Oncorus (ONCR) Risk Analysis

The commercial success of our product candidates will depend in part on public acceptance of the use of viral immunotherapies and specifically viral RNA-based therapies to treat cancer patients. Adverse events in clinical trials of our product candidates, including ONCR-021, or in clinical trials of other companies developing similar products and the resulting publicity, as well as any other negative developments in the field of immuno-oncology that may occur in the future, including in connection with competitor therapies or with immune checkpoint inhibitors, could result in a decrease in demand for ONCR-021 or any other product candidates that we may develop. These events could also result in the suspension, discontinuation, or clinical hold of or modification to our clinical trials. If public perception is influenced by claims that the use of cancer immunotherapies is unsafe, whether related to our therapies or those of our competitors, our product candidates may not be accepted by the general public or the medical community and potential clinical trial subjects may be discouraged from enrolling in our clinical trials. As a result, we may not be able to continue or may be delayed in conducting our development programs. As our product candidates consist of modified or synthetic viruses, adverse developments in anti-viral vaccines or clinical trials of other viral immunotherapy products may result in a disproportionately negative effect for ONCR-021 or our other product candidates as compared to other products in the field of immuno-oncology that are not based on viruses. Future negative developments in the field of immuno-oncology or the biopharmaceutical industry could also result in greater governmental regulation, stricter labeling requirements and potential regulatory delays in the testing or approvals of our products. Any increased scrutiny could delay or increase the costs of obtaining marketing approval for ONCR-021 or our other product candidates.

Drug development is inherently risky and uncertain. We cannot be certain that we will be able to achieve the following milestones for ONCR-021 or any future product candidates within the timeframes we announce publicly: - complete IND-enabling preclinical studies or develop manufacturing processes and associated analytical methods that meet current good manufacturing practice, or cGMP, requirements in time to initiate clinical trials;- obtain sufficient clinical supply of our product candidates to support our anticipated or future clinical trials;- establish sufficient clinical trial sites and initiate clinical trials;- enroll and maintain a sufficient number of subjects to complete any clinical trials; or - analyze the data collected from any completed clinical trials. The actual timing of our development milestones could vary significantly compared to our estimates, in some cases for reasons beyond our control. If we are unable to achieve our goals within the timeframes we announce, the further development and commercialization of our product candidates may be delayed and, as a result, the stock price of our common stock could fall and investors may lose all of their investment.

Because we have limited financial and managerial resources, we must prioritize our research programs and will need to focus our product candidates and future research efforts on specific indications and target markets. As a result, we may forego or delay pursuit of opportunities with other product candidates or for other indications that later prove to have greater commercial potential. Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities. Our spending on current and future research and development programs and product candidates for specific indications may not yield commercially viable products. If we do not accurately evaluate the commercial potential or target market for a particular product candidate, we may also relinquish valuable rights to that product candidate through collaboration, licensing or other royalty arrangements in cases in which it would have been more advantageous for us to retain sole development and commercialization rights to such product candidate.

A key part of our current strategy is to pursue clinical development of ONCR-021 and, pending receipt of further funding, additional product candidates based on our self-amplifying RNA platform and our HSV platform. Research programs to identify new product candidates require substantial technical, financial and human resources. Developing, obtaining marketing approval for, and commercializing additional product candidates will require substantial additional funding and will be subject to the risks of failure inherent in medical product development. In November 2022, in addition to our decision to reprioritize our product pipeline to focus on ONCR-021, we announced a reduction in our workforce by approximately 20 percent, primarily impacting our discovery research capabilities, with the remaining workforce solely focused on the clinical development of ONCR-021. We cannot provide assurance that we will be able to successfully advance any of these additional product candidates through the development process. Even if we obtain approval from the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities to market additional product candidates for the treatment of cancer, any such product candidates may not be successfully commercialized, widely accepted in the marketplace, or more effective than other commercially available alternatives. If we are unable to successfully develop and commercialize additional product candidates our commercial opportunity may be limited and our business, financial condition, results of operations, stock price and prospects may be materially harmed.

In addition to developing our product candidates as monotherapies, we also anticipate developing our product candidates for use in combination with certain immune checkpoint inhibitors. For example, ONCR-177 was administered to patients in our Phase 1 clinical trial in combination with the anti-PD-1 checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab, which is being supplied by Merck, pursuant to our clinical trial collaboration and supply agreement entered into in July 2020. In the future, we may enter into additional agreements for the supply of immune checkpoint inhibitors for use in connection with the development of one or more of our product candidates, including with ONCR-021. Our ability to develop and ultimately commercialize our product candidates used in combination with any immune checkpoint inhibitor or other therapy will depend on our ability to access such drugs on commercially reasonable terms for the clinical trials and their availability for use with the commercialized product, if approved. We cannot be certain that current or potential future commercial relationships will provide us with a steady supply of such drugs on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Any failure to maintain or enter into new successful commercial relationships, or the expense of purchasing immune checkpoint inhibitors in the market, may delay our development timelines, increase our costs and jeopardize our ability to develop our product candidates as commercially viable therapies. If any of these occur, our business, financial condition, results of operations, stock price and prospects may be materially harmed. Moreover, the development of product candidates for use in combination with another product or product candidate may present challenges that are not faced for single agent product candidates. For our product candidates that may be used in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors, the FDA may require us to use more complex clinical trial designs to evaluate the contribution of each product and product candidate to any observed effects. It is possible that the results of these trials could show that any positive previous trial results are attributable to the combination therapy and not our product candidates. Moreover, following product approval, the FDA may require that products used in conjunction with each other be cross labeled for combined use. To the extent that we do not have rights to the other product, this may require us to work with a third party to satisfy such a requirement. Moreover, developments related to the other product may impact our clinical trials for the combination as well as our commercial prospects should we receive marketing approval. Such developments may include changes to the other product's safety or efficacy profile, changes to the availability of the approved product, and changes to the standard of care. In the event that any future collaborator or supplier of immune checkpoint inhibitors administered in combination with our product candidates does not supply their products on commercially reasonable terms or in a timely fashion, we would need to identify alternatives for accessing these products. This could cause our clinical trials to be delayed and limit the commercial opportunities for our product candidates, in which case our business, financial condition, results of operations, stock price and prospects may be materially harmed.

To date, ONCR-177 is the only product candidate that we have tested in humans. In November 2021, we presented preliminary findings from Part 1 of our Phase 1 clinical trial of ONCR-177, including data from 14 patients in the fully enrolled and completed dose escalation cohorts and five patients enrolled in the dose expansion monotherapy portion of the trial. In the fully enrolled and completed surface lesion dose escalation portion of the trial, ONCR-177 administered to heavily pretreated patients with advanced, injectable solid tumors was well tolerated with no dose-limiting toxicities. As of the data cut-off date, no treatment-related adverse events exceeded Grade 2, and the most common Grade 1 and 2 adverse events were fatigue, chills, nausea, and mild, dose-dependent cytokine release syndrome, or CRS. No infectious virions were detected in skin swabs. We plan to explore preliminary safety and tolerability data in the planned clinical trial for ONCR-021 and any future clinical trial we conduct. However, initial results or other preliminary analyses or results of early clinical trials may not be predictive of the data we will receive as the trial progresses or the final trial results. As we initiate clinical trials for ONCR-021 and any future product candidates we may develop, serious adverse events, undesirable side effects or unexpected characteristics may emerge causing us to abandon these product candidates or limit their development to more narrow uses or subpopulations in which the serious adverse events, undesirable side effects or other characteristics are less prevalent, less severe or more acceptable from a risk-benefit perspective. Even if our product candidates initially show promise in early clinical trials, the side effects of therapies are frequently only detectable after they are tested in large, Phase 3 clinical or pivotal trials or, in some cases, after they are made available to patients on a commercial scale after approval. Sometimes, it can be difficult to determine if the serious adverse or unexpected side effects were caused by the product candidate or another factor, especially in oncology subjects who may suffer from other medical conditions and be taking other medications. If serious adverse or unexpected side effects are identified during development and are determined to be attributed to our product candidates, the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, or IRBs and other reviewing entities, may also require, or we may voluntarily develop, a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, or other strategies for managing adverse events during clinical development, which could include restrictions on our enrollment criteria, the use of stopping criteria, adjustments to a study's design, or the monitoring of safety data by a data monitoring committee, among other strategies. Any requests from the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authority for additional data or information could also result in substantial delays in the approval of our product candidates. Drug-related side effects could also affect subject recruitment or the ability of enrolled subjects to complete the trial or result in potential product liability claims. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly. In addition, if one or more of our product candidates receives marketing approval, and we or others later identify undesirable side effects caused by such products, a number of potentially significant negative consequences could result, including: - regulatory authorities may withdraw approvals of such product;- regulatory authorities may require additional warnings on the label;- we may be required to create a medication guide outlining the risks of such side effects for distribution to patients;- we could be sued and held liable for harm caused to patients; and - our reputation may suffer. If any of our product candidates are associated with serious adverse events or undesirable side effects or have properties that are unexpected, we may need to abandon development or limit development of that product candidate to certain uses or subpopulations in which the undesirable side effects or other characteristics are less prevalent, less severe or more acceptable from a risk-benefit perspective. The therapeutic-related side effects could affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete the trial or result in potential product liability claims. Any of these events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of the particular product candidate, if approved, and could significantly harm our business, results of operations and prospects.

From time to time, we may publish interim topline or preliminary data from our ongoing clinical trials. For example, we announced preliminary data from our Phase 1 trial of ONCR-0177 in November 2021. Interim data from clinical trials that we may complete are subject to the risk that one or more of the clinical outcomes may materially change as patient enrollment continues, as additional patients are dosed in monotherapy and in combination with other therapeutics and more patient data become available. Preliminary or topline data also remain subject to audit and verification procedures that may result in the final data being materially different from the preliminary or topline data previously published. As a result, interim and preliminary data should be viewed with caution until the final data are available. Preliminary data that we expect to report from our planned clinical trial for ONCR-021 may not be predictive of future readouts, particularly as patients are scanned and data is analyzed from later stages of the trial. Adverse differences between interim or preliminary or topline data and final data could significantly harm our reputation and business prospects.

We commenced our Phase 1 clinical trial for our lead product candidate, ONCR-177, in June 2020, and released preliminary data from the monotherapy portion of the trial in November 2021. In November 2022, we announced that we were reprioritizing our product pipeline to focus on ONCR-021, with plans to submit an IND to the FDA in mid-2023 to evaluate ONCR-021 in patients with non-small cell lung cancer, renal cell carcinoma, melanoma and anaplastic thyroid cancer. We are currently in the process of winding down our clinical trial of ONCR-177. Other product candidates generated from our self-amplifying RNA platform, including ONCR-788, and from our HSV platform, including ONCR-GBM, are pending further funding. We will be required to submit substantial preclinical findings to the FDA in order to support our IND submission for ONCR-021. ONCR-021 may not perform as we expect in clinical trials, may ultimately have a different or no impact on tumors, may have a different mechanism of action than we expect and, despite our preliminary results, may not ultimately prove to be safe and effective. The same risks apply to ONCR-788 and ONCR-GBM, if and when they enter the clinic. The results of preclinical studies or early clinical trials for ONCR-021, ONCR-788 and ONCR-GBM, or any other product candidate we develop, may not be predictive of the results of later-stage clinical trials. As with ONCR-177, promising results from preclinical studies may not be predictive of sufficient clinical efficacy to warrant further development of the product candidate. Many companies in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have suffered significant setbacks in late-stage clinical trials after achieving positive results in earlier development, and we could face similar setbacks. The design of a clinical trial can determine whether its results will support approval of a product and flaws in the design of a clinical trial may not become apparent until the clinical trial is well advanced. We have limited experience in designing clinical trials and may be unable to design and execute our clinical trials to support marketing approval for our product candidates. Our experience in designing the clinical trial for ONCR-177 may not be predictive of our ability to design and execute on our planned clinical trial for ONCR-021. In addition, preclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses. Many companies that believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in preclinical studies and early clinical trials have nonetheless failed to obtain marketing approval for the product candidates. Even if we, or future collaborators, believe that the results of clinical trials for our product candidates warrant marketing approval, the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may disagree and may not grant marketing approval of our product candidates. In some instances, there can be significant variability in safety or efficacy results between different clinical trials of the same product candidate due to numerous factors, including changes in trial procedures set forth in protocols, differences in the size and type of the patient populations, changes in and adherence to the clinical trial protocols and the rate of dropout among clinical trial participants. Moreover, should there be an issue with the design of any of our clinical trials, our results may be impacted. We may not discover such a flaw until the clinical trial is at an advanced stage.

We may not be able to initiate or continue clinical trials for ONCR-021 or any future product candidates if we are unable to locate and enroll a sufficient number of eligible patients to participate in these trials as required by the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities. In addition, some of our competitors may have ongoing clinical trials for drug candidates that treat the same indications as our drug candidates, and patients who would otherwise be eligible for our clinical trials may instead enroll in clinical trials of our competitors' product candidates. Patient enrollment is affected by other factors, including: - availability and efficacy of approved therapies for the disease under investigation;- patient eligibility criteria for the trial in question;- risks that enrolled subjects will drop out before completion of the trial, including as a result of contracting COVID-19 or other health conditions or being forced to quarantine;- perceived risks and benefits of the product candidate under study;- efforts to facilitate timely enrollment in clinical trials;- patient referral practices of physicians;- the ability to monitor patients adequately during and after treatment; and - proximity and availability of clinical trial sites for prospective patients. Our inability to enroll sufficient patients for our anticipated and any future clinical trials would result in significant delays or may require us to abandon one or more clinical trials altogether. Enrollment delays in our clinical trials may result in increased development costs for our product candidates, which could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects. In addition, disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic or similar public health crises may increase the likelihood that we encounter patient enrollment difficulties.

In order to obtain FDA approval to market a new biological product, we must demonstrate proof of safety, purity and potency and efficacy in humans. To meet these requirements, we will have to conduct adequate and well-controlled clinical trials. Before we can commence a clinical trial for ONCR-021 or any product candidate, we must complete extensive preclinical testing and studies that support our planned IND submission in the United States. We cannot be certain of the timely completion or outcome of our preclinical testing and studies or clinical trials and cannot predict if the FDA will accept our proposed clinical programs or if the outcome of our preclinical testing and studies or clinical trials will ultimately support the further development of our programs. As a result, we cannot be sure that we will be able to submit an IND for ONCR-021 on the timeline we expect, if at all; we cannot be sure that submission of INDs or similar applications for ONCR-021 or any product candidates will result in the FDA or other regulatory authorities allowing clinical trials to begin; and we cannot be sure that our planned clinical trials will begin on time or that they will be completed on schedule. Conducting preclinical testing and clinical development is a lengthy, time-consuming and expensive process. The length of time may vary substantially according to the type, complexity and novelty of the program, and often can be several years or more per program. Delays associated with programs for which we are directly conducting preclinical testing and studies may cause us to incur additional operating expenses. Moreover, we may be affected by delays associated with the preclinical testing and studies of certain programs that are the responsibility of any potential future partners over which we have no control. The commencement and rate of completion of preclinical studies and clinical trials for a product candidate may be delayed by many factors, including, for example: - inability to generate sufficient preclinical or other in vivo or in vitro data to support the initiation of clinical trials;- unexpected toxicities observed in preclinical IND-enabling studies precluding the identification of a safe dose to move forward in human clinical trial;- delays in production or manufacturing of clinical supply;- delays in reaching a consensus with regulatory agencies on study or trial design; and - regulatory authorities not allowing us to rely on previous findings of safety and efficacy for other similar but approved products and published scientific literature. We may experience delays in initiating or completing clinical trials, including the planned Phase 1 clinical trial for ONCR-021. We also may experience numerous unforeseen events during, or as a result of, any ongoing or future clinical trials that we could conduct that could delay or prevent our ability to receive marketing approval for or commercialize any current or future product candidates, including: - delays or failures related to the COVID-19 pandemic, public health crises or other crises outside of our control, which may result in clinical site closures, delays to patient enrollment, patients discontinuing their treatment or follow up visits or changes to trial protocols, or delays in the clinical supply chain;- regulators or institutional review boards, or IRBs, may not authorize us or our investigators to commence a clinical trial, conduct a clinical trial at a prospective trial site, or amend trial protocols, or may require that we modify or amend our clinical trial protocols;- we may experience delays in reaching, or fail to reach, agreement on acceptable clinical trial contracts or clinical trial protocols with prospective trial sites and/or contract research organizations, or CROs;- clinical trials of our product candidates may produce negative or inconclusive results, or our studies may fail to reach the necessary level of statistical significance, and we may decide, or regulators may require us, to conduct additional clinical trials or abandon product development programs;- the number of patients required for clinical trials of our product candidates may be larger than we anticipate, enrollment in these clinical trials may be slower than we anticipate or participants may drop out of these clinical trials or be lost to follow-up at a higher rate than we anticipate, or may elect to participate in alternative clinical trials sponsored by our competitors with product candidates that treat the same indications as our product candidates;- third-party contractors may fail to comply with regulatory requirements or the clinical trial protocol, or meet their contractual obligations to us in a timely manner, or at all, or we may be required to engage in additional clinical trial site monitoring;- we may experience manufacturing delays for clinical drug product produced in-house or through third-party CMOs;- the supply or quality of our product candidates or other materials necessary to conduct clinical trials of our product candidates may be insufficient or inadequate;- we, regulators, or IRBs may require that we or our investigators suspend or terminate clinical research for various reasons, including noncompliance with regulatory requirements or a finding that the participants are being exposed to unacceptable health risks, undesirable side effects, or other unexpected characteristics of the product candidate, or due to findings of undesirable effects caused by a chemically or mechanistically similar therapeutic or therapeutic candidate;- changes could be adopted in marketing approval policies during the development period, rendering our data insufficient to obtain marketing approval;- statutes or regulations could be amended, or new ones could be adopted;- changes could be adopted in the regulatory review process for submitted product applications;- the cost of clinical trials of our product candidates may be greater than we anticipate, or we may have insufficient funds for a clinical trial or to pay the substantial user fees required by the FDA upon the submission of a BLA or equivalent authorizations from comparable foreign regulatory authorities;- the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may fail to approve the manufacturing processes or facilities of third-party manufacturers with which we contract for clinical and commercial supplies;- we may decide, or regulators may require us, to conduct or gather, as applicable, additional clinical trials, analyses, reports, data, or preclinical trials, or we may abandon product development programs;- we may fail to reach an agreement with regulators or IRBs regarding the scope, design, or implementation of our clinical trials, and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require changes to our study designs that make further study impractical or not financially prudent;- regulators may ultimately disagree with the design or our conduct of our preclinical studies or clinical trials, finding that they do not support product candidate approval;- we may have delays in adding new investigators or clinical trial sites, or we may experience a withdrawal of clinical trial sites;- patients that enroll in our studies may misrepresent their eligibility or may otherwise not comply with the clinical trial protocol, resulting in the need to drop the patients from the study or clinical trial, increase the needed enrollment size for the clinical trial or extend its duration;- there may be regulatory questions or disagreements regarding interpretations of data and results, or new information may emerge regarding our product candidates;- the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may disagree with our trial design, including endpoints, or our interpretation of data from preclinical studies and clinical trials or find that a product candidate's benefits do not outweigh its safety risks;- the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may not accept data from studies with clinical trial sites in foreign countries;- the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may disagree with our intended indications;- the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may fail to approve or subsequently find fault with the manufacturing processes or our manufacturing facilities for clinical and future commercial supplies;- the data collected from clinical trials of our product candidates may not be sufficient to the satisfaction of the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities to support the submission of a BLA or other comparable submission in foreign jurisdictions or to obtain regulatory approval in the United States or elsewhere;- the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may take longer than we anticipate to make a decision on our product candidates; and - we may not be able to demonstrate that a product candidate provides an advantage over current standards of care or current or future competitive therapies in development. Our product development costs will also increase if we experience delays in clinical testing or marketing approvals, and we may not have sufficient funding to complete the testing and approval process for any of our current or future product candidates. We may be required to obtain additional funds to complete clinical trials and prepare for possible commercialization of our product candidates. We do not know whether any preclinical tests or clinical trials beyond what we currently have planned will be required, will begin as planned, will need to be restructured, or will be completed on schedule or at all. Significant delays relating to any preclinical studies or clinical trials also could shorten any periods during which we may have the exclusive right to commercialize our product candidates or allow our competitors to bring products to market before we do and impair our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates and may harm our business and results of operations. In addition, many of the factors that cause, or lead to, delays in clinical trials may ultimately lead to the denial of marketing approval of any of our product candidates. Any delays in our clinical development programs may harm our business, financial condition and results of operations significantly.

We have concentrated all of our research and development efforts on product candidates based on our self-amplifying RNA platform and our HSV platform, each of which is novel. Our self-amplifying RNA platform has not yet produced a product candidate that has been tested in clinical trials. Our future success depends on the successful development of ONCR-021 from our self-amplifying RNA platform. There can be no assurance that any development problems we experience in the future will not cause significant delays or unanticipated costs, or that such development problems can be resolved. Should we encounter challenges in the course of drug development, including unfavorable preclinical or clinical trial results, the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities may refuse to approve our product candidates, or may require additional information, tests or trials, which could significantly delay product development and significantly increase our development costs. Moreover, even if we are able to provide the requested information or trials to the FDA, there would be no guarantee that the FDA would accept them or approve our product candidates. We may also experience delays in developing a sustainable, reproducible and scalable manufacturing process, or developing or qualifying and validating product release assays, other testing and manufacturing methods, and our equipment and facilities in a timely manner, which may prevent us from completing our clinical trials or commercializing our product candidates on a timely or profitable basis, if at all. In addition, the clinical trial requirements of the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities and the criteria these regulators use to determine the safety and efficacy of a product candidate vary substantially according to the type, complexity, novelty and intended use and market of the potential products. The FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities have limited experience with the approval of RNAs encapsulated in lipid nanoparticles. There are only three RNA/LNP therapeutics approved globally, patisiran (Onpattro), tozinameran (Comirnaty), and elasomeran (Spikevax). Any RNA/LNP therapies that are approved may be subject to extensive post-approval regulatory requirements, including requirements pertaining to manufacturing, distribution and promotion. We may need to devote significant time and resources to compliance with these requirements.

We invested a significant portion of our efforts and financial resources in the programs from our HSV platform and our self-amplifying RNA platform, particularly in the development of ONCR-177. We commenced our Phase 1 clinical trial of ONCR-177 in June 2020, and released preliminary data from Part 1 of the trial in November 2021. In November 2022, we announced that we were reprioritizing our product pipeline to focus on our lead self-amplifying vRNA immunotherapy product candidate, ONCR-021, with plans to evaluate ONCR-021 in patients with non-small cell lung cancer, renal cell carcinoma, melanoma, anaplastic thyroid cancer and hepatocellular carcinoma. We are currently in the process of winding down our clinical trial of ONCR-177. To date we have only submitted one IND with respect to one product candidate, ONCR-177, and we have not yet submitted a Biologics License Application, or BLA, to the FDA, or similar regulatory approval filings to comparable foreign authorities, for any product candidate, and we cannot be certain that our product candidates will be successful in clinical trials or receive regulatory approval to warrant such future submissions. Further, our product candidates may not receive regulatory approval even if they are successful in clinical trials. Since ONCR-177 is based on our HSV platform, our decision to discontinue its further clinical development may be perceived as a result of an underlying problem with our HSV platform, which may impede any future development efforts we undertake for product candidates that are based on this therapeutic approach, such as ONCR-GBM or other product candidates that we nominate from the HSV platform. The same risk applies to ONCR-021, ONCR-788 and other products developed from our self-amplifying RNA platform. Our decision to discontinue the further clinical development of ONCR-177 may have a negative effect on our ability to successfully launch and run future clinical trials, such as our planned clinical trial of ONCR-021, or may be perceived as a result of underlying problems affecting our self-amplifying RNA platform as well. We can provide no assurance that we will be successful at developing ONCR-021 or any future product candidates based on either product platform.

If we or one of our licensing partners initiate legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent covering any of our technology, the defendant could counterclaim that the patent covering our product candidate is invalid or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity or unenforceability are commonplace, and there are numerous grounds upon which a third party can assert invalidity or unenforceability of a patent. Grounds for a validity challenge could be, among other things, an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, including lack of novelty, obviousness, or non-enablement. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could be, among other things, an allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld relevant information from the USPTO, or made a misleading statement, during prosecution. Third parties may also raise similar claims before administrative bodies in the United States or abroad, even outside the context of litigation. Such mechanisms include re-examination, inter partes review, post-grant review, interference proceedings, derivation proceedings and equivalent proceedings in foreign jurisdictions, such as opposition proceedings. Such proceedings could result in revocation, cancellation or amendment to our patents in such a way that they no longer cover and protect our product candidates. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. For example, with respect to the validity of our licensed patents or any patents we obtain in the future, we cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art of which we, our or our licensing partner's patent counsel, and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. If a third party were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity and/or unenforceability, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on our product candidates. Such a loss of patent protection could have a material adverse impact on our business.

Many of our employees, including our senior management team, were previously employed at, or consulted for, universities or other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. Some of these individuals, including members of our senior management team, executed proprietary rights, non-disclosure and non-competition agreements, or similar agreements, in connection with such previous employment or consulting agreements, which assigned ownership of intellectual property relating to work performed under such agreements to the contracting third party. Although we endeavor to ensure that our employees do not use, claim as theirs, or misappropriate the intellectual property, proprietary information or know-how of others in their work for us, we may be subject to claims that we or these employees have used, claimed as theirs, misappropriated or disclosed intellectual property, including trade secrets or other proprietary information, of any such individual's current or former employer. Litigation may be necessary to defend against such claims. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel or sustain damages. Such intellectual property rights could be awarded to a third party, and we could be required to obtain a license from such third party to commercialize our technology or products. Such a license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms, or at all. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management. Any of the foregoing may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, stock price and prospects.

Competitors may infringe our licensed patents or any patent we own or misappropriate or otherwise violate our intellectual property rights. Litigation may be necessary in the future to enforce or defend our intellectual property rights, to protect our trade secrets, or to determine the validity and scope of our own intellectual property rights or the proprietary rights of others. If we were to initiate legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent covering our product candidates, the defendant could counterclaim that the patent covering our product candidate is invalid and/or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity and/or unenforceability are commonplace. Grounds for a validity challenge could be an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, including lack of novelty, obviousness, written description or non-enablement. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could be an allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld relevant information from the USPTO, or made a misleading statement, during prosecution. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. Our licensed patents and any patents we own in the future may become involved in priority or other intellectual property related disputes. Interference or derivation proceedings provoked by third parties or brought by us or declared by the USPTO may be necessary to determine the priority of inventions with respect to our patents or patent applications. Also, third parties may initiate legal proceedings against us to challenge the validity or scope of our owned or licensed intellectual property rights. These proceedings can be expensive and time consuming. Many of our current and potential competitors have the ability to dedicate substantially greater resources to conduct intellectual property related litigations or proceedings than we can. We may not have sufficient financial or other resources to conduct such litigation or proceedings adequately. Accordingly, despite our efforts, we may not be able to prevent third parties from infringing upon or misappropriating our intellectual property. Litigation and other intellectual property related proceedings could result in substantial costs and diversion of management resources, which could harm our business and financial results. In addition, in an infringement proceeding, a court may decide that a patent owned by or licensed to us is invalid or unenforceable, or may refuse to stop the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our patents do not cover the technology in question. An adverse result in any litigation or other intellectual property related proceeding could put one or more of our patents at risk of being invalidated, held unenforceable or interpreted narrowly. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation in the United States, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation. There could also be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments in any such proceedings. If securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a material adverse effect on the price of shares of our common stock, and could have a material adverse effect on our ability to raise the funds necessary to continue our clinical trials, continue our research programs, license necessary technology from third parties, or enter into development partnerships that would help us bring our product candidates to market. Any of the foregoing may have a material adverse effect our business, financial condition, results of operations, stock price and prospects.

The development and potential commercialization of our product candidates will require substantial additional capital to fund expenses. We may, in the future, decide to collaborate with other biopharmaceutical companies for the development and potential commercialization of those product candidates in other countries or territories of the world. We will face significant competition in seeking appropriate collaborators. We may not be successful in our efforts to establish a strategic partnership or other alternative arrangements for our product candidates because they may be deemed to be at too early of a stage of development for collaborative effort and third parties may not view our product candidates as having the requisite potential to demonstrate safety and efficacy. If and when we collaborate with a third party for development and commercialization of a product candidate, we can expect to relinquish some or all of the control over the future success of that product candidate to the third party. Our ability to reach a definitive agreement for a collaboration will depend, among other things, upon our assessment of the collaborator's resources and expertise, the terms and conditions of the proposed collaboration and the proposed collaborator's evaluation of a number of factors. Those factors may include the following: - the design or results of ongoing and planned clinical trials, as well as results from prior clinical trials;- the likelihood of approval by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities;- the potential market for the product candidate;- the costs and complexities of manufacturing and delivering such product candidate to patients;- the potential of competing products;- the existence of uncertainty with respect to our ownership of technology or other rights, which can exist if there is a challenge to such ownership without regard to the merits of the challenge; and - industry and market conditions generally. The collaborator may also consider alternative product candidates or technologies for similar indications that may be available to collaborate on and whether such a collaboration could be more attractive than the one with us for our product candidate. We may also be restricted under any license agreements from entering into agreements on certain terms or at all with potential collaborators. Collaborations are complex and time-consuming to negotiate and document. In addition, there have been a significant number of recent business combinations among large pharmaceutical companies that have resulted in a reduced number of potential future collaborators and changes to the strategies of the combined company. As a result, we may not be able to negotiate collaborations on a timely basis, on acceptable terms, or at all. If we are unable to do so, we may have to curtail the development of such product candidate, reduce or delay one or more of our other development programs, delay the potential commercialization or reduce the scope of any planned sales or marketing activities for such product candidate, or increase our expenditures and undertake development, manufacturing or commercialization activities at our own expense. If we elect to increase our expenditures to fund development, manufacturing or commercialization activities on our own, we may need to obtain additional capital, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms or at all. If we do not have sufficient funds, we may not be able to further develop our product candidates or bring them to market and generate product revenue.

As is the case with other biopharmaceutical companies, our success is heavily dependent on intellectual property, particularly patents. Obtaining and enforcing patents in the biopharmaceutical industry involves both technological and legal complexity and is therefore costly, time consuming and inherently uncertain. Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the United States or other jurisdictions in which we have or seek patent protection could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of patent applications and the enforcement or defense of issued patents. Patent reform legislation in the United States and other countries, including the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or the Leahy-Smith Act, signed into law in the United States on September 16, 2011, could increase those uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents. The Leahy-Smith Act includes a number of significant changes to U.S. patent law. These include provisions that affect the way patent applications are prosecuted, redefine prior art and provide more efficient and cost-effective avenues for competitors to challenge the validity of patents. These include allowing third-party submission of prior art to the USPTO during patent prosecution and additional procedures to attack the validity of a patent by USPTO administered post-grant proceedings, including post-grant review, inter partes review, and derivation proceedings. After March 2013, under the Leahy-Smith Act, the United States transitioned to a first inventor to file system in which, assuming that the other statutory requirements are met, the first inventor to file a patent application will be entitled to the patent on an invention regardless of whether a third party was the first to invent the claimed invention. However, the Leahy-Smith Act and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, stock price and prospects. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on several patent cases in recent years, either narrowing the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances or weakening the rights of patent owners in certain situations. Depending on future actions by the U.S. Congress, the U.S. courts, the USPTO and the relevant law-making bodies in other countries, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that would weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce our existing patents and patents that we might obtain in the future. Similarly, changes in patent law and regulations in other countries or jurisdictions or changes in the governmental bodies that enforce them or changes in how the relevant governmental authority enforces patent laws or regulations may weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce patents that we have licensed or that we may obtain in the future. For example, in Europe, a new unitary patent system takes effect June 1, 2023, which will significantly impact European patents, including those granted before the introduction of such a system. Under the unitary patent system, European applications will have the option, upon grant of a patent, of becoming a Unitary Patent which will be subject to the jurisdiction of the Unitary Patent Court (UPC). As the UPC is a new court system, there is no precedent for the court, increasing the uncertainty of any litigation. Patents granted before the implementation of the UPC will have the option of opting out of the jurisdiction of the UPC and remaining as national patents in the UPC countries. Patents that remain under the jurisdiction of the UPC will be potentially vulnerable to a single UPC-based revocation challenge that, if successful, could invalidate the patent in all countries who are signatories to the UPC. We cannot predict with certainty the long-term effects of any potential changes. In addition, geo-political actions in the United States and in foreign countries could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution or maintenance of our patent applications and the maintenance, enforcement or defense of our issued patents. For example, the United States and foreign government actions related to Russia's invasion of Ukraine may limit or prevent filing, prosecution, and maintenance of patent applications in Russia. Government actions may also prevent maintenance of issued patents in Russia. These actions could result in abandonment or lapse of our patents or patent applications, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in Russia. If such an event were to occur, it could have a material adverse effect on our business. In addition, a decree was adopted by the Russian government in March 2022, allowing Russian companies and individuals to exploit inventions owned by patentees from the United States without consent or compensation. Consequently, we would not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in Russia or from selling or importing products made using our inventions in and into Russia. Accordingly, our competitive position may be impaired, and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects may be adversely affected.

The USPTO and various foreign governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payments and other similar provisions during the patent application process and to maintain patents after they are issued. For example, periodic maintenance fees, renewal fees, annuity fees and various other government fees on issued patents and patent applications often must be paid to the USPTO and foreign patent agencies over the lifetime of our licensed patents or any patents we own. In certain circumstances, we may rely on future licensing partners to take the necessary action to comply with these requirements with respect to licensed intellectual property. Although an unintentional lapse can be cured for a period of time by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules, there are situations in which noncompliance can result in abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. Non-compliance events that could result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application include, but are not limited to, failure to respond to official actions within prescribed time limits, non-payment of fees and failure to properly legalize and submit formal documents. If we fail to obtain and maintain the patents and patent applications covering our products or procedures, we may not be able to stop a competitor from marketing products that are the same as or similar to our product candidates, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Filing, prosecuting and defending patents on our technology throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and our intellectual property rights in some countries outside the United States can be less extensive than those in the United States. In addition, the laws and practices of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as federal and state laws in the United States. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the United States, or from selling or importing products made using our inventions in and into the United States or other jurisdictions. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop and/or manufacture their own products, and may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we have patent protection but where enforcement is not as strong as that in the United States. These products may compete with our products and our patent claims or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from so competing. Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in certain foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the granting or enforcement of patents, trade secrets and other intellectual property protection, particularly those relating to biopharmaceuticals, which could make it difficult for us to obtain patent rights or stop the infringement of our patents or marketing of competing products in violation of our intellectual property and proprietary rights generally in those countries. Proceedings to enforce our intellectual property and proprietary rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial cost and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and our patent applications at risk of not issuing and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. Accordingly, our efforts to protect and enforce our intellectual property and proprietary rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property we develop or license. In addition, the laws of certain foreign countries may not protect our rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States, and those foreign laws may also be subject to change. For example, methods of treatment and manufacturing processes may not be patentable in certain jurisdictions, and the requirements for patentability may differ in certain countries. Furthermore, biosimilar product manufacturers or other competitors may challenge the scope, validity and enforceability of our patents, requiring us to engage in complex, lengthy and costly litigation or proceedings. Moreover, many countries have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner may be compelled to grant licenses to third parties. Many countries limit the enforceability of patents against government agencies or government contractors. In these countries, the patent owner may have limited remedies, which could materially diminish the value of such patent. If we are forced to grant a license to third parties with respect to any patents relevant to our business, our competitive position may be impaired, and our business and results of operations may be adversely affected.

Our commercial success depends on our ability and the ability of any future collaborators to develop, manufacture, market and sell product candidates from our self-amplifying RNA and HSV platforms, and to use our related proprietary technologies without infringing, misappropriating or otherwise violating the intellectual property and proprietary rights of third parties. The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by extensive litigation regarding patents and other intellectual property rights. We may become party to, or threatened with, adversarial proceedings or litigation regarding intellectual property rights with respect to our current and any other future product candidates, including interference proceedings, post-grant review, inter partes review and derivation proceedings before the USPTO. Third parties may assert infringement or other intellectual property claims against us based on existing patents or patents that may be granted in the future. Numerous U.S. and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications, which are owned by third parties, exist in the fields in which we are pursuing development candidates. As the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries expand and more patents are issued, the risk increases that we may be subject to claims of infringement of the patent rights of third parties. If we are found to infringe a third party's intellectual property rights, and we are unsuccessful in demonstrating that such intellectual property rights are invalid or unenforceable, we could be required to obtain a license from such third party to continue developing, manufacturing and commercializing our product candidates. However, we may not be able to obtain any required license on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Even if we were able to obtain a license, it could be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors and other third parties access to the same technologies licensed to us, and it could require us to make substantial licensing and royalty payments. We also could be forced, including by court order, to cease developing, manufacturing, and commercializing our product candidates. In addition, in any such proceeding or litigation, we could be found liable for significant monetary damages, including treble damages and attorneys' fees, if we are found to have willfully infringed a patent or other intellectual property right. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, stock price and prospects. Any claims by third parties that we have misappropriated their confidential information or trade secrets could have a similar material adverse effect on our business. Defense of these claims, regardless of their merit, would involve substantial litigation expense and would be a substantial diversion of employee resources from our business. Parties making claims against us may be able to sustain the costs of complex patent litigation more effectively than we can because they have substantially greater resources. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation or administrative proceedings, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure. In addition, any uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of any litigation could have material adverse effect on our ability to raise additional funds or otherwise have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects. Furthermore, in addition to developing ONCR-021 as a monotherapy, we also anticipate developing ONCR-021 in combination with the commercially available checkpoint inhibitors, similar to the approach with took with ONCR-177 and pembrolizumab. Pembrolizumab, while commercially available in the market, is covered by patents held by Merck. We may develop ONCR-021 and our future product candidates in combination with products developed by additional companies that are covered by patents or licenses held by those entities to which we do not have a license or a sublicense. In the event that a labeling instruction is required in product packaging recommending that combination, we could be accused of, or held liable for, infringement of the third-party patents covering the product candidate or product recommended for administration with our product candidates. In such a case, we could be required to obtain a license from the other company or institution to use the required or desired package labeling, which may not be available on commercially reasonable terms, or at all.

In addition to seeking patent protection, we also rely on other proprietary rights, including protection of trade secrets, know-how and confidential and proprietary information. To maintain the confidentiality of our trade secrets and proprietary information, we enter into confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants, collaborators, contractors, and other third parties who have access to our trade secrets. Our agreements with employees and consultants also provide that any inventions conceived by the individual employee or consultant in the course of rendering services to us shall be our exclusive property. However, we may not obtain these agreements in all circumstances, and individuals with whom we have these agreements may not comply with their terms. The assignment of intellectual property rights may not be self-executing or the assignment agreements may be breached, and we may be forced to bring claims against third parties, or defend claims that they may bring against us, to determine the ownership of what we regard as our intellectual property. In addition, we cannot be certain that our trade secrets and other confidential proprietary information will not be disclosed or that competitors will not otherwise gain access to our trade secrets or independently develop substantially equivalent information and techniques. In the event of unauthorized use or disclosure of our trade secrets or proprietary information, these agreements, even if obtained, may not provide meaningful protection, particularly for our trade secrets or other confidential information. To the extent that our employees, consultants or contractors use technology or know-how owned by third parties in their work for us, disputes may arise between us and those third parties as to the rights in related inventions. Adequate remedies may not exist in the event of unauthorized use or disclosure of our confidential information including a breach of our confidentiality agreements. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret is difficult, expensive, and time consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, some courts in and outside of the United States are less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets. If any of our trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor or other third party, we would have no right to prevent them from using that technology or information to compete with us. The disclosure of our trade secrets or the independent development of our trade secrets by a competitor or other third party would impair our competitive position and may materially harm our business, financial condition, results of operations, stock price and prospects.

We are a party to license agreements with entities including the University of Pittsburgh, Northwestern University, WuXi Biologics, Ospedale San Raffaele S.r.l. and Fondazione Telethon, Gaeta Therapeutics Ltd. and NOF Corporation, and we may need to obtain additional licenses from others to advance our research and development activities or allow the commercialization of our current or future product candidates. These license agreements impose, and we expect that future license agreements will impose, various development, diligence, commercialization, and other obligations on us. For example, under our license agreement with the University of Pittsburgh, we are required to use commercially reasonable efforts to engage in various development and commercialization activities with respect to licensed products, and must satisfy specified milestone and royalty payment obligations. In spite of our efforts, our licensors might conclude that we have materially breached our obligations under such license agreements and might therefore terminate the license agreements, thereby removing or limiting our ability to develop and commercialize products and technology covered by the intellectual property under these license agreements. If these in-licenses are terminated, or if the underlying patents fail to provide the intended exclusivity, competitors or other third parties would have the freedom to seek regulatory approval of, and to market, products identical to ours and we may be required to cease our development and commercialization our product candidates. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial conditions, results of operations, and prospects. Moreover, disputes may arise regarding intellectual property subject to a licensing agreement, including: - the scope of rights granted under the license agreement and other interpretation-related issues;- the extent to which our product candidates, technology and processes infringe on intellectual property of the licensor that is not subject to the licensing agreement;- the sublicensing of patent and other rights under our collaborative development relationships;- our diligence obligations under the license agreement and what activities satisfy those diligence obligations;- the inventorship and ownership of inventions and know-how resulting from the joint creation or use of intellectual property by our licensors and us and our partners; and - the priority of invention of patented technology. In addition, the agreements under which we currently license intellectual property or technology from third parties are complex, and certain provisions in such agreements may be susceptible to multiple interpretations. The resolution of any contract interpretation disagreement that may arise could narrow what we believe to be the scope of our rights to the relevant intellectual property or technology, or increase what we believe to be our financial or other obligations under the relevant agreement, either of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects. Moreover, if disputes over intellectual property that we have licensed prevent or impair our ability to maintain our current licensing arrangements on commercially acceptable terms, we may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize the affected product candidates, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial conditions, results of operations, and prospects.

In the United States and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system that could prevent or delay marketing approval of our product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities and affect our ability to profitably sell any products for which we obtain marketing approval. We expect that current laws, as well as other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, may result in more rigorous coverage criteria and in additional downward pressure on the price that we may receive for any approved products. For example, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, or ACA, was passed in March 2010 and substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers, and continues to significantly impact the United States pharmaceutical industry. Since its enactment, there have been executive, judicial and political challenges to certain aspects of the ACA. For example, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, or the Tax Act, includes a provision repealing the tax-based shared responsibility payment imposed by the ACA on certain individuals who fail to maintain qualifying health coverage for all or part of a year that is commonly referred to as the "individual mandate." On June 17, 2021 the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed a challenge on procedural grounds that argued the ACA is unconstitutional in its entirety because the "individual mandate" was repealed by Congress. Thus, the ACA will remain in effect in its current form. Further, prior to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, on January 28, 2021, President Biden issued an executive order that initiated a special enrollment period for purposes of obtaining health insurance coverage through the ACA marketplace. The executive order also instructed certain governmental agencies to review and reconsider their existing policies and rules that limit access to healthcare, including among others, reexamining Medicaid demonstration projects and waiver programs that include work requirements, and policies that create unnecessary barriers to obtaining access to health insurance coverage through Medicaid or the ACA. On August 16, 2022, President Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, or IRA, into law, which among other things, extends enhanced subsidies for individuals purchasing health insurance coverage in ACA marketplaces through plan year 2025. The IRA also eliminates the "donut hole" under the Medicare Part D program beginning in 2025 by significantly lowering the beneficiary maximum out-of-pocket cost and creating a new manufacturer discount program. It is possible that the ACA will be subject to judicial or Congressional challenges in the future. It is unclear how any such challenges and the healthcare reform measures of the Biden administration will impact the ACA and our business. Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted. For example, in August 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, created measures for spending reductions by Congress. A Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, tasked with recommending a targeted deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion for the years 2012 through 2021, was unable to reach required goals, thereby triggering the legislation's automatic reduction to several government programs. This includes aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers of up to 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect in April 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, will remain in effect until 2031, with the exception of a temporary suspension from May 1, 2021 through March 31, 2022 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, unless additional Congressional action is taken. Under current legislation, the actual reduction in Medicare payments will vary from 1% in 2022 to up to 4% in the final fiscal year of this sequester. On March 11, 2021, President Biden signed the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 into law, which eliminates the statutory Medicaid drug rebate cap, currently set at 100% of a drug's average manufacturer price, for single source and innovator multiple source drugs, beginning January 1, 2024. In January 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, among other things, further reduced Medicare payments to certain providers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. There has been heightened governmental scrutiny in the United States of pharmaceutical pricing practices in light of the rising cost of prescription drugs and biologics. Such scrutiny has resulted in several recent congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for products. For example, the Trump administration used several means to propose or implement drug pricing reform, including through federal budget proposals, executive orders and policy initiatives. For example, in July 2021, the Biden administration released an executive order, "Promoting Competition in the American Economy," with multiple provisions aimed at prescription drugs. In response to Biden's executive order, on September 9, 2021, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, released a Comprehensive Plan for Addressing High Drug Prices that outlines principles for drug pricing reform and sets out a variety of potential legislative policies that Congress could pursue to advance these principles. Further, the IRA, among other things (i) directs HHS to negotiate the price of certain high-expenditure, single-source drugs and biologics covered under Medicare and (ii) imposes rebates under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation. These provisions will take effect progressively starting in fiscal year 2023, although they may be subject to legal challenges. Additionally, the Biden administration released an additional executive order on October 14, 2022, directing HHS to report on how the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation can be further leveraged to test new models for lowering drug costs for Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries. Any new laws or regulations that result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding could have a material adverse effect on customers for our products, if approved, and, accordingly, on our results of operations. We cannot predict what healthcare reform initiatives may be adopted in the future. However, we expect that the ACA, as well as other federal and state healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, may result in more rigorous coverage criteria, increased regulatory burdens and operating costs, decreased net revenue from our biopharmaceutical products, decreased potential returns from our development efforts, and additional downward pressure on the price that we receive for any approved product. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government healthcare programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from commercializing our products and being able to generate revenue, and we could be prevented from or significantly delayed in achieving profitability. In addition, there have been a number of other legislative and regulatory proposals aimed at changing the biopharmaceutical industry. For instance, the Drug Quality and Security Act of 2013 imposes obligations on manufacturers of biopharmaceutical products related to product tracking and tracing. Further, manufacturers have product investigation, quarantine, disposition, and notification responsibilities related to counterfeit, diverted, stolen, and intentionally adulterated products that would result in serious adverse health consequences of death to humans, as well as products that are the subject of fraudulent transactions or which are otherwise unfit for distribution such that they would be reasonably likely to result in serious health consequences or death. Compliance with the federal track and trace requirements may increase our operational expenses and impose significant administrative burdens. As a result of these and other new proposals, we may determine to change our current manner of operation, provide additional benefits or change our contract arrangements, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, stock price and prospects.

Our current and future arrangements with healthcare providers, third-party payors, customers, and others may expose us to broadly applicable healthcare fraud and abuse, patient privacy and security, and other healthcare laws, which may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we research, as well as, sell, market and distribute any products for which we obtain marketing approval. The applicable federal, state and foreign healthcare laws and regulations that may affect our ability to operate include, but are not limited to: The federal Anti-Kickback Statute, which prohibits, among other things, individuals and entities from knowingly and willfully soliciting, receiving, offering or paying any remuneration (including any kickback, bribe, or rebate), directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, in cash or in kind, to induce, or in return for, either the referral of an individual for, or the purchase, lease, order or recommendation of, any good, facility, item or service for which payment may be made, in whole or in part, under a federal healthcare program, such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs. The federal civil and criminal false claims laws, including, without limitation, the civil False Claims Act, and the federal civil monetary penalties law, which prohibit individuals or entities from, among other things, knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, false or fraudulent claims for payment of federal funds, and knowingly making, or causing to be made, a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim to avoid, decrease or conceal an obligation to pay money to the federal government. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, which prohibits, among other things, knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme or artifice to defraud any healthcare benefit program or obtain, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, any of the money or property owned by, or under the custody or control of, any healthcare benefit program, regardless of the payor (e.g., public or private), willfully obstructing a criminal investigation of a healthcare offense, and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up by any trick or device a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statements in connection with the delivery of, or payment for, healthcare benefits, items or services relating to healthcare matters. The federal physician payment transparency requirements, sometimes referred to as the Physician Payments Sunshine Act, created under the ACA and its implementing regulations, which require certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance Program (with certain exceptions) to report annually to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, information related to payments or other transfers of value made to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors), other healthcare professionals (such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners) and teaching hospitals, as well as ownership and investment interests held by such physicians and their immediate family members. HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Clinical Health Act of 2009, or HITECH, and their respective implementing regulations, which impose obligations on "covered entities," including certain healthcare providers, health plans, and healthcare clearinghouses, as well as their respective "business associates" that create, receive, maintain or transmit individually identifiable health information for or on behalf of a covered entity and their subcontractors that use, disclose or otherwise process individually identifiable health information, with respect to safeguarding the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information. Analogous state and foreign anti-kickback and false claims laws that may apply to sales or marketing arrangements and claims involving healthcare items or services reimbursed by non-governmental third-party payors, including private insurers, or that apply regardless of payor; state laws that require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry's voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government; state and local laws that require drug manufacturers to report information related to payments and other transfers of value to physicians and other healthcare providers or marketing expenditures; state laws that require the reporting of information related to drug pricing; state and local laws requiring the registration of pharmaceutical sales representatives; and state and foreign laws governing the privacy and security of health information in some circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts. If we or our operations are found to be in violation of any federal or state healthcare law, or any other governmental laws or regulations that apply to us, we may be subject to penalties, including significant civil, criminal, and administrative penalties, damages, monetary fines, disgorgement, imprisonment, suspension and debarment from government contracts, and refusal of orders under existing government contracts, exclusion from participation in U.S. federal or state health care programs, additional reporting requirements and/or oversight if we become subject to corporate integrity agreements or similar agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could materially adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our financial results. If any of the physicians or other healthcare providers or entities with whom we expect to do business is found not to be in compliance with applicable laws, it may be subject to significant criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including but not limited to, exclusions from participation in U.S. federal or state healthcare programs, which could also materially affect our business. Although an effective compliance program can mitigate the risk of investigation and prosecution for violations of these laws, the risks cannot be entirely eliminated. Moreover, achieving and sustaining compliance with such laws may prove costly. Any action against us for violation of these laws, even if we successfully defend against it, could cause us to incur significant legal expenses and divert our management's attention from the operation of our business.

Any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval will be subject to extensive and ongoing requirements of and review by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, including requirements related to the manufacturing processes, post-approval clinical data, labeling, packaging, distribution, adverse event reporting, storage, recordkeeping, export, import, advertising, marketing, and promotional activities for such product. These requirements further include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information, including manufacturing deviations and reports, registration and listing requirements, the payment of annual fees, continued compliance with cGMP requirements relating to manufacturing, quality control, quality assurance, and corresponding maintenance of records and documents, and good clinical practices, or GCPs, for any clinical trials that we conduct post-approval. The FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities will continue to closely monitor the safety profile of any product even after approval. If the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities become aware of new safety information after approval of any of our product candidates, they may withdraw approval, issue public safety alerts, require labeling changes or establishment of a REMS or similar strategy, impose significant restrictions on a product's indicated uses or marketing, or impose ongoing requirements for potentially costly post-approval studies or post-market surveillance. Any such restrictions could limit sales of the product. We and any of our suppliers or collaborators, including our contract manufacturers, could be subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA to monitor and ensure compliance with cGMPs and other FDA regulatory requirements. Application holders must further notify the FDA, and depending on the nature of the change, obtain FDA pre-approval for product and manufacturing changes. In addition, later discovery of previously unknown adverse events or that the product is less effective than previously thought or other problems with our products, manufacturers or manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements both before and after approval, may yield various negative results, including: - restrictions on manufacturing, distribution, or marketing of such products;- restrictions on the labeling, including required additional warnings, such as black boxed warnings, contraindications, precautions, and restrictions on the approved indication or use;- modifications to promotional pieces;- issuance of corrective information;- requirements to conduct post-marketing studies or other clinical trials;- clinical holds or termination of clinical trials;- requirements to establish or modify a REMS or similar strategy;- changes to the way the product candidate is administered;- liability for harm caused to patients or subjects;- reputational harm;- the product becoming less competitive;- warning, untitled, or cyber letters;- suspension of marketing or withdrawal of the products from the market;- regulatory authority issuance of safety alerts, Dear Healthcare Provider letters, press releases, or other communications containing warnings or other safety information about the product candidate;- refusal to approve pending applications or supplements to approved applications that we submit;- recalls of products;- fines, restitution or disgorgement of profits or revenues;- suspension or withdrawal of marketing approvals;- refusal to permit the import or export of our products;- product seizure or detention;- FDA debarment, suspension and debarment from government contracts, and refusal of orders under existing government contracts, exclusion from federal healthcare programs, consent decrees, or corporate integrity agreements; or - injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties, including imprisonment. Any of these events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of the particular product candidate, if approved, or could substantially increase the costs and expenses of commercializing such product, which in turn could delay or prevent us from generating significant revenues from its marketing and sale. Any of these events could further have other material and adverse effects on our operations and business and could adversely impact our business, financial condition, results of operations, stock price and prospects. The FDA's policies or those of comparable foreign regulatory authorities may change and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of our product candidates, limit the marketability of our product candidates, or impose additional regulatory obligations on us. Changes in medical practice and standard of care may also impact the marketability of our product candidates. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements, standards of care, or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any marketing approval that we may have obtained and be subject to regulatory enforcement action. Should any of the above actions take place, we could be prevented from or significantly delayed in achieving profitability. Further, the cost of compliance with post-approval regulations may have a negative effect on our operations and business and could adversely impact our business, financial condition, results of operations, stock price and prospects.

Obtaining and maintaining marketing approval of our product candidates in one jurisdiction would not guarantee that we will be able to obtain or maintain marketing approval in any other jurisdiction, while a failure or delay in obtaining marketing approval in one jurisdiction may have a negative effect on the marketing approval process in others. For example, even if the FDA grants marketing approval of a product candidate, comparable foreign regulatory authorities must also approve the manufacturing, marketing and promotion of the product candidate in those countries. Approval procedures vary among jurisdictions and can involve requirements and administrative review periods different from, and greater than, those in the United States, including additional preclinical studies or clinical trials, as clinical trials conducted in one jurisdiction may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions. In many jurisdictions outside the United States, a product candidate must be approved for reimbursement before it can be approved for sale in that jurisdiction. In some cases, the price that we intend to charge for our products is also subject to approval. Regulatory authorities in jurisdictions outside of the United States have requirements for approval of product candidates with which we must comply prior to marketing in those jurisdictions. Obtaining foreign marketing approvals and compliance with foreign regulatory requirements could result in significant delays, difficulties and costs for us and could delay or prevent the introduction of our products in certain countries. If we fail to comply with the regulatory requirements in international markets and/or receive applicable marketing approvals, our target market will be reduced and our ability to realize the full market potential of our product candidates will be harmed. If we obtain approval for any product candidate and ultimately commercialize that product in foreign markets, we would be subject to additional risks and uncertainties, including the burden of complying with complex and changing foreign regulatory, tax, accounting and legal requirements and the reduced protection of intellectual property rights in some foreign countries.

We must comply with requirements concerning advertising and promotion for any product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. Promotional communications with respect to therapeutics are subject to a variety of legal and regulatory restrictions and continuing review by the FDA, Department of Justice, Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Inspector General, state attorneys general, members of Congress, and the public. When the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities issue regulatory approval for a product candidate, the regulatory approval is limited to those specific uses and indications for which a product is approved. If we are not able to obtain FDA approval for desired uses or indications for our product candidates, we may not market or promote them for those indications and uses, referred to as off-label uses, and our business, financial condition, results of operations, stock price and prospects will be materially harmed. We also must sufficiently substantiate any claims that we make for any products we develop, including claims comparing our products to other companies' products, and must abide by the FDA's strict requirements regarding the content of promotion and advertising. Because regulatory authorities in the United States generally do not restrict or regulate the behavior of physicians in their choice of treatment within the practice of medicine, physicians may choose to prescribe products for uses that are not described in the product's labeling and for uses that differ from those tested in clinical trials and approved by the regulatory authorities. Regulatory authorities do, however, restrict communications by biopharmaceutical companies concerning off-label use. We are prohibited for marking and promoting the products for indications and uses that are not specifically approved by the FDA. If we are found to have impermissibly promoted any products that we may develop, we may become subject to significant liability and government fines. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations regarding product promotion, particularly those prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted a product may be subject to significant sanctions. The federal government has levied large civil and criminal fines against companies for alleged improper promotion and has enjoined several companies from engaging in off-label promotion. The FDA has also requested that companies enter into consent decrees or permanent injunctions under which specified promotional conduct is changed or curtailed. In the United States, engaging in the impermissible promotion of our products, following approval, for off-label uses can also subject us to false claims and other litigation under federal and state statutes. These include fraud and abuse and consumer protection laws, which can lead to civil and criminal penalties and fines, agreements with governmental authorities that materially restrict the manner in which we promote or distribute therapeutic products and conduct our business. These restrictions could include corporate integrity agreements, suspension or exclusion from participation in federal and state healthcare programs, and suspension and debarment from government contracts and refusal of orders under existing government contracts. These False Claims Act lawsuits against manufacturers of drugs and biologics have increased significantly in volume and breadth, leading to several substantial civil and criminal settlements, up to $3.0 billion, pertaining to certain sales practices and promoting off-label uses. In addition, False Claims Act lawsuits may expose manufacturers to follow-on claims by private payers based on fraudulent marketing practices. This growth in litigation has increased the risk that a biopharmaceutical company will have to defend a false claim action, pay settlement fines or restitution, as well as criminal and civil penalties, agree to comply with burdensome reporting and compliance obligations, and be excluded from Medicare, Medicaid, or other federal and state healthcare programs. If we do not lawfully promote our approved products, if any, we may become subject to such litigation and, if we do not successfully defend against such actions, those actions may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, stock price and prospects. In the United States, the promotion of biopharmaceutical products is subject to additional FDA requirements and restrictions on promotional statements. If after one or more of our product candidates obtains marketing approval the FDA determines that our promotional activities violate its regulations and policies pertaining to product promotion, it could request that we modify our promotional materials or subject us to regulatory or other enforcement actions, including issuance of warning letters or untitled letters, suspension or withdrawal of an approved product from the market, requests for recalls, payment of civil fines, disgorgement of money, imposition of operating restrictions, injunctions or criminal prosecution, and other enforcement actions. Similarly, industry codes in foreign jurisdictions may prohibit companies from engaging in certain promotional activities and regulatory agencies in various countries may enforce violations of such codes with civil penalties. If we become subject to regulatory and enforcement actions our business, financial condition, results of operations, stock price and prospects will be materially harmed.

In November 2022, along with our portfolio reprioritization, we announced a reduction in workforce by approximately 25% in connection with the streamlining of our business to prioritize and focus on our lead asset, ONCR-021. The reduction in force was a component of our broader efforts to materially reduce our research and development expenses by focusing on key milestones and to limit progression of other costs to track our top line performance. We may not realize, in full or in part, the anticipated benefits, savings and improvements in our operating structure from our restructuring and reprioritization efforts. If we are unable to realize the expected operational efficiencies and cost savings, our results of operation and financial condition would be adversely affected. We cannot guarantee that we will not have to undertake additional workforce reductions or restructuring activities in the future. Furthermore, our strategic restructuring plan may be disruptive to our operations. For example, our workforce reductions could yield unanticipated consequences, such as attrition beyond planned staff reductions, increased difficulties in our day-to-day operations and reduced employee morale. If employees who were not affected by the reduction in force seek alternate employment, this could result in us seeking contract support at unplanned additional expense or harm our productivity. Our workforce reductions could also harm our ability to attract and retain qualified management, scientific, clinical, and manufacturing personnel who are critical to our business. Any failure to attract or retain qualified personnel could prevent us from successfully developing ONCR-021 and other product candidates in the future.

We are exposed to the risk of fraud and other forms of misconduct by employees, independent contractors, consultants, commercial partners, principal investigators, CMOs or CROs, and other personnel associated with our business. This misconduct could include intentional, reckless, negligent, or unintentional actions, including failures to: comply with applicable FDA regulations, provide accurate information to the FDA, properly calculate pricing information required by federal programs, report financial information or data accurately or disclose unauthorized activities to us. This misconduct could also involve the improper use or misrepresentation of information obtained in the course of clinical trials, which could result in regulatory sanctions and serious harm to our reputation. We are exposed to similar personnel risks under applicable anti-corruption, fraud and abuse laws, as well as securities laws and regulations applicable to publicly traded companies, including insider trading laws. It is not always possible to identify and deter this type of misconduct, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to be in compliance with such laws or regulations. Moreover, it is possible for a whistleblower to pursue a False Claims Act case against us even if the government considers the claim unmeritorious and/or declines to intervene, which could require us to incur costs defending against such a claim. In addition, we are subject to the risk that a person or government could allege such fraud or other misconduct, even if none occurred. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations, stock price and prospects, including the imposition of significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, monetary fines, disgorgement, possible exclusion from participation in U.S. federal healthcare programs, integrity oversight and reporting obligations to resolve allegations of non-compliance, imprisonment, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, and curtailment of our operations.

We rely, and will rely, on third-party CROs, study sites and others to conduct, supervise, and monitor our preclinical studies and clinical trials for our product candidates and do not currently plan to independently conduct preclinical studies or clinical trials of any product candidates. We expect to continue to rely on third parties, such as CROs, clinical data management organizations, medical institutions, and clinical investigators, to conduct our preclinical studies and clinical trials. Although we have agreements governing their activities, we have limited influence over their actual performance and control only certain aspects of their activities. The failure of these third parties to successfully carry out their contractual duties or meet expected deadlines could substantially harm our business because we may be delayed in completing or unable to complete the studies required to support future approval of our product candidates, or we may not obtain marketing approval for or commercialize our product candidates in a timely manner or at all. Moreover, these agreements might terminate for a variety of reasons, including a failure to perform by the third parties. If we need to enter into alternative arrangements our product development activities would be delayed and our business, financial condition, results of operations, stock price and prospects may be materially harmed. Our reliance on these third parties for development activities will reduce our control over these activities. Nevertheless, we are responsible for ensuring that each of our studies is conducted in accordance with the applicable protocol, legal, regulatory, and scientific standards and our reliance on third parties does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities. For example, we will remain responsible for ensuring that each of our trials is conducted in accordance with the general investigational plan and protocols for the trial. We must also ensure that our preclinical trials are conducted in accordance with the FDA's Good Laboratory Practice, or GLP, regulations, as appropriate. Moreover, the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities require us to comply with standards, commonly referred to as GCPs for conducting, recording, and reporting the results of clinical trials to assure that data and reported results are credible and accurate and that the rights, integrity, and confidentiality of trial participants are protected. Regulatory authorities enforce these requirements through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, clinical investigators, and trial sites. If we or any of our third parties fail to comply with applicable GCPs or other regulatory requirements, we or they may be subject to enforcement or other legal actions, the data generated in our trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to perform additional studies. In addition, we will be required to report certain financial interests of our third-party investigators if these relationships exceed certain financial thresholds or meet other criteria. The FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may question the integrity of the data from those clinical trials conducted by investigators who may have conflicts of interest. We cannot provide assurance that upon inspection by a given regulatory authority, such regulatory authority will determine that any of our trials complies with the applicable regulatory requirements. In addition, our clinical trials must be conducted with product candidates that were produced under cGMP regulations. Failure to comply with these regulations may require us to repeat clinical trials, which would delay the regulatory approval process. We also are required to register certain clinical trials and post the results of certain completed clinical trials on a government-sponsored database, ClinicalTrials.gov, within specified timeframes. Failure to do so can result in enforcement actions and adverse publicity. The third parties with which we work may also have relationships with other entities, some of which may be our competitors, for whom they may also be conducting trials or other therapeutic development activities that could harm our competitive position. In addition, such third parties are not our employees, and except for remedies available to us under our agreements with such third parties we cannot control whether or not they devote sufficient time and resources to our ongoing clinical, non-clinical, and preclinical programs. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties, meet expected deadlines or conduct our preclinical studies or clinical trials in accordance with regulatory requirements or our stated protocols, if they need to be replaced or if the quality or accuracy of the data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our protocols, regulatory requirements or for other reasons, our trials may be repeated, extended, delayed, or terminated; we may not be able to obtain, or may be delayed in obtaining, marketing approvals for our product candidates; we may not be able to, or may be delayed in our efforts to, successfully commercialize our product candidates; or we or they may be subject to regulatory enforcement actions. As a result, our results of operations and the commercial prospects for our product candidates would be harmed, our costs could increase and our ability to generate revenues could be delayed. To the extent we are unable to successfully identify and manage the performance of third-party service providers in the future, our business, financial condition, results of operations, stock price and prospects may be materially harmed. If any of our relationships with these third parties terminate, we may not be able to enter into arrangements with alternative providers or to do so on commercially reasonable terms. Switching or adding additional third parties involves additional cost and requires management time and focus. In addition, there is a natural transition period when a new third party commences work. As a result, delays could occur, which could compromise our ability to meet our desired development timelines. We will also rely on other third parties to store and distribute our product candidates for the clinical trials that we conduct. Any performance failure on the part of our distributors could delay clinical development, marketing approval, or commercialization of our product candidates, which could result in additional losses and deprive us of potential product revenue.

We currently do not have a commercial infrastructure for the marketing, sale, and distribution of any products that we may develop. If and when our product candidates receive marketing approval, we intend to commercialize our product candidates on our own or in collaboration with others and potentially with pharmaceutical or biotechnology partners in other geographies. In order to commercialize our products, we must build our marketing, sales, and distribution capabilities or make arrangements with third parties to perform these services. We may not be successful in doing so. Should we decide to move forward in developing our own marketing capabilities, we may incur expenses prior to product launch or even approval in order to recruit a sales force and develop a marketing and sales infrastructure. If a commercial launch is delayed as a result of the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authority requirements or other reasons, we would incur these expenses prior to being able to realize any revenue from sales of our product candidates. Even if we are able to effectively hire a sales force and develop a marketing and sales infrastructure, our sales force and marketing teams may not be successful in commercializing our product candidates. This may be costly, and our investment would be lost if we cannot retain or reposition our sales and marketing personnel. We may also or alternatively decide to collaborate with third-party marketing and sales organizations to commercialize any approved product candidates, in which event, our ability to generate product revenues may be limited. To the extent we rely on third parties to commercialize any products for which we obtain regulatory approval, we may receive less revenues than if we commercialized these products ourselves, which could materially harm our prospects. In addition, we would have less control over the sales efforts of any other third parties involved in our commercialization efforts, and could be held liable if they failed to comply with applicable legal or regulatory requirements. We have no prior experience in the marketing, sale, and distribution of biopharmaceutical products, and there are significant risks involved in building and managing a commercial infrastructure. The establishment and development of commercial capabilities, including compliance plans, to market any products we may develop will be expensive and time consuming and could delay any product launch, and we may not be able to successfully develop this capability. We will have to compete with other biopharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, including oncology-focused companies, to recruit, hire, train, manage, and retain marketing and sales personnel, which is expensive and time consuming and could delay any product launch. Developing our sales capabilities may also divert resources and management attention away from product development. In the event we are unable to develop a marketing and sales infrastructure, we may not be able to commercialize our product candidates, which could limit our ability to generate product revenues and materially harm our business, financial condition, results of operations, stock price and prospects. Factors that may inhibit our efforts to commercialize our product candidates include: - the inability to recruit, train, manage, and retain adequate numbers of effective sales and marketing personnel;- the inability of sales personnel to obtain access to physicians or educate adequate numbers of physicians on the benefits of prescribing our product candidates;- our inability to effectively oversee a geographically dispersed sales and marketing team;- the costs associated with training personnel, including sales and marketing personnel, on compliance matters and monitoring their actions;- an inability to secure coverage and adequate reimbursement by third-party payors, including government and private health plans;- the unwillingness of patients to pay out-of-pocket in the absence of coverage and adequate reimbursement from third-party payors;- the clinical indications for which the products are approved and the claims that we may make for the products;- limitations or warnings, including distribution or use restrictions, contained in the products' approved labeling;- any distribution and use restrictions imposed by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities or to which we agree as part of a mandatory REMS or voluntary risk management plan;- liability for our personnel, including sales or marketing personnel, who fail to comply with applicable law;- the lack of complementary products to be offered by sales personnel, which may put us at a competitive disadvantage relative to companies with more extensive product lines; and - unforeseen costs and expenses associated with creating an independent sales and marketing organization or engaging a contract sales organization.

In both domestic and foreign markets, sales of our products will depend in part upon the availability of coverage and adequate reimbursement from third-party payors. Such third-party payors include government health programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, managed care providers, private health insurers, and other organizations. Coverage decisions may depend upon clinical and economic standards that disfavor new therapeutic products when more established or lower cost therapeutic alternatives are already available or subsequently become available, even if our products are alone in a class. Third-party payors establish reimbursement levels. Therefore, even if coverage is provided, the approved reimbursement amount may not be high enough to allow us to establish or maintain a market share sufficient to realize a sufficient return on our or their investments. If reimbursement is not available, or is available only to limited levels, our product candidates may be competitively disadvantaged, and we may not be able to successfully commercialize our product candidates. Alternatively, securing favorable reimbursement terms may require us to compromise pricing and prevent us from realizing an adequate margin over cost. There is significant uncertainty related to third-party payor coverage and reimbursement of newly approved therapeutics. Marketing approvals, pricing, and reimbursement for new therapeutic products vary widely from country to country. Current and future legislation may significantly change the approval requirements in ways that could involve additional costs and cause delays in obtaining approvals. Some countries require approval of the sale price of a therapeutic before it can be marketed. In many countries, the pricing review period begins after marketing or product licensing approval is granted. In some foreign markets, prescription biopharmaceutical pricing remains subject to continuing governmental control even after initial approval is granted. As a result, we might obtain marketing approval for a product in a particular country, but then be subject to price regulations that delay commercial launch of the product, possibly for lengthy time periods, which may negatively impact the revenues we are able to generate from the sale of the product in that country. Adverse pricing limitations may hinder our ability to recoup our investment in one or more product candidates, even if our product candidates obtain marketing approval. Our ability to commercialize our product candidates will depend in part on the extent to which coverage and reimbursement for these products and related treatments will be available from third-party payors. The healthcare industry is acutely focused on cost containment, both in the United States and elsewhere. Third-party payors, whether foreign or domestic, or governmental or commercial, are developing increasingly sophisticated methods of controlling healthcare costs. Several third-party payors are requiring that companies provide them with predetermined discounts from list prices, are using preferred drug lists to leverage greater discounts in competitive classes, are disregarding therapeutic differentiators within classes, are challenging the prices charged for therapeutics, and are negotiating price concessions based on performance goals. In addition, third-party payors are increasingly requiring higher levels of evidence of the benefits and clinical outcomes of new technologies, benchmarking against other therapies, seeking performance-based discounts, and challenging the prices charged. We cannot be sure that coverage will be available for any product candidate that we commercialize and, if available, that the reimbursement rates will be adequate. If payors subject our product candidates to maximum payment amounts, or impose limitations that make it difficult to obtain reimbursement, providers may choose to use therapies which are less expensive when compared to our product candidates. Additionally, if payors require high copayments, beneficiaries may seek alternative therapies. We may need to conduct post-marketing studies in order to demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of any products to the satisfaction of hospitals, other target customers and their third-party payors. Such studies might require us to commit a significant amount of management time and financial and other resources. Our products might not ultimately be considered cost-effective. Adequate third-party coverage and reimbursement might not be available to enable us to maintain price levels sufficient to realize an appropriate return on investment in product development. In addition, in the United States, no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for products exists among third-party payors. Therefore, coverage and reimbursement for products can differ significantly from payor to payor. Further, we believe that future coverage and reimbursement will likely be subject to increased restrictions both in the United States and in international markets. Third-party coverage and reimbursement for our products or product candidates for which we receive regulatory approval may not be available or adequate in either the United States or international markets, which could have a negative effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, stock price and prospects. There may also be delays in obtaining coverage and reimbursement for newly approved therapeutics, and coverage may be more limited than the indications for which the product is approved by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. Such delays have made it increasingly common for manufacturers to provide newly approved drugs to patients experiencing coverage delays or disruption at no cost for a limited period in order to ensure that patients are able to access the drug. Moreover, eligibility for reimbursement does not imply that any therapeutic will be paid for in all cases or at a rate that covers our costs, including research, development, manufacture, sale, and distribution. Interim reimbursement levels for new therapeutics, if applicable, may also not be sufficient to cover our costs and may only be temporary. Reimbursement rates may vary, by way of example, according to the use of the product and the clinical setting in which it is used. Reimbursement rates may also be based on reimbursement levels already set for lower cost products or may be incorporated into existing payments for other services. An inability to promptly obtain coverage and adequate reimbursement from third-party payors for any of our product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval could have a material adverse effect on our operating results, our ability to raise capital needed to commercialize products and our overall financial condition.