Question-and-Answer Session
Operator
(Operator instructions) Your first question comes from the line of Bret Holley with Oppenheimer. Please proceed.
Jay – Oppenheimer
Good morning. This is Jay [ph] calling in for Bret. I had a quick question on 197 in pancreatic cancer. And that is, given the positive indications you see with Tarceva in non-small cell lung, is there any rationale for trying 197 on top of the gemcitabine-Tarceva combination that’s in the Tarceva label?
Brian Schwartz
Jay, I think I can take that. In terms of -- as Paolo mentioned, we have been very encouraged with our combination data with c-Met and have explored two other programs, which we try to move forward in parallel, which would then give us the options, as you mentioned, either versus gemcitabine or with the triplet dependent on the information that we see at the time. In terms of a clinical rationale, there is definitely a clinical -- a reasonably strong rationale in terms of using an EGFR inhibitor plus c-Met inhibitor in pancreas. But then in addition to that, there is also good rationale to use chemo plus c-Met in pancreas as well. So we are trying to bold and get as much information as we can so that we will be able to fully inform our Phase II randomized decision moving forward.
Jay – Oppenheimer
All right. Thanks a lot.
Bill Boni
You’re welcome.
Operator
Your next question comes from the line of Joel Sendek with Lazard Capital Markets. Please proceed.
Joel Sendek – Lazard Capital Markets
Thanks. Two questions on the 197-Tarceva combo. I’m wondering if the data are good, how good the data need to be in order for you to contemplate a registration for that. And my second question is, are you looking at the mutant population in that study as well?
Brian Schwartz
Let me take the easy one first. In terms of the inclusion/exclusion criteria, we included basically Tarceva-na
- To read the full transcript on Seeking Alpha, click here »
