Guggenheim's update last year was a fireside chat. Those are the best kind of corporate updates as opposed to the Dog and Pony show ones where they just read from their Presentation. The analyst last year, Adnan Butt, asked some relevant Qs, I'm sure he'll do so again this year (assuming he's still there).
Finally, we will be getting some inkling on what's going on w the Z20 trial. Last year, at Guggenheim, FL mentioned they were going to look at some fully annotated databases. I would love to know what they found out about ex20 historical efficacy using current SoC. Of course, the elephant in the room Q is 'Why did the results not come close to matching the MDACC trial results especially if patients were healthier than the Z20 patients'? One thing I remember JT saying during one CC was that one difference in the Z20 trial was that they would admit patients w brain mets. I wonder how many patients in the trial had them? Enough to make a difference? And every time I look at the ZENITH 20 Cohort 1 Waterfall Plot, I can't help but wonder why there were a considerable # of patients that had stable disease that had a 25 to near 30% response. It just seems like these patients would have hit 30% in the MDACC trial. Are there any theories why, such as these patients got off treatment earlier? Also, it seems that by the higher # of patients recruited than anticipated more patients were dropping out of this trial. Why? Anyhows, looking forward to the CC.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
