So if you add an all-oral regimen that could drive that kind of clinical activity that would be pretty impressive. I think Jason, what we’d like to do and you see us doing it. We are laying the foundation for what I think is the broadest and potentially most value-creating menin inhibitor franchise in AML and that’s going to be frontline, that’s going to be relapsed, that’s going to be maintenance. Then you also heard us reference additional undisclosed indications that we’re thinking about directing our next-gen menin inhibitor to, we’ll speak more to that. We pick our spots carefully. But there again, our goal is to have not just a best-in-class menin inhibitor, but truly a best-in-class franchise throughout the continuum of care.
Jason Zemansky: Perfect. Thank you for the color.
Troy Wilson: Our pleasure. Thank you.
Operator: Thank you. Your next question comes from Peter Lawson from Barclays. Your line is now open.
Peter Lawson: Great. Thank you, so much. Thanks for taking the questions. Troy, just to follow-up on the KOMET-007. Beyond safety and differentiation or lack of differentiation benefit what are the kind of the response rate bars or durability bars you kind of want to hit there as well?
Troy Wilson: Yes, Peter, it’s a good question. Let me give you a caveat and then I’ll kind of give you the numbers to think of. So, the caveat is the numbers that excite you are come from either retrospective analysis or Phase III studies, right? And there’s always kind of an emotional desire to compare those numbers to a Phase I dose escalation study. We all do that at our apparel, right? I just want to give that important caveats. I think, one of the things we do is very, very credible drug development and let’s just put that out there. That being said, the bar for those standards of care that kind of what you would expect in the front line in 7+3, you’re looking at depending on the literature reference, a 70% to 90% CR/CRH trade.
In ven/aza, in the relapse setting, you’re looking at roughly a 40% to 60% CR/CRH rate. So, that’s kind of the way to think about it. Our goals of course are safety, tolerability, are there drug-drug interactions that require changes in dose or interruptions. Of course, combinability, ability to mitigate DS and then of course efficacy. We’ll be looking at that as well. I’ll just highlight for you and this is why I took pains to explain to Jason’s question, it’s 24 patients at 200 milligrams. So we’re going to share 20 patients’ worth of data. But the goal of course should be, let’s get a robust data set of up to 72 patients across the cohorts to help inform our recommended Phase II dose for each of those two regimens. But I hope that A, gives you the numbers and B, gives you the appropriate context in which to think about them.
Peter Lawson: Great. Thank you. And then just on 2806 and that cabozantinib combination, just like kind of where you’re thinking about driving that? Would that be a partnership as well like you did for the KRAS or would that potentially be an IST?
Troy Wilson: Yeah. So, just to be clear, because you have a couple of things in your question. So let’s start with the clinical collaboration between Mirati and Kura. Mirati is supplying at-aggressive to us. They’ve of course had input on the protocol. They have all of the appropriate safety reviews and whatnot. We’re not yet formally co-developing that combination together, right? This is early days. It’s an exploratory study. They’re supplying it under a supply agreement. With cabozantinib, our expectation is that, given that we’ll be in the labeled indication and cabozantinib is fairly widely used, we’ll be going into a second-line setting that that will largely be covered by insurance, thus not an immediate need for a clinical collaboration and supply agreement or even any other agreement.
