INTENSITY THERAPEUTICS, INC. 10-K

Item 1. Business OVERVIEW Intensity Therapeutics, Inc. is a late-stage clinical biotechnology company passionately committed to applying scientific leadership in the field of localized cancer reduction leading to anti-cancer immune activation. Our new approach involves the direct injection into tumors of a unique product created from our DfuseRx SM discovery platform. Intratumoral (“IT”) treatment, or treatment designed to contain a drug inside a tumor without spreading to the rest of the body, has been an objective of clinicians since discovery of chemotherapeutic agents. The challenge with IT treatment approaches is that a tumor’s lipophilic, high fat, dense and pressurized microenvironment is incompatible with and does not absorb water-based products. We believe that this drug delivery challenge limits the effectiveness of prior and current IT treatments, which involve injecting aqueous drugs into a tumor without sufficient consideration of the tumor environment (regardless of the drug’s mechanism or approach, i.e. the stimulation of an inflammatory response or efforts to attract immune cells into a hostile live tumor). Accordingly, there remains a continued unmet need for the development of direct IT therapies for solid tumors that provide high local killing efficacy coupled with nontoxic systemic anti-cancer effects. We believe we have created a product candidate with the necessary chemistry to overcome this local delivery challenge. Evidence shows the mechanism of tumor killing achieved by our drug candidate also leads to systemic immune activation and T-cell repertoire expansion in certain cancers. Our platform creates patented anti-cancer product candidates comprising active anti-cancer agents and amphiphilic molecules. Amphiphilic molecules have two distinct components: one part is soluble in water and the other is soluble in fat or oils. When an amphiphilic compound is mixed with therapeutic agents, such as chemotherapies, the agents also become soluble in both fat and water. Our product candidates include novel formulations consisting of potent anti-cancer drugs mixed together with these amphiphilic agents. Our lead product candidate, INT230-6, is primarily comprised of three components: (i) cisplatin, a proven anti-cancer cytotoxic agent, (ii) vinblastine sulfate, also a proven anti-cancer cytotoxic agent, and (iii) an amphiphilic molecule (“SHAO”) which enables the two cytotoxic agents to disperse through a tumor and diffuse into cancer cells following a direct intratumoral injection. These three components are mixed and combined into one vial at a fixed ratio. Cisplatin and vinblastine sulfate are both generic and available to purchase in bulk supply commercially. The United States Food & Drug Administration (the “FDA”) has approved both drugs as intravenous agents for several types of cancers. Cisplatin was first approved in 1978 for testicular cancer, and is also approved in ovarian and bladder cancer. The drug is also used widely in several other cancers including pancreatic and bile duct cancer. Vinblastine sulfate was first approved in 1965, and is also approved in generalized Hodgkin’s disease, lymphocytic lymphoma, advanced carcinoma of the testis, and certain types of sarcoma. The drug is also used in breast and lung cancer. In 2017, we initiated a Phase 1/2 dose escalation study (“IT-01”) using INT230-6 in the United States under an investigational new drug application (“IND”) authorized by the FDA and in Canada under a preclinical trial application (“CTA”) approved by Health Canada (“HC”). The study tested the safety and efficacy of INT230-6 in patients with refractory or metastatic cancers, and enrolled 110 patients in three arms: (i) INT230-6 used as a monotherapy, (ii) INT230-6 in combination with Merck’s Keytruda® (pembrolizumab), and (iii) INT230-6 in combination with Bristol Myers Squibb’s (“BMS”) Yervoy® (ipilimumab). We completed enrollment of IT-01 in June 2022, locked the IT-01 database in February 2023 and finalized the clinical study report in September 2023. We delivered the combination-specific reports and other information to our partners in the fourth quarter of 2023. In 2021, we initiated a Phase 2 randomized study that tested INT230-6 as a monotherapy treatment in early-stage breast cancer for patients not suitable for presurgical chemotherapy (the “INVINCIBLE-2 Study” or “IT-02”). The study enrolled 91 subjects and the database was locked in November 2023. The key endpoint was whether INT230-6 could reduce a patient’s cancer compared to no treatment, which is the current standard of care (“SOC”), or a saline injection. Substantial reduction of cancer presurgically in aggressive forms of cancer has been shown to correlate with delaying disease recurrence. Other endpoints of the INVINCIBLE 2 Study were to understand the percentage of necrosis that can be achieved in tumors for a given dose, especially tumors larger than 2 centimeters in longest diameter, and whether either a local or whole-body anti-cancer immune response could be induced. The INVINCIBLE-2 Study demonstrated a high order of necrosis in presurgical breast cancer tumors in the period from diagnosis to surgery, with some patients experiencing greater than 95% necrosis of the tumor. Data from the INVINCIBLE-2 Study demonstrated that INT230-6 had a favorable safety profile. An increase of certain types of immune cells (CD4+ and NK T-cells) in the tumor and blood was also shown. Additionally, there was an increase in the T-cells repertoire relative to control. 2 Table of Contents In mid-2024, we intend on initiating a Phase 3 open-label, randomized study testing the superiority INT230-6 used as monotherapy compared to the standard of care drugs in 2nd and 3rd line treatment for certain soft tissue sarcoma subtypes (the “INVINCIBLE-3 Study” or “IT-03”). We plan to enroll 333 patients with an endpoint of overall survival. Also in mid-2024, we intend on initiating a Phase 2/3 program testing INT230-6 in combination with the SOC treatment (chemotherapy/immunotherapy) compared to SOC alone in women with triple negative breast cancer in presurgical (neoadjuvant) breast cancer (“IT-04”). The endpoint for the Phase 2 portion of the trial is the change in the pathological complete response rate for the combination compared to the SOC alone. We expect to begin the Phase 2 portion of the study in mid-2024, which will provide data to size the Phase 3 portion of the study. We have also successfully developed Phase 3 quality analytical methods for the three INT230-6 components and successfully manufactured a large-scale batch of INT230-6. In a meeting with the FDA in the fourth quarter of 2023, we agreed on a chemical manufacture and control (“CMC”) plan for Phase 3 and product registration for our three key ingredients and INT230-6. If we successfully execute the agreed upon plan, the CMC portion of a New Drug Application (“NDA”) should be acceptable to the FDA for product approval and registration (subject to final NDA review). Our Pipeline Our pipeline is focused on realizing the full potential of INT230-6 in metastatic and local disease settings to help cancer patients with major unmet medical need. We are exploring the use of INT230-6 across multiple cancer types (including those types that do not normally respond to immunotherapy) and “hot” tumors (cancer types that are more likely to respond to immunotherapy). Based on data generated in IT-01 and the INVINCIBLE-2 studies, our current forward pipeline consists of: • A Phase 3 open-label, randomized study testing the superiority INT230-6 used as monotherapy compared to the standard of care drugs in 2nd and 3rd line treatment for certain soft tissue sarcoma subtypes. For every three patients enrolled, two will receive INT230-6 and one will receive SOC drug(s) chosen by the investigators depending on the type of sarcoma. The Company is working with several contracted vendors to initiate the Phase 3 trial. We plan to enroll 333 patients with an endpoint of overall survival. In September 2023, we announced that the FDA granted orphan drug designation for the treatment of soft tissue sarcoma to the three active moieties comprising INT230-6: cisplatin, vinblastine sulfate, and the diffusion enhancer SHAO. • A Phase 2/3 study testing INT230-6 in combination with the SOC treatment (chemotherapy/immunotherapy) compared to the SOC alone in women with triple negative breast cancer in presurgical (neoadjuvant) breast cancer. The endpoint for the Phase 2 portion of the trial is the change in the pathological complete response rate for the combination compared to the SOC alone. • A Phase 2/3 clinical study in metastatic triple negative breast cancer, contingent on raising additional capital to fund the study. In 2018, we received Fast Track Designation by the FDA to use INT230-6 in metastatic triple negative breast cancer for patients whose cancer has progressed following one or two prior drug treatments. In addition, we plan to continue to research and test new product candidates with improved immune activating properties. Through research studies conducted in animals, we have identified a promising product candidate currently designated as INT33X. We believe that the INT33X product candidate development program will most likely lead to the creation of new patents and other intellectual property. As part of our development program for INT33X, we will first conclude our on-going research studies in mice, after which we will finalize the exact product candidate composition before proceeding with clinical development. 3 Table of Contents Our Partnerships • The National Cancer Institute (NCI). In May 2014, we were awarded a Collaboration Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) by the National Institute of Health’s National Cancer Institute. The research sought to understand the mechanism of action of INT230-6 and test the drug in several models in the NCI’s laboratories. The program resulted in a peer-reviewed publication titled Intratumorally delivered formulation, INT230-6, containing potent anti-cancer agents induces protective T-cell immunity and memory , which appeared in the journal OncoImmunology 2019 Vol 8 No 10; 15 and that was jointly authored by us and the NCI. The data for the paper was generated entirely by the NCI in their laboratories and reported the critical role of T-cells in promoting complete tumor regression using our drug candidate and that INT230-6 was synergistic with anti-PD-1 (programmed death receptor 1) and anti-Cytotoxic T Lymphocyte-Associated Antigen 4 (CTLA-4) antibodies. • Merck. In June 2019, we entered into an agreement with Merck to evaluate the combination of INT230-6 with Keytruda ® (pembrolizumab), Merck’s anti-PD-1 therapy, in patients with advanced solid malignancies, including pancreatic, bile duct, squamous cell and non-MSI high colon cancers. In our IT-01 study, we treated 30 patients with this combination arm. After nearly two years of dosing a combination of Keytruda and INT230-6, patients showed comparable safety to INT230-6 monotherapy. In addition, only three grade 3 immune-related adverse events reported in patients receiving the combination of INT230-6 with Keytruda. We completed study dosing in December 2022, finalized the clinical study report, tables, listings and figures for the Keytruda cohorts and provided the study information to Merck in December 2023. • Bristol Myers Squibb. In April 2020, we entered into an agreement with BMS to evaluate the safety and efficacy of INT230-6 with Yervoy ® (ipilimumab), BMS’s CTLA-4 immune checkpoint inhibitor, in patients with breast, liver, and advanced sarcoma cancer. In our IT-01 study, we treated 18 patients in this combination arm, and there was only one grade 3 immune-related adverse event (colitis) reported. We completed study dosing in December 2022, finalized the clinical study report, tables, listings and figures for the Yervoy cohorts and provided the study information to BMS in December 2023. Our Clinical Data INT230-6 has already generated anti-cancer evidence of activity as a single agent in clinical studies. Localized and abscopal effects have been observed in several patients. Tumor regressions with killing of the cancer cells is widely observed in injected lesions. Many patients who have exhausted all approved treatments for their types of cancer benefited from our product candidate. Our clinicians have reported tumor stabilization, tumor shrinkage, long periods without new tumors forming, size reductions of uninjected tumors and a reduction in disease symptoms. These results have been observed in combination with lower toxicities over a period of several months and post-treatment. • Increased Survival Observed in Metastatic Disease. Preliminary data presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) and the Connective Tissue Oncology Society (“CTOS”) for sarcoma in 2022 and 2023 indicated that patients receiving INT230-6 appear to live longer compared to historical data for subjects in phase 1/2 sarcoma studies. • Acceptable Safety Profile of the New Drug/Treatment Approach to Date. During the IT-01 study there were 820 injections of INT230-6 into 238 tumors, including 502 injections into visceral tumors deep in the body. Injection locations include the pancreas, liver, lung, and lymph nodes. No maximum tolerated dose had been reached. In our study IT-01 in metastatic patients, most adverse events were minor grade 1 or 2; a total of 15 patients out of 110 (13.6%) had a grade 3 even related to the drug regimen (INT230-6 alone or combined with the two immunotherapies). The primary grade 3 events were pain, anemia, rash, fatigue vomiting, dehydration and dizziness. There was 1 laboratory-based grade 4 adverse event that resolved quickly, a decrease in the number of neutrophils, the most common type of white blood cell that contributes toward the healing of damaged tissues and resolving infections. There were no grade 5 adverse events. Please see Table 1 and 2 in the “ Results from IT-01 Phase 1/2 Clinical Trial ” portion of our “ Business ” section on page 67 of this report for more information. We believe the safety profile consisted of mainly low grade related adverse events because the drug primarily stays in the tumor and the potent agents did not travel throughout the body. Measurement of the 4 Table of Contents amount of the drugs seen in the blood (pharmacokinetics or PK) indicated that more than 95% of the drug that was dosed remained in the tumor. Our Manufacturing Capabilities We work with clinical manufacturing organizations. In the fourth quarter of 2023, we successfully developed the Phase 3 quality analytical methods for measurement of the key INT230-6 components, validated those methods and manufactured our fourth current Good Manufacturing Practice (“cGMP”) clinical batch of the drug product that met specifications. During the fourth quarter, the Company requested and was granted a meeting that was held with the FDA to review the INT230-6 CMC for INT230-6. The CMC discussion focused on the tasks necessary to initiate the Phase 3 study and future product registration as part of a potential New Drug Application (NDA). During the meeting, the Company and the FDA agreed upon a plan for the CMC set of activities for the active pharmaceutical ingredients and the drug product (INT230-6) necessary for the NDA. To commence the Phase 3 sarcoma program, we engaged contract research organizations to help manage the Phase 3 sarcoma study. We believe that INVINCIBLE-3 will be the first local therapy (though with systemic immune activating properties) to be tested as a single agent in metastatic disease compared to active SOC IV or oral agents. Our Proprietary Drug Discovery platform, DfuseRx SM Since our inception, we have conducted research using our discovery platform. Our technology platform allows us to identify novel product formulations and test the products’ activity in animal or test tube models of cancer. Using our platform technology, we evaluated several potential formulations comprising various amphiphilic molecules that act as cancer cell penetration enhancers. We tested formulations using our technology with many potent, anti-cancer drugs (with different mechanisms of action) in various combinations under several conditions to discover our lead product candidate, INT230-6. Our Strategy We believe our treatment approach may overcome some of the inherent problems of treating cancer with less toxicity. We intend to apply our deep understanding of our novel drug delivery technology to create a range of new direct killing and immune-activating products candidates while focusing on our lead clinical programs. If successful, we hope to fundamentally change the way cancer is treated for multiple cancer types in both the metastatic and presurgical disease settings. We seek to build a company that develops and commercializes a new medicine and treatment methodology. By applying a disciplined focus on product development, we seek to transform the lives of cancer patients and change the very essence of cancer treatment. Our objective is for patients to overcome their cancer without harm, to live a long life with high quality and to eliminate the fear of disease recurrence. We maintain a culture of high integrity that embraces the patient and their caregivers. A simple strategy: taking care of the patient will benefit all stakeholders. Key elements of our strategy include: • To focus our resources to aggressively pursue the research and development of our novel medicine to transform patient lives. • To always remember that taking care of and benefiting the patient is the most important element to being successful. • To effectively manage costs by outsourcing research and development to qualified, academic, private or government laboratories to leverage third-party expertise, while maintaining internal know-how, expertise and intellectual property. • To build an internal team of experienced industry veterans that can work independently and who know how to get the product development job done. • To create a large body of rigorous data, publications, presentations, collaborations and training materials about the new product candidates. • To continuously communicate to the medical community and patients of the power of our new approach. • To continue our commitment to precision medicine and personalized care for each and every patient. 5 Table of Contents • To assure that our technology is fully understood, explored, and used as designed. Market Opportunities for Our Product Candidates The development of a tumor is a complex biological process involving uncontrolled cellular division and growth. Cancer arises from mutations in our own cells. When such cellular alterations happen the immune system often cannot distinguish between cancer and healthy cells. Cancer cells adapt to evade and thwart immune cells in several ways and can thus grow unchecked. According to the American Cancer Society, in 2024 there will be an estimated 2 million new cancer cases diagnosed and over 611,000 cancer deaths in the United States. Cancer is the second most common cause of death in the U.S. after heart disease. According to the American Society of Clinical Oncology’s journal, the ASCO Post, the national cost of cancer care in the United States is expected to rise to $246 billion by 2030. As healthcare costs in general continue to escalate, expenses due to cancer are a major contributing factor. Metastatic Disease The overwhelming, unmet medical need is better treatment of solid tumors; 90% of cancer patient deaths are due to solid tumors. Unfortunately, even with the best new therapeutic agents, the long-term survival rates for inoperable or metastatic cancer are extremely low (often single digits) and toxicity (the collateral damage to the patient’s health) is debilitating. Five-year Survival Percentage Rates for Metastatic, Late-Stage Cancers Cancer type 5 Year Survival (%)* Cancer type 5 Year Survival (%)* Breast 29 Ovarian 30 Colon/rectal 15 Pancreas 3 Esophagus 5 Prostate 30 Kidney 14 Sarcoma 16 Larynx 34 Testis 95 Liver 3 Thyroid 53 Lung/Bronchus 6 Urinary bladder 6 Melanoma (skin) 30 Uterine cervix 18 Oral cavity 40 Uterine corpus 16 ____________ * For cancers that have moved to distal sites Data sources for the above table: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results National Cancer Institute, SEER 5-Year Relative Survival Rates, 2011 – 2017 In late-stage, metastatic disease, tumors often become resistant to all therapies, even after the agents have provided some efficacy benefit. The reality today for many cancer types is that if the disease is detected late, most treatments are highly toxic and few of today’s approaches provide patients with much hope of long-term survival. Even with good outcomes, whether by surgical, chemical, radiative, immunological or ablative methods, cancer treatments are invasive, have severe side effects, damage the body and are mentally demanding on patients and their families. Local Disease Today, the annual number of interventional oncology procedures in the U.S. alone are estimated in the millions. For example, the majority of breast cancer tumors identified are local to the breast or are regional. As a result, there are 170,000 lumpectomies performed in the U.S. each year. Dr. Roshni Rao, Chief, Breast surgery program, at New York-Presbyterian/Columbia University Medical Center wrote in the Cancer Letter that “although lumpectomy is the best option for many breast cancer patients, with 170,000 procedures performed annually, it is not perfect. All too often, a post-operative pathology report shows that while the surgeon may have removed the entire tumor, a second surgical procedure is needed to clean up lingering cancer cells. Known as re-excision, it occurs in roughly 20% to 25% of cases, on average. It is 6 Table of Contents critical for surgeons and their patients to have access to the latest innovations, once demonstrated effective by clinical research, be used wherever and whenever possible.” Our drug candidate’s potential to kill cancer quickly prior to surgery and engage an anti-cancer immune response may provide a higher percentage of patients a greater five-year event-free survival for a number of tumor types. Breast Cancer About 1 in 8 U.S. women (about 13%) will develop invasive breast cancer over the course of her lifetime. In 2024, there will be an estimated 313,510 new cases of invasive breast cancer diagnosed in women; 2790 new cases diagnosed in men, and an additional 56,500 new cases of ductal carcinoma in situ diagnoses in women. (Siegel et al., 2024). Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer among American women. Breast cancer became the most common cancer globally as of 2021, accounting for 12% of all new annual cancer cases worldwide, according to the World Health Organization. Approximately 11 – 17% of breast cancers test negative for estrogen receptors, progesterone receptors, and excess human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) protein, qualifying them as triple negative (“TNBC”). TNBC is considered to be more aggressive and have a poorer prognosis than other types of breast cancer, mainly because there are fewer available targeted medicines especially for women have tumors above 2 cm in longest diameter. Patients typically receive chemotherapy. According to a study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, patients who fail two lines of therapy for TNBC typically progress within nine weeks. Those who have failed three lines progress within four weeks. Sarcoma Soft tissue sarcoma is a broad term for cancers that start in soft tissues (muscle, tendons, fat, lymph and blood vessels, and nerves). These cancers can develop anywhere in the body but are found mostly in the arms, legs, chest, and abdomen. There are many types of soft tissue tumors, and not all of them are cancerous. There are many types of sarcoma; however, the three most common are bone sarcoma (referred to as osteosarcoma), leiomyosarcoma, undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma and liposarcoma. Leiomyosarcoma is a type of sarcoma that grows in the smooth muscles. The smooth muscles are also in the hollow organs of the body, including the intestines, stomach, bladder, and blood vessels. In females, there is also smooth muscle in the uterus. When sarcoma is metastatic prognosis is poor; even with chemotherapy, half of people diagnosed with metastatic disease die within 15 months. Each year, 12,000 people in the U.S. and 1,150 in Canada are newly diagnosed with soft tissue sarcomas. About 3,000 patients have bone sarcomas. Chemotherapy Treatment There is a high unmet medical need for improved cancer treatments. Currently, early detection coupled with surgery and systemic chemotherapy is the most effective treatment against most cancers. For metastatic disease, systemic chemotherapy represents the backbone of care for many cancers. However, chemotherapeutic resistance often results in therapeutic failure and eventually death. Not only is chemotherapy often ineffective for cancers that exhibit such resistance, but this approach is also highly toxic for many patients (Cancer Cell Int. 2015; 15:71). Almost all current anti-cancer drug therapies load drug throughout the entire body including classic chemotherapy before surgery (neoadjuvant), after surgery (adjuvant), targeted therapy, antibodies or antibody drug conjugates, liposomal or nanoparticle delivered drugs. Many cancer cells in tumors are located away from blood vessels (referred to have hypoxic regions) and systemic administration of chemotherapy is ineffective at delivering the needed amounts of the medicine to all parts of the tumor. A significant limitation of the current chemical-based anti-cancer treatments is proper drug delivery. Another challenge for systemic approaches is poor absorption or cellular mechanisms in the cancer cell to remove the drugs. Immunotherapy There has been much excitement over the past decade about the promise of immunotherapy in treating cancer. These novel product candidates are designed to mobilize an immune system to attack cancer. The field of cancer immunotherapy has become the primary focus of treatment for many tumor types. There is significant interest from pharmaceutical companies, physicians and patients in advancing new, immune-based treatment concepts. Today, some patients with formerly fatal cancers are experiencing long term survival benefits with immune-based treatments. Immunotherapy has shown promise against the most mutated cancers such as melanoma, renal cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinomas and subsets of lung cancers. Often these new immune stimulating drugs work in patients having high levels of specific markers, 7 Table of Contents such as the percentage of a protein on the surface of the cancer cell known as PD-L1 or the number of genetic mutations that may have caused the cancer referred to as a tumor’s mutational burden. Many cancers, however, are also unresponsive to immunotherapy. Even for those cancers that are considered “immunogenic”, many patients are unresponsive. As a result, immunotherapy has not worked well for the majority of solid tumor types, including sarcoma, pancreatic cancer, colon cancer, triple negative breast cancer and brain cancer. At times, when using immunotherapies, the immune system has trouble distinguishing cancer from normal tissue and attacks healthy cells. Thus, the immune therapies induce side effects. To enable more patients to benefit from immunotherapy, new technologies that are able to improve recognition of the cancer by the immune system, or disrupt the tumor’s ability to evade immune cells, are critical and strongly needed. Challenges Facing Current Treatments We believe that an effective cancer treatment must overcome three major problems. 1. The diverse nature of the disease : In most patients, there are two populations of the cancer with different physical properties. The local component is comprised of the well-defined, visual large tumors, seen in x-ray or imaging scans, that invade organs and tissue. The systemic aspect is comprised of cells circulating or implanted throughout the body. Essentially, cancer is often simultaneously both microscopic (unseen) and macroscopic (radiographically seen). 2. Unreachable parts of tumors: Current systemic methods of delivering cancer drugs either orally or intravenously (IV) do not reach many portions of tumors due to a lack of blood supply. These areas are referred to as hypoxic (low oxygen) regions. These areas of the tumor can also impede the influx of immune cells. Intravenous or system dosing of cytotoxic agents suppresses the systemic immune system (Mathios et al, STM 2016) and reduces the potential of immunotherapies. 3. Lack of immune cell recognition and activation by tumor processes to evade : Immune cells have difficulty recognizing/distinguishing cancer cells from normal cells. Cancer also can cloak itself from the immune cells and create barriers to reduce their influx into the tumor. Our Treatment Approach Our treatment concept pioneers a new approach to treating cancer — kill tumors in the body ( in situ ) to create from the patient’s own cancer a recognizable, high-quality material (referred to as antigen) for better immune cell engagement against the cancer (immunological cell kill). Our new concept uses a delivery molecule to enable the dispersal of potent drugs throughout the tumor that can also diffuse into the cancer cells. This process effectively loads the tumor with strong killing agents, which are retained within the cells. The active agents themselves used in our product candidate also have properties that improve immune recognition of the cancer. At the right dose our product candidates can completely saturate an injected tumor delivering high concentrations of drug into the cancer cells and killing the entire tumor. This process removes the cancer’s cloaking system, decreases the barriers to immune influx and activates a body-wide anti-cancer immune response to attack the uninjected tumors and unseen metastases. Our clinical data suggests that not all tumors need be injected for long term disease control. Through our novel, drug treatment technology, we hope to transform the lives of patients with cancer. Our objectives are to increase patient longevity, reduce side effects, remove the fear of treatment, empower the patient, and minimize the risk of disease recurrence. Our Lead Product Candidate: INT230-6 Our lead product candidate, INT230-6, is primarily comprised of three components: (i) cisplatin, a proven anti-cancer cytotoxic agent, (ii) vinblastine sulfate, also a proven anti-cancer cytotoxic agent, and (iii) SHAO, a penetration enhancing amphiphilic molecule. The SHAO chemical structure is shown in Figure 1 below. When injected into tumors, INT230-6 can kill the tumors. Our safety studies show that if the drug is (accidentally) injected into healthy tissue there is no observation of damage. The drug agents enter the blood stream at low doses. The unique amphiphilic SHAO compound formulated product candidate increases the dispersion of the drug throughout the tumor following intratumoral injection. Our technology is novel and unique. For those familiar with drug delivery technologies in cancer, it is important to understand that our product candidate is not a liposome, not a nanoparticle nor an emulsion. INT230-6 is a 100% water- 8 Table of Contents based formulation with tissue dispersion properties that do not destroy cancer cell membranes. We are unaware of any previous anti-cancer drug or prior intratumoral preparation with similar characteristics. Figure 1 – Chemical Structure of SHAO The SHAO molecule facilitates drug dispersion throughout the tumor. The molecule allows the tumor to absorb the killing agents and facilitates their diffusion into the cancer cells. Once in the cancer cell one drug cisplatin binds the DNA and causes the cell apoptosis (death) whereas the other agent, vinblastine sulfate, destroys the cell’s tubulin to shut down replication. Data in humans suggests that when administered at the proper drug dose to tumor volume ratio, a significant portion of the injected tumor can be killed on a single dose. In addition, there is evidence (in both animals and humans) that for certain cancers there is an activation of the immune system. Our novel intratumoral (IT) technology is different than other IT approaches in four important ways: 1) We recognized that the composition of a tumor is highly unfavorable to direct injection of water-based products because the tumor has a high fat content and is under surrounding pressure. To be effective, an IT drug must disperse, be absorbed by the tumor and enter the cancer cell. Without our unique formulation chemistry water soluble drugs are not readily dispersed or absorbed by a tumor. 2) Our delivery technology is based on a proven science that uses amphiphilic molecules to transport drugs through tissue. The active drug agents in our lead product candidate (cisplatin and vinblastine sulfate) are established, commercial, potent killing agents with immune stimulating properties that as of now are only used as IV products. Both cisplatin and vinblastine sulfate have dual direct killing and immune activating mechanisms of action. Cisplatin binds to DNA to cause apoptotic cell death and also attracts and binds T-cells via TL9 receptors. Vinblastine sulfate destroys tubulin to stop replication and also induces dendritic cell maturation. 3) Unlike other IT products, our product candidates have multiple opportunities well beyond skin tumors, such as melanoma. Our lead product candidate, INT230-6, has shown the ability to kill tumors deep in the body such as in the liver, lung, and peritoneum. The product candidate has also demonstrated ability to kill tumors from several cancer types with abscopal effects and increased overall survival compared to historical results in Phase 1/2 studies. 4) Our product candidate has potential to kill tumors in a manner and could be used before surgery immediately after diagnosis or for treatment of cancers where there are no therapeutic agents or suitable local treatments available. INT230-6 in Animals Our first research studies in mice were conducted with organizations that provide services under contract, referred to as contract research organizations (“CROs”). Our Company collaborated with the Vaccine Branch of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) in Bethesda, MD. The research with the NCI was established after the National Institutes of Health awarded our Company a cooperative research and development agreement (CRADA). The program was quite successful and culminated with the publication of a paper in July 2019 that we jointly authored with the NCI. In that publication we reported that INT230-6 treatment resulted in regression from baseline in 100% of the tumors and complete response in up to 90%. Experiments showed a critical role of T-cells in promoting complete tumor regression. Mice with complete response were protected from subcutaneous and intravenous re-challenge of cancer cells. Thus, immunological T-cell memory was induced by INT230-6. As part of our own research, we formulated cisplatin in water without the SHAO and added a noncolloidal dye. When injected into a human pancreatic tumor grown in a mouse model, we observed that the water formulation of the drug without the SHAO was not absorbed in the tumor. The liquid mostly leaked from the tumor. However, the formulation that 9 Table of Contents incorporated SHAO was readily and rapidly absorbed by the tumor in a dose dependent manner as shown in Figure 2 below. Figure 2 – Comparison of drug dispersion/absorption in tumors with and without our DfuseRx technology. Dense human pancreatic cancer BXPC-3 tumors were grown in severe combined immunodeficiency mice. Injections using a metered pump of the cisplatin with dye in water were compared to INT230-6 with dye. Fourteen mice were treated. INT230-6 is well absorbed and distributed throughout tumors (right side images) compared to the drug alone in water which leaks out (left side images). Data published in the International Journal of Molecular Sciences June 2020 doi.org/10.3390/ijms21124493. In addition to formulation experiments we conducted growth inhibition experiments using large tumors (>300 mm 3 ) and treated with low drug doses. Typically, research conducted by other companies developing cancer products use small tumors (25 to 100 mm 3 ). Such companies also often use large drug doses in their studies with drug amounts that are five to fifty-fold above our dose amounts. Our product candidate can completely eradicate murine tumors, an effect that is termed a complete response (CR). Most competitors show only a slowing down of the tumor’s growth rate over time. INT230-6 regresses tumors over time as shown in Figure 3 panel A and extends animal life compared to the drugs given alone intratumorally at the same dose without our technology. In addition, our drug candidate shows superior efficacy given intratumorally compared to dosing the drugs intravenously. Often animals with a CR are permanently protected against the cancer. This means upon re-inoculation with the same cancer new tumors do not grow. The protective effect happens whether the cancer cells are reinoculated under the skin or administered intravenously indicating a broad systemic immune protection. Through our research collaboration with the NCI, we generated data regarding the mechanism of action for our lead product candidate. INT230-6 shows direct tumor killing and immune cell activation. The direct tumor cell death is caused by action of the two potent agents (cisplatin and vinblastine sulfate). Data generated to date indicates infiltration of dendritic cells into the tumor which can present antigen to activate CD8 and CD4 immune T-cells against the cancer. Survival and tumor eradication are mostly driven by CD8+ T-cells. Thus, our product candidate generates high quality, vaccine-like antigen from the attenuated tumors to promote the immune activation. The Company also published data showing increases in dendritic cells, macrophage, T-cells and Natural Killer (NK) cells 10 days after intratumoral treatment in mouse colon tumors. Selective immune depletion of CD4 and CD8 abrogates the therapeutic effect. Figure 3 panel B that shows the influx of various immune cell into the tumor microenvironment. The scope of the NCI studies was to assess growth inhibition, survival and immune activation. Naïve mice were SC challenged with 1 × 10 6 C26 cells into the right flank. Vehicle or INT230-6 (0.5 mg/ml cisplatin, 0.1 mg/ml vinblastine sulfate, 10 mg/ml IT-006 cell penetration enhancer also referred to as SHAO) were intratumorally (IT) administered into 300 mm 3 (approx. 8.5 mm in diameter, 100 μl/400 mm 3 C26 tumor) SC tumors (n = 10/group) for 5 sequential days (day 0 to 4) and tumor growth was monitored. The fraction 5/10 indicates the number of complete responders. The log rank test indicates a significant difference between the groups (p<0.0001). 10 Table of Contents Figure 3 — Mouse data showing tumor reduction and immune activation In Panel A on the left, 100% of animals receiving INT230-6 treatment for 5 days have a slight increase followed by a decrease from baseline, with 50% of animals having a complete response compared to no treatment controls with no decrease or complete responders (data generated by the NCI see OncoImmunology 2019 Vol 8 No 10; 15). Panel B cell staining shows an increase in the immune infiltrates. Data from Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 4493. INT230-6 is Synergistic with Checkpoint Blockade Nature has created checkpoints on the immune system to regulate the activity of the immune cells. These pathways are crucial for self-tolerance to prevent the immune system from attacking healthy cells indiscriminately. Large pharmaceutical companies such as Merck, Roche, AstraZeneca, Pfizer and BMS have developed new types of anti-cancer anti-body drugs with the ability to modify and block the checkpoints on the immune system. Our results show strong benefit in regressing tumors with the combination of INT230-6 and checkpoint inhibitors which leads to improve survival. The data showed the combination of our product candidate with either anti-PD-1 or CTLA-4 antibodies in a dual tumor (metastatic) cancer mouse resulted in additive benefit. The data was generated by our partners at the National Cancer Institute and under our CRADA and published (OncoImmunology 2019 Vol 8 No 10; 15). Preclinical Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) Safety of INT230-6 During a meeting in 2014 with the FDA we reached agreement on an accelerated safety and manufacturing program. We successfully completed the needed tasks to begin clinical testing that included conducting pharmacology studies (showing activity of the drug), toxicology studies in two animal species, analytical methods development, manufacturing scale up, and regulatory submissions. All these steps were completed by 2015. The data showed that the use of SHAO did not change or increase the toxicity of cisplatin or vinblastine sulfate. Analytical results showed the two drugs remain unchanged chemically when INT230-6 is stored properly, which is in a standard freezer at -20°C. Clinical Regulatory Interactions In the United States, the FDA regulates drug and device products under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and its implementing regulations. We filed our IND application for our study IT-01 entitled “A Phase 1/2 Safety Study of Intratumorally Administered INT230-6 in Adult Subjects with Advanced Refractory Cancers” and held a meeting with senior FDA officials in November 2016. In December 2016, the FDA provided us a “Study May Proceed” letter. We also met formally with the HC in a CTA meeting in 2016. We filed the CTA and held meetings with senior HC officials. Health Canada provided us a “No Objection” letter in early 2017. As we have progressed our study, we filed several amendments since 2017 and have received “No Objection Letters” each time from Health Canada. We have been treating patients continuously under both our IND and CTA since May 2017. The regulatory agencies agreed to permit setting the drug dose based on tumor volumes rather than using alternatives such as dose based on a patient’s height and weight. Our belief is that using the patients’ total tumor burden (“TTB”) instead of body size is a more personalized and precise approach to ensure that patients receive an appropriate dose for their unique cancer burden. Better dosing could lead to maximized efficacy with minimized side effects. In our clinical trial, tumor volume is calculated from radiographic imaging on target tumors at baseline. Dose for a given tumor is set based on its size. 11 Table of Contents IT-01 Phase 1/2 Clinical Trial Study IT-01, was completed in 2023. The study design permitted our product candidate to be tested in several different cancer patient populations with dosing into both superficial e.g. squamous cell, thyroid, breast, head and neck, lymph, skin, and deep body cancers such as those found in pancreatic, uterus, liver, kidneys, colon, bile duct, fat, muscles (sarcoma) and lung. The clinical trial sought to determine the safety and potential efficacy of dosing INT230-6 directly into several different types of cancers. We tested our product candidate in over 20 different cancer types. IT-01, is listed on clinicaltrials.gov; NCT03058289. The hospitals that enrolled patients in the United States were: the Sydney Kimmel Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, The Fox Chase Cancer Center at Temple University, the University of Southern California’s Norris Cancer Center, LA County and HOAG Presbyterian Hospitals of the University of Southern California medical system, the UMASS Memorial in Worchester Massachusetts, Columbia Presbyterian in New York, the Princess Margaret Hospital which is part of the University Health Network in Toronto, and the Houston Methodist. In 2019 we partnered with Merck and in 2020 we partnered with BMS. We treated 30 patients having various cancers using INT30-6 with Merck’s Keytruda ® (pembrolizumab) and 18 patients with BMS’s Yervoy ® (ipilimumab). A schematic of the final Phase 2 study’s three dosing cohorts is shown in Figure 4 below. The final data and clinical study reports were provided to the partners in December 2023. Figure 4 — Schema of the 3 final dosing groups for the metastatic study IT-01. Results from IT-01 Phase 1/2 Clinical Trial Safety The Phase 1/2 study treated refractory patients, who failed multiple lines of therapy. One hundred ten (110) subjects were treated in IT-01. The results of the escalation portion, which included up to 175 mL per session every two weeks, indicated a favorable safety profile of INT230-6 with or without immunotherapy, with only 8 patients out of 64 on INT230-6 alone experiencing grade 3 related adverse events. The most frequent related adverse events include localized tumor related pain. The majority of treatment related adverse events have been low grade (grade 1 or 2). A total of 15 patients out of 110 (13.6%) had at least one grade 3 adverse event in study IT-01. The primary grade 3 events have been pain, fatigue vomiting anemia, rash, dehydration and dizziness. There was one grade 4 adverse event, a decrease in the number of neutrophils, the most common type of white blood cell that contributes toward the healing of damaged tissues and resolving infections. There were no grade 5 treatment related adverse events reported. No maximum tolerated doses were established. Even though our product candidate is dosed directly into the tumor, a key element of safety is to observe how much drug enters the bloodstream. Toxicities are linked to the circulating levels of the active agents in the blood. We measure circulating concentrations of the three main ingredients, SHAO, cisplatin (as platinum metal) and vinblastine sulfate, in the blood. This type of data is referred to as pharmacokinetics (“PK”). Data that measured the circulating levels of the key ingredients has been generated from the ongoing study in metastatic patients. The amount of vinblastine sulfate seen in 12 Table of Contents plasma of patients is much lower than a lesser dose given IV. Cisplatin is reduced to metal rapidly and is challenging to measure in blood even for IV dosing. A measurement of vinblastine sulfate provides a better understanding of the PK. In our study, vinblastine plasma concentrations increased proportionally to the amount of drug administered. In essence, the concentration of vinblastine seen in the blood increased proportionally to the dose given intratumorally. See Figure 5 Panel A. This effect is independent of the cancer type and highly reproducible. As would be expected, the amount of the vinblastine seen in the plasma when given intratumorally was less than 5% of the blood concentrations had the drug been given intravenously. Our two highest average doses of INT230-6 were 118 mL and 80 mL. These dose volumes contain 11.8 and 8 mg of vinblastine sulfate and result in 9 and 6.8 nanograms per mL of vinblastine in blood plasma, respectively, at one hour post-dose. At six hours post-dose, the amount dropped to about 3 and 2.2 nanograms per mL. Publications show the plasma concentration of a standard dose of vinblastine sulfate (6.5 mg for an average sized person) can be estimated. Based on pharmacokinetic studies of vinblastine in the literature (Links, M., Cancer Investigation Volume 17, 1999 – issue 7479-485), we estimated a vinblastine plasma level of 240 ng/mL at 6 hours for an IV dose of ~5.1 mg. Comparing our blood plasma concentration profile for vinblastine at various doses to the data from the Links cancer investigation indicates that >95% to 99% of the drug remained or degraded in the tumor post injection depending on the dose. Cisplatin degraded rapidly. Measures of platinum metal are used in lieu of cisplatin for PK analysis as shown in Figure 5 Panel B. This drug retention in the tumor spares the patient the debilitating side effects of circulating drug. Indeed, the low observed plasma levels of the potent agents following INT230-6 dosing correlates with the low grade of side effects observed. Thus, IT dosing INT230-6 compares favorably to the toxicities normally associated with cisplatin and vinblastine sulfate when given intravenously at comparable doses. Figure 5 — Free vinblastine (VIN) levels and platinum metal in blood plasma over time for intratumorally (IT) administered INT230-6. Cytotoxic components in INT230-6 have minimal systemic exposure and short half-life. Most of the active drug remains in the tumor as a result INT230-6 appears to have favorable safety data to date. RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) for Efficacy A standard way to measure how well a cancer patient responds to a treatment is based on whether tumors shrink, stay the same, or get bigger. Efficacy assessments for evaluating changes in tumor size in clinical trials are typically conducted with standardized oncology response criteria, for example, Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors known as RECIST or a newer version 1.1 (RECIST 1.1). There are additional guidelines for immunotherapeutic trials (iRECIST). These criteria measure the change in longest diameter of tumors to assess drug response. An increase in longest diameter of > 20% is considered progressive disease. The rationale behind this is that tumors should generally become smaller. The main benefit of iRECIST is to afford physicians the opportunity to confirm progression with a follow up scan of the tumors 1 to 2 months later. However, both RECIST 1.1 and iRECIST criteria were designed only to assess response to systemic therapies. 13 Table of Contents Our study initially employed RECIST 1.1, and subsequently, iRECIST methods for determining the efficacy of INT230-6. INT230-6 induced tumor regression in both injected and non-injected lesions in several patients. However, tumors often increased in the longest diameter prior to shrinking using our drug, which we attribute to three factors. The first is high absorption by the tumor of our drug. Prior to the first efficacy scan, during the first two months (after 5 sessions) of INT230-6 treatment, patients would have received depending on the cohort a dose volume of drug injected into the tumor equivalent to 25% to 250% of the tumor’s volume. The second factor is an infiltration of immune cells into the tumor that can increase the longest diameter. Finally, tumors can become cystic. We have reported these data at major medical conferences (ASCO 2021, 2022, 2023, CTOS 2022, 2023) to indicate that RECIST methodology may be an inaccurate measure of clinical benefit for intratumoral INT230-6. Tumor Death (Necrosis) Investigators report significant necrosis (reduced contrast uptake in the CT image) in many injected tumors including adrenocortical, breast, chordoma, colon, head and neck (H&N), lung, sarcoma and squamous cell. Figure 6 below is an example of a squamous cell tumor that became necrotic by the 2-month scan. The darker contrast of the tumors indicated that significant necrosis of the tumor occurred following treatment. Figure 6 — Images showing that INT230-6 induces tumor necrosis (death) in the injected tumors. The patient in these images had a squamous cell carcinoma. His cancer continued to progress after 2 surgeries, radiation, and chemotherapy. The patient enrolled in our study in January 2018 with two 10 cm 3 deep tumor nodules in his upper arm muscle. The hospital recommended total arm and shoulder amputation. This subject received 4 intratumoral injections equal to 100% of his 2 tumors’ volume. The drug was dosed at ratio of 1 mL per 4 cc of tumor. In the red circle in the left panel there is bright contrast indicating active cancer. At the first scan on May 15, 2018, there was an increase in tumor size, significant necrosis (lack of contrast) and inflammation observed (right panel). This patient has retained his arm and shoulder and is alive as of the last follow up visit in December 2022. Abscopal Effects In the metastatic study several subjects showed tumor size reduction of non-injected lesions in lymph nodes, liver, lung, perineum, and retroperitoneal areas (i.e. abscopal effects to visceral lesions). The apparent abscopal effect was seen primarily in patients that received a dose greater than 40% of their TTB. Abscopal effect rates may be even higher than known. Sites did not report existing tumors under 1 cm in diameter. In addition, many tumors above 1 cm were not followed and unreported. We captured images from all subjects to be able to determine the true abscopal effect in all subjects at a future time and this analysis is in progress. Figure 7 below shows uninjected tumor diameter changes over time of patients with confirmed reports of abscopal effects. 14 Table of Contents Figure 7 — Change in longest diameter of uninjected tumors over time (abscopal effects) monotherapy subjects only. Tumor Diameter and Corresponding Volume For injected tumors, changes in longest diameter often do not correlate with changes in volume. Dosing is completed just prior to their first scan when the increase in tumor diameter is most likely to be highest. As noted above, RECIST measurements of whether a patient’s cancer is stable, decreasing or progressing are based on the changes in the tumor’s longest diameter. An increase in longest diameter above a threshold would indicate progression. In Figure 8, the graph on the left shows the change in individual tumors’ longest diameter over time. The graph on the right shows the same tumor’s volume over time. Tumors in many patients treated with INT230-6 can show an increase or no change in longest diameter with a decrease of the corresponding tumor’s volume. There is also a much greater volume decrease than expected for the slight decrease in longest diameter. In some cases, tumors can become cystic, which on imaging looks like a large increase. The increase in size was seen on scans until cystic tumors were drained. These data provide further evidence that RECIST may not be a good indication of efficacy for INT230-6. Figure 8 — Chart showing that use of INT230-6 may increase tumor’s longest diameter while decreasing the tumor’s volume (sarcoma patients only). In the left figure each color represents the change in diameters of an individual patient’s group of tumors. In the right figure the same color represents that same patient’s change in tumor volumes. Visualizing a change in 3 dimensions also shows the limitations of using RECIST methods for determining efficacy for intratumoral INT230-6. Figure 9 shows the scan of a sarcoma patient’s tumor pre- and post-dosing. The longest 15 Table of Contents diameter declines by 15%, while the second longest diameter declines 42%. Using RECIST criteria, this patient would have been classified as having stable disease, whereas the World Health Organization, which uses the two longest diameters, would classify this patient as having had a partial response, which is a better outcome. Figure 9 — Scan showing change in two longest diameters of an injected sarcoma tumor at the base of the spine. We believe that RECIST measurements (longest diameter) are inappropriate to capture efficacy with INT230-6. As a result, overall survival, the FDA’s gold standard efficacy endpoint, is a better measure of INT230-6’s performance in metastatic cancer. Disease Control Rate Even though RECIST was deemed to be less accurate for measuring efficacy a secondary objective of IT-01 was to assess the preliminary efficacy of INT230-6 by measuring the disease control rate (DCR) based on the (RECIST) and immune RECIST (iRECIST) criteria. The DCR rates for the study are shown below. Monotherapy cohorts Disease Control Rate a Total (all subjects) (N = 64), n (%) 75.0 (62.6, 85.0; 48) Dosed ≥ 40% TTB (N = 48), n (%) 83.3 (69.8, 92.5; 40) Dosed < 40% TTB (N = 16), n (%) 50.0 (24.7, 75.3; 8) Sarcoma only (N = 15), n (%) 93.3 (68.1, 99.8; 14) Dosed ≥ 40% TTB (N = 11), n (%) 90.9 (58.7, 99.8; 10) Dosed < 40% TTB (N = 4), n (%) 100 (39.8, 100; 4) Prior treatment b Yes (N = 31), n (%) 74.2 (55.4, 88.1; 23) No (N = 33), n (%) 75.8 (57.7, 88.9; 25) Survival — Phase 1 Basket Studies The primary objectives of Phase 1 trials are to define the safety or toxicity profile of a new drug and to determine the dose for further evaluation in Phase 2 trials. Patients enrolled in Phase 1 are therefore placed at risk of toxicity, in exchange for an undefined and limited clinical benefit. Furthermore, patients who are considered for Phase 1 trials may be regarded as vulnerable because their physical condition may be deteriorating due to advanced cancer malignancy for which no further standard treatment options exist. Efficacy is not usually the primary objective. Most patients in Phase 1 studies have low survival expectations that ranges from 3 to 8 months depending on the type of cancer and patient’s incoming health. (see Chau, N., BMC Cancer volume 11, Article number: 426 2011). Over the past two decades the development of a prognostic score to predict survival of patients treated in Phase 1 studies has been completed and validated by the Royal Marsden Hospital (RMH) in the United Kingdom. The score, which ranges from 0 to 3, is highly correlated of overall survival (OS) outcomes. A score of 0 suggests longest potential survival and a 3 worst. Many studies show that subjects enrolled in Phase 1 have survival of under 6 months when RMH scores greater than or equal to 1. 16 Table of Contents In our study IT-01 patients were enrolled whose cancer progressed following treatment using all approved and some experimental therapies suitable for their specific disease. Forty-three (43%) of patients had previous had an IV form of a platinum-based drug including cisplatin. Forty-four percent (44%) had previously received an anti-PD-1 antibody. Efficacy data from 64 patients enrolled in IT-01 is available from patients receiving INT230-6 alone (referred to as monotherapy). There were over 820 different tumor injections conducted over the course of the trial with over 502 being into visceral deep tumors. Study IT-01 was a Phase 1/2 dose escalation (i.e. the Phase 1 basket portion) and Phase 2 (expansion of specified cancer types). These types of studies are primarily testing safety in the Phase 1 and determining whether there is an efficacy signal in the expansion compared to historical data. There was no control arm in IT-01 and no randomization. Therefore, there is no comparator to determine the significance of any given endpoint. See Table below for the patient population. Final INT230-6 monotherapy population (n=64) in IT-01 Type of Cancer Monotherapy Number of Patients Monotherapy Percent of Population Sarcoma 15 23% 10 Other a <4% each 13 20% Skin (Melanoma/Merkle) 6 9% Squamous cell carcinoma 6 9% Colorectal 5 8% Breast 4 6% Head and neck 4 6% Ovarian 4 6% Pancreatic 4 6% Cholangiocarcinoma 3 5% ____________ a Others include: Adrenocortical carcinoma, Anal, Bladder, Cervical, Eccrine, Lung, Metastatic Cancer of Unknown Primary, Pseudomyxoma peritonei, Renal, and Thyroid. Patients receiving a monotherapy dose of INT230-6 above 40 percent of their TTB measured in cubic centimeters had a statistically significantly longer survival than patients who received treatment to less than 40% of their TTB. The subjects receiving a dose >40% of their total incoming tumor burden also lived much longer than would be expected for patients in a Phase 1/2 basket study. These data indicate a potentially active drug. Given the small size of the population, the heterogeneity of the cancers and variability of the incoming tumor burdens, the high and low dose groups may have been different in a way that we may not have been able to measure. We observed a strong overall survival signal in just sarcoma patients; however, this Phase 2 population size was also too small to properly assess effectiveness of INT230-6. As a result, we have determined that overall survival, an endpoint preferred by the FDA for cancer clinical trials, is the most appropriate metric to prove efficacy of our drug candidate to treat metastatic disease. Study IT-01 also indicates that soft tissue sarcoma, at cancer type with high unmet medical need, would be a suitable disease for a Phase 3 trial to evaluate the efficacy of INT230-6. In our metastatic study survival appears to be impacted by the total dose a patient received relative to number and size of their tumors. Patients receiving a higher percentage of drug (mL) relative to their TTB (cm 3 ) remained on study longer regardless of the cancer type. A patient’s TTB is calculated by adding up the volumes of all reported tumors. Simply stated, the more drug given to more tumors, the more likely a subject would be alive longer, though not all tumors need be treated. Killing more of a patient’s cancer is beneficial. The probability of survival for a given population can be plotted. Figure 10 panel A below illustrates the survival for all monotherapy INT230-6 subjects. See Table below for the patient population. Treating only with our drug candidate, approximately 50% of patients would be expected to be alive at one year (blue curve) with a median overall survival (mOS) expected of 11.9 months. Subjects dosed an amount of INT230-6 that was less than 40% of their TTB had a mOS of 3.1 months. This result is shown in the red curve and is comparable to survival expected in historical Phase 1 basket studies (See Chau, N., BMC Cancer volume 11, Article number: 426 2011). Patients that received a dose of INT230-6 to greater than 40% of their TTB had a ~63% chance of being alive at 1 year and the 17 Table of Contents median overall survival was 18.7 months. These results indicate that survival improves for those dosed to greater than 40% of their TTB compared to those receiving under 40%. While there were no differences statistically in the two populations with regards to incoming tumor burden; the sample size is small and the average values for the green curve was lower. Figure 10 — Kaplan Meier Estimates of Sarcoma Patient-Survival Dosing INT230-6 in study IT-01 Exploratory analysis of dose relative to TTB was conducted. Many tumors, including all under 1 cm in diameter, were not reported and so TTB is likely underestimated. Biomarker Analysis A cancer cell’s surface expresses a unique set of proteins specific to the patient and their cancer type. Certain immune cells can “read” the cell surface to create a patient-specific immune response. However, as noted above, live cancer cells can send signals that can block the immune cells from entering the tumor. There is a constant “cat and mouse” battle between the cancer cell and the immune system. Other local treatments such as radiation or ablation destroy the cell surface. Our technology disperses potent killing agents throughout tumors and enables the potent killing agents to diffuse into the cancer cell without damage to the cell membrane. When the tumor’s cancer cells are no longer alive, the ability of the immune system to identify the cancer and mount a response can be increased. We collect tumor tissue before and after dosing of our drug candidate from patients injected tumors. We analyze for live and dead cancer cells (referred to as necrotic cells). Our data shows that our drug candidate can kill cancer cells over a couple of weeks and activate an immune response. We have observed these effects in multiple cancers. Methods used INT230-6 injections were conducted on the first treatment cycle’s first day (referred to as C1D0) and on the fourteenth day (C1D14). Pre and post-dose biopsies from the same injected tumor were obtained on C1D0 and again 28 days later just prior to the 3 rd dose on the first day of the second treatment cycle (C2D0). To determine the percentage of viable tumor cells and necrotic (dead) cancer cells pre and post two treatments, we conducted analysis on the collected tissue following haemotoxylin and eosin (“H&E”) staining. H&E tissue analysis helps identify different types of cells and provides important information about the pattern, shape, and structure of cells in a tissue sample. For many patients, we observed substantial reductions of cancer following the two injections of INT230-6 alone. Below are data on cell killing and immune activation from the two cancer types, breast cancer and sarcoma, for which we are planning Phase 3 programs. We also use immunohistochemistry (IHC) staining to help assess cancer and various immune cell populations, as well as the degree of cancer cell proliferation in the treated tumors. 18 Table of Contents Necrosis Results in Breast Cancer Figure 11 shows tissue taken from a breast cancer patient. The pre-dose (C1D0) samples stained positive (dark purple) indicating significant amounts of cancer throughout the sample. However, 28 days later (C2D0), there was almost no cancer observed in the collected tissue. Magnification is 400µ. Figure 11 — Images from match pair biopsied tissue samples pre and post two INT230-6 injections: Immune Response in Breast Cancer In preclinical studies, our technology reduces the cancer levels substantially and causes the influx of immune cells into the tumor. The below images from a breast cancer patient confirm that this effect also occurs in humans. Applying a special set of stains to the biopsied tissue enables the measurement of immune cells inside the tumor. We observe infiltrating immune cells in the tumor. In Figure 12 (below) the first panel (Image A) there is extensive cancer as the blue color seen is for 4´,6-diamidino-2-phenylindole, a blue-fluorescent DNA stain (DAPI) and the marker of live and proliferating cancer. The green and yellow colored cells are immune cells. The second panel (Image B) shows that at 28 days after the first dose there is a markedly reduced amount of live cancer (less blue stain). In addition, the green/yellow stained cells, representing CD4 and CD8 T-cells, are increased dramatically throughout the entire tissue. Figure 12 — IHC Staining of breast cancer tissue for immune cell infiltration pre and post dosing of INT230-6 Necrosis Results in Sarcoma Several patients with metastatic soft tissue sarcomas have been enrolled in the study. As was seen with breast cancer and multiple other tumor types, there were substantial reductions of cancer in the biopsies pre and post in sarcoma patients. As shown in Figure 13. Image A is the stained tissue sample (pre-dose) that shows significant cancer (dark purple cells) throughout the tissue sample. Image B is the stained tissue sample taken on day 28 after two doses of INT230-6 (day 0 and day 14) that shows significant reduction in the cancer (Magnification 3.7x). 19 Table of Contents Figure 13 — Images from match pair biopsied soft tissue sarcoma subject 010-001 pre and post two INT230-6 injections Image A Image B Immune Response in Sarcoma We also measured DAPI and activated T-cells from a sarcoma tumor. The results again confirm that for this non-immunogenic tumor type, there is also a substantial reduction of tumor cells as seen by the decrease in the marker post INT230-6 treatment. Figure 14 shows the influx for sarcoma patients into the tumor of CD4 and CD8 T-cells at 28 days following the first dose. Figure 14 — Staining of biopsied sarcoma tumor tissue pre and post dosing of INT230-6 Image A - Predose Image B - Post dose Results of the H&E analysis as well as the multiplex IHC staining show substantial cancer cell reduction, decreases in proliferation, and increased immune infiltration after INT230-6 dosing. The totality of the data indicate the drug has the ability to kill cancer and increase the immune response in multiple sarcoma types. INT230-6 Efficacy in Soft Tissue Sarcoma Sarcomas are a rare and heterogeneous group of solid tumors derived from mesenchymal cell origin. Although single agent or combination anthracycline-based chemotherapy provides some benefit for the treatment of advanced sarcomas, prognosis is still unfavorable with median overall survival of 12 – 16 months and there is significant unmet medical need. By the time subjects fail approved therapies and enter Phase 1 studies patients’ median overall survival is typically 3 – 8 months (see Subbiah, V Scientific Reports | 6:35448 | DOI: 10.1038/srep35448) depending on certain risk factors such those found in the RMHI score. Thirty patients with sarcoma were treated in study IT-01. Fifteen received INT230-6 monotherapy and 15 received INT230-6 with immunotherapy. Enrolled subjects receiving INT230-6 had a median of 3 (0, 8) prior therapies, median age 20 Table of Contents of 64 and 13% were ECOG 0, 80% ECOG 1. Those receiving the combination with ipilimumab had a median of 4 (0, 9) prior therapies, median age of 64 and 38% were ECOG 0, with 62% ECOG 1. The sarcoma types were Leiomyosarcoma, Liposarcoma, pleomorphic sarcomas, chondrosarcoma, chordoma, spindle cell sarcoma, fibrosarcoma, osteosarcoma, myofibroblastic sarcoma, desmoid type, and Kaposi sarcoma. The INT230-6 dose delivered at a single visit was up to 242 mL (112 mg of cisplatin, 24.2 mg of vinblastine sulfate) into one or more tumors. The VIN given exceeded the typical 5.1 mg starting IV dose for an average size person. The CIS given was equivalent to a typical IV dose. Safety in sarcoma population remained favorable. The most common treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) in evaluable monotherapy subjects were localized pain, fatigue, decreased appetite, nausea, most of which were low grade. Please see Table 1 in the “ Results from IT-01 Phase 1/2 Clinical Trial ” portion of our “ Business ” section on page 67 of this report for more information. We compared our Phase 1/2 basket study survival data in soft tissue sarcoma (“STS”) to overall survival data generated from three published clinical Phase 1/2 basket trials in sarcoma. In our trial, IT-01, fifteen (15) STS patients received only INT230-6 monotherapy and 11 have received the combination with ipilimumab. The 3 studies used were: • Jones Cancer Chemother Pharmacol (2011) 68:423 – 429, Clinical benefit of early Phase clinical trial participation for advanced sarcoma patients. • Cassier et. al., Annals of Oncology 25: 1222 – 1228, 2014 Outcome of patients with sarcoma and other mesenchymal tumours participating in Phase I trials: a subset analysis of a European Phase I database. • Subbiah et. al., Scientific Reports | 6:35448 2016, Evaluation of Novel Targeted Therapies in Aggressive Biology Sarcoma Patients after progression from US FDA approved Therapies. Each of these publications report use of the Royal Marsden Hospital index (RMHI). As noted above the RMHI is validated score predictive of overall survival for cancer patients in basket studies. A subject obtains 1 point depending on their number of metastatic sites, pre-dose plasma lactase dehydrogenase level and albumin concentrations. Each of the 3 studies report the median overall survival results for subjects for various RMHI values as shown in the table below. Median OS in Phase 1 Basket studies Study Jones Cassier Subbiah Median OS 7.6 months 9.1 months 9.6 months CI (4.8 – 10.4) CI (6.3 – 11.8) (CI (8.1 – 14.2)* ____________ * 44% of Subbiah study subjects had a RMHI score of 0 versus 26% in Sponsor’s study IT-01 Though the sarcoma subtype mix between the 3 literature study populations is not matched exactly, mOS from the Jones, Cassier and Subbiah studies are similar. Subbiah reports the overall survival of sarcoma patients for a given RMHI score (Figure 15 below) from the publication shows the strong correlation between RMHI score and overall survival. 21 Table of Contents Figure 15 — Overall Survival based on RMHI scores in soft tissue sarcoma (Subbiah data) We were able to estimate the RMHI score in our study for each patient receiving only INT230-6. Subjects in our study primarily had a RMHI score of 1 (33%) or 2 (40%). To be more confident that we are matching the population when comparing our drug to the Subbiah population, we created a synthetic Kaplan-Meier (KM) control curve from the Subbiah dataset that approximated our patients’ RMHI score distribution (Figure 16 below). We chose Subbiah as the dataset, because it was the study that reported the longest survival of the three Sarcoma studies, and would be the most conservative data to serve as the basis for a synthetic control. Our drug is dosed based on a patient’s total measured volumetric tumor burden. From our mouse studies we found that a dose volume to tumor volume ratio of 1 to 4 could nearly saturate a tumor. The average TTB of patients entering the trial was 200cc. However, when our study was initiated, the dose was limited to 5 mL per month to establish the maximum tolerated dose and generate safety data. This early dose to tumor ratio proved to be inadequate to treat most tumors. As a result, most early patients were under treated and the survival seen early in the study was typical of survival rates normally seen in Phase 1 basket trials. As we moved through the dose escalation Phase of our trial and generated favorable safety data, the dose amount frequency and loading into the tumor was escalated. We observed that if a cumulative drug dose volume equal to 40% or more of the total reported presenting tumor burden was administered over 5 sessions every two weeks with maintenance, patients showed evidence of clinical efficacy as overall survival increased. For the INT230-6 monotherapy STS patients (N=15) with a median of 3 prior lines of therapy our median OS was 21.4 months with a confidence interval of 6.4 to 42.0 months (this dataset includes those subjects dosed with considerably less than 40% of their TTB). In those subjects receiving a dose greater than or equal to 40% of their TTB (N=11), the OS was not reached with ~400 days of median follow-up. Subjects receiving less than 40% of their TTB had a median survival of 4.0 months. We calculated the KM synthetic control derived from the Subbiah basket trial matched to study IT-01 sarcoma population’s RMHI scores for all INT230-6 monotherapy patients that predicted our sarcoma patients should have had a median survival of 6.7 months. 22 Table of Contents Figure 16 — Survival of INT230-6 monotherapy sarcoma patients Estimates of sarcoma subject survival using INT230-6 based on dose per TTB from study IT-01 compared to a synthetic control are shown in the table below. INT230-6 Dosed <40% of TTB (months) Synthetic Control of sarcoma patients (2 prior lines) (months) INT230-6 all subjects (months) INT230-6 Dosed >40% of TTB Months Median overall survival, CI 4.0 6.7 21.3 Not reached with 400 days of median follow-up ( IT-02, The INVINCIBLE-2 Study in Presurgical Breast Cancer In March 2021, we began a Phase 2 Randomized, Window of Opportunity trial evaluating clinical and biological effects of intratumoral INT230-6 against no treatment (the SOC) in early stage breast cancer patients awaiting surgery. The study completed enrollment and the database was locked in November 2023. The key efficacy endpoints were to (i) compare necrosis levels in tumors based on size and dose compared to saline control, (ii) the percentage of subjects having a greater than 50% reduction of viable cancer cells in their tumor compared to control, and (iii) the percentage of subjects who achieve a cell cycle arrest, defined as a reduction in the proportion of cells staining positive for Ki67, a widely used marker of cancer cell proliferation for systemic therapy. According to our estimates using the National Cancer Database (NCBD), approximately 40% of patients diagnosed with breast cancer annually, there are nearly 100,000 that have no therapeutic treatment following diagnosis. Women undergoing surgery typically wait approximately 2 to 6 weeks to have the procedure. The trial was a two-part Phase 2, randomized, open label, multi-center study that has completed enrollment of 91 patients with early-stage breast cancer. In part 1, twenty-nine patients were randomized 2:1 to treatment or no treatment. Those in treatment received either up to three doses of INT230-6 on days 1, 8 and 15 post diagnosis or no treatment, the current SOC prior to resection. Part 2 of the study randomized patients 2:1 to one intratumoral injection of either INT230-6 or saline solution. IT-02 was conducted under the direction and supervision of Principal Investigator, Dr. Angel Arnout. The Ottawa Hospital conducted all subject enrollment, treatment and pathology for necrosis. The Ontario Institute of Cancer Research analyzed subject immune responses, Ki67 and conducted immune biomarker analysis. Ozmosis Research Inc., a Toronto-based CRO, managed the data and study in Canada. Intensity funded the trial and provided INT230-6 supply. There were no milestone payments, royalties or other compensation to be paid to any party. The agreement provided that each party will solely own any inventions generated in the clinical trial that relate solely to intellectual property owned by that party. In study IT-02, the treatment group had a highly statistically significant increase in necrosis (tumor death) compared to the saline control group of 19% for the treatment group versus 1.3% for the saline control group (p=0.0002). For tumors with diameter of 2 cm or higher in longest diameter the treatment group had an average of 24% necrosis in 42 subjects vs. 23 Table of Contents 0.8% for the saline control group in 8 subjects (p=0.0007) . In the study nine (9) subjects in INT230-6 treatment groups had a major pathological response (MPR) with a mean of 79.4% tumor necrosis. MPR is defined as having less than or equal to 50% residual cancer in the tumor (i.e. ≥50% of the tumor became necrotic). In the control groups, no subjects achieved an MPR (n=29). IT-02 (The INVINCIBLE-2 Study) Tumor Necrosis via Diffusion Tissue taken via biopsy from tumor in our metastatic study IT-01 shows that viable cancer cells are significantly reduced. However, in our INVINCIBLE 2 study, surgeons also removed the entire breast cancer tumor following INT230-6 injection. At the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (“SABCS”) in December 2023 images showed that up to >95% of an entire large tumor greater than 4.3 cm can be killed on a single INT230-6 injection at the proper dose (in milliliters) relative to the size of the size of the tumor (in centimeters). This result is seen in Figure 17 panel A and B. An ER+PR+HER2+ 3.9 cm grade 3 invasive ductal breast cancer tumor was treated on day 1 with 7.4 cc of INT230-6. Seven days later with another 14.8 cc. The tumor was then resected another seven days later. In panel B, a ER+PR+Her2- 4.4 cm diameter invasive lobular breast cancer tumor was treated with one dose of 21.3 mL of INT230-6, then resected 20 days later. The INT230-6 was able to kill 85% of the ductal tumor from Panel A. However, in the second panel, the drug was able to diffuse throughout nearly the entire tumor. The boundary of the tumor is shown by the black dotted lines and the red dotted lines show the extent of the necrosis. Pathology conducted on the excised tumor showed that there was only a small percentage of viable cancer cells in one area of the 4.4 cm tumor after a single dose of INT230-6 of 21.4 mL. More than 95% of the tumor was necrotic (dead) or ghost cells (cells without nucleus). These images show that diffusion distance is proportional to the amount given on a single dose. In panel C we show high necrosis after surgery of a subject with a 3.3 invasive ductal cancer, who received one INT230-6 dose of 13.3 mL. This patient’s tumor was characterized as having sheet-like necrosis to and just beyond the tumor edge. Figure 17 Panels A and B — Showing the extent of the entire tumor and the area of dead cancer for various doses of drug; greater than 95% of the total tumor volume was killed by a single dose injections of INT230-6. 24 Table of Contents Figure 17 Panels C and D — 100% necrosis with correspond H&E staining In the above figure the entire breast tumor has been removed. The black or blue dotted line shows the extent of the tumor, and red dotted line shows the extent of the necrotic (dead cancer) after treatment with INT230-6. For a given tumor diffusion distance and thus tumor killing is proportional to the amount of drug dosed. Both tumors shown with high grade (3) proliferative tumors. IT-02 (The INVINCIBLE-2 Study) Immune Activation Intensity presented positive INT230-6 data in patients with early-stage breast cancer in a podium poster spotlight discussion at the 2023 SABCS on December 8, 2023. INT230-6 demonstrated a systemic increase in the median diversity of T-cell repertoire in patients’ blood compared to baseline that was also much larger than a control saline injection and again showed that a single injection of INT230-6 can induce up to >95% necrosis of a tumor. INT230-6 demonstrated an increase in CD4 T-cells and NK cells within tumors and gene expression profiling revealed a treatment effect of up-regulation of immune pathways expressed by T-cell activation, lymphocyte activation and inflammatory responses. INT230-6 demonstrated a favorable safety profile and was well tolerated and patient interest in the new treatment was high. There was a reduced in Ki67 for the drug and control. Live cancer cells are needed to evaluate Ki67. Several subjects’ tumors receiving INT230-6 had such high necrotic percentages that measurement of Ki67 was not possible. Those subject’s samples were therefore noted as unevaluable. This result biased the Ki67 outcome against the drug and indicated that Ki67 was an inappropriate marker for INT230-6. Enrollment in the study was rapid. We believe patients are highly interested in a product that can potentially destroy the majority of their tumor rapidly while waiting for their surgery and with the possibility to induce a systemic anti-cancer immune response. Surgery proceeded on time or without difficulty by the INT230-6 IT treatment. Adverse events are minimal — mainly transient, low-grade pain at the injection site. An analysis of differential gene expression comparing pre-and post-treated tumor tissue samples in the control group compared to the drug treated group showed that over 200 more immune related genes were activated pre- and post-treatment compared to the controls. As shown in Figure 18 below, within the tumor there was a relative increase in abundance of CD4 T naïve (light green) and NK cells post treatment (darker green). 25 Table of Contents Figure 18 — Relative abundance levels of immune cells present in the breast cancer tumor compared to current standard of care (no treatment controls. Each bar demonstrates the immune cell abundance in a specific patient separated by cancer subtype, the left panel is the baseline cell population and the right panel is the post INT230-6 treatment. There was a relative increase in abundance of CD4 T naïve (light green) and NK cells (darker green) in the majority of patients post treatment. In addition, INT230-6 demonstrated a systemic increase in the median diversity of the T-cell repertoire in patients’ blood compared to baseline that was much larger than a control saline injection as seen in Figure 19. The adaptive immune system is one of the body’s most powerful defenses. By being able to adapt, the body’s immune cells can be trained to attack undesirable cells or viruses anywhere in the body. T-cells are an important systemic component of the adaptive immune system that aid in the destruction of invaders. Immune repertoire refers to all the unique T-cell receptor (TCR) and B-cell receptor (BCR) genetic rearrangements. Only lymphocytes that encounter an antigen with the right receptor to bind to it will be activated and proliferate during an immune response, forming a clone of cells with identical antigen receptors for attack. A greater diversity of T-cell repertoire means there is higher likelihood for a T-cell to bind to the foreign entity (e.g. cancer cells) and increase the specific T-cell clonal population to destroy the invader. Sequencing of the TCR beta chain CDR3 regions from all plasma samples and analyzed TCR repertoire diversity using the Shannon diversity index. TCR diversity was higher post-treatment compared to the pre-treatment. Boxes depict the interquartile range with the line in the boxes showing the median, and the lines outside the boxes show the first or third quartiles of fraction as shown in Figure 19. Figure 19 — Increase in clonal diversity in blood of all treated patients, with much bigger difference in INT230-6 drug treated vs saline groups The INVINCIBLE 2 study demonstrated feasibility, safety, tolerability and immune activation of presurgical IT injections in breast cancer patients. Preliminary data show histologic evidence of up to 95% tumor necrosis in varying 26 Table of Contents biologic subtypes including lobular carcinoma. There was also an increase in immune activation. Both of these study findings support the hypothesis that IT INT230-6 prior to SOC neoadjuvant therapy could increase pCR rates in high risk patients. Planned Clinical Programs Phase 3 Metastatic Soft Tissue Sarcoma (INVINCIBLE-3 Study) Given the positive data on survival seen in our metastatic study in sarcoma patients, we plan to conduct a single Phase 3 study in 2 nd /3 rd line treatment for locally advanced, recurrent, inoperable, or metastatic non-diffuse soft tissue sarcoma with overall survival as the primary endpoint. The current Phase 3 study design plans to enroll subjects who will be randomized 2 to 1 to either INT230-6 for 5 doses Q2 weeks with maintenance dosing every 9 weeks for 2 years or the SOC. The three drugs most used for soft tissue sarcoma will be the control SOC at the investigator’s choice depending on the type of sarcoma. Our Phase 3 study is designed to be 90% powered to detect a difference Hazard Value of 0.65 in overall survival between the INT230-6 treatment group and the control group with 333 patients enrolled (2:1 randomization to either INT230-6 treatment or control therapy). The study will have 3 interim data reviews. The first at 20% of events (deaths) for futility only, the second at 40% of events, and the third at 60% of events. The final analysis will be based on 80% of events (266 deaths). A protocol synopsis was developed and submitted to the FDA. On October 14, 2021, we met with the FDA to discuss the Phase 3 protocol and reached alignment on the Phase 3 study design, patient population and statistical approach.. In November 2023, we submitted our IND to the FDA with the proposed full protocol. In December 2023, we received the Study May Proceed Letter from the FDA for our phase 3 trial in less than 30 days from the IND submission. Figure 20 shows the survival curves from five recent Phase 3 studies using now approved SOC drugs for sarcoma, and also shows the expected Phase 3 survival for 1) the blended control based on the likely mix of sarcoma types (green curve) and 2) the expected INT230-6 Phase 3 survival curve that was generated based on our clinical results in sarcoma (navy blue curve). The references showing the Phase 3 data for the SOC controls are; for trabectadin: Patel S, et. Cancer. 2019 Aug 1;125(15):2610-2620; for eribulin: Schöffski et. al. Lancet. 2016 Apr 16;387(10028):1629-37; and for pazopanib: van der Graaf et. al. Lancet. 2012 May 19;379(9829):1879-86. It is notable that despite different regimens and sarcoma subtype distributions, the overall survival is consistent for the current SOC drugs. Our Phase 2 program enrolled sarcoma patients with mixed subtypes whose cancer progressed despite a median of 3 prior treatments. We plan to enroll a similar mix of sarcoma patients; in Phase 3, however, no patient will have progressed on more than 2 treatments. Thus, patients in our planned Phase 3 study should be healthier than those treated in our Phase 2 study. Over 25% of patients in our Phase 2 study were well underdosed, and based on the tumor necrosis levels seen in IT-02, the dose loading into the tumor was insufficient for high levels of necrosis in the prior studies. In the planned Phase 3 study, underdosing of patients will be less likely to occur, given dosing of INT230-6 can be as high as 175mL from day 1. Patients in the planned Phase 3 program shall also receive long term maintenance treatment of INT230-6 every 12 weeks, which mostly did not occur for many patients in our Phase 2 program. 27 Table of Contents Figure 20 — Survival curves of standard of care drugs and INT230-6 based on Phase 2 The survival curves from five recent Phase 3 studies using now approved standard of care drugs for sarcoma. The figure also shows the expected Phase 3 survival for 1) the blended control based on the likely mix of sarcoma types (green curve) and 2) the expected INT230-6 Phase 3 survival curve that was generated based on our clinical results in sarcoma (navy blue curve), which was conducted in a less healthy sarcoma population. Figure 21 — The expected Phase 3 study schema comparing INT230-6 to the approved 2 nd or 3 rd line standard of care drugs The current Phase 3 design proposes an endpoint of overall survival in a subset of advanced soft tissue sarcoma patients (leiomyosarcoma, liposarcoma and undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma). These subtypes comprise over 80% of the sarcoma populations. We plan to enroll two subjects in the INT230-6 group per one subject of any of the three SOC used drugs which will depend on the patient’s type of sarcoma. INT230-6 will be dosed every 2 weeks for 5 doses with maintenance every 12 weeks. The SOC drugs will be dosed at their approved regimens in each country. We anticipate 9 countries in North America, Europe and the Pacific will participate in this study. 28 Table of Contents Phase 2/3 Pre-surgical (Neoadjuvant) Triple Negative Breast (INVINCIBLE-4 or IT-04) In November 2020, we met with the FDA to discuss use of our drug prior to surgery for breast cancer patients at high risk of disease recurrence such as those with triple negative breast cancer for potential accelerated approval. The FDA instituted its Accelerated Approval Program to allow for earlier approval of drugs that treat serious conditions, and that fill an unmet medical need based on a surrogate endpoint. A surrogate endpoint is a marker, such as a laboratory measurement, radiographic image, physical sign or other measure that is thought to predict clinical benefit but is not itself a measure of clinical benefit. The use of a surrogate endpoint can considerably shorten the time required prior to receiving FDA approval. The surrogate endpoint we discussed with the FDA was pathological complete response. Preoperative or neoadjuvant systemic chemotherapy, once reserved for patients with locally advanced breast cancer in whom the goal was to render large breast cancers operable, has become increasingly common. There are several potential reasons to consider neoadjuvant treatment for early-stage breast cancer. Giving chemotherapy preoperatively permits breast conservation in some patients who would otherwise require mastectomy and may improve cosmesis, or the preservation or restoration of physical appearance, in existing candidates for breast conservation. Preoperative therapy also provides a real-time evaluation of tumor response to permit discontinuation of ineffective therapy. Finally, the neoadjuvant setting offers investigators the unique opportunity to examine modulation of tissue, imaging, and other biomarkers from the time of biopsy to the time of definitive breast surgery following preoperative systemic therapy. Pathological complete response (“pCR”) is an accepted FDA criteria for triple negative breast cancer for accelerated approval. pCR is defined as the absence of residual invasive and in situ cancer on H&E evaluation of the complete resected breast specimen and all sampled regional lymph nodes following completion of neoadjuvant systemic therapy. On July 26, 2021, the FDA approved pembrolizumab (brand name Keytruda) for high-risk, early-stage, triple-negative breast cancer in combination with chemotherapy as neoadjuvant treatment, and then continued as a single agent as adjuvant treatment after surgery. The efficacy of pembrolizumab in combination with neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery and continued adjuvant treatment with pembrolizumab as a single agent was investigated in KEYNOTE-522, a randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted in patients with newly diagnosed previously untreated high-risk early-stage triple-negative breast cancer. Patients were enrolled regardless of tumor PD-L1 expression. Patients were randomized (2:1) to pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy or placebo in combination with chemotherapy. The main efficacy outcome measures were pathological complete response rate and event free survival. The pathological complete response rate was only 63% for patients who received pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy compared with 56% for patients who received chemotherapy alone. However, that 7% increase in the pCR for pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy compared to chemotherapy alone was sufficient to result in a meaningful event free survival rate at 3 years for the 1200 patient Keynote 522 population. This in turn resulted in pembrolizumab receiving full approval for neoadjuvant and adjuvant use in triple negative breast cancer. At the same time, in Keynote 522 eighty percent (80%) of patients had a grade 3 or higher adverse event and 0.6% of patients died from the treatment. As shown in Figure 17 above from the INVINCIBLE 2 Study INT230-6 can cause >95% of a large tumor to become necrotic on a single dose without toxicity other than minor pain at the injection site. Combining one or two doses upfront of INT230-6 with the SOC neoadjuvant therapy (pembrolizumab with anthracycline, cyclophosphamide and taxane) could potentially increase the pCR rate significantly to allow for accelerated approval especially in the more challenging tumors greater than or equal to 2 cm. Further use of INT230-6 may allow for the elimination of the anthracycline or cyclophosphamide and could reduce the toxicity of current chemotherapy regimen while obtaining an increase in pCR. The data on percent tumor necrosis form the phase 2 INVINCIBLE-4 Study will indicate how much necrosis can be induced upfront. Following receipt of the final data from the phase 2 INVINCIBLE-4 Study, we plan to request another meeting with the FDA to review a Phase 3 randomized trial in neoadjuvant breast cancer with pCR improvement as the endpoint. The design of the Phase 2/3 study for presurgical use would be to add INT230-6 injection(s) in front of the SOC, which is chemotherapy with pembrolizumab, in TNBC and/or HER2+ versus SOC. The first endpoint would be for accelerated approval using Pathological Complete Response (pCR). Data for approval could be obtained 4 months post enrollment of the last patient. For full drug approval we would continue to enroll to show that the addition of INT230-6 to the SOC could lead to event free survival (EFS). The full approval endpoint would likely be at 3 years post-enrollment of the full EFS study. The Phase 2 design of the program is shown in Figure 22 below. 29 Table of Contents Figure 22 — The expected Phase 2 and 3 study schema comparing INT230-6 to the approved 2 nd or 3 rd line standard of care drugs Phase 2 Metastatic Triple Negative Breast Cancer (contingent on additional capital raises) . The FDA designation of INT230-6 for Fast Track was made in 2018 as response to our proposed development program evaluating INT230-6 for the treatment of patients with relapsed or metastatic triple negative breast cancer. Metastatic TNBC patients have a poor prognosis, with a median overall survival of 13.3 months with treatment first line. Recently approved treatments including Lynparza (PARP inhibitor) and Tecentriq (PD-L1 inhibitor). Those treatments target a specific subset of patients, with BRCA 1 or 2 and PD-L1 positive markers, respectively. Our target population would be more inclusive. Continuing chemotherapy treatment until disease progression is currently the SOC for patients with metastatic TNBC, with no preferred chemotherapy regimens established at this time. Gilead presented data at the 2021 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting (Abstract #1080) for second line use of sacituzumab (Trodelvy). Sacituzumab extended median overall survival to 10.9 months versus 4.9 months with chemotherapy (HR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.28-0.91). With a small sample size in study IT-01 INT230-6 either as monotherapy or with pembrolizumab has shown in refractory metastatic breast cancer (all types) a median overall survival of 12 months (n=9), and in subset of just m TNBC subjects, a median overall survival of approximately 12.5 months. INT230-6 Phase 2/3 study design would consist of metastatic TNBC patients whose cancer has progressed following 1 to 2 lines of prior therapy. The Phase 2 study would be approximately 60 patients with INT230-6 arm and a control arm cohort design of patients using investigators choice of therapy. The endpoints would be median overall survival. Patients would receive 5 doses of INT230-6 every two weeks delivered IT with a maintenance dosing. The protocol will be designed to allow us to determine, within 12 months following completion of enrollment, whether INT230-6 has the potential to offer clinical benefit. A combination of INT230-6 with a checkpoint antibody (e.g. pembrolizumab or ipilimumab) within the randomized Phase 2 may be considered. From the results of the ongoing Phase 2, the company would make a strategic decision to use either monotherapy or combination with a checkpoint and size the final study accordingly. Phase 3 would be randomized 2 to 1 against investigators choice of treatment. Additional subjects could be added to the Phase 2 portion to complete the Phase 3 program. A clinical Phase 2/3 program in metastatic breast will be when sufficient capital is available post-initiation of the sarcoma Phase 3 study and the Phase 2/3 program in neoadjuvant breast cancer. Government Regulation The FDA and other regulatory authorities at federal, state and local levels, as well as in foreign countries, extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, quality control, import, export, safety, effectiveness, labeling, packaging, storage, distribution, record keeping, approval, advertising, promotion, marketing, post-approval monitoring and post-approval reporting of drugs such as those we are developing. We, along with our vendors, collaboration partners, CROs and contract manufacturers, will be required to navigate the various preclinical, clinical, 30 Table of Contents manufacturing and commercial approval requirements of the governing regulatory agencies of the countries in which we wish to conduct studies or seek approval of our product candidate. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals of drugs and ensuring subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations requires the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. In the United States, where we are initially focusing our product development, the FDA regulates drugs under the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”) and its implementing regulations. Drug products are also subject to other federal, state and local statutes and regulations. Our product candidate is early-stage and has not been approved by the FDA for marketing in the United States. The process required by the FDA before our product candidate is approved for therapeutic indications and may be marketed in the United States generally involves the following: • completion of extensive preclinical studies in accordance with applicable regulations, including studies conducted in accordance with Good Laboratory Practice, or GLP, requirements; • submission to the FDA of an IND, which must become effective before clinical trials may begin and must be updated annually or when significant changes are made; • approval by an Institutional Review Board, or IRB, or independent ethics committee at each clinical trial site before each trial may be initiated; • performance of adequate and well-controlled clinical trials in accordance with Good Clinical Practice, or GCP requirements and other clinical trial-related regulations to establish the safety and efficacy of the proposed drug product candidate for its intended purpose; • preparation and submission to the FDA of a NDA after completion of all pivotal trials; • a determination by the FDA of its receipt of an NDA, to file the application for review; • satisfactory completion of one or more FDA pre-approval inspections of the manufacturing facility or facilities where the product will be produced to assess compliance with cGMP requirements, to assure that the facilities, methods and controls are adequate to assure the drug product’s identity, strength, quality and purity; • potential FDA audit of the clinical trial sites that generated the data in support of the NDA; • payment of user fees for FDA review of the NDA; and • FDA review and approval of the NDA, including consideration of the views of any FDA advisory committee, prior to any commercial marketing or sale of the drug product in the United States. Preclinical and clinical trials for drug products Before testing any drug in humans, the product candidate must undergo rigorous preclinical testing. Preclinical studies include laboratory evaluations of chemistry, formulation and stability, as well as in vitro and animal studies to assess safety and in some cases to establish the rationale for therapeutic use. The conduct of preclinical studies is subject to federal and state regulations and requirements, including GLP requirements for safety and toxicology studies. The results of the preclinical studies, together with manufacturing information and analytical data must be submitted to the FDA as part of an IND. An IND is a request for authorization from the FDA to administer an investigational product to humans, and must become effective before clinical trials may begin. The central focus of an IND submission is on the general investigational plan and the protocol(s) for clinical studies. The IND also includes results of animal and in vitro studies assessing the toxicology, pharmacokinetics, pharmacology, and pharmacodynamic characteristics of the product; chemistry, manufacturing, and controls information; and any available human data or literature to support the use of the investigational product. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA, within the 30-day time period, raises concerns or questions about the conduct of the clinical trial, including concerns that human research subjects will be exposed to unreasonable health risks, and imposes a clinical hold. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. Some long-term preclinical testing may continue after the IND is submitted. Accordingly, submission of an IND may or may not result in FDA authorization to begin a trial. A separate submission to an existing IND must also be made for each successive clinical trial conducted during product development of a product candidate, and the FDA must grant permission, either explicitly or implicitly by not objecting, before each clinical trial can begin. The clinical-stage of development involves the administration of the product candidate to healthy volunteers or patients under the supervision of qualified investigators, generally physicians not employed by or under the trial sponsor’s control, in accordance with GCP requirements, which include the requirements that all research subjects provide their 31 Table of Contents informed consent for their participation in any clinical trial. For cancer patients, the Phase 1 usually involves patients whose cancer has progressed following all approved therapies for that particular cancer. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the clinical trial, dosing procedures, subject selection and exclusion criteria and the parameters and criteria to be used in monitoring safety and evaluating effectiveness. Each protocol, and any subsequent amendments to the protocol, must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. Furthermore, each clinical trial must be reviewed and approved by an IRB for each institution at which the clinical trial will be conducted to ensure that the risks to individuals participating in the clinical trials are minimized and are reasonable related to the anticipated benefits. The IRB also approves the informed consent form that must be provided to each clinical trial subject or his or her legal representative, and must monitor the clinical trial until completed. The FDA, the IRB, or the sponsor may suspend or discontinue a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the subjects are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Some studies also include oversight by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the clinical study sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board, which provides authorization for whether or not a study may move forward at designated check points based on access to certain data from the study and may halt the clinical trial if it determines that there is an unacceptable safety risk for subjects or other grounds, such as no demonstration of efficacy. There also are requirements governing the reporting of ongoing clinical trials and completed clinical trials to public registries. Information about applicable clinical trials, including clinical trials results, must be submitted within specific timeframes for publication on the www.clinicaltrials.gov website. Disclosure of the results of such trials can be delayed in some cases for up to two years after the date of completion of the trial. Failure to timely register a covered clinical trial or to submit trial results as provided for in the law can give rise to civil monetary penalties and also prevent the non-compliant party from receiving future grant funds from the federal government. Both the NIH and the FDA have signaled willingness to enforce requirements under the NIH’s Final Rule on ClinicalTrials.gov registration and reporting requirements. Starting in 2021, the FDA has issued Notices of Non-Compliance to several companies in connection with ClinicalTrials.gov. We have conducted our trials in Canada under a Clinical Trial Agreement with Health Canada, the regulatory authority in Canada. While we plan to conduct any international clinical trials under appropriate country filings in the future, a sponsor who wishes to conduct a clinical trial outside of the United States may, but need not, obtain FDA authorization to conduct the clinical trial under an IND. The FDA will accept a well-designed and well-conducted foreign clinical study not conducted under an IND if the study was conducted in accordance with GCP requirements, and the FDA is able to validate the data through an onsite inspection if deemed necessary. Clinical trials to evaluate therapeutic indications to support NDAs for marketing approval are typically conducted in three sequential Phases, which may overlap. • Phase 1 — Phase 1 clinical trials involve initial introduction of the investigational product into healthy human volunteers or patients with the target disease or condition. These studies are typically designed to test the safety, dosage tolerance, absorption, metabolism and distribution of the investigational product in humans, evaluate the side effects associated with increasing doses, and, if possible, to gain early evidence of effectiveness. As noted above for new cancer treatments such as ours, the Phase 1 involves patients whose cancer has progressed following all approved therapies for that particular cancer not healthy volunteers. • Phase 2 — Phase 2 clinical trials typically involve administration of the investigational product to a limited patient population with a specified disease or condition to evaluate the preliminary efficacy, optimal dosages and dosing schedule and to identify possible adverse side effects and safety risks. Multiple Phase 2 clinical trials may be conducted to obtain information prior to beginning larger and more expensive Phase 3 clinical trials. • Phase 3 — Phase 3 clinical trials typically involve administration of the investigational product to an expanded patient population to further evaluate dosage, to provide statistically significant evidence of clinical efficacy and to further test for safety, generally at multiple geographically dispersed clinical trial sites. These clinical trials are intended to establish the overall risk/benefit ratio of the investigational product and to provide an adequate basis for product approval. Generally, one or two adequate and well-controlled Phase 3 clinical trials are required by the FDA for approval of an NDA. Post-approval trials, sometimes referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials, may be conducted after initial marketing approval. These trials are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication and are commonly intended to generate additional safety data regarding use of the product in a clinical setting. In certain instances, the FDA may mandate the performance of Phase 4 clinical trials as a condition of approval of an NDA. Progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials, among other information, must be submitted at least annually to the FDA and written IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA and the investigators fifteen days after 32 Table of Contents the trial sponsor determines the information qualifies for reporting for serious and unexpected suspected adverse events, findings from other studies or animal or in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk for human participants exposed to the investigational product and any clinically important increase in the rate of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure. The sponsor must also notify the FDA of any unexpected fatal or life-threatening suspected adverse reaction as soon as possible but in no case later than seven calendar days after the sponsor’s initial receipt of the information. Concurrent with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional animal studies and must also develop additional information about the drug characteristics of the product candidate and finalize a process for manufacturing the drug product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product candidate and manufacturers must develop, among other things, methods for testing the identity, strength, quality and purity of the final drug product. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested, and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the product candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life and to identify appropriate storage conditions for the product candidate. NDA Submission and Review by the FDA We intend to seek data exclusivity or market exclusivity for INT230-6. Assuming successful completion of the required clinical testing, the results of the preclinical studies and clinical trials, together with detailed information relating to the product’s chemistry, manufacture, controls and proposed labeling, among other things, are submitted to the FDA as part of an NDA requesting approval to market the product for one or more indications. An NDA is a request for approval to market a new drug for one or more specified indications. The NDA must include all relevant data available from pertinent pre-clinical and clinical studies, including negative or ambiguous results as well as positive findings, together with detailed information relating to the product’s chemistry, manufacturing, controls, and proposed labeling, among other things. Data may come from company-sponsored clinical trials intended to test the safety and efficacy of a product’s use or from a number of alternative sources, including studies initiated by investigators. To support marketing approval, the data submitted must be sufficient in quality and quantity to establish the safety and efficacy of the investigational product to the satisfaction of the FDA. FDA approval of an NDA must be obtained before a chemical drug may be marketed in the United States. In addition, under the Pediatric Research Equity Act, or PREA, an NDA or supplement to an NDA must contain data to assess the safety and effectiveness of the drug product candidate for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. The Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act requires that a sponsor who is planning to submit a marketing application for a drug product that includes a new clinically active component, new indication, new dosage form, new dosing regimen or new route of administration submit an initial Pediatric Study Plan (PSP) within sixty days after an end-of-Phase 2 meeting or as may be agreed between the sponsor and the FDA. The FDA may grant deferrals for submission of pediatric data or full or partial waivers. Unless otherwise required by regulation, PREA does not apply to any drug product for an indication for which orphan designation has been granted. The FDA reviews all submitted NDAs before it accepts them for filing, and may request additional information rather than accepting the NDA for filing. The FDA must make a decision on accepting an NDA for filing within 60 days of receipt, and such decision could include a refusal to file by the FDA. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth substantive review of the NDA. The FDA reviews an NDA to determine, among other things, whether the product is safe and effective and whether the facility in which it is manufactured, processed, packaged or held meets standards designed to assure the product’s continued identity, strength, quality and purity. Under the goals and polices agreed to by the FDA under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, the FDA targets ten months, from the filing date, in which to complete its initial review of an original NDA and respond to the applicant, and six months from the filing date of an original NDA filed for priority review. The FDA does not always meet its PDUFA goal dates for standard or priority NDAs, and the review process is often extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification. Further, under PDUFA, as amended, each NDA must be accompanied by a substantial user fee, and the sponsor of an approved NDA is also subject to an annual program fee for each approved drug product. The FDA adjusts the PDUFA user fees on an annual basis. Fee waivers or reductions may be available in certain circumstances, including a waiver of the application fee for the first application filed by a small business. Additionally, no user fees are assessed on NDAs for products designated as orphan drugs, unless the product also includes a non-orphan indication. The FDA may refer an application for a new drug product to an advisory committee. An advisory committee is a panel of independent experts, including clinicians and other scientific experts, which reviews, evaluates and provides a 33 Table of Contents recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions. Before approving an NDA, the FDA typically will inspect the facility or facilities where the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve an application unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. Additionally, before approving an NDA, the FDA may inspect one or more clinical trial sites to assure compliance with GCP and other requirements and the integrity of the clinical data submitted to the FDA. The FDA also may require submission of a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, as a condition for approving the NDA to ensure that the benefits of the product outweigh its risks. The REMS could include medication guides, physician communication plans, assessment plans, and/or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries, or other risk-minimization tools. After evaluating the NDA and all related information, including the advisory committee recommendation, if any, and inspection reports regarding the manufacturing facilities and clinical trial sites, the FDA may issue an approval letter or a Complete Response Letter. A Complete Response Letter indicates that the review cycle of the application is complete and the application is not ready for approval. A Complete Response Letter will usually describe all of the deficiencies that the FDA has identified in the NDA, except that where the FDA determines that the data supporting the application are inadequate to support approval, the FDA may issue the Complete Response Letter without first conducting required inspections, testing submitted product lots, and/or reviewing proposed labeling. In issuing the Complete Response Letter, the FDA may recommend actions that the applicant might take to place the NDA in condition for approval, including requests for additional information or clarification. Even with submission of this additional information, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval. If and when those conditions have been met to the FDA’s satisfaction, the FDA will typically issue an approval letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the product with specific prescribing information for specific indications. Even if the FDA approves a product, depending on the specific risk(s) to be addressed, the FDA may limit the approved indications for use of the product, require that contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling, require that post-approval studies, including Phase 4 clinical trials, be conducted to further assess a product’s safety after approval, require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the product after commercialization, or impose other conditions, including distribution and use restrictions or other risk management mechanisms under a REMS, which can materially affect the potential market and profitability of the product. The FDA may prevent or limit further marketing of a product based on the results of post-marketing studies or surveillance programs. After approval, some types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, manufacturing changes, and additional labeling claims, are subject to further testing requirements and FDA review and approval. Expedited Development and Review Programs for Drugs The FDA maintains several programs intended to facilitate and expedite development and review of new drugs to address unmet medical needs in the treatment of serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions. These programs include Fast Track Designation, Breakthrough Therapy designation, priority review and Accelerated Approval. A new drug product is eligible for Fast Track Designation if it is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and demonstrates the potential to address unmet medical needs for such disease or condition. Fast Track Designation applies to the combination of the product and the specific indication for which it is being studied. Fast Track Designation provides increased opportunities for sponsor interactions with the FDA during preclinical and clinical development, in addition to the potential for rolling review once a marketing application is filed, meaning that the FDA may consider for review sections of the NDA on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted, if the sponsor provides a schedule for the submission of the sections of the NDA, the FDA agrees to accept sections of the NDA and determines that the schedule is acceptable, and the sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first section of the NDA. In addition, a new drug product may be eligible for Breakthrough Therapy designation if it is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs or biologics, may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. Breakthrough Therapy designation provides all the features of Fast Track Designation in addition to intensive guidance on an efficient development program beginning as early as Phase 1, and FDA organizational commitment to expedited development, including involvement of senior managers and experienced review staff in a cross-disciplinary review, where appropriate. 34 Table of Contents Any product submitted to the FDA for approval, including a product with Fast Track or Breakthrough Therapy designation, may also be eligible for additional FDA programs intended to expedite the review and approval process, including priority review and Accelerated Approval. A product is eligible for priority review if it is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and if approved, would provide a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness. For original NDAs, priority review designation means the FDA’s goal is to take action on the marketing application within six months of the 60-day filing date (compared with ten months under standard review). A product intended to treat serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions may receive Accelerated Approval upon a determination that the product has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit, or on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than on irreversible morbidity or mortality which is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity, or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. Accelerated Approval is usually contingent on a sponsor’s agreement to conduct additional post-approval studies to verify and describe the product’s clinical benefit. The FDA may withdraw approval of a drug approved under Accelerated Approval if, for example, the sponsor fails to conduct the confirmatory trials in a timely manner or the confirmatory trial fails to verify the predicted clinical benefit of the product. In addition, unless otherwise informed by the FDA, the FDA currently requires, as a condition for Accelerated Approval, that all advertising and promotional materials that are intended for dissemination or publication within 120 days following marketing approval be submitted to the agency for review during the pre-approval review period, and that after 120 days following marketing approval, all advertising and promotional materials must be submitted at least 30 days prior to the intended time of initial dissemination or publication. Fast Track Designation, Breakthrough Therapy designation, priority review and Accelerated Approval do not change the scientific or medical standards for approval or the quality of evidence necessary to support approval but may expedite the development or review process. U.S. Post-Approval Requirements for Drugs Drugs manufactured or distributed pursuant to the FDA approvals are subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, requirements relating to recordkeeping, periodic reporting, product sampling and distribution, reporting of adverse experiences with the product, complying with promotion and advertising requirements, which include restrictions on promoting products for unapproved uses or patient populations (known as “off-label use”) and limitations on industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities. Although physicians may prescribe approved products for off-label uses, manufacturers may not market or promote such uses. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, including not only by our employees but also by agents of us or those speaking on our behalf, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant liability. Failure to comply with these requirements can result in, among other things, adverse publicity, warning letters, corrective advertising and potential civil and criminal penalties, including liabilities under the False Claims Act where products carry reimbursement under federal health care programs. Promotional materials for approved drugs must be submitted to the FDA in conjunction with their first use or first publication. Further, if there are any modifications to the product, including changes in indications, labeling or manufacturing processes or facilities, the applicant may be required to submit and obtain FDA approval of a new NDA or NDA supplement, which may require the development of additional data or preclinical studies and clinical trials. The FDA may impose a number of post-approval requirements as a condition of approval of an NDA. For example, the FDA may require post-market testing, including Phase 4 clinical trials, and surveillance to further assess and monitor the product’s safety and effectiveness after commercialization. In addition, drug manufacturers and their subcontractors involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved products are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with ongoing regulatory requirements, including cGMP, which impose certain procedural and documentation requirements upon us and our contract manufacturers. Changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated, and, depending on the significance of the change, may require prior FDA approval before being implemented. FDA regulations also require investigation and correction of any deviations from cGMP and impose reporting requirements upon us and any third-party manufacturers that we may decide to use. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain compliance with cGMP and other aspects of regulatory compliance. Failure to comply with statutory and regulatory requirements can subject a manufacturer to possible legal or regulatory action, such as warning letters, suspension of manufacturing, product seizures, injunctions, civil penalties or criminal prosecution. There is also a continuing, annual program fee for any marketed product. 35 Table of Contents The FDA may withdraw approval if compliance with regulatory requirements and standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the market. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in revisions to the approved labeling to add new safety information, requirements for post-market studies or clinical trials to assess new safety risks, or imposition of distribution or other restrictions under a REMS. Other potential consequences include, among other things: • restrictions on the marketing or manufacturing of the product, complete withdrawal of the product from the market or product recalls; • safety alerts, Dear Healthcare Provider letters, press releases or other communications containing warnings or other safety information about the product; • mandated modification of promotional materials and labeling and issuance of corrective information; • fines, warning letters, or untitled letters; • holds on clinical trials; • refusal of the FDA to approve applications or supplements to approved applications, or suspension or revocation of product approvals; • product seizure or detention, or refusal to permit the import or export of products; • injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties; and • consent decrees, corporate integrity agreements, debarment or exclusion from federal healthcare programs. Orphan Designation and Exclusivity Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan drug designation, or ODD, to a drug or biologic intended to treat a rare disease or condition, defined as a disease or condition with either a patient population of fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or a patient population greater of than 200,000 individuals in the United States when there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making available the drug or biologic in the United States will be recovered from sales in the United States of that drug or biologic. ODD must be requested before submitting an NDA. After the FDA grants ODD, the generic identity of the therapeutic agent and its potential orphan use are disclosed publicly by the FDA. If a product that has received ODD and subsequently receives the first FDA approval for a particular clinically active component for the disease for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan product exclusivity, which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications, including a full NDA, to market the same biologic for the same indication for seven years from the approval of the NDA, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan drug exclusivity or if the FDA finds that the holder of the orphan drug exclusivity has not shown that it can assure the availability of sufficient quantities of the orphan drug to meet the needs of patients with the disease or condition for which the drug was designated. Orphan drug exclusivity does not prevent the FDA from approving a different drug or biologic for the same disease or condition, or the same drug or biologic for a different disease or condition. Among the other benefits of ODD are tax credits for certain research and a waiver of the NDA application user fee. A designated orphan drug may not receive orphan drug exclusivity if it is approved for a use that is broader than the indication for which it received ODD. In addition, orphan drug exclusive marketing rights in the United States may be lost if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient quantities of the product to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition. A drug product can also obtain pediatric market exclusivity in the United States. Pediatric exclusivity, if granted, adds six months to existing exclusivity periods and patent terms. This six-month exclusivity, which runs from the end of other exclusivity protection or patent term, may be granted based on the voluntary completion of a pediatric study in accordance with an FDA-issued “Written Request” for such a study. The data from such study do not need to show the product to be effective in the pediatric population studied; rather, if the clinical trial is deemed to fairly respond to the FDA’s request, the additional protection is granted. Although this is not a patent term extension, it effectively extends the regulatory period during which the FDA cannot approve another application. We filed for orphan drug status with the FDA in December 2021, responded to clarifications from the FDA in March 2022, and received orphan drug designation for all three components of INT230-6 SHAO, cisplatin and vinblastine, for soft tissue sarcoma in June 2022. This designation 36 Table of Contents grants the company seven years of marketing exclusivity following approval in the soft tissue sarcoma for any of our products containing any one of these three ingredients. The Hatch-Waxman Act and Marketing Exclusivity Under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, otherwise known as the Hatch-Waxman Amendments to the FDCA, Congress authorized the FDA to approve generic drugs that are the same as drugs previously approved by the FDA under the NDA provisions of the statute and also enacted Section 505(b)(2) of the FDCA. To obtain approval of a generic drug, an applicant must submit an abbreviated new drug application, or ANDA, to the agency. In support of such applications, a generic manufacturer may rely on the preclinical and clinical testing conducted for a drug product previously approved under an NDA, known as the reference listed drug (RLD). Specifically, in order for an ANDA to be approved, the FDA must find that the generic version is identical to the RLD with respect to the active ingredients, the route of administration, the dosage form, and the strength of the drug. In contrast, Section 505(b)(2) permits the filing of an NDA where at least some of the information required for approval comes from studies not conducted by or for the applicant and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference. A Section 505(b)(2) applicant may eliminate the need to conduct certain preclinical or clinical studies, if it can establish that reliance on studies conducted for a previously approved product is scientifically appropriate. Unlike the ANDA pathway used by developers of bioequivalent versions of innovator drugs, which does not allow applicants to submit new clinical data other than bioavailability or bioequivalence data, the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway does not preclude the possibility that a follow-on applicant would need to conduct additional clinical trials or nonclinical studies; for example, they may be seeking approval to market a previously approved drug for new indications or for a new patient population that would require new clinical data to demonstrate safety or effectiveness. The FDA may then approve the new product for all or some of the label indications for which the RLD has been approved, or for any new indication sought by the Section 505(b)(2) applicant, as applicable. In seeking approval of an NDA or a supplement thereto, the NDA sponsor is required to list with the FDA each patent with claims that cover the sponsor’s product or an approved method of using the product. Upon approval of an NDA, each of the patents listed in the application for the drug is published in the FDA publication Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, commonly known as the Orange Book. When an ANDA applicant submits its application to the FDA, the applicant is required to certify to the FDA concerning any patents listed in the Orange Book for the RLD, except for patents covering methods of use for which the follow-on applicant is not seeking approval. To the extent a Section 505(b)(2) applicant is relying on studies conducted for an already approved product, such an applicant is also required to certify to the FDA concerning any patents listed for the approved product in the Orange Book to the same extent that an ANDA applicant would. Specifically, any applicant who subsequently files an ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA that references the drug listed in the Orange Book must certify to the FDA that with respect to each published patent, (i) the required patent information has not been filed by the original applicant of the RLD; (ii) the listed patent already has expired; (iii) the listed patent has not expired, but will expire on a specified date and approval is sought after patent expiration; or (iv) the listed patent is invalid, unenforceable or will not be infringed by the manufacture, use or sale of the new product. These are known as Paragraph I, II, III, and IV certifications, respectively. If a Paragraph I or II certification is filed, the FDA may make approval of the application effective immediately upon completion of its review. If a Paragraph III certification is filed, the approval may be made effective on the patent expiration date specified in the application, although a tentative approval may be issued before that time. If an application contains a Paragraph IV certification, a series of events will be triggered, the outcome of which will determine the effective date of approval of the ANDA or 505(b)(2) application. A certification that the new product will not infringe the RLD’s listed patents or that such patents are invalid is called a Paragraph IV certification. If the follow-on applicant has provided a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA, the applicant must also send notice of the Paragraph IV certification to the NDA and patent holders for the RLD once the applicant’s NDA has been accepted for filing by the FDA. The NDA and patent holders may then initiate a legal challenge to the Paragraph IV certification. The filing of a patent infringement lawsuit within 45 days of their receipt of a Paragraph IV certification automatically prevents the FDA from approving the ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA until the earlier of 30 months after the receipt of the Paragraph IV notice, expiration of the patent or a decision in the infringement case that is favorable to the ANDA or 505(b)(2) applicant. Alternatively, if the listed patent holder does not file a patent infringement lawsuit within the required 45-day period, the follow-on applicant’s ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA will not be subject to the 30-month stay. In addition, under the Hatch-Waxman Amendments, the FDA may not approve an ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA until any applicable period of non-patent exclusivity for the referenced RLD has expired. These market exclusivity provisions under the FDCA also can delay the submission or the approval of certain applications. The FDCA provides a five-year 37 Table of Contents period of non-patent marketing exclusivity within the United States to the first applicant to gain approval of an NDA for a drug containing a new chemical entity. A drug is a new chemical entity if the FDA has not previously approved any other new drug containing the same active moiety, which is the molecule or ion responsible for the action of the drug substance. During the exclusivity period, the FDA may not accept for review an ANDA or a 505(b)(2) NDA submitted by another company for another version of such drug where the applicant does not own or have a legal right of reference to all the data required for approval. However, an application may be submitted after four years if it contains a certification of patent invalidity or non-infringement. The FDCA also provides three years of marketing exclusivity for an NDA, 505(b)(2) NDA or supplement to an existing NDA if new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability studies, that were conducted or sponsored by the applicant are deemed by the FDA to be essential to the approval of the application, for example, new indications, dosages or strengths of an existing drug. This three-year exclusivity covers only the conditions of use associated with the new clinical investigations and does not prohibit the FDA from approving follow-on applications for drugs containing the original active agent. Five-year and three-year exclusivity also will not delay the submission or approval of a traditional NDA filed under Section 505(b)(1) of the FDCA. However, an applicant submitting a traditional NDA would be required to either conduct or obtain a right of reference to all of the preclinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials necessary to demonstrate safety and effectiveness. Patent Term Extension After NDA approval, owners of relevant drug patents may apply for up to a five-year patent term extension. The allowable patent term extension is calculated as half of the drug’s testing phase — the time between when the IND becomes effective and NDA submission — and all of the review phase — the time between NDA submission and approval, up to a maximum of five years. The time can be shortened if the FDA determines that the applicant did not pursue approval with due diligence. The total patent term after the extension may not exceed 14 years. For patents that might expire during the application phase, the patent owner may request an interim patent extension. An interim patent extension increases the patent term by one year and may be renewed up to four times. For each interim patent extension granted, the post-approval patent extension is reduced by one year. The director of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) must determine that approval of the drug covered by the patent for which a patent extension is being sought is likely. Interim patent extensions are not available for a drug for which an NDA has not been submitted. Other Regulatory Matters Manufacturing, sales, promotion and other activities of drug products following approval, where applicable, or commercialization are also subject to regulation by numerous regulatory authorities in the United States in addition to the FDA, which may include the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, other divisions of the Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, the Department of Justice, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Occupational Safety & Health Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency and state and local governments and governmental agencies. Other Healthcare Laws Healthcare providers, physicians, and third-party payors will play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any products for which we obtain marketing approval. Our business operations and any current or future arrangements with third-party payors, healthcare providers and physicians may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we develop, market, sell and distribute any drugs for which we obtain marketing approval. In the United States, these laws include, without limitation, state and federal anti-kickback, false claims, physician transparency, and patient data privacy and security laws and regulations, including but not limited to those described below. • The federal Anti-Kickback Statute, which prohibits, among other things, persons and entities from knowingly and willfully soliciting, offering, paying, receiving or providing any remuneration (including any kickback, bribe, or certain rebate), directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, in cash or in kind, to induce or reward, or in return for, either the referral of an individual for, or the purchase, order or recommendation of, any good or service, for which payment may be made, in whole or in part, under a federal healthcare program such as Medicare and Medicaid; a person or entity need not have actual knowledge of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. Violations are subject to civil and criminal fines and penalties for each violation, plus up to three times the remuneration involved, imprisonment, and exclusion from government healthcare programs; 38 Table of Contents • The federal civil and criminal false claims laws, including the civil False Claims Act, or FCA, which prohibit individuals or entities from, among other things, knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, to the federal government, claims for payment or approval that are false, fictitious or fraudulent; knowingly making, using, or causing to be made or used, a false statement or record material to a false or fraudulent claim or obligation to pay or transmit money or property to the federal government; or knowingly concealing or knowingly and improperly avoiding or decreasing an obligation to pay money to the federal government. Manufacturers can be held liable under the FCA even when they do not submit claims directly to government payors if they are deemed to “cause” the submission of false or fraudulent claims. In addition, the government may assert that a claim that includes items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the civil False Claims Act. The FCA also permits a private individual acting as a “whistleblower” to bring actions on behalf of the federal government alleging violations of the FCA and to share in any monetary recovery. When an entity is determined to have violated the federal civil False Claims Act, the government may impose civil fines and penalties for each false claim, plus treble damages, and exclude the entity from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal healthcare programs; • The federal civil monetary penalties laws, which impose civil fines for, among other things, the offering or transfer or remuneration to a Medicare or state healthcare program beneficiary if the person knows or should know it is likely to influence the beneficiary’s selection of a particular provider, practitioner, or supplier of services reimbursable by Medicare or a state health care program, unless an exception applies; • The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, imposes criminal and civil liability for knowingly and willfully executing a scheme, or attempting to execute a scheme, to defraud any healthcare benefit program, including private payors, knowingly and willfully embezzling or stealing from a healthcare benefit program, willfully obstructing a criminal investigation of a healthcare offense, or falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false statements in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services. Similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, a person or entity need not have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation; • HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009, or HITECH, and their respective implementing regulations, imposes, among other things, specified requirements on covered entities and their business associates relating to the privacy and security of individually identifiable health information including mandatory contractual terms and required implementation of technical safeguards of such information. HITECH also created new tiers of civil monetary penalties, amended HIPAA to make civil and criminal penalties directly applicable to business associates in some cases, and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce the federal HIPAA laws and seek attorneys’ fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions; • The Physician Payments Sunshine Act, enacted as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, or collectively, the ACA, imposed new annual reporting requirements for certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics, and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid, or the Children’s Health Insurance Program, for certain payments and “transfers of value” provided to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors) and teaching hospitals, as well as ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members. In addition, many states also require reporting of payments or other transfers of value, many of which differ from each other in significant ways, are often not pre-empted, and may have a more prohibitive effect than the Sunshine Act, thus further complicating compliance efforts. Effective January 1, 2022, these reporting obligations will extend to include transfers of value made in the previous year to certain non-physician providers such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners; • Federal consumer protection and unfair competition laws, which broadly regulate marketplace activities and activities that potentially harm consumers; and • Analogous state and foreign laws and regulations, such as state anti-kickback and false claims laws, which may apply to sales or marketing arrangements and claims involving healthcare items or services reimbursed by non-governmental third party-payors, including private insurers, and may be broader in scope than their federal equivalents; state and foreign laws require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government or otherwise restrict payments that may be made to healthcare providers; state and foreign laws 39 Table of Contents that require drug manufacturers to report information related to payments and other transfers of value to physicians and other healthcare providers, and restrict marketing practices or require disclosure of marketing expenditures and pricing information; state and foreign laws that govern the privacy and security of health information in some circumstances. These data privacy and security laws may differ from each other in significant ways and often are not pre-empted by HIPAA, which may complicate compliance efforts. The distribution of drug products is subject to additional requirements and regulations, including extensive record-keeping, licensing, storage and security requirements intended to prevent the unauthorized sale of pharmaceutical products. The scope and enforcement of each of these laws is uncertain and subject to rapid change in the current environment of healthcare reform, especially in light of the lack of applicable precedent and regulations. Federal and state enforcement bodies have recently increased their scrutiny of interactions between healthcare companies and healthcare providers, which has led to a number of investigations, prosecutions, convictions and settlements in the healthcare industry. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices do not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws or any other related governmental regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, imprisonment, disgorgement, exclusion from government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, reputational harm, additional oversight and reporting obligations if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar settlement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations. If any of the physicians or other healthcare providers or entities with whom we expect to do business are found to be not in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to similar actions, penalties and sanctions. Ensuring business arrangements comply with applicable healthcare laws, as well as responding to possible investigations by government authorities, can be time- and resource-consuming and can divert a company’s attention from its business. Coverage and Reimbursement In the United States and markets in other countries, patients who are prescribed treatments for their conditions and providers performing the prescribed services generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the associated healthcare costs. Thus, even if a product candidate is approved, sales of the product will depend, in part, on the extent to which third-party payors, including government health programs in the United States such as Medicare and Medicaid, commercial health insurers and managed care organizations, provide coverage, and establish adequate reimbursement levels for, the product. In the United States, no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for drug products exists among third-party payors. Therefore, coverage and reimbursement for drug products can differ significantly from payor to payor. The process for determining whether a third-party payor will provide coverage for a product may be separate from the process for setting the price or reimbursement rate that the payor will pay for the product once coverage is approved. Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the prices charged, examining the medical necessity, and reviewing the cost-effectiveness of medical products and services and imposing controls to manage costs. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific products on an approved list, also known as a formulary, which might not include all of the approved products for a particular indication. In order to secure coverage and reimbursement for any product that might be approved for sale, a company may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of the product, in addition to the costs required to obtain FDA or other comparable regulatory approvals. Additionally, companies may also need to provide discounts to purchasers, private health plans or government healthcare programs. Nonetheless, product candidates may not be considered medically necessary or cost effective. A decision by a third-party payor not to cover a product could reduce physician utilization once the product is approved and have a material adverse effect on sales, our operations and financial condition. Additionally, a third-party payor’s decision to provide coverage for a product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Further, one payor’s determination to provide coverage for a product does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage and reimbursement for the product, and the level of coverage and reimbursement can differ significantly from payor to payor. The containment of healthcare costs has become a priority of federal, state and foreign governments, and the prices of products have been a focus in this effort. Governments have shown significant interest in implementing cost-containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products. Adoption of price controls and cost-containment measures, and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could further limit a company’s revenue generated from the sale of any approved products. Coverage policies and third-party payor reimbursement rates may change at any time. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for one or more products for which a company or its collaborators receive regulatory approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future. 40 Table of Contents Healthcare Reform In the United States and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been, and likely will continue to be, a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system directed at broadening the availability of healthcare, improving the quality of healthcare, and containing or lowering the cost of healthcare. For example, in March 2010, the United States Congress enacted the ACA, which, among other things, includes changes to the coverage and payment for products under government health care programs. The ACA includes provisions of importance to our potential product candidate that: • created an annual, nondeductible fee on any entity that manufactures or imports specified branded prescription drugs and biologic products, apportioned among these entities according to their market share in certain government healthcare programs; • expanded eligibility criteria for Medicaid programs by, among other things, allowing states to offer Medicaid coverage to certain individuals with income at or below 133% of the federal poverty level, thereby potentially increasing a manufacturer’s Medicaid rebate liability; • expanded manufacturers’ rebate liability under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program by increasing the minimum rebate for both branded and generic drugs and revising the definition of “average manufacturer price,” or AMP, for calculating and reporting Medicaid drug rebates on outpatient prescription drug prices; • addressed a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for drugs that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted or injected; • expanded the types of entities eligible for the 340B drug discount program; • established the Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program by requiring manufacturers to provide point-of-sale-discounts off the negotiated price of applicable brand drugs to eligible beneficiaries during their coverage gap period as a condition for the manufacturers’ outpatient drugs to be covered under Medicare Part D; and • created a new Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to oversee, identify priorities in, and conduct comparative clinical effectiveness research, along with funding for such research. Since its enactment, there have been numerous judicial, administrative, executive, and legislative challenges to certain aspects of the ACA. For example, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (the Tax Act) was enacted, which includes a provision repealing, effective January 1, 2019, 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 December 14, 2018, a U.S. District Court Judge in the Northern District of Texas ruled that the individual mandate is a critical and inseverable feature of the ACA, and therefore, because it was repealed as part of the Tax Act, the remaining provisions of the ACA are invalid as well. Additionally, on December 18, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5 th Circuit ruled that that the individual mandate was unconstitutional and remanded the case back to the District Court to determine whether the remaining provisions of the ACA are invalid as well. The U.S. Supreme Court held in a 7 – 2 opinion that the states and individuals that brought the lawsuit challenging the ACA’s individual mandate do not have standing to challenge the law. The Supreme Court did not reach the merits of the challenge, but the decision ends the case. It is also unclear how the Supreme Court ruling, other such litigation, and the healthcare reform measures of the Biden administration will impact the ACA or our business. Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the Affordable Care Act was enacted. In August 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, included aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect in April 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, will remain in effect through 2031 unless additional Congressional action is taken. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, or CARES Act, which was signed into law on March 27, 2020, designed to provide financial support and resources to individuals and businesses affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, suspended these reductions from May 1, 2020 through December 31, 2020, and extended the sequester by one year, through 2030. In addition, in January 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was signed into law, which, among other things, further reduced Medicare payments to several providers, including hospitals, imaging centers and cancer treatment centers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. Additionally, 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. These laws may result in additional reductions in Medicare, Medicaid and other healthcare funding. 41 Table of Contents Moreover, payment methodologies may be subject to changes in healthcare legislation and regulatory initiatives. For example, CMS may develop new payment and delivery models, such as bundled payment models. In addition, recently there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their commercial products, which has resulted in several Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted state and federal 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 pharmaceutical products. For example, on July 24, 2020 and September 13, 2020, the Trump administration announced several executive orders related to prescription drug pricing and importation. As a result, the FDA also released a final rule in September 2020, effective November 30, 2020, providing guidance for states to build and submit importation plans for drugs from Canada. Further, in November 2020, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, finalized a regulation removing safe harbor protection for price reductions from pharmaceutical manufacturers to plan sponsors under Part D, either directly or through pharmacy benefit managers, unless the price reduction is required by law. The implementation of the rule has been postponed by Congress and HHS to January 1, 2032. The CMS also issued an interim final rule that would have established a Most Favored Nation, or MFN, Model for Medicare Part B drug payments. This regulation would have substantially changed the reimbursement landscape as it based Medicare Part B payment for 50 selected drugs on prices in foreign countries instead of average sales prices (ASP) and established a fixed add-on payment in place of the current 6 percent (4.3 percent after sequestration) of ASP. The MFN drug payment amount was expected to be lower than the current ASP-based limit because U.S. drug prices are generally the highest in the world. However, CMS issued a final rule on December 29, 2021 that rescinded the MFN Model interim final rule. In December 2020, CMS issued a final rule implementing significant manufacturer price reporting changes under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, including regulations that affect manufacturer-sponsored patient assistance programs subject to pharmacy benefit manager accumulator programs and Best Price reporting related to certain value-based purchasing arrangements. On May 21, 2021, an industry group sued CMS, claiming that the change to the Best Price rule exceeds CMS’s statutory authority and is contrary to the Medicaid Rebate statute, and on May 17, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia vacated the Best Price rule. In August 2022, President Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA) into law. This statute marks the most significant action by Congress with respect to the pharmaceutical industry since adoption of the ACA in 2010. Among other things, the IRA requires manufacturers of certain drugs to engage in price negotiations with Medicare (beginning in 2026), with prices that can be negotiated subject to a cap; imposes rebates under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation (beginning October 1, 2022); and replaces the Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program with a new discounting program (beginning in 2025). The IRA permits the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to implement many of these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years. On March 15, 2023, and June 30, 2023, HHS issued guidance regarding implementation of the Medicare drug price negotiation program in initial price applicability year 2026. HHS stated it would provide additional information in the future related to implementation for initial price applicability years 2027 and beyond. Some provisions of the IRA may be subject to legal challenge. Several manufacturers and industry groups have challenged the drug price negotiation program for Medicare Parts B and D in federal court. These lawsuits are ongoing, and additional lawsuits may be filed in the future. It is unknown whether such litigation or other litigation, if brought, will be successful. For these and other reasons, it is currently unclear how the IRA will be effectuated, and while the impact of the IRA on the pharmaceutical industry cannot yet be fully determined, it is likely to be significant. On May 23, 2023, CMS issued a proposed rule that would modify many Medicaid Drug Rebate Program requirements and implement a drug price verification survey. It is unclear whether the proposed rule will be finalized and whether the final rule will differ from the proposed rule. It is also unclear to what extent these regulations or any future legislation or regulations will have on our business, including our ability to generate revenue and achieve profitability. On May 30, 2018, the Right to Try Act was signed into law. The law, among other things, provides a federal framework for certain patients to access certain investigational new drug products that have completed a Phase 1 clinical trial and that are undergoing investigation for FDA approval. Under certain circumstances, eligible patients can seek treatment without enrolling in clinical trials and without obtaining FDA permission under the FDA expanded access program. There is no obligation for a drug manufacturer to make its drug products available to eligible patients as a result of the Right to Try Act, but the manufacturer must develop an internal policy and respond to patient requests according to that policy. Outside the United States, ensuring coverage and adequate payment for a product also involves challenges. Pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals is subject to government control in many countries. Pricing negotiations with government authorities can extend well beyond the receipt of regulatory approval for a product and may require a clinical trial that 42 Table of Contents compares the cost-effectiveness of a product to other available therapies. The conduct of such a clinical trial could be expensive and result in delays in commercialization. In the European Union, pricing and reimbursement schemes vary widely from country to country. Some countries provide that products may be marketed only after a reimbursement price has been agreed. Some countries may require the completion of additional studies that compare the cost-effectiveness of a particular product candidate to currently available therapies or so-called health technology assessments, in order to obtain reimbursement or pricing approval. For example, the European Union provides options for its member states to restrict the range of products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal products for human use. European Union member states may approve a specific price for a product or they may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on our profitability for placing the product on the market. Other member states allow companies to fix their own prices for products, but monitor and control prescription volumes and issue guidance to physicians to limit prescriptions. Recently, many countries in the European Union have increased the amount of discounts required on pharmaceuticals and these efforts could continue as countries attempt to manage healthcare expenditures, especially in light of the severe fiscal and debt crises experienced by many countries in the European Union. The downward pressure on healthcare costs in general, particularly prescription products, has become intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products. Political, economic and regulatory developments may further complicate pricing negotiations, and pricing negotiations may continue after reimbursement has been obtained. Reference pricing used by various European Union member states, and parallel trade, i.e., arbitrage between low-priced and high-priced member states, can further reduce prices. There can be no assurance that any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for pharmaceutical products will allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements for any products, if approved in those countries. Compliance with Other Federal and State Laws or Requirements; Changing Legal Requirements If any products that we may develop are made available to authorized users of the Federal Supply Schedule of the General Services Administration, additional laws and requirements apply. Products must meet applicable child-resistant packaging requirements under the U.S. Poison Prevention Packaging Act. Manufacturing, labeling, packaging, distribution, sales, promotion and other activities also are potentially subject to federal and state consumer protection and unfair competition laws, among other requirements to we may be subject. The distribution of pharmaceutical products is subject to additional requirements and regulations, including extensive record-keeping, licensing, storage and security requirements intended to prevent the unauthorized sale of pharmaceutical products. The failure to comply with any of these laws or regulatory requirements subjects firms to possible legal or regulatory action. Depending on the circumstances, failure to meet applicable regulatory requirements can result in criminal prosecution, fines or other penalties, injunctions, exclusion from federal healthcare programs, requests for recall, seizure of products, total or partial suspension of production, denial or withdrawal of product approvals, relabeling or repackaging, or refusal to allow a firm to enter into supply contracts, including government contracts. Any claim or 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. Prohibitions or restrictions on marketing, sales or withdrawal of future products marketed by us could materially affect our business in an adverse way. Changes in regulations, statutes or the interpretation of existing regulations could impact our business in the future by requiring, for example: (i) changes to our manufacturing arrangements; (ii) additions or modifications to product labeling or packaging; (iii) the recall or discontinuation of our product candidates; or (iv) additional record-keeping requirements. If any such changes were to be imposed, they could adversely affect the operation of our business. Other U.S. Environmental, Health and Safety Laws and Regulations We may be subject to numerous environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, including those governing laboratory procedures and the handling, use, storage, treatment and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. From time to time and in the future, our operations may involve the use of hazardous and flammable materials, including chemicals and drug materials, and may also produce hazardous waste products. Even if we contract with third parties for the disposal of these materials and waste products, we cannot completely eliminate the risk of contamination or injury resulting from these materials. In the event of contamination or injury resulting from the use or disposal of our hazardous materials, we could be held liable for any resulting damages, and any liability could exceed our resources. We also could incur significant costs associated with civil or criminal fines and penalties for failure to comply with such laws and regulations. 43 Table of Contents We maintain workers’ compensation insurance to cover us for costs and expenses we may incur due to injuries to our employees, but this insurance may not provide adequate coverage against potential liabilities. However, we do not maintain insurance for environmental liability or toxic tort claims that may be asserted against us. In addition, we may incur substantial costs in order to comply with current or future environmental, health and safety laws and regulations. Current or future environmental laws and regulations may impair our research, development or production efforts. In addition, failure to comply with these laws and regulations may result in substantial fines, penalties or other sanctions. Government Regulation of Drugs Outside of the United States To market any product outside of the United States, we would need to comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of other countries regarding safety and efficacy and governing, among other things, clinical trials, marketing authorization or identification of an alternate regulatory pathway, manufacturing, commercial sales and distribution of our product candidates. For instance, in the European Economic Area, or the EEA (comprised of the 26 EU Member States plus Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway, with the UK having left the EU in January of 2020), medicinal products must be authorized for marketing by using either the centralized authorization procedure or national authorization procedures. • Centralized procedure — If pursuing marketing authorization of a product candidate for a therapeutic indication under the centralized procedure, following the opining of the EMA’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use, or, CHMP, the European Commission issues a single marketing authorization valid across the EEA. The centralized procedure is compulsory for human medicines derived from biotechnology processes or advanced therapy medicinal products (such as gene therapy, somatic cell therapy and tissue engineered products), products that contain a new active substance indicated for the treatment of certain diseases, such as HIV/AIDS, cancer, neurodegenerative disorders, diabetes, autoimmune diseases and other immune dysfunctions, viral diseases, and officially designated orphan medicines. For medicines that do not fall within these categories, an applicant has the option of submitting an application for a centralized marketing authorization to the EMA, as long as the medicine concerned contains a new active substance not yet authorized in the EEA, is a significant therapeutic, scientific or technical innovation, or if its authorization would be in the interest of public health in the EEA. Under the centralized procedure the maximum timeframe for the evaluation of an MAA by the EMA is 210 days, excluding clock stops, when additional written or oral information is to be provided by the applicant in response to questions asked by the CHMP. Accelerated assessment might be granted by the CHMP in exceptional cases, when a medicinal product is expected to be of a major public health interest, particularly from the point of view of therapeutic innovation. The timeframe for the evaluation of an MAA under the accelerated assessment procedure is 150 days, excluding clock stops. • National authorization procedures — There are also two other possible routes to authorize products for therapeutic indications in several countries, which are available for products that fall outside the scope of the centralized procedure: • Decentralized procedure — Using the decentralized procedure, an applicant may apply for simultaneous authorization in more than one EU country of medicinal products that have not yet been authorized in any EU country and that do not fall within the mandatory scope of the centralized procedure. • Mutual recognition procedure — In the mutual recognition procedure, a medicine is first authorized in one EU Member State, in accordance with the national procedures of that country. Following this, additional marketing authorizations can be sought from other EU countries in a procedure whereby the countries concerned recognize the validity of the original, national marketing authorization. In the EEA, new products for therapeutic indications that are authorized for marketing (i.e., reference products) qualify for eight years of data exclusivity and an additional two years of market exclusivity upon marketing authorization. The data exclusivity period prevents generic or biosimilar applicants from relying on the preclinical and clinical trial data contained in the dossier of the reference product when applying for a generic or biosimilar marketing authorization in the EU during a period of eight years from the date on which the reference product was first authorized in the EU. The market exclusivity period prevents a successful generic or biosimilar applicant from commercializing its product in the EU until ten years have elapsed from the initial authorization of the reference product in the EU. The ten-year market exclusivity period can be extended to a maximum of eleven years if, during the first eight years of those ten years, the marketing authorization holder obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to their authorization, are held to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with existing therapies. Similar to the United States, the various phases of non-clinical and clinical research in the European Union are subject to significant regulatory controls. 44 Table of Contents The Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC, the Directive 2005/28/EC on GCP and the related national implementing provisions of the individual EU Member States govern the system for the approval of clinical trials in the European Union. Under this system, an applicant must obtain prior approval from the competent national authority of the EU Member States in which the clinical trial is to be conducted. Furthermore, the applicant may only start a clinical trial at a specific study site after the competent ethics committee has issued a favorable opinion. The clinical trial application must be accompanied by, among other documents, an investigational medicinal product dossier (the Common Technical Document) with supporting information prescribed by Directive 2001/20/EC, Directive 2005/28/EC, where relevant the implementing national provisions of the individual EU Member States and further detailed in applicable guidance documents. In April 2014, the new Clinical Trials Regulation, (EU) No 536/2014 (Clinical Trials Regulation) was adopted. The Clinical Trials Regulation will be directly applicable in all the EU Member States, repealing the current Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC. Conduct of all clinical trials performed in the European Union will continue to be bound by currently applicable provisions until the new Clinical Trials Regulation becomes applicable. The extent to which ongoing clinical trials will be governed by the Clinical Trials Regulation will depend on when the Clinical Trials Regulation becomes applicable and on the duration of the individual clinical trial. If a clinical trial continues for more than three years from the day on which the Clinical Trials Regulation becomes applicable the Clinical Trials Regulation will at that time begin to apply to the clinical trial. The new Clinical Trials Regulation aims to simplify and streamline the approval of clinical trials in the European Union. The main characteristics of the regulation include: a streamlined application procedure via a single-entry point, the Clinical Trials Information System, or CTIS, a single set of documents to be prepared and submitted for the application as well as simplified reporting procedures for clinical trial sponsors; and a harmonized procedure for the assessment of applications for clinical trials, which is divided in two parts. Part 1 is assessed by the competent authorities of all EU Member States in which an application for authorization of a clinical trial has been submitted (Member States concerned). Part 2 is assessed separately by each Member State concerned. Strict deadlines have been established for the assessment of clinical trial applications. The role of the relevant ethics committees in the assessment procedure will continue to be governed by the national law of the concerned EU Member State. However, overall related timelines will be defined by the Clinical Trials Regulation. On the basis of the results of an independent audit of the CTIS, on April 21, 2021, the EMA Management Board confirmed to the European Commission that the CTIS is fully functional. Based on this, January 31, 2022 was fixed as the date of applicability of the Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No 536/2014. The collection and use of personal health data in the European Union, previously governed by the provisions of the Data Protection Directive, is now governed by the General Data Protection Regulation, or the GDPR, which became effective on May 25, 2018. While the Data Protection Directive did not apply to organizations based outside the EU, the GDPR has expanded its reach to include any business, regardless of its location, that provides goods or services to residents in the EU. This expansion would incorporate any clinical trial activities in EU member states. The GDPR imposes strict requirements on controllers and processors of personal data, including special protections for “sensitive information” which includes health and genetic information of data subjects residing in the EU. GDPR grants individuals the opportunity to object to the processing of their personal information, allows them to request deletion of personal information in certain circumstances, and provides the individual with an express right to seek legal remedies in the event the individual believes his or her rights have been violated. Further, the GDPR imposes strict rules on the transfer of personal data out of the European Union to the United States or other regions that have not been deemed to offer “adequate” privacy protections. Failure to comply with the requirements of the GDPR and the related national data protection laws of the European Union Member States, which may deviate slightly from the GDPR, may result in fines of up to 4% of global revenues, or €20,000,000, whichever is greater. As a result of the implementation of the GDPR, we may be required to put in place additional mechanisms ensuring compliance with the new data protection rules. There is significant uncertainty related to the manner in which data protection authorities will seek to enforce compliance with GDPR. For example, it is not clear if the authorities will conduct random audits of companies doing business in the EU, or if the authorities will wait for complaints to be filed by individuals who claim their rights have been violated. Enforcement uncertainty and the costs associated with ensuring GDPR compliance are onerous and may adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Should we utilize third party distributors, compliance with such foreign governmental regulations would generally be the responsibility of such distributors, who may be independent contractors over whom we have limited control. Facilities In July 2023, we signed a lease to move into 2,686 square feet of office space at 1 Enterprise Drive, Suite 430, Shelton, Connecticut (the “Shelton Lease”) to improve recruiting of staff and to reduce costs. The Shelton Lease commenced on September 1, 2023 and has a 5.5 year term. The initial payments for base rent are zero for the first 45 Table of Contents six months, $2,910 for each of the next six months, and gradually increase to $3,275 per month for the final months of the lease. The Company has an option to cancel this lease after 36 months. Commercialization We intend to pursue the complete development to our product candidates and, if marketing approval is obtained, to commercialize our product candidates on our own, or potentially with a partner, in the United States and other regions. We currently have no sales, marketing or commercial product distribution capabilities and have no experience as a company commercializing products. However, if necessary, we intend to hire appropriately to build the necessary infrastructure and capabilities over time for the United States, and potentially other regions, following further advancement of our product candidates. Clinical data, the size of the addressable patient population, the size of the commercial infrastructure and manufacturing needs may all influence or alter our commercialization plans. Manufacturing We have established an operations leadership team with extensive experience in manufacturing drugs based on amphiphilic agents, and in the construction, validation, approval and operation of facilities designed to manufacture these products. We have established an operations leadership team with extensive experience in manufacturing of the SHAO and INT230-6 product candidate. Our team has developed a reproducible manufacturing process for SHAO and our product candidates. In 2016 we produced our first batch of INT230-6 under FDA regulated cGMP and have scaled up the product successfully. We generated and continue to generate stability data showing that INT230-6 had acceptable stability through 36 months using validated analytical methods. Competition The development and commercialization of new product candidates is highly competitive. We face competition from major pharmaceutical, specialty pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies among others with respect to INT230-6 and will face similar competition with respect to any product candidates that we may seek to develop or commercialize in the future. We compete in pharmaceutical, biotechnology and other related markets that develop immune-oncology therapies for the treatment of cancer. There are other companies working to develop new drugs, immunotherapies and other approaches for the treatment of cancer including divisions of large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies of various sizes. The large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies that have commercialized and/or are developing immune-based treatments for cancer include AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead Sciences, Inc., Merck & Co., Novartis, Pfizer and Genentech, Inc. In addition, other companies have oncology divisions including large companies such as Eli Lilly and GlaxoSmithKline or and several smaller midsize organizations. Some of the products and therapies developed by our competitors are based on scientific approaches that are the similar to our approach, including with respect to the use of intratumoral delivery or activation of the immune system. Other competitive products and therapies are based on entirely different approaches. We are aware that Oncorus, Inc., Replimune Group, Inc., Amgen Inc., ImmVira Co., Ltd., IconOVir Bio, Inc., and FerGene, Inc., among others, are developing immunotherapies that may have utility for the treatment of indications that we are targeting. Potential competitors also include academic institutions, government agencies and other public and private research organizations that conduct research, seek patent protection and establish collaborative arrangements for research, development, manufacturing and commercialization. Many of the companies we compete against or may compete against in the future have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals and marketing approved drugs than we do. Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries may result in concentration of even more resources among a smaller number of our competitors. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel, in establishing clinical trial sites and enrolling subjects for our clinical trials and in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. We could see a reduction or elimination of our commercial opportunity if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, or are more convenient or are less expensive than any products that we or our collaborators may develop. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or foreign regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market. The key competitive factors affecting the success of all our product candidates, if approved, are likely to be their efficacy, safety, convenience and 46 Table of Contents price, if required, the level of biosimilar or generic competition and the availability of reimbursement from government and other third-party payors. Intellectual Property We have a robust intellectual property position with 15 issued patents (with 3 of such patents being issued in the US). We have the ability to enforce our patent claims in 38 countries including the U.S. and all external major pharmaceutical markets. Four foreign patent applications are pending. Our three United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) issued patents are as follows; (i) US Patent Number 9,351,997 is directed to a method of treating cancer, with a registration date of May 31, 2016 and an expiration date of December 6, 2033, (ii) US Patent Number 9,636,406 is directed to a method of treating cancer, with a registration date of May 2, 2017 and an expiration date of September 15, 2033, and (iii) US Patent Number 10,888,618 is directed to a method of treating cancer, with a registration date of January 12, 2021 and an expiration date of September 15, 2033. We also have one U.S. patent application pending. US Patent Application Number 17/108,099 is directed to a method of treating cancer, with a filing date of December 1, 2020. We are prosecuting patents in every major market and have been granted patents in Australia, Canada, China, the 27 European Union countries (national phase filings were made for Austria, Belgium, Cypress, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Ireland, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Malta, Monaco, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, and the United Kingdom), Israel, Japan, Macau, Russia, Singapore, South Africa, and South Korea. Patent applications are pending in Brazil, Chile, Mexico and India. Each application and issued patent has multiple claims directed to technology, methods, formulations and our lead product candidates. Together with trade secrets, know-how and continuing technological innovation, we believe that our IP position is thorough, novel, non-obvious and has been reduced to practice. The technology underlying the pending patent application directed to our lead product candidates has been developed by us and not acquired from in-licensing from any third party. Employees and Human Capital Resources As of March 1, 2024, we had seventeen employees and contractors, including one with an M.D. and one with a Ph.D. degree, consisting of two part-time and five full-time and employees, and ten contractors. We have never had a work stoppage, and none of our employees is represented by a labor organization or under any collective-bargaining arrangements. We consider our employee relations to be good. Employee levels are managed to align with the pace of our business and management believes that it has sufficient human capital to operate its business successfully. Talent Attraction and Engagement We seek to foster community, inclusion, and diversity throughout the organization by identifying talent culture adds, with a targeted emphasis on the value and contributions of each employee. Our talent attraction strategy includes utilizing employee referrals and networks, with a generous referral award, job boards, including those focused on diverse talent, and partnerships with organizations representing underrepresented communities. All job descriptions are thoroughly reviewed for consistent and inclusive language. We retain our talent through open and honest communication. Leadership is accessible to all levels of the organization. Feedback is encouraged through formal surveys, regular employee check ins, and the opportunity to provide anonymous suggestions. We continuously seek to improve, and we remain nimble in our ability to implement suggestions that will further benefit our employees. Employees know they have a real opportunity to be heard and to affect our business and culture. Training and Development We empower employees to develop their skills and abilities by following our core values and acting on great ideas regardless of their role or function. We work to provide an environment where talented individuals and teams can take control of their career growth. We provide a wide range of learning and development opportunities in both individual and group settings. We have ongoing career growth conversations, beyond a formal review process, and believe in investing in career growth and promoting from within. Similarly, we encourage employees to follow their interests and learn about new roles and departments. Employees can continue their growth by taking on new career trajectories within our growing organization. 47 Table of Contents Compensation and Benefits In order to be an employer of choice and maintain the strength of our workforce, we consistently assess the current business environment and labor market to refine our compensation and benefits programs and other resources available. We offer our employees a holistic total rewards package with premier health and welfare programs for employees and family members. We provide compensation and benefits programs to help meet the needs of our employees and reward their efforts and contributions. We use internal and external resources to help develop plans that are fair and reward our employees’ commitment and performance with the goal of attracting and retaining high performing individuals. Third party survey results show we consistently provide rich benefits, and that our annual merit increase percentages are well above average. In addition to salaries, we offer dynamic competitive compensation programs that are in line with our peers and industry. To reward employee contributions and enable them to share in the success of the Company, all employees receive generous and attainable incentive compensation beyond their base salary and equity compensation opportunities. We offer a 401(k) with employer match, employer-subsidized insurance benefits which are both robust and cost effective, flexible spending accounts, and employee assistance programs, among many other employee benefits. Recognizing the importance of work/life balance, employees are not limited to a predetermined number of vacation days, and we offer employees an above average number of paid holidays. We offer company paid family leave and all employees receive full incentive compensation during approved leaves of absence. We maintain pay equity in the U.S. for women and men and people of all races for employees performing similar work. Health and Wellness The success of our business is fundamentally connected to the well-being of our people. We strive to provide a work environment where our employees feel safe and are comfortable working and receive support. Understanding and valuing the importance of work life balance, we have maintained a flexible work from home arrangement, leaving it to employees to determine a schedule that best fits their individual needs. We keep meeting times and deadlines within regular business hours and evaluate workloads to ensure even distribution and balance. For those who choose to come into our offices, we have created spaces that foster social engagement and sponsor reoccurring onsite events. Employee mental health is a top company priority, and we promote dialogue to ensure that employees feel supported. We advise employees to regularly take PTO, facilitate workshops promoting personal well-being, provide extensive subsidized health benefits, including access to mental health resources, and provide for gym reimbursement. Corporate and Available Information Our principal executive offices are located at 1 Enterprise Drive, Suite 430, Shelton, CT 06484-4779 and our telephone number is (203) 221-7381. Our website address is www.intensitytherapeutics.com . Our website and the information on, or that can be accessed through our website, will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into this Annual Report on Form 10-K or any other report we file or furnish to the SEC. We make available on our website, free of charge, our Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and any amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC. Our SEC reports can be accessed through the Investors section of our internet website. Further, a copy of this Annual Report on Form 10-K is located at the SEC’s Public Reference Rooms at 100 F Street, N.E., Washington, D. C. 20549. Information on the operation of the Public Reference Room can be obtained by calling the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330. The SEC maintains a website that contains reports, proxy and information statements and other information regarding our filings at http://www .sec.gov .