Olema Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Common Stock Citigroup’s Biopharma Back to School Summit 2026
Review the key takeaways and the transcript of this earnings call.
- Olema Oncology's lead asset is Palsestren, a complete estrogen receptor antagonist for ER-positive HER2-negative breast cancer, currently in phase three trials.
- The OPERO1 trial studies Palsestren as monotherapy in second and third line settings, comparing it to fulvestrant or exemestane, with topline data expected in Q1 2027.
- OPERO1 enrolled patients with and without ESR1 activating mutations, with about 40-50% mutated, and is fully powered with no compromise in patient numbers.
- The OPERO2 trial studies Palsestren combined with Kisqali in the first line setting, enrolling well, with a readout expected in a couple of years.
- Phase two data showed median progression-free survival (PFS) of over seven months in the mutant population and 5.5 months in the wild type, better than existing therapies.
- Olema plans to launch the second/third line monotherapy indication in the US with a commercial team under 100 salespeople, while seeking collaborators outside the US.
- The 3136 CAT6 inhibitor program is in phase one dose escalation with no maximum tolerated dose identified yet; combination studies with fulvestrant and Palsestren are ongoing.
- Monotherapy activity of 3136 was observed in castration-resistant prostate cancer; a collaboration with Bayer will start a prostate cancer cohort with darolutamide in Q4.
- Olema uses AI tools, including a licensed version of ChatGPT and a Bay Area company's platform, mainly for data analysis, document translation, and regulatory package assembly, with human review.
- Key upcoming catalysts include the OPERO1 readout in Q1 2027, Serena4 trial results, and further data from the CAT6 inhibitor combinations.
STOCKNOW INSIGHTS
Continue with outlook and guidance.
Log in to unlock executive comments and Q&A highlights.
Log in for the full summaryStockNow uses AI to translate and summarize earnings calls. Accuracy and completeness are not guaranteed.
Transcript
Preview the first fifteen paragraphs, organized by speaker.
Here for the afternoon session on day 2 of Citigroup's Back to School Biotech Summit. I'm Yigal Naquemovitz, senior biotech analyst at Citigroup. Our next company for the afternoon session is Olema Oncology. I have with me, of course, Sean Bohen, who's the President and CEO of the company. We have a lot to discuss, a lot of developments in breast cancer over the last year or so. Sean, maybe just set the stage in terms of what's in the pipeline and what are the key readouts coming up.
There's several things. Yeah. Thank you, Yigal, and thanks to both of you for attending.
Obviously our lead asset is palazestrant. It's a complete estrogen receptor antagonist for the treatment of ER-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer, and we're studying it in phase III in two contexts. One is as a monotherapy, in the second third line settings. These are patients who've progressed on a prior CDK4/6 plus an AI, now going on to another therapy. The control arm is fulvestrant or exemestane. Experimental arm is single agent palazestrant. That trial is finished enrollment and randomization. We're awaiting readout, and we forecast that we will have our top-line data in Q1. In that population, as you know, it's very interesting because it's really two separate groups. There are those individuals who progressed on their prior therapy with an ESR1 activating mutation. It's about 40%-50%. The remainder still have estrogen receptor in the wild-type form and is not mutated.
There's been prior success in the mutant population, but no one's been able to do better than fulvestrant or exemestane in the wild type. We're testing both of those populations, both of those hypotheses in the trial. In total, it's about a $5 billion a year market opportunity. For us, very significant. The other trial that's ongoing and enrolling very well is in the first-line setting, and in that case, we are combining with the gold standard CDK4/6 inhibitor, which is KISQALI. That trial is called OPERA-02. The control arm is KISQALI plus letrozole and AI. Experimental arm is KISQALI plus palazestrant. It's enrolling very well. It'll take a couple years to read out just because of the effectiveness of that treatment.
But that's a $10 billion plus market opportunity, should we be able to access it. Both of those trials are based on phase II data that suggests that we can do better than the existing therapies and have activity in these different settings we're describing.
Okay. Let's go in order, I guess. Start with the OPERA-01. I guess the first question is, originally the data was the second half of the year, and now it's 1Q 2027. This is like the age-old question of some of these event-driven trials, the significance of moving the endpoint or moving the data out a little bit. Anything you want to say there, or is it just Yeah, I wouldn't over-interpret it.
First of all, the trial obviously is not a blinded trial, right? It's an open label trial. But the reading of the endpoint is blinded.
Right. It's a blinded, independent radiographic review.
Progression-free survival is the primary endpoint of both OPERA-01 and OPERA-02 trials. Yeah, we do blinded event rate, and so that's in there to some extent. Mostly the slight delay had to do with a slowing toward the end of enrollment in the enrollment of the ESR1 mutated subset of patients. We think, we're not 100% sure, we think from our investigators that that might have been related to greater availability of ORSERDU in Europe. But again, it's past us. We are completely enrolled in the trial. We did not compromise the number of patients in either population, so it's fully powered for the statistical plan. I think the other important part about this is that overall, we had predicted 40%-50% of patients would be ESR1 mutated. We actually did end up in our predicted range.
I think that part isn't different. It's just that we were in the higher percentage earlier on, and it sort of fell a little bit toward the end.
Okay. You mentioned, of course, the two populations, the mutant and the wild type. The mutant obviously is the lower bar. More specifically on the wild type, tell us more about what gives you a confident view that palazestrant can show a difference there versus standard of care. What evidence do you have previously that would support that? You pointed out that together, I think it's $5 billion, although even with just the mutant, it's probably like $2 billion or something.
Something in that range, yes. I'll go into what molecularly we think might be going on, but I think the strongest evidence is our phase II data, right? The question is obviously can you replicate that in the phase III setting? In the phase II setting, post prior CDK4/6, in that case, a little more heavily pre-treated patients because a significant number had had prior chemo that's not allowed at OPERA-01. We saw over seven months, median PFS in the mutant setting, 5.5 in the wild-type setting. That is better than anyone has been able to see in either of those settings, but certainly in the wild type. The bar in wild type is to extend PFS by about two months, right?
Lilly got approved with the ORSERDU at 1.7, which is probably a little on the edge, but it did lead to approval, but you'd say about two months. Recognizing that the control arm really should be two to three months, if we can replicate that five-month range, we should be able to access that population, and that's what's being tested in OPERA-01. Why might that happen when others haven't been able to do that? Well, in addition to being a complete antagonist, we have very high exposure, 14-day half-life, and a very high steady-state exposure compared to other drugs. We think that that is important in the context of maximizing the benefit you would get.
Okay. Let's also go through just the statistical. You mentioned the statistical plan because you have the two populations. Remind everyone how it works in terms of the process of analyzing these two populations, and where you can win, and the order of which things are analyzed.
Yeah. We haven't disclosed in detail the statistical plan, but I can tell you basically the performance characteristics. And the performance characteristics are the trial can be positive in one of three ways, right? There's the obvious one, which is it shows a significant benefit over the control arm in both mutant and wild type. Mutant and wild type subsets are tested separately. The way the trial is designed, you can actually have two other types of positive trial. One is ESR1 mutant only shows a significant difference, wild type does not. You then get a positive trial in that mutant subset. Not trying to explain why there would be a biological rationale, but from a statistical- Right standpoint, you can do the opposite as well.
FULL TRANSCRIPT
Continue the full translated transcript in StockNow.
Log in to unlock every statement, the English original, and speaker-by-speaker history.
Log in for the full transcriptCall participants
2 people spoke on this call — only 1 are shown here.
PARTICIPANT LIST
View participant details in StockNow.
Log in to see executives and analysts, their roles, and complete speaking history.
Log in to view all participantsKeep exploring
