Telix Pharmaceuticals Ltd (TLX) September 2026 Conference Transcript

Okay, good morning everyone. We might get started. My name is David Bailey. I'm part of the healthcare team at Morgan Stanley based in Australia. Joined today by Chris Berenbrook and Kevin Richardson, CEO and CEO of Precision Medicine respectively. Thank you very much both for joining us today. Great to have you here. Chris, I might just start with you. The PixClara FDA approval over the weekend is the first approved candidate for imaging glioma. My question is, with a company that's navigating the regulatory pathway for a new class of therapies, what are your takeaways and learnings, and what have been some of the challenges, I suppose, that you sort of observed, and how will that inform your future pipeline?

Well, good morning, and first of all, thanks very much for having Kevin and I. I think GBM is a tough, tough space, you know, and there hasn't been a lot of innovation, a lot of progress made. You know, it's difficult to run clinical trials in that space, and we took a pretty innovative approach to that particular NDA submission. As with all of our pipeline, for every target that we go after, we develop both an imaging agent and a therapeutic. That's, you know, the strength of radiopharma. It's a unique, it's the only class of drugs where you get to see where your drug goes in the body, whether it's being used for informing treatment decisions or whether it's actually therapeutically treating a patient. We developed the PixClara platform, and it really is a platform. It's got a huge breadth of indication potential. Obviously, we've started off with a fairly narrow label for the first approval, although the guideline use for PixClara is a lot wider than our label. And we have currently other clinical activity running to expand the label over time, in the fullness of time, and maybe Kevin can talk more about that later on. But we developed that program because it images the target that we are treating therapeutically. Our TLX 101 program is in phase three right now. We've got some really exciting clinical data around that program. And so the imaging and the therapy is really very complementary, and one de-risks the other. So I think, you know, the strategy that we have as a company, it's been well-informed. This is our third drug approval. It's been well-informed by the prostate program, which, again, we take a very similar approach. And the field has really evolved to expect that patient selection and treatment response assessment is done with imaging. and, you know, that is not expected to be any different in glioma. In fact, it's more critical.

Okay, so a broader question here is that Telix has been in the radiopharma space for more than a decade and you've successfully navigated an increasingly dynamic landscape including recent industry consolidation. You've also now got three imaging agents in the market. So my question is, what do you believe it takes to stay competitive in this market today and how do you see this field evolving in coming years?

Yes, I think first of all, there's a growing bifurcation in the market approach between centrally manufactured products that rely more on cyclotron-based approaches or larger-scale centralized manufacturing and then more of the nuclear pharmacy-centric business. And we're going to see a lot of the consolidation kind of fragment along those lines. I actually think the truth is to win in the space, you need to be able to do both, and that's the approach we've taken. We see nuclear pharmacies as being a last-mile delivery for therapeutics and diagnostics in equal measure. Just to illustrate that, many of our nuclear pharmacies are licensed in multiple states in the United States. Many of our nuclear pharmacies have broad therapeutic isotope licenses and have the infrastructure to, for example, dispense lutetium drugs. And so we see the pharmacy working in tandem with a more efficient manufacturing infrastructure and to really to go that last mile. And, you know, where the serenostic space is going, it's moving away from this idea that we're going to do fixed-dose administrations. You know, I think radiopharma is the only field of oncology where we do a prescribed fixed dosing for a patient irrespective of their biology or their body weight. So to be able to go in and actually start to optimize treatment, you're going to need to have something that does dose calibration and dispensing into a pre-filled syringe, and you can't do that without a nuclear pharmacy. So you really need to have both. You need to have the central manufacturing capabilities, which we have, and you need to have the last mile of delivery, which we also do both internally and with certain very important and select partners. So the distribution piece is really critical, and I think historically companies kind of felt, well, we can be a radiopharma company and we can do pipeline and we can create, you know, cool products, but they don't really think about how they're going to operationalize those products. So you need to have pipeline, right? You need to have supply chain manufacturing and infrastructure, and you need to have really control over your isotope supply chain, which we've made a number of critical investments in. And then, you know, the nod to Kevin when he talks later on about some of the activities in precision medicine, you need to have a sales force because selling radiopharmaceuticals is not the same as selling conventional pharmaceutical products. You know, you're not shipping a blister pack or a vial. you're actually delivering a clinical workflow that goes from the time that that radioactive product is delivered to a customer site through how do you do injection, how do you do safety, ambulatory radiation exposure, scanning, dosimetry, and even we do waste recovery. So it's a full cycle of service that sits on the back. And if you don't have that, then you're ultimately not really going to deliver radiopharma. And so we've taken a very holistic approach. We think that on a strategic basis that there are many pieces of that value chain that we want to vertically integrate, and that's been reflected in our investment activities over the last few years.

An extension there is just maybe the VRLS acquisition, how that sort of fits in with your strategy. Maybe talk a little bit about that and how it sort of fits in with some of the points you've mentioned.

Yeah, that's right. I mean, when we launched the company, we were entirely dependent on third-party distribution. but we're seeing some distribution moving up the value chain into pharmaceuticals. We're seeing some pharmaceutical companies being inquisitive about distribution, right, like we are and others. And so ultimately there's a scarcity value in the nuclear pharmacy networks and distribution. I think over the weekend we heard about GE's acquisition of SOFI, which is yet another example of a company annexing distribution capacity. So I think that this is kind of the trend. We were ahead of the curve. We think that the assets that we acquired and the capabilities that we acquired are the best in the industry and give us an advantage in terms of how we take control of our product distribution in the future.

Yeah, if I could just add a little bit to that, as we think about that base of delivering the product, how you compete in the future is really what you're developing now. And so when you look at both the therapeutic pipeline and the diagnostic pipeline and the theranostic pairs that we're putting together, You know, market leadership is about not only being able to develop those product ideas, you know, have the ideas and the discipline to go into those different therapies and into those disease states, being able to deliver it is a key component of that. And then the kind of third strategic pillar is building out a specialized commercial team that really represents the product and builds a preference for Telex products out in the marketplace each and every day. and our specialized team we've talked about several times, but it's more modular. It's not just a salesperson. It's a field market access. It's a clinical specialist. It's a medical science liaison. So it's really about what does it take for that customer to be successful to bring it into their clinical workflow and make it a part of their patient service line that they offer. And it helps them then compete in the marketplace as well.

And strategically, the imaging with the therapeutic, Do you see that as differentiated relative to your peers? Like, do you think this is a strategy that TLX is looking to implement? Do you think that sets you apart from other players in this space?

Well, I think it does. I mean, we can acknowledge the challenges of it, right? So the challenges of it, that it's extra capital deployed, that maybe the products have a different return on investment, but they also have a different development risk associated with them. You know, we've been very fortunate. We've built a business. You know, this year we do about a billion dollars in sales. and it finances hundreds of millions of dollars of R&D. So it hasn't been a detour for the company at all. It's paved the way, as Kevin said, it's paved the way for building relationships with key oncology and radiology and nuclear medicine stakeholders. There isn't a better advertisement for a new therapeutic than the scan that shows the target expression from your toes to your nose kind of thing. So we see huge strategic value, financial value, and regulatory de-risk. And I would even go so far as saying that, you know, we've seen the explosion of lots of small radiopharma companies. They treat radioactivity as just another payload. And those companies, you know, will find to their peril when they go and talk to regulators that they don't really have a game plan for patient selection. And the regulatory view in this space is that if you're going to subject a patient to the exposure conditions of radiation, you have to make sure that that patient is really eligible for that therapy. And these therapies are not for the faint-hearted. I mean, when you see a scan of a patient that successfully responded to PSMA therapy or CA9 therapy or FAP therapy, that patient has undergone a dramatic biological response. These are highly potent therapeutics, and it's great. The patient outcomes are amazing. They're actually only amazing, though, if you select the right patient, and that's why the imaging is so vitally important. So my, you know, our view is that a radiopharmaceutical therapeutic is not viable, particularly in advanced disease, without, you know, without a more sophisticated patient.

I'll come to de-risking and label expansion in a second, maybe to Kevin. But to Kevin, to you, some very strong financials in the first half driven by the PSMA franchise. us, can you maybe talk a little bit about how you're thinking about the growth opportunities for precision medicine, including Pyxplora and Zerkaix?

Sure. When we think about precision medicine, we do look at it longitudinal like that. We believe, and can talk more about bypass in a little bit, but when we think of PSMA, we still see that franchise growing, but we also see that precision medicine and that diagnostic customer that we talked to, the nuclear med physician as kind of the key point of that of that nuclear scan and so we think Pixclower is that next stepping stone and then Xercaix as well so when you really think about those three products we're talking to really the exact same customer that's reading that scan two of those fit really well into the urology franchise and then one of them is in the neurology franchise and we have a specialized team like I talked about that modular approach to really build out that neurology relationship and that referral right back into the nuclear med physician that's actually reading that scan. So when we think about precision medicine, we think about it broadly now. And again, what we think a market leader does is expands the opportunity for their customers to treat their patients better and do that in multiple different disease states that they treat and work with each and every day. So it's a big part of the way we see PSMA continuing to grow, building and developing a new market in neuro-oncology, and then adding to it with Xerchaics and doing something very similar to what we're doing now in PSMA in Xerchaics by taking a disease state that has really no good way to diagnose it. and the watch and wait, the scan anxiety that develops when you're told if you have a lesion in your kidney, we're going to watch it with a scan every six months. That's got a lot of anxiety built to it. Really what you want to know is simple. Is that cancer or is that not? And we believe that Xercaix is going to help us kind of build out that. And we're seeing the confidence in PSMA scans and in nuclear med scans is growing each and every day, which is why we believe that the PSMA scans still have room to grow because more and more urologists every day believe and have confidence in that scan and what it's going to tell them.

And in terms of Zerk KX and very strong data, Zerk on X, so some really good data there as well. It's within guidelines, so now it's just a matter of getting the bits and pieces sorted until we maybe see that approved later sometime in 26, 27.

Well, yeah, we're very close to resubmitting. as you know, we had a late amendment to our CRL, which we had to respond to, which delayed our submission from around the middle of the year until around about, you know, and as I've repeatedly said, any time now. We still expect to resubmit that this year. The package is in good shape, so it's just a question of dotting the I's and crossing the T's.

And in terms of thinking about label expansion, I suppose there's two points here. One, you can internally fund your own R&D program. you've got the initial approval for PixClara, but then you've got the ability to extend the label into metastases. So can you maybe talk a little bit about how that could expand the market even further above the initial label? And then I'll jump into bypass for something similar.

Sure. Well, maybe I'll do the Mets. Well, there's a lot of misconceptions about PixClara. You know, when you have an orphan drug strategy, it's really different than a large indication strategy, like for PSMA. So we also wanted to focus on the data that's most impactful to decision-making in GBM, right? And that's really, there's a huge clinical conundrum when you have a patient that reoccurs. You don't know whether the disease is actual progression, pseudo-progression, treatment-related effects, and that's where the clinical evidence for FETPET is very strong. So if you want to build a beachhead with your stakeholder, you want to build one that's mission-critical, and that is the most mission-critical application for amino acid imaging. And the package that we submitted to the agency and the corresponding label that we have now is quite broad, really covers the patient journey for GBM. Now, the practice guidelines are much wider, and we want to, in the fullness of time through clinical activity, fill out the space to align the label with the practice guidelines. And, you know, a patient gets scanned many times in the journey of their GBM progression. It's not a single time point activity. So when you're very dogmatic about, you know, the market opportunity for PixClara, it looks at first blush like it's a small opportunity. But, in fact, it's longitudinally a very significant opportunity in that progressive GBM, progress and reoccurring GBM space, because you're constantly monitoring those patients. And outside of the United States, where SET is more commonplace, still not super commonplace, but more commonplace, it's used just very regularly in that treatment management process. We then see a step change potential in the number of scans when you add the metastatic indications, so METs from non-CNS primaries, where really the goal is to better manage patient palliation. you know typically with external beam radiation so that's where that's where we sort of see the next event horizon for PIXCLAR we have a phase 3 trial up and running now that's recruiting it's expected to recruit quite well it's an unmet medical need there's a lot of enthusiasm for the trial we wanted to hold off on filing it to get clarity with the FDA you know because we want to confound the conversation but But when we are confident that we are on the right track, we filed it, and that protocol is up and running. And as I said, that's going to be, again, a really meaningful increase in the procedure volume for PIXClara and the patient impact. It also, I think, speaks really well to our partnership with Varian. You know, being able to increasingly guide treatment decisions around external beam radiation in certain application areas is very powerful. And, you know, we are very supportive of that.

Maybe just in terms of that orphan status versus the broader market, is there anything you sort of think about there from a sales perspective, a revenue opportunity perspective, anything to compare and contrast versus the PSMA business?

Well, we haven't gone out really with a lot of sort of visibility on pricing that will come in the coming months. But clearly it's a more specialist product. It's a much lower-volume product than, say, Prostate. You know, I mean, it's still a great volume. It's still a decent number of scans. But so our pricing will reflect more the niche nature of the market. It's also we have to accommodate a wider variety of patients. So the label supports patients from one month and above. And so that's really, again, as we deliver the product to the customer, There's a little bit of customization that's required there, and that will be reflected in the pricing structure.

Kevin, I might move on to bypass. You recently shared your view on how transformative this could potentially be. Can you talk about the landscape and the limitations today in diagnosing prostate cancer and what you're trying to accomplish in this regard?

Yeah, really exciting kind of transformation, we think, in the space. You know, every 40, 50-year-old man starts to start hearing, you know, friends, neighbors, and family members that are going through this process with an increasing PSA, which is a, you know, still a difficult test to kind of trace. So then, you know, the pathway right now is increasing PSA, too high over four or five. You get a MRI scan. Your MRI scan has an index called a PI-RADS, and they'll rate you like one through five. And based on that, we have an indication right now that if you're a high-risk male or suspicious for metastatic disease, you can get a PSMA PET scan. That's where we kind of sit right now. And so what happens now in the trial, it goes PSMA, MRI, PET, and then biopsy. So if you do need a biopsy, there's about 800,000 biopsies a year right now in the U.S. There's really a million men that need it. So about 200,000 men just say no, and then later on they get picked up in the high-risk male category if they progress. But what we think can happen is, and the way the trial is set up, is that if a patient has a negative PET, then they won't need to go on to the biopsy, which is super painful. You know, it's a SNAP-type core needle biopsy 12 to 20 times to really make that diagnosis. So it's not nothing. It's not a quick test. It's not a skin biopsy. It's pretty invasive. And so those men that are negative on PSMA PET won't have to get that. If they're still under the same indications, they'll still go under the physician protocol of another scan every year or every two years based on their presentation. But what you'll hear from doctors when they do a biopsy and it comes back negative is the hard part. One of our leading physicians that did the recruitment would say, I can't tell you that you don't have prostate cancer because you have a negative biopsy. I can only tell you that we didn't find it. So that means you're going to come back in, watch your PSMA, and maybe get another biopsy in a year or two anyway and still go under that biopsy needle. So we think that by looking at what the number of negative biopsies that we think we can rule out in PSMA will both do two things. It will transform, you know, one small step for mankind is not getting the biopsy, right? And then we think it will be transformational for the TAM that is involved with that because we think there's 800,000 to a million scans. When you talk to our strategic advisory boards and some of our leading recruiters in that, They believe that done correctly and placed correctly in that algorithm of a patient presentation, that initial staging, you'll catch all that with the bypass biopsy, so that indication will decrease. And then because they're treating patients better because they've got a better view of the prostate cancer, they believe that biochemical recurrence will come down a bit. But the overall market then kind of shifts to the left. We call it before the biopsy, so it's pre-biopsy, and then doubles basically from the entire market that we see what it is today at 600,000-plus scans to a million-plus scans on the other side, of which we believe that once a doctor starts with a gallium scan, like gozelics, then they'll want to follow that patient with a gallium scan so they can really look at apples to apples instead of apples to orange. So we believe it's a big change in the thought process. And that's why I mentioned that urologists are so important because they're starting to understand the value and the power of a PSMA PET scan. That's why they're excited about the 250 product that we have. But they're also seeing now the value of how sensitive and specific it can be. And, you know, we just sat down with the Strategic Advisory Board the other day, and the selling process that they have to go through sometimes to get a man to do a biopsy is quite difficult at times because they're trying to do what's best for the patient, and the patient has heard how difficult these can be and is not wanting to. So the idea is to be able to do this scan up front, quickly rule out those that don't need it, and we call it none and done. And then as you find something positive, then you would simply target your biopsies in a more precise way where the prostate cancer is and yield better results. And so that's the idea of bypass and what we're trying to demonstrate. So we'll see that data. That data, as you know, we finalized the enrolling in that trial last month, and now we've got a six-month window that we've got to do follow-up, you know, and then we'll start the FDA process again.

Yeah, I mean, just to add to that, I think it's instructive to think of the current indications that we have, you know, which essentially bookend a prostatectomy. that was the training wheels that we needed in the industry to get confidence to get physician confidence now because we've demonstrated the sensitivity and specificity and it's exquisitely sensitive and specific and particularly gallium because it has a much lower incidence of indeterminate bone lesions which is a hallmark of fluorinated products we actually can not only capture that upfront space, but we can keep it. And so what we think is that that's going to, as Kevin said, is going to push the scan volume to the left and really reduce the need to bring patients in, particularly for high And because we're going to have better patient compliance, as Kevin pointed out, a lot of that 200,000 men that prefer not to, a lot of those are the people that get into the process too late and then end up contributing to the bcr pool on the back end we're also going to see hopefully because that would be a great outcome for patients to see you know less recurrence because we're staging and diagnosing better on the front end so i think it's a it's a really big

shift the specific numbers i think that um you provided 670s currently up to 1.32 so i'm could be a bit more specific than a bit over 600 and a bit over a million so quite significant i I suppose the extension here is there's some pretty good data out there already. So in a sense, somewhat the risk from a clinical data perspective, but maybe just briefly, just in terms of what's out there in terms of other clinical data. And then from a payer perspective, you mentioned less biopsies being done from a reimbursement perspective. It doesn't make sense from a public health perspective. Right, right.

Yeah, well, I mean, the pharmacoeconomics health, we did all the health economics studies. It's clear that it saves the health care. system money by managing that biopsy process better. So from a reimbursement perspective, it's a clear business case. And then I think from the other part of your question, sorry, jet lag.

Dada's out there already.

Well, yeah, we always get to build on the shoulders of giants, right? So there's the primary and primary two studies. We actually took the primary study data, which was published some time ago, and the Primary 2 protocol when it was first announced, we actually took that collaboratively to the agency to see whether or not we could use Primary 2 as a registration-enabling study. And because it was a hypothesis validation study, it wasn't really statistically structured for a registration study, so the FDA declined, but Bypass was born, which should really be thought of as Primary 3. I mean, the same investigators contributed to the study, designed the study. Obviously, we went through four or five turns with the agency to, because this is a big health outcome if the study is successful, and there's a lot of sensitivity around changing practice of medicine, and so it took a few turns to get there. And I think that we have a high degree of confidence in the study because of the hundreds of patients that have been studied in, you know, well-powered and well-designed studies before it. So, yeah, a high degree of confidence.

Yeah, maybe just coming back to an earlier question I had, I mean, just given this iterative engagement with the FDA, do you think you're getting better and better at doing this? Have you learnt through previous applications and things like that now that you're sort of just finding that you're fine-tuning that process a little bit? I don't think anyone ever gets good at dealing with the FDA. We might move on to therapeutics if we can. You've got several late-stage programs, Chris. So, given your presence in prostate cancer, can you talk about the therapeutics portfolio and how the pipeline candidates are positioned within the prostate cancer treatment landscape?

Sure. So, we have a phase three trial that's recruiting now. It's actually recruiting nicely, XUS. This is for our 591. This is our antibody-directed therapy. This is in first and second line castrate-resistant disease. It's a very nice trial design because it incorporates a very flexible standard of care. One of the things that I think is underappreciated by the market around this asset is the fact that it's a very short treatment duration, and the reason why clinicians love it so much is it's very easy to layer into the treatment journey, right? It's not 40 weeks of therapy like the current standard of care. It's two shots 14 days apart. That's it. And it gives really, you know, it's been shown in prior studies and in sort of the widespread use of the asset that it gives really prolonged, slow decline in PSA over a very long period of time. It's disease-stabilizing. And, you know, we've presented preliminary PFS data that shows that it's competitive, but the dosing schedule and the amount of injected radiation is just a lot lower. And that's really important. You know, it's important that when a patient goes to get injected, they don't have radioactive pee, they don't have radioactive vomit. It's a very benign administration process. You know, there's no salivary gland or no material salivary gland uptake, so quality of life issues are very high. But the principal advantage is that it's a short deviation to nuclear medicine, and then the patient goes back to their referral physician, right? And so in some countries as well, the standard of care is an inpatient process because of the relatively high levels of activity. So, for example, in Japan, we already have a drug class ruling as an outpatient procedure because our imparted dose is so low. That has a big impact on reimbursement and economics. So some countries, we will win just based on that. So anyway, very exciting phase three trial. We have a futility analysis or an interim analysis that's based on futility that we expect to read out sometime around the end of this year or early next year. It's event-driven, so we still don't know exactly when it's going to be. But the trial is recruiting well, ex-US, and we did have a good meeting with the FDA to look at. We had a run-in study that we agreed with the agency as part of the phase three activity. They were happy with the data. We have a green light subject to an IND amendment, which is just in the process of kind of going through an IND amendment to then include U.S. patients in the study. But we don't see any barriers to doing that. And, you know, clearly we've got a lot of investigators that are excited about bringing that asset on. So that program, because it's an antibody, it's a macromolecule, it's designed really for targeting bulky disease. you know that's a very good asset in the castrate resistance space when you start looking at hormone resistant hormone sensitive cancers is a very different biology it's a very different disease burden and so for the last few years we've been researching a small molecule approach actually originally intended for use with actinium the goal really to compare biologic versus small molecule delivery approaches for actinium. We're not sold one way or another. But the general goal is you want to have low hematologic toxicity. You want to have no real kidney dose. You want to watch the salivaries and the lacrimal glands because they tend to be damaged pretty badly by actinium. If you're moving into an early patient population, and that's a man that's going to live for a very long time, and you blow out their saliva glands, life is a much less pleasant journey from that point onwards. So that's how 597 came to be. And we see, given that the data in the hormone-sensitive space, it's a bit controversial, let's say. It's not a slam dunk. We do see an opportunity for better assets to play a role there. And so, you know, we have to obviously demonstrate the clinical utility, but we feel like we've got a really winning asset there in terms of much higher imparted tumor dose, one-fifth of the kidney uptake, you know, a similar sort of reduction in salivary gland uptake. And so that means that, you know, the dose and dosimetry profile in what are relatively healthy patients compared to where we've been traditionally doing RLT. I think the 597 program is very exciting. So we've completed 120-patient randomized trial to look at dose intensification strategies there as well. So we're really taking advantage of the better dosimetry of this asset to much more aggressively treat the patient. It turns out that on the first dose of PSMA radioligin therapy in a hormone-sensitive patient, PSMA levels rise. So you can follow, can slipstream that first dose a couple days later with a far more aggressive treatment schedule. And we're really doing with 5.97 what we've been doing with 5.91, which is building that dose intensification, very short treatment schedule, day one, day five, I'd say day one, day three, day 15. And that's the substantive therapy for the patient. And I think that's a big new way of thinking in the field. and the data that we're generating is really exciting. So you'll see over the next six months, you know, more as that data matures, you'll see more outcome. And if the asset lands the way that we think it will, we'll probably move it into a phase three study next year.

And just to be clear, strategically, various parts of the patient disease progression. So it's not like one's replacing the other. You're looking at 597, a hormone-sensitive, 591 of the car straight resistant, just to be clear. Yeah, yeah.

I mean, the optimal study was in castrate-resistant disease so that we have an apples-to-apples comparison when we go and talk to regulators to have that comparable safety profile. But we now have the optimal e-study running, which is the hormone-sensitive. And that's, yeah, that trial is recruiting really fast and hopefully will be done in the next couple of months.

I've got time for one more very quick one, if I can. Earlier this year, we announced a collaboration with Regeneron to develop next-generation candidates. Can you walk us through the strategic rationale behind the partnership and what each company brings to the collaboration?

Yeah, look, we don't talk hugely about it, but fundamentally we're one of the few companies that is really targeting agent agnostic. We develop small molecules, we develop peptides, we develop antibodies. We've always taken the view that the pharmacophore should be chosen on the basis of the scientific problem you're trying to solve, and I think that's really reflected in the pipeline. But we do really like biologics, and it's an underexplored area in nuclear medicine, mainly because the historic academic leadership in nuclear medicine didn't have the resources to make antibodies and engineer proteins and stuff like that. So it's an underdeveloped opportunity. But with biologics, you get incredible selectivity. You can control the pharmacology of your assets. And I just think that if we're really thinking about what does next generation products look like, where you want to match your pharmacology to your half-life of your isotopes, we've got things like actinium, we've got things like lead-212, we've got astatine, very high potential, let alone the things that we've been developing historically, like based on lutetium. But I think if you can really align particularly the alphas with the biology and the targeting agent, well, you're going to get much better next-generation medicine. So what we bring to the table in the partnership, we know how to, to a first approximation, develop radiopharmaceuticals. We have the commercial infrastructure to manufacture, distribute, and sell them. Regeneron, of course, is a commercially formidable organization, but I think their real strength is in the science of biologics. You know, they're just a machine, cranking out superb proteins, protein engineering, bispecifics, just stuff that could be really a game-changer in radiopharma. So I think they're very complementary forces, and it's an exciting collaboration from that perspective.

Okay. We are on time, so I'll finish there thanking you both very much. Great to see you, and I hope to chat again soon.

Well, thank you for your time.