Just got off the phone w/ Peter. The response they got from ASCO was that there were over 6,200 abstracts submitted this year. The abstract was of interest to the Program Committee but no reason was given as to why it wasn't accepted. The only thing they could think of, and this is just speculation, is that the timing just didn't work out. They got patient results in December and were working on a submission to ASCO at the deadline. With 6,200 abstracts submitted they were likely fighting for only a few remaining spots as submissions to ASCO have been increasing quite a bit over the past few years and they were late to the party which is no fault of their own. They were basically forced to submit under the TIP track due to timing, but this didn't allow them to submit the data which could have differentiated them from other abstracts. They were relying on Baylor’s past experience here. The company knew there was a chance the abstract wouldn't be accepted, and Peter mentioned they probably jumped the gun on mentioning it on the call but BCM thought it would be a lock based on past experiences. Ann said that she has never had an abstract rejected at ASCO and both parties were very surprised and disappointed. While Ann has never had an abstract rejected apparently ASCO rejects abstracts all the time. Ultimately it sounds like it came down to an issue of timing between getting the initial patient data and the ASCO deadline.
Moving forward:
Best course of action is to present at a medical conference. The reason for this is that submissions to medical conferences are considered peer reviewed and you can submit the entire data set all at once. The next upcoming conferences are AACR in July and ESMO in September. They can PR the entire data set but that will prevent them from presenting it at any future medical conference as only “new” data is accepted. If they don’t want to wait for the upcoming conferences they can PR topline data, then give detailed data at medical conference but that is not ideal as it is best to present everything all at once. Marker needs the approval of BCM and the head clinician to present the data. They have both of their approval to issue the data in any manner listed above which says a lot. Both parties want this data out as soon as possible but obviously it doesn’t make sense to prematurely jump the gun and issue a PR with it when it would be in everyone’s best interest to present at AACR or ESMO.
The rejection is definitely disappointing, but everyone is blowing this way out of proportion. The company didn’t mishandle this. If anyone did it was BCM but I’m going to say they didn’t either. They did what they could with what they had in the limited time they were allowed. Shit happens. Get over it. The data is what really matters, and it will be presented soon enough.
I’ll leave everyone with this. The company is very open and transparent in my experience. I think peoples’ expectations are too high when it comes to communication. If you are looking for a PR on every little thing it’s not going to happen, and you will be very disappointed. Y’all saw the 8k that said the abstract wasn’t accepted. It’s vague because the company was not given a reason other than there were a ton of submissions this year so there is no reason to PR anything else. The company is moving towards doing conference calls twice a year which is in line with their peers. This is when you will get the bulk of your information outside of one off PR’s probably only as milestones are hit and when the company is presenting at conferences. There isn’t a ton of news until data is available so ultimately there is nothing to PR. If this isn’t enough for you I recommend emailing IR or picking up the phone and calling. I’ve never had an email or phone call go unanswered.
Investor.relations@markertherapeutics.com
713-400-6400
Friends don't let friends place market orders
