based – it was fairly conservative that we have the two cohorts the non-Germline BRCA and the Germline BRCA. And we powered this based on the overall results of the letterman study. So delta of about 4.5 months, the hazard ratio of 0.5, now that the ratios as you know and the Germline BRCA patient was 0.1 in that study. So we’re leaning towards obviously being way over powered in the Germline BRCA and appropriately if not somewhat overpowered in the non- Germline BRCA.

Clearly, new data will come out while we anticipate new data will come out from AZ related to the study. And if there are any significant changes in that poster presentation that will or should suggest that we should alter the trial study side, we can certainly do that but given that we’ve been very conservative, we feel pretty confident at this point that the study will proceed with a number of patients as outlined.

It’s possible that the Germline BRCA patients will look a whole lot better than they do right now. But all of our bad calculations to this point and of course some of this is pure speculation has given us some confidence that the overall study side shouldn’t change.

Unidentified Analyst

Great. Thanks very much.

Operator

Thank you. Our next question is from Jim Birchenough of BMO Capital. Your line is open.

Jim Birchenough – BMO Capital

Hi guys, congratulations on the progress, just a couple of follow-ups. In terms of the powering of the breast cancer study, what are you expecting in terms of PFS and the control group and is there a good dataset for capecitabine, gemcitabine, nelarabine PFS in this group of BRCA patients and then just a follow-up?

Mary Lynne Hedley

Yep, so we – what we’re assuming for the powering is that three versus six months delta. And the way that we achieve that with we’ve looked really at a literature review first of all on information related to BRCA patients to determine if they responded any necessarily better or worse than a general patient population. And we didn’t find anything to suggest that in the reviews that we did.

The second thing we did was we looked at the PFS for patients with our specific inclusion and exclusion rate criteria most notably that they had received previous cycling and taxing.

And when we looked at patients from that perspective in multiple breast cancer studies, the criteria was about the – the PFS was about three months. If you broke up a triple negative breast cancer patients and the non-triple negative it was more like two and half months for triple negative and three and half months for triple negative.

And as I already pointed out, based on what we know about BRCA patients we believe in our study will have about 60% triple negative and 40% non triple negative. So that average is out actually to about 3 months and there is not really much difference between these agents and trends and the overall activity that they provide to the breast cancer patient population. So that’s how we were able to come up with the three versus the six months, the six months was really based on information that we have related to the previous publications I mentioned as well as some other information.

Jim Birchenough – BMO Capital

Just in terms of what to expect at ASCO, I know you can’t discuss it in any detail. But do you have enough breast cancer patients treated where you could make some reasonable comparison of your response rates, what’s been seen with Niraparib?

Mary Lynne Hedley

I would love to have a 100 breast cancer patients treated. But obviously I don’t have that. So, we have a reasonable number of breast cancer patients with as I pointed out, a response rate that is at least if there is what’s been seen in the literature.

Jim Birchenough – BMO Capital

Okay. And just, maybe a final comment on implications if you think there are any to ASTRA’s intent to file in Europe on the Letterman data. And does that change anything for you guys as you think about positioning Niraparib?

Mary Lynne Hedley

Well, we committed our letter’s intent to EU faster than we would have I guess originally but – and we have done that – submitted our letter’s intent to EMA, to seek scientific advice so that they know there is Phase 3 randomized, perceptively defined study that’s going to be done that looks much like the Letterman Study but has to do – then designed as a registration study versus the entire retrospective analysis both from a Germline BRCA perspective and overall outcomes perspective that was done in Letterman study. So, they can make their own decisions based on that.

Jim Birchenough – BMO Capital

Great. Thanks for taking the questions.

Operator

Thank you. Our next question is from Howard Liang of Leerink Swann. Your line is open.

Howard Liang – Leerink Swann

Hello, thanks very much. It’s just another question on PARP program. Do you have any, in relation to the two phase research, do you have any plans for other indications whether in phase 2 other, or phase 3 such as cartridge cancer. And maybe you can then talk about what broadly, what do you see the applications for PARP inhibitors?

Mary Lynne Hedley

Well Howard, you sound like my boss. No, I mean, obviously there are many places that PARP inhibitors can play in. As we’ve said before, there are many interesting possibilities. Our goal was to try to identify, the indications that could get us there the fastest and we’re also the most likely to succeed with the information that we have available today. As more information becomes available and more data becomes available, we certainly are continuing our pursuit towards identifying indications that we make sense for this drug.

Howard Liang – Leerink Swann

And then just a question on Rolapitant, do you – I think you have – I think three trials ongoing if I’m not mistaken. Maybe you can talk about whether they’re progressing at a similar, with a similar timeline, I wonder whether that are on the same time?

Lonnie Moulder

Yeah, Howard, we intend to announce top-line results for all three trials at the same time in the second half of the year.

Howard Liang – Leerink Swann

Great, thanks very much.

Lonnie Moulder

You’re welcome.

Mary Lynne Hedley

Thank you.

Operator

Thank you. Our next question in queue is from Laura Chico of Robert W Baird. Your line is open.

Laura Chico – Robert W Baird

Good afternoon and congratulations on the progress you’ve been making here. I guess, one question just to clarify, I think I might have missed it. But the early interim analysis in the Phase 3 breast cancer trial, at what point will that be taking place?

Mary Lynne Hedley

We haven’t actually specified that publicly at this point. And as we get further along that might be information that we’re willing to share but at this certain time we haven’t said.

Laura Chico – Robert W Baird

Okay. And then, I guess, just so I’m understanding correctly, with the phase 3 ovarian cancer trial we’ve got the patient enrichment strategy by focusing on the platinum sensitivity. And so, I guess, I just want to understand, are you screening all patients for the BRCA analysis, just from a practical standpoint. How are you actually testing for mutational status?

Mary Lynne Hedley

Yeah, that’s a great question. So, in the ovarian study, as you rightly pointed out, patients are able to come into the study based on either having high grade series ovarian cancer platinum sensitivity and going into the non-Germline BRCA group or we find out that they have Germline BRCA and they go into the Germline BRCA group. So either way they can come into the study and that’s based on all of the information we know which suggests that regardless of BRCA status, the cousins are preponderance and HR deficiencies, those patients could be very sensitive to PARP inhibitors, both non-Germline and Germline BRCA.

Now, in the breast setting, that all of the data today suggest that only the Germline BRCA, at least as far as we can define today, only the Germline BRCA patients are really susceptible to the PARP inhibitor. And so, some of those patients are already known so they have Germline BRCA mutations and those are known to have Germline BRCA Mutations from previously receiving the test.

Others could enter the study because if they need NCCN criteria for Germline BRCA testing and there is a whole list of different things such as family history of breast cancer, triple negative breast cancer, early age of onset, coincident ovarian cancer, things like that that trigger BRCA testing. And that’s another way that patients could come into the study.

Laura Chico – Robert W Baird

So, I guess, do you anticipate enrollment to move as quickly in the ovarian trial as it would in the breast cancer trial?

Mary Lynne Hedley

I think it will be somewhat similar in the sense that there are more – overall there are more breast cancer patients who have BRCA than ovarian cancer. But then we’re not limiting just the BRCA and Ovarian. So overall, maybe it’s a wash or fee.

Laura Chico – Robert W Baird

Okay. Well, congratulations on the quarter.

Mary Lynne Hedley

Thanks.

Operator

Thank you. And with that, I’m showing no further questions in queue. I’d like to turn it back to Lonnie Moulder for any further comments.

Lonnie Moulder

Thank you everyone. Let me close with a brief summary of our objectives that we anticipate achieving this year. We plan to announce top-line results for the Phase 3 program by evaluating oral Rolapitant for the prevention of CINV in the second half of 2013. Advance the clinical development of the Rolapitant IV formulation in order to support a future submission for registration concurrent with the approval of the oral formulation.

To get enrollment of the Phase 3 trial of Niraparib, that’s a potential maintenance therapy for our ovarian cancer patients by mid-year. Initiate the Phase 3 trial of Niraparib in breast cancer patients with Germline BRCA Mutations in the second half of this year and advance the 011 development program and to find a strategy for the next phase of clinical development.

And with that, thank you for your interest and attention. And have a good evening.

Operator

Thank you. Again, thank you ladies and gentlemen for joining today’s conference. You may now disconnect. Have a great day.

Copyright policy: All transcripts on this site are the copyright of Seeking Alpha. However, we view them as an important resource for bloggers and journalists, and are excited to contribute to the democratization of financial information on the Internet. (Until now investors have had to pay thousands of dollars in subscription fees for transcripts.) So our reproduction policy is as follows: You may quote up to 400 words of any transcript on the condition that you attribute the transcript to Seeking Alpha and either link to the original transcript or to www.SeekingAlpha.com. All other use is prohibited.

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HERE IS A TEXTUAL REPRESENTATION OF THE APPLICABLE COMPANY'S CONFERENCE CALL, CONFERENCE PRESENTATION OR OTHER AUDIO PRESENTATION, AND WHILE EFFORTS ARE MADE TO PROVIDE AN ACCURATE TRANSCRIPTION, THERE MAY BE MATERIAL ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR INACCURACIES IN THE REPORTING OF THE SUBSTANCE OF THE AUDIO PRESENTATIONS. IN NO WAY DOES SEEKING ALPHA ASSUME ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY INVESTMENT OR OTHER DECISIONS MADE BASED UPON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS WEB SITE OR IN ANY TRANSCRIPT. USERS ARE ADVISED TO REVIEW THE APPLICABLE COMPANY'S AUDIO PRESENTATION ITSELF AND THE APPLICABLE COMPANY'S SEC FILINGS BEFORE MAKING ANY INVESTMENT OR OTHER DECISIONS.

If you have any additional questions about our online transcripts, please contact us at: transcripts@seekingalpha.com. Thank you!

Source: TESARO's CEO Discusses Q1 2013 Results - Earnings Call Transcript
This Transcript
All Transcripts