Good morning, and welcome to Onconova’s Full Year 2017 Earnings Call and Webcast. At this time, all participants have been placed on listen-only mode. At the end of the prepared statements, participants will have the opportunity to ask questions. [Operator Instructions]. Please note that the remarks today will include forward-looking statements and that actual results could differ materially from those projected or implied in our forward-looking statements. For a description of important factors that could cause actual results to differ, we refer you to the forward-looking statements in today’s press release and the note on forward-looking statements in the company’s SEC filings. It is now my pleasure to turn the call over to Onconova’s CEO and President, Dr. Ramesh Kumar. Dr. Kumar, please proceed.

Thank you, Caja. Good morning and welcome to our full year 2017 results call. Joining me from Onconova’s management team is our CFO, Mark Guerin. 2017 and the first few months of this year marked a turning point in the clinical development of our lead Phase 3 clinical candidate rigosertib culminating in the announcement of promising interim results and the continuation of the INSPIRE pivotal trial. We are proud to be at the frontline of this indication as we seek to address the unmet medical needs of patients with higher risk MDS. We have also made significant advances across the rest of our pipeline and met several strategic business development objectives. We have now secured regional licensing agreements for our pipeline candidates. Early this week, we announced an agreement with Pint Pharma to commercialize rigosertib in Latin America. Pint has an existing hematology/oncology portfolio and a wide footprint in the region. We view this agreement as further validation of rigosertib for the treatment of MDS. Back in December, we also signed a China regional license and collaboration agreement with HanX Biopharmaceuticals for ON 123300, a first-in-class dual inhibitor of CDK4/6 + ARK5. Importantly, this collaboration places ON 123300 on an IND track and towards clinical data in 2019. As we foreshadowed in our third quarter results call, we entered into a CRADA, Cooperative Research and Development Agreement with the National Cancer Institute. NCI will conduct research including preclinical laboratory studies and clinical trial on rigosertib in pediatric cancer associated RASopathies. The execution of these three transactions combined with recent capital raises underscores our ability to leverage the late-stage program pipeline assets to finance multiple programs. In addition to the promising interim analysis of INSPIRE trial, we also reported positive results across our MDS pipeline in recent months. We delivered two…

Thanks, Ramesh. Net loss was 24.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2017, compared to 19.7 million for the prior year, primarily due to the lack of collaboration cost sharing revenue in the 2017 period and a smaller change in the fair value of warrant liability in the 2017 period. Research and development expenses were 19.1 million for the full year 2017 compared to 20.1 million for 2016. General and administrative expenses were 7.4 million for 2017 compared to 9.2 million in 2016. At the end of the year, cash and cash equivalents totaled $4 million compared to $21.4 million at December 31, 2016. Subsequent to year-end on February 12, 2018, we announced the closing of a $10 million underwritten public offering of 9,947,500 shares and warrants to purchase an aggregate of 994,750 shares of Onconova’s Series A convertible preferred stock. This included the exercise in full of the underwriter’s option to purchase additional securities. Prior to year-end on November 10, 2017, we announced an offering of common stock for gross proceeds of approximately 1.38 million. I will now hand the call back to Ramesh for his closing remarks.

Thanks, Mark. Looking ahead, we plan to present additional data highlighting the progress of our clinical development in the coming months. Later this month, the company’s scientists, and collaborators from the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, will present two abstracts at the American Chemical Society National Meeting. The first abstract relates to the analysis of stability of the clinical product during storage. The second abstract describes new chemical entity ON 150030, which is a type 1 novel pre-clinical stage inhibitor of FLT3 and Src pathways, believed to be important for targeted therapy of relapsed and refractory AML. Thereafter, we will present an abstract at the Bone Marrow Failure Disease Scientific Symposium on the results of a dose exploration study in higher risk MDS patients focusing on the impact of risk-mitigation strategies in minimizing incidence of urinary events, including hematuria. I am encouraged by the promising progress across our preclinical and late-stage trials, which is setting the stage for additional catalysts in 2018. We remain committed to serving the unmet medical needs in MDS. I would now like to open the call to questions.

Thank you. [Operator Instructions]. Our first question comes from the line of Joe Pantginis from H.C. Wainwright. Your line is now open.

Hi, guys. Good morning. Thanks for taking the question. Ramesh, I wanted to talk about the interim a little bit but specifically from a PB [ph] standpoint. How much has the visibility from the interim analysis impacted or not impacted your PB discussions?

Thank you, Joe. A very good question. It has made all the difference as they say in the movies. A lot of people have been talking to us, I would say kind of flirting with us, but the interim analysis was the inflexion point for them. Obviously none of the companies would make a deal and see the interim analysis hit the wall. So a positive interim analysis and interim analysis that informs that the trial is a go and that there is a promising signal made all the difference. Without giving you details which I’m not allowed to, we are having very, very meaningful dialogue for regional collaboration, including some substantially large territories. And of course the proof is in the pudding and we were relieved and we were delighted to announce the Pint collaboration on Monday and for Latin America. Many people are not aware of the medical need in Latin America, but we were really surprised by the forecast that potential partners including Pint provided to us. It’s a large market. It’s a thriving market in second and third line drugs, for example, ponatinib have been launched in Latin America successfully. So, Joe, interim analysis in my mind was a turning point for us.

That’s very helpful. Thank you. And if I could just follow up with one quick logistical question. I just want to make sure with regard to the Pint collaboration and/or others beyond potential milestones and royalties, do you also get a supply fee for rigosertib?

Yes. As you know, our existing collaboration with SymBio, which we were fortunate to sign in 2011, has a manufacturing and supply agreement with them. We sell the drug to them. So if you look at our financials over the period of time, a lot of the revenues we reported was selling clinical drug product to our partner and they have done numerous Phase 1 studies and they are now participating in the INSPIRE trial in Japan. So even before commercialization, supply agreements can be quite helpful to us. And then once the drug is commercialized, our ability to supply the drug to them at a profit is going to be small but significant part of the future.

Great. Thanks for the clarification.

Our next question comes from the line of Yale Jen from Laidlaw & Company. Your line is now open.

Good morning and thanks for taking the questions. In terms of the rigosertib plus aza, the oral drug in the first-line MDS reporting, could you give a little more color or maybe just iterate what the study design and what going forward are we sort of looking for?

Thank you, Yale. I think the frontline indication is really the money indication for us. That’s a big market opportunity and we want to be very, very careful that we go in there knowing that the duration of treatment is going to be long. Hopefully, patients will be on the drug for multiple years. So we need to be really, really sure of the dose and the schedule before we start the trial. The trial design has already been discussed with the FDA. They’re fine with the design. EMA has also approved the design. So there are three features of the design. One and the most important is that survival is not the endpoint. The endpoint is overall response. Big difference. So if we have to do survival in patients who normally live multiple years, the survival-based trial is going to take many, many years. So when you use overall response, you can get data pretty much concurrently as patients are being enrolled and you can get top line data within a year of completing the trial. So that’s a big difference. Number two, FDA and EMA have agreed that we can do a placebo-controlled, randomized study in which we are comparing standard of care azacitidine plus placebo with standard of care azacitidine with oral rigosertib. So the design has been confirmed by the agencies. The third and most important factor is that the study population will be patients who are eligible for frontline therapy. So in a way if our trial is successful and if you’re approved, our label is going to be very similar to the label for azacitidine which is a pretty expansive label which is a large number of patients who are going to be on the drug for multiple years. So based on these factors…

So should we anticipate a possible announcement for SPA process maybe in the second half or later part of this year or that could be something of next year?

I think the SPA process and the announcement of results will happen as earliest this month because we’re starting to show data from the expanded trial. And the SPA process doesn’t require the funding that the start of the trial requires. So you’re right. The data release and then SPA process will be the third quarter and second half. And as you know, SPA takes several months to earn [ph]. And once we have that, hopefully in sync with that process is our business development activity which allows us to finance and then start the trial.

Okay, great. Thanks a lot. That’s helpful. And maybe just a one housekeeping question for Mark. Just based on the recent financing and your reported cash as well as the PB, my estimate is that in the pro forma base that you have cash probably a little bit around 17 million. Would that be a reasonable guess?

So we ended the year with four and we announced the financing and then the Pint deal. And I think if you – in our press release we said that based on our burn from '17 and our current cash balances, we expect we have cash to get into the third quarter of 2018.

Okay, great. That’s very helpful. Again, thanks a lot. I appreciate it.

[Operator Instructions]. Our next question comes from the line of Jason McCarthy from Maxim Group. Sir, your line is now open.

Hi, guys. I think one of my questions has been somewhat answered. But I hoping that you can give me a little bit more granularity on the expected burn rate going forward? I know there is some discussion about some cost saving measures to reduce the burn down from historical levels of around 7 million. Maybe you can just give me a little bit more color on what steps you’re taking to do that to extend the runway? And what the potential is for additional regional partnerships, kind of piggybacking Joe’s earlier question, and what those upfront payments might look like that could extend the runway?

Jason, thank you so much. That’s every morning we wake up asking the same question, so that’s paramount. As you know, we’ve had some variation in quarterly burn that we report but over longer period of times since the start of INSPIRE in the first quarter of '16, we are expending about 5.5 million per quarter. And what we decided is that unless we can make a really nice deal with big upfront, we have to really cut back on expenditures. So what we’re guiding is that we are working very hard to get our expenses below 5 million a quarter. And certainly it’s easier to spend more money if more money comes in, but we have to be very disciplined. So that’s goal number one. Number two, what can – can we do more regional deals? My personal answer is absolutely. That’s really my job number one is how can we offset our expenses by getting non-dilutive funding to the company. And non-dilutive funding could come in two ways. One, it could be just upfront money or it could be that the partner shares in the cost of development offsetting the burn rate. And then these are really important things. Another way we think that the burn rate can be trended downwards is remember last year we were doing two important late-stage trials; the INSPIRE trial, the Phase 3 trial which is running globally. And just to remind everybody, our partner SymBio is paying for their share of the patients – 15% of the patients that they’ve undertaken to enroll in Japan. So they buy the drug, they pay for it. So that’s an offset. And for the rest of the world, we are responsible. So we are expending money on that important Phase 3 trial but we were…

Thank you very much.

I am currently seeing no further questions. I would now like to turn the call back to Dr. Ramesh Kumar for any further remarks.

Thank you. Thank you for the questions and your attention for this longish presentation. Just a reflection of how many things we are trying to juggle and how many things we are trying to advance. And we are available to meet with you and answer any questions you may have which are not addressed in the call today. Thank you and enjoy the rest of your day.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for participating in today’s conference. This concludes today’s program and you may all disconnect. Everyone, have a great day.