UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, DC 20549

Form 10-K

(Mark One)

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017

OR

For the transition period from                    to                         

Commission File Number: 001-37359

BLUEPRINT MEDICINES CORPORATION

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (617) 374-7580

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.  Yes  ☑   No  ☐ 

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.  Yes  ☐   No  ☑ 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.  Yes  ☑   No  ☐ 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).  Yes  ☑   No  ☐    

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.  ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer or a smaller reporting company. See definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act).  Yes  ☐   No  ☑ 

As of June 30, 2017, the aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates of the registrant, based on the last reported sales price for the registrant’s common stock, par value $0.001 per share, on the Nasdaq Global Select Market on such date, was approximately $1,953,767,657.

Number of shares of the registrant’s common stock, par value $0.001 per share, outstanding on February 15, 2018: 43,704,031

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Portions of the registrant’s definitive proxy statement for its 2018 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, which the registrant intends to file with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Regulation 14A within 120 days after the end of the registrant’s fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, are incorporated by reference into Part III of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Unless otherwise stated, all references to “us,” “our,” “Blueprint,” “Blueprint Medicines,” “we,” the “Company” and similar designations in this Annual Report on Form 10-K refer to Blueprint Medicines Corporation and its consolidated subsidiary, Blueprint Medicines Security Corporation.

Forward-Looking Statements

This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains forward-looking statements that involve substantial risks and uncertainties. All statements, other than statements of historical facts, contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K are forward-looking statements. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by words such as “anticipate,” “believe,” “contemplate,” “continue,” “could,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “may,” “plan,” “potential,” “predict,” “project,” “seek,” “should,” “target,” “will,” “would” or the negative of these words or other comparable terminology, although not all forward-looking statements contain these identifying words.

The forward-looking statements in this Annual Report on Form 10-K include, but are not limited to, statements about:

Any forward-looking statements in this Annual Report on Form 10-K reflect our current views with respect to future events or to our future financial performance and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other important factors that may cause our actual results, performance or achievements to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by these forward-looking statements. We have included important factors in the cautionary statements included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, particularly in the “Risk Factors” section, that could cause actual results or events to differ materially from the forward-looking statements that we make. Given these uncertainties, you should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements. Our forward-looking statements do not reflect the potential impact of any future acquisitions, mergers, dispositions, joint ventures or investments we may make or enter into.

You should read this Annual Report on Form 10-K and the documents that we have filed as exhibits to this Annual Report on Form 10-K completely and with the understanding that our actual future results, performance or

achievements may be materially different from what we expect. Except as required by law, we assume no obligation to update or revise these forward-looking statements for any reason, even if new information becomes available in the future.

This Annual Report on Form 10-K also contains estimates, projections and other information concerning our industry, our business and the markets for certain diseases, including data regarding the estimated size of those markets, and the incidence and prevalence of certain medical conditions. Information that is based on estimates, forecasts, projections, market research or similar methodologies is inherently subject to uncertainties and actual events or circumstances may differ materially from events and circumstances reflected in this information. Unless otherwise expressly stated, we obtained this industry, business, market and other data from reports, research surveys, studies and similar data prepared by market research firms and other third parties, industry, medical and general publications, government data and similar sources.

Part I

Item 1. Business.

Overview

We are a biopharmaceutical company focused on developing potentially transformational medicines to improve the lives of patients with genomically defined cancers and rare diseases. Our approach is to leverage our novel target discovery engine to systematically and reproducibly identify kinases that are drivers of diseases in genomically defined patient populations and to craft highly selective and potent drug candidates that may provide significant and durable clinical responses for patients without adequate treatment options. This integrated biology and chemistry approach enables us to identify, characterize and design drug candidates to inhibit novel kinase targets that have been difficult to selectively inhibit. By focusing on diseases in genomically defined patient populations, we believe that we will have a more efficient development path with a greater likelihood of success.

Our most advanced drug candidates are avapritinib (formerly known as BLU‑285), BLU‑554 and BLU‑667. Our lead drug candidate, avapritinib, is an orally available, potent and highly selective inhibitor that targets KIT and PDGFRα mutations. These mutations abnormally activate receptor tyrosine kinases that are drivers of cancer and proliferative disorders, including gastrointestinal stromal tumors, or GIST, and systemic mastocytosis, or SM. We are currently evaluating avapritinib in an ongoing Phase 1 clinical trial for defined subsets of patients with GIST, which we refer to as the Navigator trial, and an ongoing Phase 1 clinical trial for advanced SM, which we refer to as the Explorer trial. GIST is a rare disease that is a sarcoma, or tumor of bone or connective tissue, of the gastrointestinal tract, or GI tract, and SM is a rare disorder that causes an overproduction of mast cells and the accumulation of mast cells in the bone marrow and other organs, which can lead to a wide range of debilitating symptoms and organ dysfunction and failure.

BLU‑554 is an orally available, potent and highly selective inhibitor that targets FGFR4, a kinase that is aberrantly activated in a defined subset of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma, or HCC, the most common type of liver cancer. We are currently evaluating BLU‑554 in an ongoing Phase 1 clinical trial in patients with advanced HCC.

BLU‑667 targets RET, a receptor tyrosine kinase that is abnormally activated by mutations or translocations, and RET resistance mutations that we predict will arise from treatment with first generation therapies. RET drives disease in subsets of patients with non‑small cell lung cancer, or NSCLC, and cancers of the thyroid, including medullary thyroid carcinoma, or MTC, and papillary thyroid cancer, and our research suggests that RET may drive disease in subsets of patients with colon cancer, breast cancer and other cancers. We are currently evaluating BLU‑667 in an ongoing Phase 1 clinical trial in patients with RET‑altered NSCLC, MTC and other advanced solid tumors.

In addition, in the fourth quarter of 2017, we nominated a development candidate, BLU‑782, for our discovery program targeting the kinase ALK2 for the treatment of fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva, or FOP, a rare genetic disease caused by mutations in the ALK2 gene, ACVR1. We anticipate initiating IND‑enabling studies for BLU-782 in the first half of 2018.

We plan to continue to leverage our discovery platform to systematically and reproducibly identify kinases that are drivers of diseases in genomically defined patient populations and craft drug candidates that potently and selectively target these kinases. We currently have two wholly-owned discovery programs for undisclosed kinase targets, and we anticipate nominating at least two additional discovery programs in 2018.

In addition to our wholly-owned clinical and pre-clinical programs, in March 2016, we entered into an agreement with F. Hoffmann‑La Roche Ltd and Hoffmann‑La Roche Inc. to discover, develop and commercialize up to five small molecule therapeutics targeting kinases believed to be important in cancer immunotherapy, as single products or possibly in combination with other therapeutics. We will continue to evaluate additional collaborations that could maximize the value for our programs and allow us to leverage the expertise of strategic collaborators. We are also focused on engaging in collaborations to capitalize on our discovery platform outside of our primary strategic focus area of cancer.

We currently have worldwide development and commercialization rights to avapritinib, BLU-554, BLU-667 and BLU-782 and all of our discovery programs other than the pre-clinical programs under the Roche collaboration. In September 2015, the FDA granted orphan drug designation to BLU-554 for the treatment of HCC, and in January 2016, the FDA granted orphan drug designation to avapritinib for the treatment of GIST and mastocytosis. In October 2016, the FDA granted fast track designation to avapritinib for the treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic GIST that progressed following treatment with imatinib and a second tyrosine kinase, or TKI, inhibitor and for the treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic GIST with the PDGFRα D842V mutation regardless of prior therapy. In addition, in June 2017, the FDA granted breakthrough therapy designation to avapritinib for the treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic GIST harboring the PDGFRα D842V mutation, and in July 2017, the European Commission granted orphan drug designation to avapritinib for the treatment of GIST.

Approved kinase drugs, such as imatinib, have demonstrated significant benefit to patients, and small molecule kinase drugs achieved approximately $25 billion in 2017 sales. Despite this success, there is room for further improvement in kinase drug discovery and development. Many of the approved drugs are multi‑kinase inhibitors that are not selective for disease drivers. This results in off‑target toxicities that limit dose levels and target inhibition, thereby reducing efficacy. Further, patients who initially respond to a targeted kinase treatment often relapse due to the development of resistance mutations. For many of the known kinases, there is a strong link between genomic alterations in a kinase and disease, including specific forms of cancer and rare genetic diseases. However, the function of the majority of the kinome is still unknown. As of December 31, 2017, there were approximately 35 small molecule drugs approved by the FDA that target less than five percent of the 518 kinases. Taken together, this represents a substantial opportunity for developing novel and transformative drugs for cancer, rare genetic diseases and other disease areas, including cancer immunotherapy.

To capitalize on the kinase opportunity, we built a discovery platform that integrates a novel target discovery engine and a proprietary compound library. Our novel target discovery engine combines our expertise in genomics, bioinformatics, and cell and structural biology to provide new insights into the biology of kinases as drivers of disease. To develop kinase drugs, we start by interrogating our proprietary compound library. Our library is a unique collection of novel small molecules rationally designed and developed entirely in‑house by Blueprint Medicines’ scientists as kinase inhibitors and enriched for drug‑like properties. We do not owe any royalties or other fees to any parties associated with our novel target discovery engine and our proprietary compound library, other than any royalties or other fees that may become payable to Roche under our cancer immunotherapy collaboration. Using this discovery platform, we have produced a drug pipeline of several promising drug candidates that target genomically defined patient subsets.

Our Strategy 

Our goal is to become a fully-integrated, biopharmaceutical company capable of delivering multiple transformative drugs to patients. The key tenets of our strategy include the following:

Our Focus — Highly Selective Kinase Drugs for Genomically Defined Cancers and Rare Diseases

Kinases are enzymes that function in many signaling pathways to regulate critical cellular functions. Kinase-dependent signaling networks are present in multiple different cell types, including muscle cells and cells of the immune system, and deregulation of these networks can lead to disease pathology. Abnormal activation of kinases has been shown to drive several key activities of cancer cells, including growth, survival, metabolism, cell motility and angiogenesis. Kinases may become abnormally activated through a number of mechanisms, including when: (1) a gene mutates creating a change in the resulting protein sequence; (2) chromosomes become rearranged creating a translocation or a fusion gene; or (3) excessive amounts of protein are created due to gene duplication or dysregulation leading to overexpression. There is a strong link between genomic alterations in kinases and disease, including specific forms of cancer and rare genetic diseases. Several kinases have been validated as oncogenes, which are genes that when altered can initiate and maintain cancer growth. Examples of oncogenes are ABL, EGFR, B‑RAF, ALK, BTK and JAK, among many others. Ongoing genomic analyses of tumor data sets continue to identify new roles for kinases as drivers of disease.

Despite these successes, many opportunities remain in kinase drug discovery and development.

Our Approach and Platform

Our approach is to systematically and reproducibly identify kinases that are drivers of diseases in genomically defined patient populations and to craft drug candidates that provide significant and durable clinical responses to patients. This approach enables us to drug known kinase targets that have been difficult to inhibit selectively and also identify, characterize and design drug candidates to inhibit novel kinase targets. By focusing on diseases in genomically defined patient populations, we believe that we can quickly identify the patients most likely to respond, resulting in a more efficient development path with a greater likelihood of success.

Our approach is enabled by our drug discovery platform consisting of two pillars:

Our proprietary compound library is a unique collection of small molecules designed and developed entirely in‑house by Blueprint Medicines’ scientists as kinase inhibitors and enriched for drug‑like properties. We do not owe royalties or other fees to any parties associated with our novel target discovery engine and our proprietary compound library. This provides high‑quality compounds to start kinase drug discovery programs and to use in identifying new kinase targets. The compounds were designed as kinase inhibitors without specific targets in mind, a design strategy that yielded a diversity of novel chemical structures that provide access to unique chemical matter. Each compound has been extensively characterized for binding to over 450 kinases and disease‑relevant kinase mutants, and the majority of known kinases are targeted by at least one compound family. Thus, this “annotated” compound library provides high‑quality medicinal chemistry starting points that enable quick‑starts to drug discovery programs, avoiding the expense and time spent running high throughput screens. Notably, our proprietary compound library has yielded high quality chemical starting points for previously difficult‑to‑drug kinases. We have continued to expand our proprietary compound library to cover a significant portion of the kinome and anticipate that as part of our discovery efforts we will continue to increase the number of compound families that inhibit each kinase target.

We have established a novel target discovery engine, which was developed entirely in‑house, to provide new insights into the biology of kinases as drivers of disease and to identify new kinase drug targets. There are two aspects to the novel target discovery engine:

Another aspect of our novel discovery engine is predicting resistance mutations. Through our structural and cell biology expertise, we predict mutations in kinases that render the enzyme insensitive to inhibition by an approved drug or compound in development. While treatment of patients with genomically defined cancers with a targeted therapy typically results in a significant anti‑tumor response, frequently the response is not durable. In tumors driven by an activated kinase, kinase reactivation via mutation is a common mechanism of resistance. Using our structural biology and computational chemistry expertise, we predict what changes in the kinase might result in a resistant enzyme and then confirm this prediction in a relevant cell culture model.

Our Development Programs

We have leveraged our discovery platform to develop a robust drug pipeline of orally available, potent and selective small molecule kinase inhibitors that target genomic drivers in several cancers and a rare genetic disease. We currently own worldwide development and commercial rights to all of our pre-clinical and clinical programs other than any drug candidates being developed in our cancer immunotherapy collaboration with Roche. The following table summarizes our most advanced drug candidates as of February 15, 2018, each of which is described in further detail below.

(1)Blueprint Medicines has U.S. commercialization rights for up to two programs. 

(2)Roche has worldwide commercialization rights for up to three programs and ex-U.S. commercialization rights for up to two programs.

All of our current clinical programs target patient populations with genomically defined diseases. Generally, as we advance our drug candidates through Phase 1 clinical development, we enrich our clinical trials by selecting patients most likely to respond to our drug candidates to confirm mechanistic and clinical proof of concept. We are also collaborating with third parties to develop and commercialize companion diagnostic tests for avapritinib in order to identify GIST patients with the PDGFRα D842V mutation, BLU‑554 in order to identify HCC patients with FGFR4 pathway activation and BLU-667 in order to identify NSCLC patients with RET fusions. We may collaborate with other third parties in the future to develop and commercialize additional companion diagnostic tests or to develop assays to measure target engagement, pathway modulation and early response.

The table below lists the initial diseases and genomic drivers targeted by avapritinib, BLU-554, BLU-667 and BLU-782, and for each of these diseases, the corresponding estimated number of patients in the United States, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom and Japan, or the Major Markets. In addition, the table lists the estimated frequency of the genomic alterations that we are initially targeting for each of these diseases.

KIT and PDGFRα Inhibitor Program (avapritinib)

Overview

Avapritinib is an orally available, potent and highly selective inhibitor that targets the homologous kinases KIT and PDGFRα, receptor tyrosine kinases that are drivers of cancer and proliferative disorders when abnormally activated. We specifically designed avapritinib to preferentially interact with the active conformation of KIT and PDGFRα to potently inhibit activation loop mutants not well-targeted by other agents, as well as a broad spectrum of other clinically relevant mutations. Avapritinib is able to potently and selectively inhibit both KIT and PDGFRα mutations with minimal inhibition of other kinases due to the high degree of structural similarity of the kinase domains of KIT and PDGFRα.

Kinome tree locations of KIT and PDGFRα illustrating close structural similarity between these kinases. Each branch of the dendogram represents an individual human kinase. Kinome illustration reproduced courtesy of Cell Signaling Technology, Inc., or CSTI (www.cellsignal.com). The foregoing website is maintained by CSTI, and Blueprint Medicines is not responsible for its content.

We are initially developing avapritinib for PDGFRα-driven GIST and KIT-driven GIST, which we collectively refer to as advanced GIST, and for advanced SM. In addition, based on the preliminary safety and clinical activity data from our Phase 1 clinical trial for avapritinib for advanced SM to date, including evidence of clinical activity starting at the lowest dose level, we anticipate initiating a Phase 2 dose escalation and proof‑of‑concept clinical trial to evaluate avapritinib in patients with indolent SM, or ISM, and smoldering SM, or SSM, in the second half of 2018. We also plan to evaluate further development of avapritinib in additional diseases driven by KIT and PDGFRα.

Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors (GIST)

GIST Disease Background

GIST is a rare disease that is a sarcoma of the GI tract. Tumors arise within cells in the wall of the GI tract and occur most often in the stomach or small intestine. Most patients are diagnosed between the ages of 50‑80 with diagnosis triggered by GI bleeding, incidental findings during surgery or imaging, or in rare cases acute presentation due to tumor rupture or GI obstruction. The standard workup at primary presentation includes pathologic confirmation and imaging to assess extent of disease.

The GIST treatment paradigm has advanced dramatically over the past 15 years. Patients diagnosed with localized disease undergo potentially curative tumor resection, while imatinib is given to high risk resected patients to prolong the time to recurrence. The advent of imatinib has improved the prognosis of patients with unresectable or metastatic disease to a five‑year median overall survival. Unresectable or metastatic patients typically receive imatinib, followed by sunitinib and regorafenib as the disease progresses.

For patients with KIT‑driven GIST, current medical therapies slow the course of disease but progression is inevitable in most cases. Up to 50% of patients treated with frontline imatinib relapse within approximately 18 months. Of the secondary resistance mutations that lead to relapse, many of the mutations are not addressed by current therapies and confer mutations confer resistance to current treatments. A therapy that effectively suppresses a broad spectrum of KIT mutations and that is potentially amenable to combinations with existing agents is needed.

Patients with PDGFRα D842V‑driven GIST have great unmet medical need, as no approved medical therapies are effective. Progression can occur within as little as three months, and the median overall survival is 15 months for patients with advanced disease.

In the Major Markets, we estimate there are approximately 24,100 patients with unresectable or metastatic GIST, including approximately 7,700 patients with second line GIST and approximately 7,700 patients with third line or later GIST. The PDGFRα D842V mutation is found in 5‑6% of frontline unresectable or metastatic GIST patients, and we estimate there are approximately 500 patients with PDGFRα D842V‑driven GIST in the Major Markets.

KIT and PDGFRα Driver Mutations in GIST

GIST is a tumor type that depends on continued signaling of a single, aberrantly active kinase. Most GISTs result from primary mutations in KIT or PDGFRα. Approximately 80% of patients have KIT‑driven GIST. Imatinib effectively inhibits most KIT primary mutations; however over time, secondary mutations occur elsewhere in the KIT gene that lead to kinase activation despite the presence of imatinib, thereby leading to disease progression. The most common mutation in the PDGFRα gene is D842V, found in approximately 5‑6% of frontline unresectable or metastatic GIST patients. There is currently no therapeutic option for patients with D842V mutant PDGFRα‑driven GIST. PDGFRα has a very similar active site structure to KIT, and the PDGFRα D842V mutation is homologous to KIT D816V. As in the case of KIT Exon 17 mutant receptors, PDGFRα D842V mutations confer ligand‑independent constitutive signaling of the mutant PDGFRα kinase.

Pre‑clinical Development of avapritinib in GIST

We have conducted comprehensive pre-clinical experiments to characterize the potency and selectivity of avapritinib. Avapritinib potently inhibits PDGFRα D842V in vitro (IC₅₀ = 0.24 nM). In contrast, imatinib inhibits PDGFRα D842V at least 3,000‑fold less potently (IC₅₀ = 759 nM). In a cellular model driven by an activated PDGFRα D842V mutant protein, avapritinib potently inhibits signaling of the oncogenic PDGFRα mutant protein as measured by inhibition of PDGFRα autophosphorylation (IC₅₀ = 30 nM). By comparison, imatinib shows at least 100‑fold lower potency in the cellular model (IC₅₀ = 3,145 nM).

We have also demonstrated significant anti‑tumor efficacy with avapritinib in an imatinib-resistant patient‑derived xenograft models with a KIT Exon 17 resistance mutation, similar to what is found in relapsed/refractory KIT‑driven GIST, as well as patient-derived xenograft models with KIT Exon 11 and KIT Exon 13 mutations. In these xenograft models, avapritinib administered orally for 25 days resulted in tumor regression at the two highest tested doses, which were well-tolerated.

Avapritinib elicits dose‑dependent tumor regression in a patient‑derived GIST xenograft model with a KIT Exon 11 mutation, KIT Exon 13 mutations and a KIT Exon 17 resistance mutation. In the figure above, QD means once a day and BID means twice a day.

We recently presented pre-clinical data showing avapritinib is active across a broad spectrum of KIT and PDGFRα mutations, as shown in the figure below.

In addition, we have developed an understanding of the biology that will inform the development of combinations to address these resistance mutations. We performed a comprehensive analysis of these secondary KIT Exon 17 mutations, analyzing the literature and unpublished data from opinion leaders to understand which mutations occur and to quantify their frequency in the clinical setting. We also conducted a series of in vitro biochemistry experiments using compounds from our proprietary compound library and currently available therapies (imatinib, sunitinib and regorafenib) to interrogate their activity against the range of KIT Exon 17 mutations. The result is a deep understanding of the spectrum of activity of avapritinib, additional compounds from our proprietary compound library and available therapies across the range of possible mutations.

Navigator Trial (avapritinib) – Phase 1 Clinical Trial for Patients with Advanced GIST

Avapritinib is currently being evaluated in the dose expansion portion of a Phase 1 clinical trial in patients with advanced GIST, which we refer to as the Navigator trial, and enrollment is ongoing. In November 2017, we reported updated data from the dose escalation and expansion portions of the Navigator trial at the Connective Tissue Oncology Society Annual Meeting.

As of the data cutoff date of October 11, 2017, 116 patients had been treated with avapritinib in the dose escalation and expansion portions of the Navigator trial at eight dose levels (ranging from 30 mg QD to 600 mg QD), including 76 patients with KIT‑driven GIST, 39 patients with PDGFRα‑driven GIST, and one patient with KIT/PDGFRα wild‑type GIST. The median number of prior TKI regimens was four for patients with KIT‑driven GIST (ranging from two to 11), and one for patients with PDGFRα‑driven GIST (ranging from zero to six). Among patients with KIT‑driven GIST, 64 patients (83%) previously received regorafenib. We have selected 300 mg QD as the RP2D for the expansion portion of the Navigator trial, with an option for investigators to escalate patients to the MTD of 400 mg QD following two treatment cycles.

Safety Data. As of the data cutoff date, avapritinib was generally well‑tolerated. Most AEs reported by investigators were Grade 1 or 2. Across all grades, the most common treatment‑emergent AEs reported by investigators (≥20%) included nausea (56%), fatigue (53%), periorbital edema (43%), vomiting (41%), edema peripheral (34%), anemia (31%), diarrhea (31%), increased lacrimation (30%), cognitive effects (30%), decreased appetite (28%), dizziness (23%), constipation (22%) and hair color changes (22%). Cognitive effects are an aggregated category of individual cognitive events, each of which was observed in fewer than 20% of patients. Investigators reported treatment‑related Grade ≥3 AEs in 39 patients (34%), including anemia (9%), fatigue (7%), hypophosphatemia (4%), nausea (4%) and cognitive effects (3%). Six patients (5%) discontinued treatment with avapritinib due to AEs. An additional 43 patients discontinued treatment, with 40 patients due to progressive disease and three patients who withdrew consent. Among all 116 enrolled patients, 67 remained on treatment as of the data cutoff date.

Clinical Activity Data. As of the data cutoff date, 30 patients with KIT‑driven GIST treated at 300 to 400 mg QD were evaluable for response assessments. In addition, 31 patients with PDGFRα D842‑driven GIST at all doses were evaluable for response assessments, including 29 patients with a D842V mutation and two patients with other D842 mutations. Two patients with a PDGFRα exon 14 mutation were excluded from analyses of clinical activity. Patients were evaluable if they had at least one centrally reviewed radiographic scan, and all reported data are based on blinded central radiology review as per modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1, or mRECIST 1.1 criteria, for GIST. Radiographic scans were also assessed by Choi criteria, a supportive method of response assessment in soft tissue sarcomas that has been shown to be predictive of improved prognosis in patients with advanced GIST.

Patients with heavily pretreated KIT‑driven GIST treated at doses of 300 to 400 mg QD

•Centrally assessed radiographic tumor reductions were observed in 20 of 30 evaluable patients (67%) across all common KIT genotypes, including mutations in exons 9, 11, 13, 14 and 17, confirmed by archival tumor biopsy and circulating tumor DNA.

•By mRECIST 1.1 criteria, five patients had a PR (three confirmed, two pending confirmation), and 18 patients had SD, representing an ORR of 17% and a disease control rate, or DCR, of 77%.

•By Choi criteria, 16 patients had a PR and seven patients had SD, representing an ORR of 53% and a DCR of 77%.

•Median PFS was 11.5 months.

•In contrast, historical data showed a zero percent ORR and median PFS of 1.8 months in patients with TKI‑resistant advanced GIST re‑treated with imatinib in a third‑line or later setting.

Patients with PDGFRα‑driven GIST

•Centrally assessed radiographic tumor reductions were observed in all 31 evaluable patients.

•By mRECIST 1.1 criteria, one patient had a CR (pending confirmation), 21 patients had a PR (18 confirmed, three pending confirmation), and nine patients had SD, representing an ORR of 71% and a DCR of 100%.

•By Choi criteria, one patient had a CR, and 30 patients had a PR, representing an ORR of 100%.

•Median PFS was not reached, and 12‑month PFS was estimated to be 78%.

•In contrast, historical data showed a zero percent ORR and median PFS of 2.8 months in patients with PDGFRα D842V‑driven GIST treated with imatinib.

Navigator Trial Design. The Navigator trial is designed to evaluate the activity, safety and tolerability of avapritinib in adults with advanced GIST. The trial consists of two parts: a dose escalation portion and a dose expansion portion. We have completed the dose escalation portion, and patient enrollment in the dose expansion portion of the Navigator trial is currently ongoing at the RP2D of 300 mg QD. The expansion portion of this trial is designed to enroll patients in the following cohorts: (1) patients with a PDFGRα D842V mutation, regardless of line of therapy, (2) patients who have received imatinib and at least one other TKI and (3) patients who have received imatinib and no other TKI. Primary objectives for the dose expansion portion of the Navigator trial include determining ORR by RECIST and the safety and tolerability of avapritinib across the three expansion cohorts. Secondary objectives include characterizing the PK of avapritinib, assessing anti-tumor activity by Choi criteria and allelic burden using circulating tumor DNA and comparing progression-free survival, or PFS, for avapritinib with PFS for each patient’s last prior anti-cancer therapy. All response assessments use blinded, central radiology review. The Navigator trial is designed to enroll approximately 250 patients, including approximately 50 patients during dose escalation and approximately 200 patients across all three expansion cohorts, at multiple sites in the United States, European Union and Asia.

Clinical Development Plans

In June 2017, the FDA granted breakthrough therapy designation to avapritinib for the treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic GIST harboring the PDGFRα D842V mutation. In addition, in January 2016 the FDA granted orphan drug designation to avapritinib for the treatment of GIST, and in October 2016, the FDA granted fast track designation to avapritinib for the treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic GIST that progressed following treatment with imatinib and a second TKI inhibitor and for the treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic GIST with the PDGFRα D842V mutation regardless of prior therapy. In July 2017, the European Commission granted orphan drug designation to avapritinib for the treatment of GIST.

Based on feedback from the FDA at an end‑of‑Phase 1 meeting, additional data from the expansion portion of the Navigator trial may be sufficient to support a new drug application for avapritinib for the treatment of PDGFRα D842V‑driven GIST. We currently expect to complete enrollment of the PDGFRα D842V expansion cohort for the Navigator trial by the middle of 2018, and we have completed enrollment of the third line or later expansion cohort of the Navigator trial. We plan to report updated data from the Navigator trial in the following patient populations in 2018: PDGFRα-driven GIST, second line KIT-driven GIST and third line or later KIT-driven GIST. In addition, we plan to initiate a global, randomized Phase 3 clinical trial for avapritinib compared to regorafenib in third‑line GIST in the first half of 2018, which we refer to as the Voyager trial.

In addition, in August 2016, we entered into an agreement with a third party to develop and commercialize an assay as a companion diagnostic test to identify GIST patients with the PDGFRα D842V mutation for use with avapritinib. We are also working with patient advocacy groups relevant to GIST in order to:

Systemic Mastocytosis (SM)

SM Disease Background

SM is a disorder of the mast cells, the key effector cells of allergic inflammation, which have several physiologic roles including wound healing, regulation of vascular and epithelial permeability and immune cell recruitment. The signature of SM is the overproduction of mast cells and the accumulation of mast cells in the bone marrow and other organs. In advanced forms of SM, abnormal mast cells may also accumulate in the liver, spleen, gastrointestinal tract and bones. Mast cell activation and histamine release can lead to severe allergic symptoms ranging from a skin rash to hives, fever and anaphylaxis, while mast cell accumulation in advanced cases of SM can eventually lead to organ dysfunction and failure.

SM comprises a spectrum of disease, with approximately 90-95% of patients having a KIT D816V mutation, the underlying driver of disease for most SM patients. The diagnosis, which is usually made in adulthood, involves a complex diagnostic algorithm that begins with confirmation of SM and subsequently categorizes patients into indolent or advanced subtypes of disease, a classification that has prognostic significance as shown below. Patients with ISM have a normal life expectancy. The primary burden of disease for ISM patients is the range of often unpredictable and debilitating allergic symptoms due to mast cell activation. Advanced SM includes three subsets with increasingly severe impact on life expectancy: aggressive SM, or ASM, advanced SM with an associated hematologic neoplasm, SM-AHN, and mast cell leukemia, or MCL. These advanced forms of SM have a median overall survival of three to five years and are characterized by prominent organopathy and dysfunction, as well as symptoms of mast cell activation. SSM is increasingly considered as a variant of advanced SM. While SSM is not known to affect life expectancy, it has a greater degree of bone marrow infiltration, myeloproliferation and/or presents with an enlarged liver and bears a greater risk of progression to ASM, SM-AHN or MCL.

Overall survival of SM patients. Republished with permission of the American Society of Hematology, from “How I treat patients with indolent and smoldering mastocytosis,” A. Pardanani, Blood, 121(16):3085 ‑ 3094 (2013); permission conveyed through Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. In the figure above, AHD refers to SM-AHN.

Population studies, including a population‑based epidemiology study that we sponsored, based on the Danish National Health Registry, estimate the incidence of all subtypes of SM from 0.5 to 1/100,000 new patients per year. This represents approximately 3,200 new patients diagnosed per year in the United States. Of all SM patients, ISM accounts for 50‑80% of patients, and advanced SM accounts for the remaining 20‑50% of patients.

The current treatment paradigm for SM varies by disease subtype. Currently, there are no approved targeted therapies that address SM patients with the KIT D816V mutation. Midostaurin, which was approved in April 2017 by the FDA for the treatment of advanced SM, is a multi-kinase inhibitor with KIT D816V inhibitory activity and imatinib does not address patients with the KIT D816V mutation. For patients with advanced and smoldering forms of SM, treatments include interferon‑alpha or cytoreductive agents to reduce mast cell burden or treatments aimed at addressing the associated blood disorder. Patients with advanced SM typically have a three to five‑year overall survival prognosis. In the Major Markets, we estimate there are approximately 2,600 patients with advanced SM.

For ISM, management is symptom‑directed and includes avoidance of triggers of mast cell activation (such as insect stings). Treatments for ISM include histamine blockers, cromolyn, epinephrine, and, in cases of refractory patients, cytoreductive agents. Within ISM, key opinion leaders see the greatest degree of unmet need for the fraction of patients who have a heavy symptom burden that current therapies fail to address. Based on the preliminary safety and clinical activity data from our Phase 1 clinical trial of avapritinib in patients with advanced SM to date, including evidence of clinical activity starting at the lowest dose level, we anticipate initiating a Phase 2 dose escalation and proof‑of‑concept clinical trial to evaluate avapritinib in patients with ISM and SSM in the second half of 2018.  In the Major Markets, we estimate that there are approximately 16,300 patients with ISM and approximately 1,800 patients with SSM.

KIT Driver Mutations in SM

In all subtypes of SM, the mast cells of approximately 90-95% of patients display an activating mutation at the D816V position in KIT. KIT D816V status is routinely assessed as part of the workup in SM diagnosis.

KIT signaling is needed for normal blood cell production, including the differentiation and survival of mast cells. In patients with SM, abnormal mast cells bearing the KIT D816V mutation undergo constitutive kinase activation, leading to continuous survival and proliferative signals. Rare cases of SM have been found where alternative mutations in KIT occur that are responsive to imatinib. In these cases, treatment with imatinib can reduce mast cell burden in the bone marrow and other organs and improve symptoms, thereby clinically validating KIT as a therapeutic target for SM.

Pre‑clinical Development of avapritinib in SM

We conducted comprehensive biochemical and cellular experiments to characterize the potency and selectivity of avapritinib. Avapritinib potently inhibits KIT D816V in vitro (IC₅₀, or the compound concentration at which 50% of the activity is inhibited relative to control lacking compound, = 0.27 nM). In contrast, imatinib inhibits KIT D816V at least 10,000‑fold less potently (IC₅₀ > 8,000 nM). In several cellular models driven by activated KIT mutant proteins, avapritinib potently inhibits signaling of the oncogenic KIT mutant protein, as measured by inhibition of KIT autophosphorylation and inhibition of cellular proliferation. In HMC 1.2 cells, a human mast cell leukemia model driven by the KIT D816V mutation, avapritinib potently inhibits signaling of the mutant KIT protein as measured by inhibition of KIT autophosphorylation (IC₅₀ = 4 nM). In contrast, imatinib inhibits KIT autophosphorylation at least 2,000‑fold less potently. In P815 cells, a mouse mastocytoma model driven by an Exon 17 mutation, avapritinib potently inhibits signaling of the mutant KIT protein as measured by inhibition of KIT autophosphorylation (IC₅₀ = 22 nM) as well as cellular proliferation (IC₅₀ = 202 nM). By comparison, imatinib shows considerably lower cellular potency in the P815 model.

Potency of avapritinib against KIT D816 and other Exon 17 mutations compared to imatinib. The inhibitory potencies of avapritinib and imatinib against the KIT D816V mutant protein were evaluated in an in vitro enzyme activity assay. The inhibitory potencies of avapritinib and imatinib were also evaluated in two cell lines harboring KIT Exon 17 mutations, HMC 1.2 cells and P815 cells. Inhibition of KIT cellular signaling was measured by inhibition of KIT autophosphorylation (P‑KIT). Inhibition of cellular proliferation was also measured in P815 cells.

The selectivity of avapritinib was further evaluated by profiling avapritinib at a concentration of 3 µM across a panel of over 450 kinases and disease‑relevant kinase mutants using KINOMEscan methodology. Avapritinib demonstrated exquisite selectivity for KIT Exon 17 mutant proteins and PDGFRα D842V in this assay, binding significantly (greater than 90% inhibition relative to control) to only 12 other kinases. We also profiled midostaurin, a multi‑kinase inhibitor with KIT D816V inhibitory activity (an inhibitory activity not present in imatinib). Midostaurin demonstrated significant binding (greater than 90% inhibition relative to control at 3 µ M) to 118 kinases, as indicated by the number of dots on the kinome tree shown below. We believe multi‑kinase inhibitors like midostaurin may not achieve full inhibition of KIT D816V due to poor selectivity and the resulting dose limitations imposed by off‑target toxicities.

Kinome selectivity of avapritinib and midostaurin. Compounds were screened at 3 µM against a panel of over 450 kinases and disease‑relevant mutants. Each branch of the dendogram represents an individual human kinase. Kinases bound by the compound are indicated by red circles on the kinome tree. The degree of binding corresponds to the size of the circle. Kinome illustration reproduced courtesy of CSTI (www.cellsignal.com). The foregoing website is maintained by CSTI, and Blueprint Medicines is not responsible for its content.

Explorer Trial (avapritinib) – Phase 1 Clinical Trial for Patients with Advanced SM

Avapritinib is currently being evaluated in the dose expansion portion of a Phase 1 clinical trial in patients with advanced SM, which we refer to as the Explorer trial, and enrollment is ongoing. In December 2017, we reported updated data from the dose escalation portion of the Explorer trial at the American Society of Hematology Annual Meeting.

As of the data cutoff date of October 4, 2017, 32 patients had been treated with avapritinib in the dose escalation portion of the Explorer trial at seven dose levels (ranging from 30 mg once daily, or QD, to 400 mg QD), including 17 patients with aggressive SM, or ASM, nine patients with advanced SM with an associated hematologic neoplasm, or SM‑AHN, three patients with mast cell leukemia, or MCL, and two patients with SSM. The KIT D816V mutation was confirmed in 28 patients. Overall, 22 patients (69%) previously received anti‑neoplastic therapy, including four patients (13%) who previously received midostaurin.

Based on pharmacokinetic, or PK, data, avapritinib demonstrated a mean half‑life of greater than 20 hours, supporting a QD dosing regimen.

We have selected 300 mg QD as the recommended part two dose, or RP2D, for the expansion portion of the Explorer trial, which was initiated in the second quarter of 2017. A maximum tolerated dose of avapritinib in advanced SM was not determined.

Safety Data. As of the data cutoff date, avapritinib was generally well‑tolerated. Most adverse events, or AEs, reported by investigators were Grade 1 or 2. As of the data cutoff date, the most common treatment‑emergent AEs reported by investigators (≥20%) across all grades included periorbital edema (59%), fatigue (41%), peripheral edema (34%), nausea (28%), anemia (28%), thrombocytopenia (28%), abdominal pain, diarrhea, respiratory tract infection, dizziness and headache (22% each). Investigators reported treatment‑related Grade ≥3 AEs in 16 patients (50%), with only one treatment‑related Grade ≥3 AE occurring in more than 10% of patients (neutropenia, 13%).

No patients discontinued treatment due to a treatment‑related AE. Two patients discontinued treatment with avapritinib, including one patient with ASM who had progressive disease with transformation to acute myeloid leukemia and one patient with SM‑AHN and no identified KIT mutation (i.e., wild‑type KIT). Overall, 30 of 32 patients enrolled in the dose escalation portion of the Explorer trial remained on treatment as of the data cutoff date, with a median duration of 9 months (range 4 to 19 months).

Clinical Activity Data. The International Working Group‑Myeloproliferative Neoplasms Research and Treatment and European Competence Network on Mastocytosis, or IWG‑MRT‑ECNM, criteria comprise a rigorous assessment of clinical response in patients with advanced SM. These criteria include objective measures of bone marrow mast cell burden, serum tryptase and improvement in organ damage as measured by a clinical improvement, or CI, finding.

As of the data cutoff date, 18 patients had advanced SM and were evaluable for response by the IWG‑MRT‑ECNM criteria.

Across all 18 evaluable patients with advanced SM, the data showed an objective response rate, or ORR, of 72% and a complete response (CR) + partial response (PR) rate of 56%. A detailed summary of response data is provided below.

*Responses pending confirmation: ASM: 2 CR; SM‑AHN: 3 PR

Results from individual components of the IWG‑MRT‑ECNM were reported as of the data cutoff date. Clinically meaningful improvements were observed in all evaluable patients, across all subtypes of advanced SM and at all avapritinib dose levels evaluated.

In addition, rash improved in 13 of 15 patients with urticaria pigmentosa at baseline, based on investigator assessments. Urticaria pigmentosa is an allergy‑mediated rash common in SM patients.

Explorer Trial Design. The Explorer trial is designed to evaluate the activity, safety and tolerability of avapritinib in adults with advanced SM. The trial consists of two parts: a dose escalation portion and an expansion portion. We have completed the dose escalation portion, and patient enrollment in the dose expansion portion of the Explorer trial is currently ongoing at the RP2D of 300 mg QD. The expansion portion of this trial is designed to enroll patients with specific subtypes of advanced SM in the following cohorts: (1) patients with aggressive SM, (2) patients with an associated hematological neoplasm and (3) patients with mast cell leukemia. Primary objectives for the Explorer trial include assessing safety and tolerability. Secondary objectives include assessing response per IWG-MRT-ECNM criteria and additional clinical outcome measures of mast cell burden, organ function and disease symptoms. The Explorer trial is designed to enroll approximately 60 patients, including approximately 25 patients during dose escalation and approximately 35 patients across all three expansion cohorts, at multiple sites in the United States and the European Union.

Clinical Development Plans 

In January 2016, the FDA granted orphan drug designation to avapritinib for the treatment of mastocytosis. Based on the data reported in December 2017, we plan to engage global regulatory authorities in the first half of 2018 to obtain input on registration pathways for avapritinib in patients with advanced SM and patients with ISM and SSM. We anticipate initiating a registration‑enabling Phase 2 clinical trial of avapritinib in patients with advanced SM in the first half of 2018 and a Phase 2 dose escalation and proof‑of‑concept clinical trial of avapritinib in patients with ISM and SSM in the second half of 2018. In addition, we continue to enroll patients in the expansion portion of the ongoing Explorer trial with the goal of generating additional data in 2018.

As there is currently no validated patient reported outcome, or PRO, tool for SM, we are collaborating with a health research outcomes group to develop a disease-specific PRO tool to measure changes in total symptom burden in patients with advanced SM. We also plan to develop a similar PRO tool for use in clinical trials in patients with indolent and SSM. In addition, we continue to collaborate with patient advocacy groups to recruit patients to join a patient registry, which we launched in December 2015 with the goals of improving understanding of SM and increasing patient participation in SM clinical trials.

FGFR4 Inhibitor Program

Overview

BLU‑554 is an orally available, potent, selective and irreversible inhibitor of the kinase FGFR4. FGFR4 functions as a receptor whose aberrant activation is a driver of HCC. FGFR4 belongs to a family of highly homologous receptors, which include FGFR1‑4. BLU‑554 targets FGFR4, while sparing the other three FGFR paralogs, and demonstrates exquisite kinome selectivity. Pre‑clinical in vitro and in vivo efficacy data provides a strong rationale for the development of BLU‑554 for the subset of HCC patients whose tumors are driven by aberrant FGFR4 signaling. We estimate that approximately 30% of patients with HCC have tumors with aberrantly activated FGFR4 signaling, which we refer to as FGFR4-activated HCC.

HCC Disease Background

Liver cancer is the second leading cause of cancer‑related deaths worldwide, and HCC accounts for most liver cancers. The highest incidence of HCC occurs in regions with endemic hepatitis B virus, or HBV, including Southeast Asia and sub‑Saharan Africa. In the United States, HCC is the fastest rising cause of cancer‑related death. Over the past two decades, the incidence of HCC has tripled while the five‑year survival rate has remained below 12%.

Cirrhosis is a key risk factor for HCC — the disease etiology varies by geography with the common theme of chronic conditions that lead to cirrhosis. In North America, the main risk factors for cirrhosis are infection with hepatitis C virus, or HCV, followed by HBV infection, alcohol consumption and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. In the European Union, the main risk factors for cirrhosis are HCV, HBV and alcohol consumption. In Asia and sub‑Saharan Africa, the major risk factor is chronic HBV infection.

The diagnosis of HCC is typically made in adults, peaking around age 70. Disease management is complicated by concurrent liver disease, which often compromises liver function in these patients. Patients are staged depending on extent of liver disease, performance status and liver function status; these factors guide treatment selection. The stage distribution at diagnosis varies by region. Countries with active national screening programs, such as Taiwan and Japan, tend to diagnose many more patients in the early stages of disease. There are currently no treatments for molecularly defined patient subgroups in HCC.

Despite advances in the treatment of HCC, including recent approval of nivolumab and prior approvals of the multi-kinase inhibitors sorafenib and regorafenib, the prognosis for patients with advanced HCC remains poor and there is a significant unmet need for new treatments for HCC, including FGFR4-driven HCC. Patients diagnosed at an early stage receive potentially curative transplant, resection or ablative therapies. Treatments for intermediate to advanced stage patients include high‑dose chemotherapy delivered directly to the liver (transarterial chemoembolization), sorafenib, nivolumab and regorafenib. Sorafenib, which is approved as a first-line treatment for advanced HCC, is a multi-kinase inhibitor that targets VEGFR and many other kinases and exhibits anti-angiogenic effects. In a pivotal trial conducted primarily at European Union and U.S. sites, sorafenib improved median overall survival by approximately three months, and 2% of patients responded. Nivolumab is an immune checkpoint inhibitor targeting PD-1, which received accelerated approval from the FDA in September 2017 for second-line advanced HCC based in data from a pivotal clinical trial showing a 14% object response rate in patients who progressed on or were intolerant to sorafenib. Regorafenib is approved as a second-line treatment for advanced HCC based on data from a pivotal trial showing improved median overall survival of 2.8 months and an 11% objective response rate in patients with documented progression following sorafenib. In clinical practice, patients often require dose modifications or discontinue therapy with sorafenib and regorafenib due to tolerability issues. There is a clear need for medical therapies with a favorable risk‑benefit profile and the potential be used alone or in combination with other approved or emerging therapies for advanced HCC.

FGFR4 as a Driver in HCC

The link between aberrant FGFR4 signaling and HCC was first established when an amplicon, a region of replicated DNA, that includes FGF19, the ligand that activates FGFR4, was identified in HCC patients. We estimate that more than 5% of tumors of HCC patients have this amplicon. The physiologic role of the receptor, FGFR4, and its ligand, FGF19, is to regulate bile acid metabolism in hepatocytes and liver regeneration following injury. FGF19 is normally produced in the small intestine and signals to hepatocytes through an endocrine mechanism. FGF19 forms an active signaling complex together with FGFR4 and its co‑receptor Klotho‑β. Signaling of the active complex leads to decreased CYP7A1 transcription with a resultant decrease in bile acid synthesis, as well as increased growth, proliferation and survival signals.

FGFR4 Signaling in the Liver

In the figure above, HBV means hepatitis B virus, HCV means hepatitis C virus, NASH means non-alcoholic steatohepatitis and KLB means Klotho‑β.

Subsequent data suggest that FGFR4 signaling is a driver in a subset of HCC patients in whom the pathway is aberrantly activated. In these patients, FGF19 is overexpressed in hepatocytes (which do not normally express FGF19), leading to autocrine signaling and tumor growth. Pre‑clinical experiments in a genetically engineered mouse model demonstrate that exogenous FGF19 expression is sufficient to induce liver tumor growth and that tumorigenesis is dependent on FGFR4. The three elements that constitute an active FGFR4 signaling complex, FGF19, FGFR4 and Klotho‑β, are expressed together uniquely in HCC, although it is possible that they may also occur in rare cases of other solid tumors.

We have used our novel drug discovery platform to identify a potentially broader target responder population in addition to the FGF19‑amplified patient population. We estimate that approximately 25% of HCC tumors overexpress FGF19 without amplification. We have also demonstrated a significant anti‑tumor response with an FGFR4 inhibitor in an HCC patient‑derived xenograft model that overexpresses FGF19 in the absence of amplification. Some of these results were published in Cancer Discovery in 2015. We estimate that approximately 30% of patients have FGFR4-activated HCC, and data suggest patients with HCC patients with FGFR4 pathway activation resulting in activation of the FGFR4 pathway generally have poor outcomes relative to other HCC patients.

The FGFR4 signaling pathway is a promising new driver for the development of molecularly targeted therapy in HCC. In the Major Markets, we estimate there are approximately 28,100 first and second line patients with FGFR4-activated HCC.

BLU-554 Pre-clinical Development in HCC

Efforts to discover selective, reversible inhibitors of FGFR4 have been challenging given the high sequence similarity among the four FGFR paralogs. A cysteine located near the ATP binding site in FGFR4 is unique among the paralogs. We therefore focused on developing a covalent inhibitor with paralog specificity and kinome selectivity. Our team of experienced medicinal chemists applied structure‑based design principles to develop a potent and selective FGFR4 inhibitor starting from known FGFR inhibitor templates. This effort yielded our development candidate, BLU‑554. We have conducted comprehensive in vitro experiments to characterize the potency and selectivity of BLU‑554. BLU‑554 potently inhibits FGFR4 enzyme activity (IC₅₀ = 5 nM) and inhibits the activity of FGFR1‑3 at least 100‑fold less potently (IC₅₀ ≥ 600 nM). In contrast, pan‑FGFR inhibitors such as BGJ‑398 fail to exhibit paralog specificity. The selectivity of BLU‑554 was further evaluated by profiling BLU‑554 at a concentration of 3 µM across a panel of over 450 kinases and disease relevant kinase mutants using KINOMEscan methodology. BLU‑554 displayed significant binding (greater than 90% inhibition relative to control) only to FGFR4 in this assay. In contrast, BGJ‑398 significantly bound to 14 kinases (greater than 90% inhibition relative to control).

Paralog selectivity of BLU-554 compared to the pan-FGFR inhibitor BGJ-398. The inhibitory potency of BLU-554 and BGJ-398 against each of the FGFR paralogs was evaluated in an in vitro enzyme activity assay.

Kinome selectivity of BLU-554 as determined using the KINOME scan assay. BLU-554 was screened at 3 µM against a panel of over 450 kinases and disease‑relevant mutants. Each branch of the dendogram represents an individual human kinase. Kinases bound by the compound are indicated by red circles on the kinome tree. The degree of binding corresponds to the size of the circle. Kinome illustration reproduced courtesy of CSTI (www.cellsignal.com). The foregoing website is maintained by CSTI, and Blueprint Medicines is not responsible for its content.

We demonstrated significant anti-tumor efficacy with BLU‑554 in two in vivo HCC xenograft models where tumor growth is driven by FGFR4 signaling. BLU‑554 administered orally for 21 days resulted in robust and dose‑dependent growth inhibition of Hep3B tumors, an FGF19‑amplified model. At a dose of 100 mg/kg BID, a well‑tolerated dose, BLU‑554 induced complete remission in a subset of mice for at least 30 days after cessation of treatment. We observed a correlation between the concentration of BLU‑554 in mouse plasma and the level of expression of CYP7A1, a downstream biomarker, in the tumor. At the 100 mg/kg BID dose, significant induction of CYP7A1 expression was seen, which is an expected consequence of inhibiting FGFR4 signaling. This correlation between BLU‑554 plasma concentration, the level of induction of CYP7A1 expression and anti‑tumor efficacy supports that the observed anti‑tumor response is due to inhibition of FGFR4 signaling.

BLU‑554 elicits dose‑dependent tumor inhibition in the Hep3B tumor xenograft mouse model, a model of FGF19 amplification. In the figure above, BID means twice a day and PO means orally.

Aberrant FGFR4 signaling can also be driven by FGF19 overexpression in the absence of amplification. Hence, we have also evaluated the anti‑tumor efficacy of BLU‑554 in a patient‑derived xenograft model driven by FGF19 overexpression in the absence of amplification. Treatment with BLU‑554 led to dose‑dependent tumor growth inhibition. The anti‑tumor efficacy of sorafenib, the only approved systemic treatment for HCC, was also evaluated in this study. Sorafenib dosed once daily at 40 mg/kg, a dose that led to body weight loss in the mice, had only a modest effect on tumor growth.

BLU‑554 elicits dose‑dependent tumor inhibition in a patient‑derived tumor xenograft mouse model in which tumor growth is driven by FGF19 overexpression in the absence of FGF19 amplification. In the figure above, QD means once a day, BID means twice a day and PO means orally.

Taken together, the data presented above indicate that potent and selective FGFR4 inhibition leads to robust anti‑tumor effects in in vivo models where tumor growth is driven by FGF19 amplification or FGF19 overexpression in the absence of amplification.

These findings, together with our estimate that approximately 30% of patients with HCC have tumors with aberrantly activated FGFR4 signaling, provide critical information to identify a potential responder population and informed patient selection criteria in our Phase 1 clinical trial.

Phase 1 Clinical Trial for Patients with Advanced HCC

BLU‑554 is currently being evaluated in the dose expansion portion of a Phase 1 clinical trial in patients with advanced HCC at the MTD of 600 mg QD, and enrollment is ongoing. In October 2017, we presented updated data from this ongoing clinical trial at European Society of Medical Oncology 2017 Congress.

As of the data cutoff of August 18, 2017, 77 patients had been treated with BLU‑554 in the dose escalation and expansion portions of the Phase 1 clinical trial at five dose levels (ranging from 140 mg QD to 900 mg QD), including 44 patients with FGFR4-activated HCC. FGFR4-activated HCC was defined as at least one percent tumor expression of FGF19, the FGFR4 ligand, as measured by an immunohistochemistry, or IHC, assay. In general, the enrolled population was heavily pretreated: 82% received prior TKI treatment, 23% received prior immunotherapy and 91% received prior systemic therapy. PK analysis demonstrated rapid oral absorption across all dose levels, with a mean half‑life of

approximately 17 hours and exposure in the expected therapeutic range based on HCC xenograft models. Collectively, we believe that these data support a once‑daily dosing regimen.

Safety Data. As of the data cutoff of August 18, 2017, the majority of AEs reported by investigators were Grade 1 or 2. Across all grades, the most common AEs reported by investigators related to BLU‑554 included diarrhea (71%), nausea (42%), vomiting (36%), transaminase elevation (AST 34% and ALT 32%) and fatigue (29%). Grade 3 or higher AEs related to BLU‑554 occurring in five or more patients included anemia, diarrhea and transaminase elevation (AST and ALT). Among all 77 patients treated with BLU‑554, 58 patients discontinued treatment with BLU‑554, including 42 patients due to disease progression, 11 patients due to treatment‑related AEs, three patients who withdrew consent and two patients due to the investigator’s decision.

Clinical Activity Data. As of the data cutoff of August 18, 2017, 67 patients were evaluable for response assessment. An additional 10 patients were treated with BLU‑554 as of the data cutoff date but were not evaluable for response assessment. Response was assessed using the Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors, or RECIST, version 1.1.

In patients with FGFR4-activated HCC (n=38), the data showed an ORR of 16% (95% confidence interval 6‑31%). In addition, 49% of patients had radiographic tumor reduction, and clinical activity was observed regardless of disease etiology or geography. As of the data cutoff date:

Among all 77 patients treated with BLU‑554, 19 remained on treatment as of the data cutoff date, including 15 patients with FGFR4-activated HCC. Median progression-free survival was 3.7 months among patients with FGFR4-activated HCC.

In addition, five TKI‑naïve patients with FGFR4-activated HCC were evaluable for response assessment as of the data cutoff date. Within this group, preliminary evidence of prolonged disease control was observed. Two TKI‑naïve patients remain on treatment as of the data cutoff date with a duration of treatment of 11.4 months and 12.3 months, respectively.

Phase 1 Clinical Trial Design. This Phase 1 clinical trial is designed to evaluate the safety and tolerability of BLU-554 in adults with advanced HCC. The trial consists of two parts: a dose escalation portion and an expansion portion. We have completed the dose escalation portion, and patient enrollment in the dose expansion portion is currently ongoing at the MTD of 600 mg QD. The expansion portion of the trial is designed to enroll patients in the following cohorts: (1) three subsets of patients with HCC, regardless of prior therapy, and (2) patients with FGFR4-activated HCC who have not been previously treated with a TKI, which we refer to as the TKI-naïve cohort. The primary objective of the expansion portion of the Phase 1 clinical trial is to continue to evaluate the safety and tolerability of BLU-554. Secondary objectives include assessing clinical activity by RECIST version 1.1, as well as evaluating the PK of BLU-554 and pharmacodynamic markers of BLU-554 activity. The Phase 1 clinical trial is designed to enroll approximately 150 patients, including approximately 40 patients during dose escalation and approximately 110 patients across both expansion cohorts, at multiple sites in the United States, European Union and Asia.

Clinical Development Plans

In September 2015, the FDA granted orphan drug designation to BLU‑554 for the treatment of HCC. We plan to report updated data from the expansion portion of our ongoing Phase 1 clinical trial for advanced HCC, including preliminary data from the TKI‑naïve cohort, in the second half of 2018. We also plan to explore opportunities to conduct a clinical trial to evaluate BLU‑554 in combination with an immune checkpoint inhibitor.

RET Program

Overview

BLU-667 is an orally available, potent selective inhibitor of the kinase RET, including activating RET fusions and mutations and predicted RET resistance mutations. RET is a receptor tyrosine kinase that activates multiple downstream pathways involved in cell proliferation and survival. RET can be activated by mutation or when a portion of the RET gene that encodes the kinase domain is joined to part of another gene creating a fusion gene that encodes an aberrantly activated RET fusion protein. RET activating mutations are implicated in MTC (approximately 60% of patients), and RET fusions are implicated in several cancers, including papillary thyroid carcinoma (approximately 10% of patients) and NSCLC (1‑2% of patients). Our genomics analyses on the landscape of kinase fusions, published in Nature Communications in 2014, identified RET fusions in breast and colon cancer patient samples (both <1% of patients), providing a therapeutic rationale for the use of RET inhibitors in multiple patient subpopulations.

The identification of RET fusions as drivers in some cancers prompted the use of approved multi‑kinase inhibitors with RET inhibitory activity to treat patients whose tumors express a RET fusion protein. However, we believe these drugs cannot be dosed at levels required to sufficiently inhibit RET due to toxicities that result from inhibition of the primary targets. For example, currently approved therapies such as vandetanib and cabozantinib demonstrate lower objective response rates and duration of response in patients with RET-altered NSCLC compared to selective kinase inhibitors targeting other kinase drivers such as EGFR, ALK and ROS1.

Further, one of the greatest challenges in treating cancer is the ability of tumor cells to become resistant to therapy. Kinase reactivation via mutation to evade small molecule inhibition is a common mechanism of resistance. We have predicted future resistance mutations of drugs with RET inhibitory activity. Thus, there is a clear need for a selective RET inhibitor that targets both oncogenic RET fusions and activating mutations and their predicted RET resistance mutations. In the Major Markets, we estimate there are approximately 10,200 patients with RET-driven NSCLC and approximately 780 patients with RET-driven MTC.

BLU-667 Pre-Clinical Development in RET

BLU-667 was specifically designed to target oncogenic RET fusions and activating mutations and predicted RET resistance mutations, while sparing anti-targets such as VEGFR-2. We have conducted pre-clinical experiments in biochemical and cellular assays to characterize the potency of BLU-667 against these targets. In a panel comparing BLU-677 with the commonly used multi-kinase inhibitors cabozantinib and vandetanib and the development candidate RXDX-105, BLU-667 was the only compound to demonstrate sub-nanomolar selectivity for wild-type RET and predicted resistance mutations at the gatekeeper (V804) residue. In addition, BLU-667 selectivity was assessed in a biochemical screen of a broad panel of over 350 kinases and demonstrated approximately 90-fold selectivity for wild-type RET over VEGFR-2.

Potency of BLU-667 against wild‑type RET, predicted RET resistant mutants and the anti-target VEGFR-2 compared to a panel of multi‑kinase inhibitors with RET inhibitory activity. The inhibitory potencies of BLU-667 and the multi‑kinase inhibitors against wild‑type RET, RET resistant mutants and VEGFR2 were evaluated in in vitro enzyme activity assays. The inhibitory potencies of these compounds were also evaluated in cell lines driven by either a wild‑type RET fusion or a mutant RET fusion.

We have demonstrated significant anti‑tumor efficacy with BLU-667 in both a KIF5b-RET fusion allograft and a KIF5b-RET (V804L) resistant mutant allograft. Administration of BLU-667 orally twice daily for 14 days in a

wild‑type RET fusion allograft and for 14 days in a predicted RET resistant mutant allograft resulted in robust and dose‑dependent tumor growth inhibition. At a dose of 30 mg/kg twice daily, a well‑tolerated dose, the compound induced tumor regression in both models. The anti‑tumor efficacy of a multi‑kinase inhibitor with RET inhibitory activity that is being evaluated in the clinic for treatment of patients with RET fusion positive lung cancer (reference compound) was also evaluated in these models. This reference compound, dosed orally once daily at 60 mg/kg, a well‑tolerated dose, inhibited tumor growth in the wild‑type RET fusion allograft. At the same dose level in the RET resistant mutant allograft, this reference compound showed diminished inhibition of tumor growth.

BLU-667, a RET inhibitor, elicits dose dependent tumor growth inhibition in both a KIF5b-RET fusion allograft (left figure)) and a KIF5b-RET (V804L) resistant mutant allograft model (right figure). In the figure above, BID means twice a day, and QD means once a day.

Phase 1 Clinical Trial for Patients with RET-Altered NSCLC, MTC and Other Advanced Solid Tumors

BLU‑667 is currently being evaluated in the dose escalation portion of a Phase 1 clinical trial in patients with RET‑altered NSCLC, MTC and other advanced solid tumors, and enrollment is ongoing. As of December 1, 2017, 30 patients had been enrolled in the dose escalation portion of the trial. BLU‑667 has been generally well‑tolerated to date, and the majority of AEs reported by investigators were Grade 1. We have not identified an MTD or RP2D. Investigators have reported preliminary evidence of clinical activity in patients with NSCLC, including patients with KIF5B and other RET fusions, and RET‑altered MTC. We plan to report preliminary data from this clinical trial and initiate the expansion portion in the first half of 2018.

Phase 1 Clinical Trial Design. This Phase 1 clinical trial is designed to evaluate the safety and tolerability of BLU-667 in multiple ascending doses in adults with RET-altered NSCLC, MTC and other advanced solid tumors. The trial consists of two parts: a dose escalation portion and an expansion portion. The goal of the dose escalation portion is to establish an MTD or a recommended dose if the MTD is not achieved. Once the MTD is reached or a recommended dose is established, we plan to open expansion cohorts for the following four patient groups: (1) NSCLC patients with a RET rearrangement who have undergone prior treatment with a TKI that inhibits RET, (2) NSCLC patients with a RET rearrangement who have not been previously treated with a TKI that inhibits RET, (3) patients with MTC and (4) patients with RET-altered solid tumors, other than NSCLC and MTC. Secondary objectives for this trial include assessing the PK profile of BLU-667, assessing RET gene status in plasma and tumor tissue, characterizing the PD of BLU-667 and assessing response rate by RECIST. The Phase 1 clinical trial is designed to enroll approximately 115 patients, including approximately 35 patients during dose escalation and approximately 80 patients across all four expansion cohorts, at multiple sites in the United States and the European Union.

Collaboration with Roche

In March 2016, we entered into the Roche agreement pursuant to which we and Roche have agreed to collaborate on the discovery, development and commercialization of up to five small molecule therapeutics targeting kinases believed to be important in cancer immunotherapy, as single products or possibly in combination with other therapeutics. The parties are currently conducting activities for up to five programs under the collaboration, including up to two collaboration programs leveraging our novel target discovery engine and proprietary compound library to select potential targets.

Under the Roche agreement, Roche is granted up to five option rights to obtain an exclusive license to exploit products derived from the collaboration programs, or licensed products, in the field of cancer immunotherapy. Such option rights are triggered upon the achievement of Phase 1 proof-of-concept. For up to three of the five collaboration programs, if Roche exercises its option, Roche will receive worldwide, exclusive commercialization rights for the licensed products. For up to two of the five collaboration programs, if Roche exercises its option, we will retain commercialization rights in the United States for the licensed products, and Roche will receive commercialization rights outside of the United States for the licensed products. We will also retain worldwide rights to any products for which Roche elects not to exercise its applicable option. Prior to Roche’s exercise of an option, we will have the lead responsibility for drug discovery and pre-clinical development of all collaboration programs. In addition, we will have the lead responsibility for the conduct of all Phase 1 clinical trials other than those Phase 1 clinical trials for any product in combination with Roche’s portfolio of therapeutics, for which Roche will have the right to lead the conduct of such Phase 1 clinical trials. Pursuant to the Roche agreement, the parties will share the costs of Phase 1 development for each collaboration program. In addition, Roche will be responsible for post-Phase 1 development costs for each licensed product for which it retains global commercialization rights, and we and Roche will share post-Phase 1 development costs for each licensed product for which we retain commercialization rights in the United States.

We received an upfront cash payment of $45.0 million in March 2016 upon execution of the Roche agreement, and subject to the terms of the Roche agreement, we will be eligible to receive up to approximately $965.0 million in contingent option fees and milestone payments related to specified research, pre-clinical, clinical, regulatory and sales-based milestones. Of the total contingent payments, up to approximately $215.0 million are for option fees and milestone payments for research, pre-clinical and clinical development events prior to licensing across all five potential collaboration programs, including contingent milestone payments for initiation of each of the collaboration programs for which the parties will work together to select targets. In addition, for any licensed product for which Roche retains worldwide commercialization rights, we will be eligible to receive tiered royalties ranging from low double-digits to high-teens on future net sales of the licensed product. For any licensed product for which we retain commercialization rights in the United States, we and Roche will be eligible to receive tiered royalties ranging from mid-single-digits to low double-digits on future net sales in the other party’s respective territories in which it commercializes the licensed product. The upfront cash payment and any payments for milestones, option fees and royalties are non-refundable, non-creditable and not subject to set-off.

Under the Roche agreement, each party has granted the other party specified intellectual property licenses to enable the other party to perform its obligations and exercise its rights under the Roche agreement, including license grants to enable each party to conduct research, development and commercialization activities pursuant to the terms of the Roche agreement. Following Roche’s exercise of its option with respect to the collaboration programs for which it will obtain worldwide rights, we will grant Roche an exclusive license under our intellectual property to develop and commercialize the licensed products generated through such collaboration program. Similarly, Roche will grant us an exclusive license under Roche’s intellectual property to develop and commercialize licensed products in the United States for the collaboration programs on which we will retain rights in the United States, with Roche receiving a license under our intellectual property to develop and commercialize such licensed products outside of the United States.

Subject to the terms and conditions of the Roche agreement, we have agreed to work exclusively with Roche with respect to each collaboration target, and we have agreed to work exclusively within the field of cancer immunotherapy for a period of up to 30 months after the execution of the Roche agreement. In addition, subject to specified exceptions, Roche has a right of first negotiation in the event that we desire to grant any third party rights to develop or commercialize a licensed product under either of the collaboration programs for which we will retain commercialization rights in the United States. Roche’s right of first negotiation will not apply in connection with a change of control of us, an assignment by us in accordance with the terms of the Roche agreement or certain agreements with contract research organizations, contract manufacturing organizations, academic institutions, not-for-profit third parties or distributors.

The Roche agreement will continue until the date when no royalty or other payment obligations are or will become due, unless earlier terminated in accordance with the terms of the Roche agreement. Prior to its exercise of its first option, Roche may terminate the Roche agreement at will, in whole or on a collaboration target-by-collaboration target basis, upon 120 days’ prior written notice to us. Following its exercise of an option, Roche may terminate the Roche agreement at will, in whole, on a collaboration target-by-collaboration target basis, on a collaboration program-by-collaboration program basis or, if a licensed product has been commercially sold, on a country-by-country basis, (i) upon 120 days’ prior written notice if a licensed product has not been commercially sold or (ii) upon 180 days’ prior

written notice if a licensed product has been commercially sold. Either party may terminate the Roche agreement for the other party’s uncured material breach or insolvency and in certain other circumstances agreed to by the parties. In certain termination circumstances, we are entitled to retain specified licenses to be able to continue to exploit the licensed products.

Intellectual Property

Our commercial success depends in part on our ability to obtain and maintain proprietary or intellectual property protection for our drug candidates, including avapritinib, BLU‑554, BLU-667 and BLU-782, and our core technologies, including our novel target discovery engine and our proprietary compound library, and other know‑how; to operate without infringing on the proprietary rights of others; and to prevent others from infringing our proprietary or intellectual property rights. Our policy is to seek to protect our proprietary and intellectual property position by, among other methods, filing U.S., international and foreign patent applications related to our proprietary technology, inventions and improvements that are important to the development and implementation of our business. We also rely on trade secrets, know‑how and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain our proprietary and intellectual property position.

We file patent applications directed to our drug candidates in an effort to establish intellectual property positions regarding these new chemical entities as well as uses of these new chemical entities in the treatment of diseases. We also file patent applications directed to novel fusions that we have discovered through our target discovery engine and the use of these fusions in diagnosing and treating disease. As of February 15, 2018, we owned ten issued U.S. patents, 25 pending U.S. patent applications, 5 pending U.S. provisional applications, 87 foreign patent applications pending in a number of jurisdictions, including Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the European Union, Israel, India, Japan, South Korea, Mexico New Zealand, Russia, South Africa, three issued foreign patents, and nine pending Patent Cooperation Treaty, or PCT, patent applications. Our pending patent applications pertain to our key research and development programs, specifically our programs for avapritinib, BLU-554, BLU-667 and BLU-782, and our pipeline, specifically novel recurrent fusions. Our issued U.S. patents are projected to expire between 2033 and 2034, and any patents that may issue from our pending U.S. applications would be projected to expire between 2034 and 2037.

The intellectual property portfolios for our most advanced drug candidates as of February 15, 2018 are summarized below. Each of these portfolios is in its early stages and, with respect to some of the pending patent applications covering our drug candidates, prosecution has just begun or is in progress. Prosecution is a lengthy process, during which the scope of the claims initially submitted for examination by the USPTO often significantly narrowed by the time they issue, if they issue at all. We expect this to be the case with respect to our pending patent applications referred to below.

Avapritinib (KIT and PDGFRα)

The intellectual property portfolio for our avapritinib program contains patent applications directed to compositions of matter for avapritinib and analogs, compositions of matter for KIT inhibitors with different compound families, as well as methods of use for these novel compounds. As of February 15, 2018, we owned five issued US patents, four pending U.S. patent applications, 36 pending foreign patent applications in a number of jurisdictions, including Argentina, Australia, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, China, the European Union, Israel, India, Japan, South Korea, Mexico New Zealand, Pakistan, Russia, South Africa, Taiwan and Venezuela, one pending PCT patent application and two U.S. provisional applications directed to our KIT and PDGFRα program, including avapritinib. Any U.S. or ex-U.S. patents issuing from the pending applications covering avapritinib will have a statutory expiration date of October 2034. Patent term adjustments or patent term extensions could result in later expiration dates.

BLU-554 (FGFR4)

The intellectual property portfolio for our BLU-554 program contains patent applications directed to compositions of matter for BLU‑554 and analogs, as well as compositions of matter for FGFR4 inhibitors with multiple compound families. The portfolio also includes patent applications directed to methods of use for the novel compounds as well as patent applications directed broadly to FGFR4 selective inhibitors. As of February 15, 2018, we owned four issued U.S. patents, three pending U.S. patent applications, one pending U.S. provisional application, one pending PCT international application, 41 foreign patent applications in a number of jurisdictions, including Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the European Union, Israel, India, Japan, South Korea, Mexico New Zealand, Russia, South Africa and Taiwan, and three issued foreign patents directed to our FGFR4 program, including BLU-554. Any U.S. or ex-U.S. patent issuing

from the pending applications covering BLU-554 will have a statutory expiration date of July 2033, December 2033, October 2034 or September 2037. Patent term adjustments or patent term extensions could result in later expiration dates.

BLU-667 (RET)

The intellectual property portfolio for our BLU-667 program contains patent applications directed to compositions of matter for BLU-667 and analogs, compositions of matter for other inhibitors of predicted RET resistance mutations and methods of use for these novel compounds. As of February 15, 2018, we owned five pending U.S. patent applications, four pending PCT applications, six pending foreign patent applications filed in Argentina, Lebanon, Uruguay and Taiwan, and one pending provisional U.S. patent applications directed to our RET program, including BLU-667, which, if issued, will have statutory expiration dates of 2036 or 2037.

BLU-782 (ALK2)

The intellectual property portfolio for our BLU-782 program contains patent applications directed to compositions of matter for BLU-782 and analogs, compositions of matter for other inhibitors with different compound families and methods of use for these novel compounds. As of February 15, 2018, we owned one pending U.S. patent application, one pending U.S. provisional patent application and one pending PCT international application directed to our ALK2 program, including BLU-782, which, if issued, will have statutory expiration dates of April 2037 or October 2038.

Platform

The intellectual property portfolio directed to our platform includes patent applications directed to novel gene fusions and the uses of these fusions for detecting and treating conditions implicated with these fusions. As of February 15, 2018, we owned ten pending U.S. patent applications and ten pending European Union patent applications directed to this technology, which, if issued, will have statutory expiration dates ranging from 2034 to 2035.

The term of individual patents depends upon the legal term for patents in the countries in which they are obtained. In most countries, including the United States, the patent term is 20 years from the earliest filing date of a non‑provisional patent application. In the United States, a patent’s term may be lengthened by patent term adjustment, which compensates a patentee for administrative delays by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or the USPTO, in examining and granting a patent, or may be shortened if a patent is terminally disclaimed over an earlier filed patent. The term of a patent that covers a drug or biological product may also be eligible for patent term extension when FDA approval is granted, provided statutory and regulatory requirements are met. See “— Government Regulation — U.S. Patent Term Restoration and Marketing Exclusivity” below for additional information on such exclusivity. In the future, if and when our drug candidates receive approval by the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities, we expect to apply for patent term extensions on issued patents covering those drugs, depending upon the length of the clinical trials for each drug and other factors. There can be no assurance that any of our pending patent applications will issue or that we will benefit from any patent term extension or favorable adjustment to the term of any of our patents.

As with other biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, our ability to maintain and solidify our proprietary and intellectual property position for our drug candidates and technologies will depend on our success in obtaining effective patent claims and enforcing those claims if granted. However, our pending patent applications, and any patent applications that we may in the future file or license from third parties may not result in the issuance of patents. We also cannot predict the breadth of claims that may be allowed or enforced in our patents. Any issued patents that we may receive in the future may be challenged, invalidated or circumvented. For example, we cannot be certain of the priority of inventions covered by pending third‑party patent applications. If third parties prepare and file patent applications in the United States that also claim technology or therapeutics to which we have rights, we may have to participate in interference proceedings in the USPTO to determine priority of invention, which could result in substantial costs to us, even if the eventual outcome is favorable to us, which is highly unpredictable. In addition, because of the extensive time required for clinical development and regulatory review of a drug candidate we may develop, it is possible that, before any of our drug candidates can be commercialized, any related patent may expire or remain in force for only a short period following commercialization, thereby limiting protection such patent would afford the respective product and any competitive advantage such patent may provide.

In addition to patents, we rely upon unpatented trade secrets and know‑how and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain our competitive position. We seek to protect our proprietary information, in part, by executing confidentiality agreements with our collaborators and scientific advisors, and non‑competition, non‑solicitation, confidentiality, and invention assignment agreements with our employees and consultants. We have also executed agreements requiring assignment of inventions with selected scientific advisors and collaborators. The confidentiality agreements we enter into are designed to protect our proprietary information and the agreements or clauses requiring assignment of inventions to us are designed to grant us ownership of technologies that are developed through our relationship with the respective counterparty. We cannot guarantee, however, that these agreements will afford us adequate protection of our intellectual property and proprietary information rights.

With respect to the building of our proprietary compound library, we consider trade secrets and know‑how to be our primary intellectual property. Trade secrets and know‑how can be difficult to protect. In particular, we anticipate that with respect to our discovery platform, these trade secrets and know‑how will over time be disseminated within the industry through independent development and public presentations describing the methodology.

Competition

The pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries are characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition and a strong emphasis on proprietary drugs. While we believe that our technology, development experience and scientific knowledge provide us with competitive advantages, we face potential competition from many different sources, including major pharmaceutical, specialty pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, academic institutions and governmental agencies and public and private research institutions. Any drug candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize will compete with existing drugs and new drugs that may become available in the future.

We compete in the segments of the pharmaceutical, biotechnology and other related markets that address inhibition of kinases in cancer and other rare genetic diseases. There are other companies working to develop therapies in the field of kinase inhibition for cancer and other diseases. These companies include divisions of large pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology companies of various sizes.

Many of the companies against which we are competing or against which we may compete in the future have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, pre-clinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals and marketing approved drugs than we do. Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical, biotechnology and diagnostic industries may result in even more resources being concentrated 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 and establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs.

Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize drugs that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient or are less expensive than any drugs that we or our collaborators may develop. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their drugs more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we or our collaborators are able to enter the market. The key competitive factors affecting the success of all of our drug candidates, if approved, are likely to be their efficacy, safety, convenience, price, the effectiveness of companion diagnostic tests in guiding the use of related therapeutics, the level of generic competition and the availability of reimbursement from government and other third‑party payors.

If our drug candidates are approved for the indications for which we are currently conducting or planning clinical trials, they will compete with the drugs discussed below and will likely compete with other drugs that are currently in development.

avapritinib

We are initially developing avapritinib, which is designed to target KIT and PDGFRα mutations, for patients with advanced GIST and advanced SM. If avapritinib receives marketing approval for advanced SM, it will face competition from Novartis AG’s midostaurin, a multi-kinase inhibitor with KIT D816V inhibitory activity that was

approved in April 2017 by the FDA for the treatment of advanced SM. If avapritinib receives marketing approval for third line advanced GIST, it will face competition from Bayer AG’s regorafenib, and if avapritinib receives marketing approval for second line advanced GIST, it will face competition from Pfizer Inc.’s sunitinib. In addition, if avapritinib receives marketing approval for advanced SM, GIST and/or for GIST patients with the PDGFRα D842V mutation, it may face competition from other drug candidates in development for these indications, including drug candidates in development by AB Science S.A., ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, AROG Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Celldex Therapeutics, Inc., Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, LLC and Plexxikon Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Daiichi Sankyo Company, Limited.

BLU‑554

We are initially developing BLU‑554 for patients with advanced HCC driven by FGFR4. If BLU-554 receives marketing approval for patients with FGFR4-activated HCC, it will face competition from Bristol-Myers Squibb Company’s nivolumab, an immune checkpoint inhibitor, which was approved in September 2017 by the FDA for the treatment of HCC, as well as sorafenib and regorafenib, multi-kinase inhibitors for the treatment of HCC. In addition, BLU-554 may face competition from other drug candidates in development by Abbisko Therapeutics Co., Ltd, AstraZeneca plc, Bayer AG, Celgene Corporation, Eisai Inc., H3 Biomedicine Inc., Incyte Corporation, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis AG, Sanofi S.A., Taiho Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., U3 Pharma GmbH, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Daiichi Sankyo Company, Limited, and Xoma Ltd. 

BLU‑667

We are initially developing BLU‑667 for patients with RET-driven NSCLC, MTC and other advanced solid tumors. If BLU-667 receives marketing approval for RET-driven NSCLC, MTC or other advanced solid tumors, it may face competition from drug candidates in development by Loxo Oncology, Inc. and Mirati Therapeutics, as well as several approved multi-kinase inhibitors with RET activity being evaluated in clinical trials, including alectinib, apatinib, cabozantinib, dovitinib, lenvatinib, ponatinib, sorafenib, sunitinib and vandetinib.

BLU‑782

We are initially developing BLU‑782 for patients with FOP. If BLU-782 receives marketing approval for FOP, it may face competition from drug candidates in development by BioCryst Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Clementia Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Commercialization Plans

Our goal is to become a fully‑integrated biopharmaceutical company capable of delivering transformative drugs to patients. Given our stage of development, we have started to establish our own commercial organization and distribution capabilities. Our initial focus is on genomically defined patient populations in oncology and a rare disease, which we believe will allow us to efficiently commercialize our drug candidates in the United States on our own initially and worldwide longer‑term. We currently have worldwide development and commercialization rights to avapritinib, BLU-554, BLU-667 and BLU-782 and all of our discovery programs other than the pre-clinical programs under the Roche collaboration. Subject to obtaining regulatory approval, we believe that we may be able to commercialize one or more of our drug candidates in as little as five years from when we select a development candidate. In addition, subject to regulatory approval, we believe we can successfully launch and commercialize our initial drug candidates on our own, using a small and highly specialized sales force similar to those of other rare disease companies. However, we may establish collaborations with pharmaceutical companies to leverage their capabilities to maximize the potential of our drug candidates.

Under the terms of our agreements related to the development and commercialization of companion diagnostic tests, third parties are responsible for the commercialization of companion diagnostic tests for avapritinib in order to identify GIST patients with the PDGFRα D842V mutation, BLU‑554 in order to identify HCC patients with FGFR4 pathway activation and BLU-667 in order to identify NSCLC patients with RET fusions.

Manufacturing and Supply

We do not own or operate, and currently have no plans to establish, any manufacturing facilities. We currently rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties for the manufacture of our drug candidates for pre-clinical and clinical testing, as well as for commercial manufacture of any drugs that we may commercialize. To date, we have obtained active pharmaceutical ingredients, or API, or drug substance for avapritinib, BLU‑554, BLU-667 and BLU-782 for our pre-clinical and Phase 1 testing from one third‑party manufacturer and drug product from two third party manufacturers. We obtain our supplies from these manufacturers on a purchase order basis and do not have a long‑term supply arrangement in place. We do not currently have arrangements in place for redundant supply for API, drug product or drug substance. For all of our drug candidates, we intend to identify and qualify additional manufacturers to provide the API, drug product and drug substance prior to submission of a new drug application to the FDA and/or a marketing authorization application to the European Medicines Agency.

Our drug candidates avapritinib, BLU‑554, BLU-667 and BLU-782 are compounds of low molecular weight, generally called small molecules. They can be manufactured in reliable and reproducible synthetic processes from readily available starting materials. The chemistry is amenable to scale‑up and does not require unusual equipment in the manufacturing process. We expect to continue developing drug candidates that can be produced cost‑effectively at contract manufacturing facilities.

Under the terms of our agreements related to the development and commercialization of companion diagnostic tests, we will rely on third parties to develop and commercialize companion diagnostic tests for avapritinib in order to identify GIST patients with the PDGFRα D842V mutation, BLU‑554 in order to identify HCC patients with FGFR4 pathway activation and BLU-667 in order to identify NSCLC patients with RET fusions. We generally expect to rely on third parties for the manufacture of any other companion diagnostic tests we may seek to develop.

Government Regulation

Government authorities in the United States at the federal, state and local level and in other countries extensively regulate, among other things, the research and clinical development, testing, manufacture, quality control, approval, labeling, packaging, storage, record‑keeping, promotion, advertising, distribution, post‑approval monitoring and reporting, marketing, and export and import of drug products, such as those we are developing. Generally, before a new drug can be marketed, considerable data demonstrating its quality, safety and efficacy must be obtained, organized into a format specific to each regulatory authority, submitted for review and approved by the regulatory authority.

The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. Failure to comply with the applicable regulatory requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process or after approval, may subject an applicant to administrative or judicial sanctions. These sanctions could include, among other actions, the regulatory authority’s refusal to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, clinical holds, untitled or warning letters, voluntary product recalls or withdrawals from the market, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, debarment, fines, refusals of government contracts, restitution, disgorgement, or civil or criminal penalties. Any agency or judicial enforcement action could have a material adverse effect on us.

U.S. Drug Development

In the United States, the FDA regulates drugs under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or FDCA, and its implementing regulations. Drugs are also subject to other federal, state and local statutes and regulations. Our drug candidates must be approved by the FDA through the NDA process before they may be legally marketed in the United States. The process required by the FDA before a drug may be marketed in the United States generally involves the following:

The data required to support an NDA is generated in two distinct development stages: pre-clinical and clinical. For new chemical entities, the pre-clinical development stage generally involves synthesizing the active component, developing the formulation and determining the manufacturing process, as well as carrying out non‑human toxicology, pharmacology and drug metabolism studies in the laboratory, which support subsequent clinical testing. The conduct of the pre-clinical tests must comply with federal regulations, including GLPs. The sponsor must submit the results of the pre-clinical tests, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and a proposed clinical protocol, to the FDA as part of the IND. An IND is a request for authorization from the FDA to administer an investigational drug product to humans. The central focus of an IND submission is on the pre-clinical data, general investigational plan and the protocol(s) for human trials. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA raises concerns or questions regarding the proposed clinical trials and places the IND on clinical hold within that 30‑day time period. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns or questions before the clinical trial can begin. The FDA may also impose clinical holds on a drug candidate at any time before or during clinical trials due to safety concerns or non‑compliance. Accordingly, we cannot be sure that submission of an IND will result in the FDA allowing clinical trials to begin, or that, once begun, issues will not arise that could cause the trial to be suspended or terminated.

The clinical stage of development involves the administration of the drug candidate to healthy volunteers and/or patients under the supervision of qualified investigators, generally physicians not employed by or under the trial sponsor’s control, in accordance with GCPs, which include the requirement that all research subjects provide their informed consent for their participation in any clinical trial. 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 to be used to monitor subject safety and assess efficacy. Each protocol, and any subsequent amendments to the protocol, must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. Further, each clinical trial must be reviewed and approved by an independent institutional review board, or IRB, at or servicing each institution at which the clinical trial will be conducted. An IRB is charged with protecting the welfare and rights of trial participants and considers such items as whether the risks to individuals participating in the clinical trials are minimized and are reasonable in relation to 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. There are also requirements governing the reporting of ongoing clinical trials and completed clinical trial results to public registries.

Clinical trials are generally conducted in three sequential phases that may overlap or be combined, known as Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials. Phase 1 clinical trials for oncology indications generally involve a small number of disease-affected patients who are treated with the drug candidate in escalating dose cohorts. The primary purpose of these clinical trials is to determine the MTD, or a recommended dose if the MTD is not achieved, assess the PK profile, pharmacologic action, side effect tolerability and safety of the drug. Phase 1 clinical trials for oncology indications may also evaluate preliminary evidence of clinical activity. Phase 2 clinical trials typically involve studies in

disease‑affected patients to determine the dose required to produce the desired benefits. At the same time, safety and further PK and PD information is collected, as well as identification of possible adverse effects and safety risks and preliminary evaluation of efficacy. Phase 3 clinical trials generally involve large numbers of patients at multiple sites, in multiple countries (from several hundred to several thousand subjects) and are designed to provide the data necessary to demonstrate the efficacy of the drug for its intended use, its safety in use, and to establish the overall benefit/risk relationship of the drug and provide an adequate basis for drug approval. Phase 3 clinical trials may include comparisons with placebo and/or other comparator treatments. The duration of treatment is often extended to mimic the actual use of a drug during marketing. Generally, 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. In certain instances, FDA may mandate the performance of Phase 4 clinical trials.

Progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials must be submitted at least annually to the FDA and written IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA and the investigators for serious and unexpected adverse reactions, any finding from other clinical studies, tests in laboratory animals, or in vitro testing that suggests a significant risk for human subjects, or any clinically important increase in the rate of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure. Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials may not be completed successfully within any specified period, if at all. The FDA or the clinical trial sponsor may suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research subjects or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the drug has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients. In addition, some clinical trials are overseen by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the clinical trial sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board or committee. This group provides authorization for whether or not a trial may move forward at designated check points based on access to certain data from the trial. We may also suspend or terminate a clinical trial based on evolving business objectives and/or competitive climate. Concurrent with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional animal studies and must also develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the drug as well as finalize a process for manufacturing the drug in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the drug candidate and, among other things, cGMPs impose extensive procedural, substantive and recordkeeping requirements to ensure and preserve the long term stability and quality of the final drug product. In addition, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the drug candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.

NDA and FDA Review Process

Following trial completion, trial data are analyzed to assess safety and efficacy. The results of pre-clinical studies and clinical trials are then submitted to the FDA as part of an NDA, along with proposed labeling for the drug and information about the manufacturing process and facilities that will be used to ensure drug quality, results of analytical testing conducted on the chemistry of the drug, and other relevant information. The NDA is a request for approval to market the drug and must contain adequate evidence of safety and efficacy, which is demonstrated by extensive pre-clinical and clinical testing. The application includes both negative or ambiguous results of pre-clinical studies and clinical trials as well as positive findings. Data may come from company‑sponsored clinical trials intended to test the safety and efficacy of a use of a drug, 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 drug product to the satisfaction of the FDA. The submission of an NDA is subject to the payment of substantial user fees; a waiver of such fees may be obtained under certain limited circumstances. FDA approval of an NDA must be obtained before a drug may be offered for sale 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 efficacy of the drug for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the drug is safe and effective. The FDA may grant deferrals for submission of data or full or partial waivers.

Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, as amended, each NDA must be accompanied by a user fee. The FDA adjusts the PDUFA user fees on an annual basis. According to the FDA’s fiscal year 2018 fee schedule,

effective through September 30, 2018, the user fee for an application requiring clinical data, such as an NDA, is $2,421,495. PDUFA also imposes an annual prescription drug product program fee for human drugs ($304,162). Fee waivers or reductions are available in certain circumstances, including a waiver of the application fee for the first application filed by a small business. In addition, no user fees are assessed on NDAs for products designated as orphan drugs, unless the product also includes a non‑orphan indication.

The FDA reviews all NDAs submitted before it accepts them for filing and may request additional information rather than accepting an NDA for filing. The FDA must make a decision on accepting an NDA for filing within 60 days of receipt. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in‑depth review of the NDA. Under the goals and policies agreed to by the FDA under PDUFA, the FDA has ten months from the filing date in which to complete its initial review of a standard NDA and respond to the applicant, and six months from the filing date for a priority NDA. The FDA does not always meet its PDUFA goal dates for standard and priority NDAs, and the review process is often significantly extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification.

After the NDA submission is accepted for filing, the FDA reviews the NDA to determine, among other things, whether the proposed drug is safe and effective for its intended use, and whether the drug is being manufactured in accordance with cGMP to assure and preserve the drug’s identity, strength, quality and purity. The FDA may refer applications for novel drugs or drug candidates that present difficult questions of safety or efficacy to an advisory committee, typically a panel that includes clinicians and other experts, for review, evaluation and a 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. The FDA will likely re‑analyze the clinical trial data, which could result in extensive discussions between the FDA and us during the review process. The review and evaluation of an NDA by the FDA is extensive and time consuming and may take longer than originally planned to complete, and we may not receive a timely approval, if at all.

Before approving an NDA, the FDA will conduct a pre‑approval inspection of the manufacturing facilities for the new drug to determine whether they comply with cGMPs. The FDA will not approve the drug unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the drug within required specifications. In addition, before approving an NDA, the FDA may also audit data from clinical trials by inspecting the sponsor or clinical trial sites to ensure compliance with GCP requirements. After the FDA evaluates the application, manufacturing process and manufacturing facilities where the drug product and/or its API will be produced, it may issue an approval letter or a Complete Response Letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the drug with specific prescribing information for specific indications. 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 usually describes all of the specific deficiencies in the NDA identified by the FDA. The Complete Response Letter may require additional clinical data and/or an additional pivotal clinical trial(s), and/or other significant, expensive and time‑consuming requirements related to clinical trials, pre-clinical studies or manufacturing. If a Complete Response Letter is issued, the applicant may either resubmit the NDA, addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter, or withdraw the application. Even if such data and information is submitted, the FDA may ultimately decide that the NDA does not satisfy the criteria for approval. Data obtained from clinical trials are not always conclusive and the FDA may interpret data differently than we interpret the same data.

There is no assurance that the FDA will ultimately approve a drug product for marketing in the United States and we may encounter significant difficulties or costs during the review process. If a drug receives marketing approval, the approval may be significantly limited to specific diseases and dosages or the indications for use may otherwise be limited, which could restrict the commercial value of the drug. Further, the FDA may require that certain contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the drug labeling or may condition the approval of the NDA on other changes to the proposed labeling, development of adequate controls and specifications, or a commitment to conduct post‑market testing or clinical trials and surveillance to monitor the effects of approved drugs. For example, the FDA may require Phase 4 testing which involves clinical trials designed to further assess a drug’s safety and effectiveness and may require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the safety of approved drugs that have been commercialized. The FDA may also place other conditions on approvals including the requirement for a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS to assure the safe use of the drug. If the FDA concludes a REMS is needed, the sponsor of the NDA must submit a proposed REMS. The FDA will not approve the NDA without an approved REMS, if required. A REMS could include medication guides, physician communication plans, or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. Any of these limitations on approval or marketing could restrict the commercial promotion, distribution, prescription or dispensing of drugs. Drug

approvals may be withdrawn for non‑compliance with regulatory requirements or if problems occur following initial marketing.

Special FDA Expedited Review and Approval Programs

The FDA has various programs, including fast track designation, accelerated approval, priority review and breakthrough therapy designation, that are intended to expedite or simplify the process for the development and FDA review of drugs that are intended for the treatment of serious or life threatening diseases or conditions and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs. The purpose of these programs is to provide important new drugs to patients earlier than under standard FDA review procedures. To be eligible for fast track designation, the FDA must determine, based on the request of a sponsor, that a drug is intended to treat a serious or life threatening disease or condition and based on pre-clinical or preliminary clinical data demonstrates the potential to address an unmet medical need. The FDA will determine that a product will fill an unmet medical need if it will provide a therapy where none exists or provide a therapy that may be potentially superior to existing therapy based on efficacy or safety factors.

The FDA may give a priority review designation to drugs that offer major advances in treatment, or provide a treatment where no adequate therapy exists. A priority review means that the goal for the FDA to review an application is six months, rather than the standard review of ten months under current PDUFA guidelines. These six and ten month review periods are measured from the “filing” date rather than the receipt date for NDAs for new molecular entities, which typically adds approximately two months to the timeline for review and decision from the date of submission. Products that are eligible for fast track designation are also likely to be considered appropriate to receive a priority review.

In addition, drugs studied for their safety and effectiveness in treating serious or life‑threatening illnesses and that provide meaningful therapeutic benefit over existing treatments may receive accelerated approval and may be approved on the basis of adequate and well‑controlled clinical trials establishing that the drug 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 irreversible morbidity or mortality, that 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. As a condition of approval, the FDA may require a sponsor of a drug receiving accelerated approval to perform post‑marketing studies to verify and describe the predicted effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical endpoint, and the drug may be subject to accelerated withdrawal procedures.

Moreover, a sponsor can request designation of a product candidate as a “breakthrough therapy.” A breakthrough therapy is defined as a drug that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs, to treat a serious or life‑threatening disease or condition, and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. Drugs designated as breakthrough therapies are also eligible for accelerated approval and priority review. The FDA must take certain actions, such as holding timely meetings and providing advice, intended to expedite the development and review of an application for approval of a breakthrough therapy.

Even if a product qualifies for one or more of these programs, the FDA may later decide that the product no longer meets the conditions for qualification or decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened. Furthermore, fast track designation, priority review, accelerated approval and breakthrough therapy designation, do not change the standards for approval and may not ultimately expedite the development or approval process.

Pediatric Trials

A sponsor who is planning to submit a marketing application for a drug that includes a new active ingredient, new indication, new dosage form, new dosing regimen or new route of administration must submit an initial Pediatric Study Plan, or PSP, within sixty days of an end‑of‑Phase 2 meeting or as may be agreed between the sponsor and FDA. The initial PSP must include an outline of the pediatric study or studies that the sponsor plans to conduct, including study objectives and design, age groups, relevant endpoints and statistical approach, or a justification for not including such detailed information, and any request for a deferral of pediatric assessments or a full or partial waiver of the requirement to provide data from pediatric studies along with supporting information. Development program candidates designated as orphan drugs are exempt from the above requirements. FDA and the sponsor must reach agreement on the PSP. A sponsor can submit amendments to an agreed‑upon initial PSP at any time if changes to the pediatric plan need to be considered based on data collected from pre-clinical studies, early phase clinical trials, and/or other clinical development programs.

Post‑Marketing Requirements

Following approval of a new drug, a pharmaceutical company and the approved drug are subject to continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, monitoring and recordkeeping activities, reporting to the applicable regulatory authorities of adverse experiences with the drug, providing the regulatory authorities with updated safety and efficacy information, drug sampling and distribution requirements, and complying with promotion and advertising requirements, which include, among others, standards for direct‑to‑consumer advertising, restrictions on promoting drugs for uses or in patient populations that are not described in the drug’s approved labeling (known as “off‑label use”) and requirements for promotional activities involving the internet. Although physicians may prescribe legally available drugs for off‑label uses, manufacturers may not market or promote such off‑label uses. Prescription drug promotional materials must be submitted to the FDA in conjunction with their first use. There are also limitations on industry‑sponsored scientific and educational activities. Modifications or enhancements to the drug or its labeling or changes of the site of manufacture are often subject to the approval of the FDA and other regulators, which may or may not be received or may result in a lengthy review process. Any distribution of prescription drugs and pharmaceutical samples must comply with the U.S. Prescription Drug Marketing Act, or the PDMA, a part of the FDCA.

In the United States, once a drug is approved, its manufacture is subject to comprehensive and continuing regulation by the FDA. The FDA regulations require that drugs be manufactured in specific approved facilities and in accordance with cGMP. We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties for the production of clinical and commercial quantities of our drugs in accordance with cGMP regulations. cGMP regulations require among other things, quality control and quality assurance as well as the corresponding maintenance of records and documentation and the obligation to investigate and correct any deviations from cGMP. Drug manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved drugs 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 cGMP and other laws. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money, and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain cGMP compliance. These regulations also impose certain organizational, procedural and documentation requirements with respect to manufacturing and quality assurance activities. NDA holders using contract manufacturers, laboratories or packagers are responsible for the selection and monitoring of qualified firms, and, in certain circumstances, qualified suppliers to these firms. These firms and, where applicable, their suppliers are subject to inspections by the FDA at any time, and the discovery of violative conditions, including failure to conform to cGMP, could result in enforcement actions that interrupt the operation of any such facilities or the ability to distribute drugs manufactured, processed or tested by them. Discovery of problems with a drug after approval may result in restrictions on a drug, manufacturer, or holder of an approved NDA, including, among other things, recall or withdrawal of the drug from the market, and may require substantial resources to correct.

The FDA also may require post‑approval testing, sometimes referred to as Phase 4 testing, risk minimization action plans and post‑marketing surveillance to monitor the effects of an approved drug or place conditions on an approval that could restrict the distribution or use of the drug. Discovery of previously unknown problems with a drug or the failure to comply with applicable FDA requirements can have negative consequences, including adverse publicity, judicial or administrative enforcement, untitled or warning letters from the FDA, mandated corrective advertising or communications with doctors, and civil or criminal penalties, among others. Newly discovered or developed safety or effectiveness data may require changes to a drug’s approved labeling, including the addition of new warnings and contraindications, and also may require the implementation of other risk management measures. The distribution of

pharmaceutical drugs is subject to additional requirements and regulations, including extensive record‑keeping, licensing, storage and security requirements intended to prevent the unauthorized sale of pharmaceutical drugs.

Also, new government requirements, including those resulting from new legislation, may be established, or the FDA’s policies may change, which could delay or prevent regulatory approval of our drugs under development.

Other Regulatory Matters

Manufacturing, sales, promotion and other activities following drug approval are also subject to regulation by numerous regulatory authorities in addition to the FDA, including, in the United States, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, other divisions of the Department of Health and Human Services, the Drug Enforcement Administration for controlled substances, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Occupational Safety & Health Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency and state and local governments. In the United States, sales, marketing and scientific/educational programs must also comply with state and federal fraud and abuse laws. Pricing and rebate programs must comply with the Medicaid rebate requirements of the U.S. Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 and more recent requirements in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, or collectively, the Affordable Care Act. If drugs are made available to authorized users of the Federal Supply Schedule of the General Services Administration, additional laws and requirements apply. The handling of any controlled substances must comply with the U.S. Controlled Substances Act and Controlled Substances Import and Export Act. Drugs must meet applicable child‑resistant packaging requirements under the U.S. Poison Prevention Packaging Act. Manufacturing, sales, promotion and other activities are also potentially subject to federal and state consumer protection and unfair competition laws.

The failure to comply with 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, voluntary recalls, seizure of drugs, total or partial suspension of production, denial or withdrawal of product approvals, or refusal to allow a firm to enter into supply contracts, including government contracts. In addition, even if a firm complies with FDA and other requirements, new information regarding the safety or efficacy of a product could lead the FDA to modify or withdraw product approval. Prohibitions or restrictions on 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; (iii) the voluntary recall or discontinuation of our products; or (iv) additional record‑keeping requirements. If any such changes were to be imposed, they could adversely affect the operation of our business.

U.S. Patent Term Restoration and Marketing Exclusivity

Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of the FDA approval of our drug candidates, some of our U.S. patents may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, commonly referred to as the Hatch‑Waxman Amendments. The Hatch‑Waxman Amendments permit a patent restoration term of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review process. However, patent term restoration cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the product’s approval date. The patent term restoration period is generally one‑half the time between the effective date of an IND and the submission date of an NDA plus the time between the submission date of an NDA and the approval of that application. Only one patent applicable to an approved drug is eligible for the extension and the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent. The USPTO, in consultation with the FDA, reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension or restoration. In the future, we intend to apply for restoration of patent term for one of our currently owned or licensed patents to add patent life beyond its current expiration date, depending on the expected length of the clinical trials and other factors involved in the filing of the relevant NDA.

Marketing exclusivity provisions under the FDCA can also delay the submission or the approval of certain marketing applications. The FDCA provides a five‑year period of non‑patent marketing exclusivity within the United States to the first applicant to obtain approval of an NDA for 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 abbreviated new drug application, or ANDA, or a 505(b)(2) NDA submitted by another company for another drug based on the same active moiety, regardless of whether the drug is intended for the same indication as the original innovator drug or for another indication, 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 to one of the patents listed with the FDA by the innovator NDA holder. The FDCA also provides three years of marketing exclusivity for an 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 modification for which the drug received approval on the basis of the new clinical investigations and does not prohibit the FDA from approving ANDAs for drugs containing the active agent for the original indication or condition of use. Five‑year and three‑year exclusivity will not delay the submission or approval of a full NDA. However, an applicant submitting a full NDA would be required to conduct or obtain a right of reference to all of the pre-clinical studies and adequate and well‑controlled clinical trials necessary to demonstrate safety and effectiveness. Orphan drug exclusivity, as described below, may offer a seven‑year period of marketing exclusivity, except in certain circumstances. Pediatric exclusivity is another type of regulatory 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 trial in accordance with an FDA‑issued “Written Request” for such a trial.

Orphan Drug Designation

The FDA may grant orphan drug designation to drugs intended to treat a rare disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or if it affects more than 200,000 individuals in the United States, there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and marketing the drug for this type of disease or condition will be recovered from sales in the United States. In the European Union, the European Commission, after receiving the opinion of the EMA’s Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products, or COMP, grants orphan drug designation to promote the development of products that are intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life‑threatening or chronically debilitating conditions affecting not more than five in 10,000 persons in the European Union Community. In addition, designation is granted for products intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life‑threatening, seriously debilitating or serious and chronic condition and when, without incentives, it is unlikely that sales of the drug in the European Union would be sufficient to justify the necessary investment in developing the drug or biological product.

In the United States, orphan drug designation entitles a party to financial incentives such as opportunities for grant funding towards clinical trial costs, tax advantages and user‑fee waivers. In addition, if a product receives the first FDA approval for the indication for which it has orphan designation, the product is entitled to orphan drug exclusivity, which means the FDA may not approve any other application to market the same drug for the same indication for a period of seven years, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority over the product with orphan exclusivity.

In the European Union, orphan drug designation also entitles a party to financial incentives such as reduction of fees or fee waivers and ten years of market exclusivity is granted following drug or biological product approval. This period may be reduced to six years if the orphan drug designation criteria are no longer met, including where it is shown that the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity.

Orphan drug designation must be requested before submitting an application for marketing approval. Orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process.

Regulation of Diagnostic Tests

We expect that our drug candidates may require use of a diagnostic to identify appropriate patient populations for our products. These diagnostics, often referred to as companion diagnostic tests, are medical devices, often in vitro devices, which provide information that is essential for the safe and effective use of a corresponding drug. For example, we have entered into agreements with third parties to develop and commercialize companion diagnostic tests for avapritinib in order to identify GIST patients with the PDGFRα D842V mutation, BLU‑554 in order to identify HCC patients with FGFR4 pathway activation and BLU-667 in order to identify NSCLC patients with RET fusions. In the

United States, the FDCA and its implementing regulations, and other federal and state statutes and regulations govern, among other things, medical device design and development, pre-clinical and clinical testing, premarket clearance or approval, registration and listing, manufacturing, labeling, storage, advertising and promotion, sales and distribution, export and import, and post‑market surveillance. Unless an exemption applies, diagnostic tests require marketing clearance or approval from the FDA prior to commercial distribution. The two primary types of FDA marketing authorization applicable to a medical device are premarket notification, also called 510(k) clearance, and premarket approval, or PMA approval. We expect that any companion diagnostic test developed for our drug candidates will utilize the PMA pathway.

PMA applications must be supported by valid scientific evidence, which typically requires extensive data, including technical, pre-clinical, clinical and manufacturing data, to demonstrate to the FDA’s satisfaction the safety and effectiveness of the device. For diagnostic tests, a PMA application typically includes data regarding analytical and clinical validation studies. As part of its review of the PMA, the FDA will conduct a pre‑approval inspection of the manufacturing facility or facilities to ensure compliance with the Quality System Regulation, or QSR, which requires manufacturers to follow design, testing, control, documentation and other quality assurance procedures. FDA review of an initial PMA may require several years to complete. If the FDA evaluations of both the PMA application and the manufacturing facilities are favorable, the FDA will either issue an approval letter or an approvable letter, which usually contains a number of conditions that must be met in order to secure the final approval of the PMA. If the FDA’s evaluation of the PMA or manufacturing facilities is not favorable, the FDA will deny approval of the PMA or issue a not approvable letter. A not approvable letter will outline the deficiencies in the application and, where practical, will identify what is necessary to make the PMA approvable. The FDA may also determine that additional clinical trials are necessary, in which case the PMA approval may be delayed for several months or years while the trials are conducted and then the data submitted in an amendment to the PMA. Once granted, PMA approval may be withdrawn by the FDA if compliance with post approval requirements, conditions of approval or other regulatory standards is not maintained or problems are identified following initial marketing.

On August 6, 2014, the FDA issued a final guidance document addressing the development and approval process for “In Vitro Companion Diagnostic Devices.” According to the guidance, for novel drugs such as our drug candidates, a companion diagnostic test device and its corresponding drug should be approved or cleared contemporaneously by FDA for the use indicated in the therapeutic product labeling. The guidance also explains that a companion diagnostic test device used to make treatment decisions in clinical trials of a drug generally will be considered an investigational device, unless it is employed for an intended use for which the device is already approved or cleared. If used to make critical treatment decisions, such as patient selection, the diagnostic device generally will be considered a significant risk device under the FDA’s Investigational Device Exemption, or IDE, regulations. Thus, the sponsor of the diagnostic device will be required to comply with the IDE regulations. According to the guidance, if a diagnostic device and a drug are to be studied together to support their respective approvals, both products can be studied in the same investigational study, if the study meets both the requirements of the IDE regulations and the IND regulations. The guidance provides that depending on the details of the study plan and subjects, a sponsor may seek to submit an IND alone, or both an IND and an IDE.

In the EEA, in vitro medical devices are required to conform with the essential requirements of the E.U. Directive on in vitro diagnostic medical devices (Directive No 98/79/EC, as amended). To demonstrate compliance with the essential requirements, the manufacturer must undergo a conformity assessment procedure. The conformity assessment varies according to the type of medical device and its classification. For low‑risk devices, the conformity assessment can be carried out internally, but for higher risk devices it requires the intervention of an accredited EEA Notified Body. If successful, the conformity assessment concludes with the drawing up by the manufacturer of an EC Declaration of Conformity entitling the manufacturer to affix the CE mark to its products and to sell them throughout the EEA.

European Drug Development

In the European Union, our future drugs may also be subject to extensive regulatory requirements. As in the United States, medicinal products can only be marketed if a marketing authorization from the competent regulatory agencies has been obtained.

Similar to the United States, the various phases of pre-clinical and clinical research in the European Union are subject to significant regulatory controls. Although the current EU Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC, or Clinical Trials Directive, has sought to harmonize the European Union clinical trials regulatory framework, setting out common rules for the control and authorization of clinical trials in the European Union, the European Union Member States have transposed and applied the provisions of the Directive differently. This has led to significant variations in the member state regimes. Under the current regime, before a clinical trial can be initiated it must be approved in each of the European Union countries where the trial is to be conducted by two distinct bodies: the National Competent Authority, or NCA, and one or more Ethics Committees, or ECs. Under the current regime all suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions to the investigated drug that occur during the clinical trial have to be reported to the NCA and ECs of the Member State where they occurred.

In April 2014, the European Union adopted a new Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No 536/2014, or the Clinical Trials Regulation, which is set to replace the Clinical Trials Directive. It is expected that the new Clinical Trials Regulation will apply by October 2019. The Clinical Trials Regulation will overhaul the current system of approvals for clinical trials in the European Union. Specifically, the new legislation, which will be directly applicable in all member states, aims at simplifying and streamlining the approval of clinical trials in the European Union. For instance, the new Clinical Trials Regulation provides for a streamlined application procedure via a single entry point and strictly defined deadlines for the assessment of clinical trial applications.

European Drug Review and Approval

In the European Economic Area, or EEA, (which is comprised of the 28 Member States of the European Union plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein), medicinal products can only be commercialized after obtaining a Marketing Authorization, or MA. There are two types of marketing authorizations:

The Community MA, which is issued by the European Commission through the Centralized Procedure, based on the opinion of the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use, or CHMP, of the EMA and which is valid throughout the entire territory of the EEA. The Centralized Procedure is mandatory for certain types of drugs, such as biotechnology medicinal drugs, orphan medicinal drugs, and medicinal drugs containing a new active substance indicated for the treatment of AIDS, cancer, neurodegenerative disorders, diabetes, auto‑immune and viral diseases. The Centralized Procedure is optional for drugs containing a new active substance not yet authorized in the EEA, or for drugs that constitute a significant therapeutic, scientific or technical innovation or which are in the interest of public health in the European Union.

National MAs, which are issued by the competent authorities of the Member States of the EEA and only cover their respective territory, are available for drugs not falling within the mandatory scope of the Centralized Procedure. Where a drug has already been authorized for marketing in a Member State of the EEA, this National MA can be recognized in another Member State through the Mutual Recognition Procedure. If the drug has not received a National MA in any Member State at the time of application, it can be approved simultaneously in various Member States through the Decentralized Procedure. Under the Decentralized Procedure an identical dossier is submitted to the competent authorities of each of the Member States in which the MA is sought, one of which is selected by the applicant as the Reference Member State, or RMS. The competent authority of the RMS prepares a draft assessment report, a draft summary of the drug characteristics, or SPC, and a draft of the labeling and package leaflet, which are sent to the other Member States (referred to as the Member States Concerned) for their approval. If the Member States Concerned raise no objections, based on a potential serious risk to public health, to the assessment, SPC, labeling, or packaging proposed by the RMS, the drug is subsequently granted a national MA in all the Member States (i.e. in the RMS and the Member States Concerned).

Under the above described procedures, before granting the MA, the EMA or the competent authorities of the Member States of the EEA make an assessment of the risk‑benefit balance of the drug on the basis of scientific criteria concerning its quality, safety and efficacy.

European Chemical Entity Exclusivity

In the European Union, new chemical entities, sometimes referred to as new active substances, qualify for eight years of data exclusivity upon marketing authorization and an additional two years of market exclusivity. This data exclusivity, if granted, prevents regulatory authorities in the European Union from referencing the innovator’s data to assess a generic application for eight years, after which generic marketing authorization can be submitted, and the innovator’s data may be referenced, but not approved for two years. The overall ten‑year period will be extended to a maximum of 11 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.

Rest of the World Regulation

For other countries outside of the European Union and the United States, such as countries in Eastern Europe, Latin America or Asia, the requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, drug licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary from country to country. In all cases the clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with GCP requirements and the applicable regulatory requirements and the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki.

If we fail to comply with applicable foreign regulatory requirements, we may be subject to, among other things, fines, suspension or withdrawal of regulatory approvals, product recalls, seizure of products, operating restrictions and criminal prosecution.

Coverage and Reimbursement

Sales of our drugs will depend, in part, on the extent to which our drugs will be covered by third‑party payors, such as government health programs, commercial insurance and managed healthcare organizations. These third‑party payors are increasingly reducing reimbursements for medical drugs and services. In addition, the containment of healthcare costs has become a priority of federal and state governments, and the prices of drugs have been a focus in this effort. The U.S. government, state legislatures and foreign governments have shown significant interest in implementing cost‑containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic drugs. Adoption of price controls and cost‑containment measures, and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could further limit our net revenue and results. Decreases in third‑party reimbursement for our drug candidates, if approved, or a decision by a third‑party payor to not cover our drug candidates could reduce physician usage of such drugs and have a material adverse effect on our sales, results of operations and financial condition.

The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, or the MMA, established the Medicare Part D program to provide a voluntary prescription drug benefit to Medicare beneficiaries. Under Part D, Medicare beneficiaries may enroll in prescription drug plans offered by private entities that provide coverage of outpatient prescription drugs. Unlike Medicare Part A and B, Part D coverage is not standardized. Part D prescription drug plan sponsors are not required to pay for all covered Part D drugs, and each drug plan can develop its own drug formulary that identifies which drugs it will cover and at what tier or level. However, Part D prescription drug formularies must include drugs within each therapeutic category and class of covered Part D drugs, though not necessarily all the drugs in each category or class. Any formulary used by a Part D prescription drug plan must be developed and reviewed by a pharmacy and therapeutic committee. Government payment for some of the costs of prescription drugs may increase demand for drugs for which we receive marketing approval. However, any negotiated prices for our drugs covered by a Part D prescription drug plan will likely be lower than the prices we might otherwise obtain. Moreover, while the MMA applies only to drug benefits for Medicare beneficiaries, private payors often follow Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own payment rates. Any reduction in payment that results from the MMA may result in a similar reduction in payments from non‑governmental payors.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provides funding for the federal government to compare the effectiveness of different treatments for the same illness. The plan for the research was published in 2012 by the Department of Health and Human Services, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Institutes for Health, and periodic reports on the status of the research and related expenditures will be made to Congress. Although the results of the comparative effectiveness studies are not intended to mandate coverage policies

for public or private payors, it is not clear what effect, if any, the research will have on the sales of our drug candidates, if any such drug or the condition that they are intended to treat is the subject of a trial. It is also possible that comparative effectiveness research demonstrating benefits in a competitor’s drug could adversely affect the sales of our drug candidate. If third‑party payors do not consider our drugs to be cost‑effective compared to other available therapies, they may not cover our drugs after approval as a benefit under their plans or, if they do, the level of payment may not be sufficient to allow us to sell our drugs on a profitable basis.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, or collectively the Affordable Care Act, enacted in March 2010, has had a significant impact on the health care industry. The Affordable Care Act expanded coverage for the uninsured while at the same time containing overall healthcare costs. With regard to pharmaceutical products, the Affordable Care Act, among other things, 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, increased the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program and extended the rebate program to individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations, established annual fees and taxes on manufacturers of certain branded prescription drugs, and a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program, in which manufacturers must agree to offer 50% point‑of‑sale discounts off negotiated prices of applicable brand drugs to eligible beneficiaries during their coverage gap period, as a condition for the manufacturer’s outpatient drugs to be covered under Medicare Part D.

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the Affordable Care Act was enacted. On August 2, 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011 among other things, created measures for spending reductions by Congress. A Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, tasked with recommending a targeted deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion for the years 2013 through 2021, was unable to reach required goals, thereby triggering the legislation’s automatic reduction to several government programs. This includes aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of up to 2% per fiscal year, started in April 2013, and, due to subsequent legislative amendments, will stay in effect through 2025 unless additional Congressional action is taken. On January 2, 2013, then President Obama signed into law the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, or the ATRA, which among other things, also 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. We expect that additional federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare drugs and services, and in turn could significantly reduce the projected value of certain development projects and reduce our profitability. In January 2017, Congress voted to adopt a budget resolution for fiscal year 2017, that while not a law, is widely viewed as the first step toward the passage of legislation that would repeal certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act. The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, or TJCA, includes a provision repealing the individual mandate, effective January 1, 2019. Further, on January 20, 2017, U.S. President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order directing federal agencies with authorities and responsibilities under the Affordable Care Act to waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of any provision of the Affordable Care Act that would impose a fiscal burden on states or a cost, fee, tax, penalty or regulatory burden on individuals, healthcare providers, health insurers, or manufacturers of pharmaceuticals or medical devices. On October 13, 2017, President Trump signed an Executive Order terminating the cost-sharing subsidies that reimburse insurers under the Affordable Care Act. Several state Attorneys General filed suit to stop the administration from terminating these subsidies, but on October 25, 2017, a federal judge in California denied their request for a restraining order. In addition, CMS has recently proposed regulations that would give states greater flexibility in setting benchmarks for insurers in the individual and small group marketplaces, which may have the effect of relaxing the health benefits required under the Affordable Care Act for plans sold through these marketplaces. There may be further action to repeal, replace or modify the Affordable Care Act. While any legislative and regulatory changes will likely take time to develop, and may or may not have an impact on the regulatory regime to which we are subject, we cannot predict the ultimate content, timing or effect of any healthcare reform legislation or the impact of potential legislation on us.

In addition, in some foreign countries, the proposed pricing for a drug must be approved before it may be lawfully marketed. The requirements governing drug pricing vary widely from country to country. For example, the European Union provides options for its member states to restrict the range of medicinal drugs for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal drugs for human use. A member state may approve a specific price for the medicinal drug or it may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the medicinal drug on the market. There can be no assurance that any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for pharmaceutical drugs will allow favorable reimbursement and

pricing arrangements for any of our drugs. Historically, drugs launched in the European Union do not follow price structures of the United States and generally tend to be significantly lower.

Other Healthcare Laws

We may also be subject to healthcare regulation and enforcement by the federal government and the states and foreign governments where we may market our product candidates, if approved. These laws include, without limitation, state and federal anti‑kickback, fraud and abuse, false claims, privacy and security and physician sunshine laws and regulations.

The federal Anti‑Kickback Statute prohibits, among other things, any person from knowingly and willfully offering, soliciting, receiving or paying remuneration, directly or indirectly, to induce either the referral of an individual, for an item or service or the purchasing or ordering of a good or service, for which payment may be made under federal healthcare programs such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs. The government has enforced the Anti‑Kickback Statute to reach large settlements with healthcare companies based on sham consulting and other financial arrangements with physicians. A person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. In addition, the government may assert that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti‑Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the federal False Claims Act. The majority of states also have anti‑kickback laws, which establish similar prohibitions and in some cases may apply to items or services reimbursed by any third‑party payor, including commercial insurers.

In addition, the civil False Claims Act prohibits, among other things, knowingly presenting or causing the presentation of a false, fictitious or fraudulent claim for payment to the U.S. government. Actions under the False Claims Act may be brought by the Attorney General or as a qui tam action by a private individual in the name of the government. Violations of the False Claims Act can result in very significant monetary penalties and treble damages. The federal government is using the False Claims Act, and the accompanying threat of significant liability, in its investigation and prosecution of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies throughout the U.S., for example, in connection with the promotion of products for unapproved uses and other sales and marketing practices. The government has obtained multi‑million and multi‑billion dollar settlements under the False Claims Act in addition to individual criminal convictions under applicable criminal statutes. Given the significant size of actual and potential settlements, it is expected that the government will continue to devote substantial resources to investigating healthcare providers’ and manufacturers’ compliance with applicable fraud and abuse laws.

The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, also created new federal criminal statutes that prohibit among other actions, knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, including private third‑party payors, knowingly and willfully embezzling or stealing from a healthcare benefit program, willfully obstructing a criminal investigation of a healthcare offense, and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement 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 does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation.

There has also been a recent trend of increased federal and state regulation of payments made to physicians and other healthcare providers. The Affordable Care Act, among other things, imposes new reporting requirements on drug manufacturers for payments made by them to physicians and teaching hospitals, as well as ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members. Failure to submit required information may result in civil monetary penalties of up to an aggregate of $150,000 per year (or up to an aggregate of $1 million per year for “knowing failures”), for all payments, transfers of value or ownership or investment interests that are not timely, accurately and completely reported in an annual submission. Drug manufacturers are required to submit annual reports to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which publicly posts the data on its website. Certain states also mandate implementation of compliance programs, impose restrictions on drug manufacturer marketing practices and/or require the tracking and reporting of gifts, compensation and other remuneration to physicians.

We may also be subject to data privacy and security regulation by both the federal government and the states in which we conduct our business. HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology and Clinical Health Act, or HITECH, and their respective implementing regulations, including the final omnibus rule published on January 25, 2013, imposes specified requirements relating to the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health

information. Among other things, HITECH makes HIPAA’s privacy and security standards directly applicable to “business associates,” defined as independent contractors or agents of covered entities that create, receive, maintain or transmit protected health information in connection with providing a service for or on behalf of a covered entity. HITECH also increased the civil and criminal penalties that may be imposed against covered entities, business associates and possibly other persons, 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 attorney’s fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. In addition, we may be subject to state law equivalents of each of the above federal laws, such as anti-kickback and false claims laws which may apply to items or services reimbursed by any third-party payor, including commercial insurers, and state laws governing the privacy and security of health information in certain circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways, thus complicating compliance efforts.

Employees

As of February 15, 2018, we had 149 full‑time employees, including 58 employees with M.D. or Ph.D. degrees. Of these full‑time employees, 55 employees are engaged in research and development activities, and 3 are engaged in general and administrative activities. None of our employees are represented by a labor union or covered by a collective bargaining agreement. We consider our relationship with our employees to be good.

Corporate Information

We were incorporated in the State of Delaware in October 2008 under the name ImmunoCo, Inc. In May 2010, we changed our name to Hoyle Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and in June 2011, we changed our name again to Blueprint Medicines Corporation. Our principal executive offices are located at 45 Sidney Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, and our telephone number is (617) 374-7580.

Information Available on the Internet

Our Internet website address is http://www.blueprintmedicines.com. The information contained on, or that can be accessed through, our website is not a part of or incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We have included our website address in this in this Annual Report on Form 10-K solely as an inactive textual reference. We make available free of charge through our website our Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Sections 13(a) and 15(d) of the Exchange Act. We make these reports available through the “Investors—SEC Filings” section of our website as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such reports with, or furnish such reports to, the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC. We also make available, free of charge on our website, the reports filed with the SEC by our executive officers, directors and 10% stockholders pursuant to Section 16 under the Exchange Act as soon as reasonably practicable after copies of those filings are provided to us by those persons. You can find, copy and inspect information we file at the SEC’s public reference room, which is located at 100 F Street, N.E., Room 1580, Washington, DC 20549. Please call the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330 for more information about the operation of the SEC’s public reference room. You can review our electronically filed reports and other information that we file with the SEC on the SEC’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

Item 1A.  Risk Factors

The following risk factors and other information included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K should be carefully considered. The risks and uncertainties described below are not the only ones we face. Additional risks and uncertainties not presently known to us or that we presently deem less significant may also impair our business operations. Please see page 1 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K for a discussion of some of the forward-looking

statements that are qualified by these risk factors. If any of the following risks occur, our business, financial condition, results of operations and future growth prospects could be materially and adversely affected.

Risks Related to Our Financial Position and Need for Additional Capital

We are a biopharmaceutical company with a limited operating history and have not generated any revenue from drug sales. We have incurred significant operating losses since our inception and anticipate that we will incur continued losses for the foreseeable future.

We are a biopharmaceutical company with a limited operating history on which investors can base an investment decision. Biopharmaceutical drug development is a highly speculative undertaking and involves a substantial degree of risk. We commenced operations in April 2011. Our operations to date have been limited primarily to organizing and staffing our company, business planning, raising capital, developing our technology, identifying potential drug candidates and undertaking pre-clinical studies and commencing Phase 1 clinical trials and preparing for additional planned clinical trials for our most advanced drug candidates, avapritinib, BLU‑554 and BLU‑667.

We are currently evaluating avapritinib in an ongoing Phase 1 clinical trial for defined subsets of patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors, or GIST, avapritinib in an ongoing Phase 1 clinical trial for advanced systemic mastocytosis, or SM, BLU‑554 in an ongoing Phase 1 clinical trial in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, or HCC, and BLU-667 in an ongoing Phase 1 clinical trial in patients with non-small cell lung cancer, or NSCLC, medullary thyroid cancer, or MTC, and other advanced solid tumors.

In September 2015, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, granted orphan drug designation to BLU-554 for the treatment of HCC, and in January 2016, the FDA granted orphan drug designation to avapritinib for the treatment of GIST and mastocytosis. In October 2016, the FDA granted fast track designation to avapritinib for the treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic GIST that progressed following treatment with imatinib and a second tyrosine kinase inhibitor and for the treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic GIST with the PDGFRα D842V mutation regardless of prior therapy. In addition, in June 2017, the FDA granted breakthrough therapy designation to avapritinib for the treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic GIST harboring the PDGFRα D842V mutation, and in July 2017, the European Medicines Agency granted orphan drug designation to avapritinib for the treatment of GIST. We have never generated any revenue from drug sales. We have not obtained regulatory approvals for any of our drug candidates.

We have not yet demonstrated our ability to successfully complete any clinical trials, including large‑scale, pivotal clinical trials, obtain regulatory approvals, manufacture a commercial scale drug, or arrange for a third party to do so on our behalf, or conduct sales and marketing activities necessary for successful commercialization. Typically, it takes many years to develop one new drug from the time it is discovered to when it is available for treating patients. Consequently, any predictions you make about our future success or viability may not be as accurate as they could be if we had a longer operating history. We will need to transition from a company with a research focus to a company capable of supporting commercial activities. We may not be successful in such a transition.

Since inception, we have focused substantially all of our efforts and financial resources on developing our proprietary compound library, novel target discovery engine and initial drug candidates. To date, we have financed our operations primarily through public offerings of our common stock, private placements of our convertible preferred stock, collaborations and a debt financing. Through December 31, 2017, we have received an aggregate of $1.1 billion from such transactions, including $887.4 million in aggregate gross proceeds from the sale of common stock in our May 2015 initial public offering, or IPO, and December 2016, April 2017 and December 2017 follow‑on public offerings, $115.1 million in gross proceeds from the issuance of convertible preferred stock, $18.8 million of upfront and milestone payments under our former collaboration with Alexion Pharma Holding, or Alexion, a $45.0 million upfront payment under our existing collaboration with F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd and Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., which we refer to collectively as Roche, and $10.0 million in gross proceeds from the debt financing.

Since inception, we have incurred significant operating losses. Our net losses were $148.1 million, $72.5 million and $52.8 million for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, respectively. As of December 31, 2017, we had an accumulated deficit of $355.6 million. Substantially all of our operating losses have resulted from costs incurred in connection with our research and development programs and from general and administrative costs associated with our operations. We expect to continue to incur significant expenses and operating losses over the next

several years and for the foreseeable future. Our prior losses, combined with expected future losses, have had and will continue to have an adverse effect on our stockholders’ deficit and working capital. We expect our research and development expenses to significantly increase in connection with continuing our existing clinical trials and beginning additional clinical trials. In addition, if we obtain marketing approval for our drug candidates, we will incur significant sales, marketing and outsourced‑manufacturing expenses. We have incurred and will continue to incur additional costs associated with operating as a public company. As a result, we expect to continue to incur significant and increasing operating losses for the foreseeable future. Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with developing pharmaceuticals, we are unable to predict the extent of any future losses or when we will become profitable, if at all. Even if we do become profitable, we may not be able to sustain or increase our profitability on a quarterly or annual basis. Our ability to become profitable depends upon our ability to generate revenue.

To date, we have not generated any revenue from our most advanced drug candidates, avapritinib, BLU‑554 and BLU‑667, and we do not expect to generate any revenue from the sale of drugs in the near future. We do not expect to generate significant revenue unless and until we obtain marketing approval of, and begin to sell, avapritinib, BLU‑554, BLU‑667 or one of our other drug candidates. Our ability to generate revenue depends on a number of factors, including, but not limited to, our ability to:

We expect to incur significant sales and marketing costs as we prepare to commercialize our drug candidates. Even if we initiate and successfully complete pivotal clinical trials of our drug candidates, and our drug candidates are approved for commercial sale, and despite expending these costs, our drug candidates may not be commercially successful. We may not achieve profitability soon after generating drug sales, if ever. If we are unable to generate drug revenue, we will not become profitable and may be unable to continue operations without continued funding.

We may need to raise substantial additional funding. If we are unable to raise capital when needed, we would be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate some of our drug development programs or commercialization efforts.

The development of pharmaceuticals is capital‑intensive. We are currently advancing our most advanced drug candidates, avapritinib, BLU‑554 and BLU‑667, through clinical development. We expect our expenses to increase in connection with our ongoing activities, particularly as we continue the research and development of, initiate or continue clinical trials of, and seek marketing approval for, our drug candidates. In addition, depending on the status of regulatory approval or, if we obtain marketing approval for any of our drug candidates, we expect to incur significant commercialization expenses related to drug sales, marketing, manufacturing and distribution to the extent that such sales, marketing, manufacturing and distribution are not the responsibility of Roche or other collaborators. We may also need to raise additional funds sooner if we choose to pursue additional indications or geographies for our drug candidates or otherwise expand more rapidly than we presently anticipate. Accordingly, we will need to obtain substantial additional funding in connection with our continuing operations. If we are unable to raise capital when needed or on attractive terms, we would be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate certain of our research and development programs or future commercialization efforts.

As of December 31, 2017, we had cash, cash equivalents and investments of $673.4 million. Based on our current plans, we believe our existing cash, cash equivalents and investments, excluding any potential option fees and milestone payments under our existing collaboration with Roche, will be sufficient to enable us to fund our operating

expenses and capital expenditure requirements into the middle of 2020. Our future capital requirements will depend on and could increase significantly as a result of many factors, including:

Identifying potential drug candidates and conducting pre-clinical development and testing and clinical trials is a time‑consuming, expensive and uncertain process that takes years to complete, and we may never generate the necessary data or results required to obtain marketing approval and achieve drug sales. In addition, our drug candidates, if approved, may not achieve commercial success. Our commercial revenues, if any, will be derived from sales of drugs that we do not expect to be commercially available for many years, if at all. Accordingly, we will need to continue to rely on additional financing to achieve our business objectives.

Any additional fundraising efforts may divert our management from their day‑to‑day activities, which may adversely affect our ability to develop and commercialize our drug candidates. Dislocations in the financial markets have generally made equity and debt financing more difficult to obtain and may have a material adverse effect on our ability to meet our fundraising needs. We cannot guarantee that future financing will be available in sufficient amounts or on terms acceptable to us, if at all. Moreover, the terms of any financing may adversely affect the holdings or the rights of our stockholders and the issuance of additional securities, whether equity or debt, by us, or the possibility of such issuance, may cause the market price of our shares to decline. The sale of additional equity or convertible securities would dilute all of our stockholders. The incurrence of indebtedness would result in increased fixed payment obligations and we may be required to agree to certain restrictive covenants, such as limitations on our ability to incur additional debt, limitations on our ability to acquire, sell or license intellectual property rights and other operating restrictions that could adversely impact our ability to conduct our business. We could also be required to seek funds through arrangements with collaborators or otherwise at an earlier stage than otherwise would be desirable and we may be

required to relinquish rights to some of our technologies or drug candidates or otherwise agree to terms unfavorable to us, any of which may have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results and prospects.

If we are unable to obtain funding on a timely basis, we may be required to significantly curtail, delay or discontinue one or more of our research or development programs or the commercialization of any drug candidate or be unable to expand our operations or otherwise capitalize on our business opportunities, as desired, which could materially affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Raising additional capital may cause dilution to our stockholders, restrict our operations or require us to relinquish rights to our technologies or drug candidates.

Until such time, if ever, as we can generate substantial drug revenues, we expect to finance our cash needs through a combination of public and private equity offerings, debt financings, collaborations, strategic alliances and licensing arrangements. We do not have any committed external source of funds, other than our collaboration with Roche, which is limited in scope and duration, and funds already borrowed under the loan and security agreement that we entered into with Silicon Valley Bank in May 2013. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of common stock or securities convertible or exchangeable into common stock, the ownership interest of our stockholders will be diluted, and the terms of these securities may include liquidation or other preferences that materially adversely affect the rights of our common stockholders. Debt financing, if available, would increase our fixed payment obligations and may involve agreements that include covenants limiting or restricting our ability to take specific actions, such as incurring additional debt, making capital expenditures or declaring dividends.

If we raise funds through additional collaborations, strategic alliances or licensing arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our intellectual property, future revenue streams, research programs or drug candidates or to grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to us. If we are unable to raise additional funds through equity or debt financings when needed, we may be required to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our drug development or future commercialization efforts or grant rights to develop and market drug candidates that we would otherwise prefer to develop and market ourselves.

Risks Related to Drug Development and Regulatory Approval

We are very early in our development efforts with only three drug candidates, avapritinib, BLU‑554 and BLU‑667, in clinical development. All of our other drug candidates are currently in pre-clinical or earlier stages of development. If we are unable to advance our other drug candidates to clinical development, obtain regulatory approval for our most advanced drug candidates or other drug candidates and ultimately commercialize our most advanced drug candidates or other drug candidates, or experience significant delays in doing so, our business will be materially harmed.

We are very early in our development efforts with only three drug candidates,  avapritinib, BLU‑554 and BLU‑667, in clinical development. All of our other drug candidates are currently in pre-clinical or earlier stages of development. We have invested substantially all of our efforts and financial resources in the identification and pre-clinical development of kinase inhibitors, including the development of our drug candidates avapritinib, BLU‑554 and BLU‑667. Our ability to generate drug revenues, which we do not expect will occur for many years, if ever, will depend heavily on the successful development and eventual commercialization of our drug candidates, which may never occur. We currently generate no revenues from sales of any drugs, and we may never be able to develop or commercialize a marketable drug. Each of our drug candidates will require additional pre-clinical or clinical development, management of clinical, pre-clinical and manufacturing activities, regulatory approval in multiple jurisdictions, obtaining manufacturing supply, building of a commercial organization, substantial investment and significant marketing efforts before we generate any revenues from drug sales. In addition, for some of our drug candidates, in order to select patients most likely to respond to treatment and rapidly confirm mechanistic and clinical proof-of-concept, we may seek to develop companion diagnostic tests, which are assays or tests to identify an appropriate patient population. For example, we have entered into agreements with third parties to develop and commercialize companion diagnostics for avapritinib in order to identify GIST patients with the PDGFRα D842V mutation, BLU-554 in order to identify HCC patients with FGFR4 pathway activation and BLU-667 in order to identify NSCLC patients with RET fusions.  Companion diagnostic tests are subject to regulation as medical devices and must themselves be approved for marketing by the FDA or certain

other foreign regulatory agencies before we may commercialize our drug candidates. The success of our most advanced drug candidates and other drug candidates will depend on several factors, including the following:

If we do not achieve one or more of these factors in a timely manner or at all, we could experience significant delays or an inability to successfully commercialize our drug candidates, which would materially harm our business. If we do not receive regulatory approvals for our drug candidates, we may not be able to continue our operations.

Our approach to the discovery and development of drug candidates that inhibit kinases is unproven, and we do not know whether we will be able to develop any drugs of commercial value.

Our scientific approach focuses on using our novel target discovery engine and our proprietary compound library to identify new kinase targets in disease indications. Our focus on using our novel target discovery engine to identify potential kinase targets in disease indications may not result in the discovery and development of commercially viable drugs for these diseases. The use of our proprietary compound library may not lead to the development of commercially viable drugs. Even if we are able to develop a drug candidate that successfully targets these kinases in pre-clinical studies, we may not succeed in demonstrating safety and efficacy of the drug candidate in clinical trials.

Clinical drug development involves a lengthy and expensive process, with an uncertain outcome. We may incur additional costs or experience delays in completing, or ultimately be unable to complete, the development and commercialization of our drug candidates.

Our drug candidates avapritinib, BLU‑554 and BLU‑667 are in clinical development, and all of our other drug candidates, including BLU-782, are in pre-clinical development. The risk of failure for our drug candidates is high. It is impossible to predict when or if any of our drug candidates will prove effective and safe in humans or will receive regulatory approval. Before obtaining marketing approval from regulatory authorities for the sale of any drug candidate, we must complete pre-clinical studies and then conduct extensive clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of our drug candidates in humans. Clinical testing is expensive, difficult to design and implement, can take many years to complete and is uncertain as to outcome. A failure of one or more clinical trials can occur at any stage of testing. The outcome of pre-clinical development testing and early clinical trials may not be predictive of the success of later clinical trials, and interim results of a clinical trial do not necessarily predict final results. Moreover, pre-clinical and clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses, and many companies that have believed their drug candidates performed satisfactorily in pre-clinical studies and clinical trials have nonetheless failed to obtain marketing approval of their drug candidates. Our pre-clinical studies, current Phase 1 clinical trials and future clinical trials may not be successful.

We are currently evaluating avapritinib in an ongoing Phase 1 clinical trial for patients with PDGFRα-driven GIST and KIT-driven GIST, avapritinib in an ongoing Phase 1 clinical trial for advanced SM, BLU‑554 in an ongoing Phase 1 clinical trial in patients with advanced HCC and BLU-667 in an ongoing Phase 1 clinical trial in patients with RET-altered NSCLC, MTC and other advanced solid tumors. In addition, we plan to initiate a global, randomized Phase 3 clinical trial for avapritinib compared to regorafenib in third line GIST in the first half of 2018, a registration‑enabling Phase 2 clinical trial of avapritinib in patients with advanced SM in the first half of 2018 and a Phase 2 dose escalation and proof‑of‑concept clinical trial of avapritinib in patients with indolent SM and smoldering SM in the second half of 2018.

Successful completion of our clinical trials is a prerequisite to submitting a new drug application, or NDA, to the FDA and a Marketing Authorization Application, or MAA, in the European Union for each drug candidate and, consequently, the ultimate approval and commercial marketing of avapritinib, BLU‑554, BLU‑667 and our other drug candidates. We do not know whether any of our clinical trials for our drug candidates will be completed on schedule, if at all.

We may experience delays in completing our pre-clinical studies and initiating or completing clinical trials, and we may experience numerous unforeseen events during, or as a result of, any current or future clinical trials that we could conduct that could delay or prevent our ability to receive marketing approval or commercialize our drug candidates, including:

We could encounter delays if a clinical trial is suspended or terminated by us, by the IRBs of the institutions in which such trials are being conducted, by the Data Safety Monitoring Board, or DSMB, for such trial or by the FDA or other regulatory authorities. Such authorities may impose such a suspension or termination due to a number of factors, including failure to conduct the clinical trial in accordance with regulatory requirements or our clinical protocols, inspection of the clinical trial operations or trial site by the FDA or other regulatory authorities resulting in the imposition of a clinical hold, unforeseen safety issues or adverse side effects, failure to demonstrate a benefit from using a drug, changes in governmental regulations or administrative actions or lack of adequate funding to continue the clinical trial. Many of the factors that cause, or lead to, a delay in the commencement or completion of clinical trials may also ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of our drug candidates. Further, the FDA may disagree with our clinical trial design and our interpretation of data from clinical trials, or may change the requirements for approval even after it has reviewed and commented on the design for our clinical trials.

If we are required to conduct additional clinical trials or other testing of our drug candidates beyond those that we currently contemplate, if we are unable to successfully complete clinical trials of our drug candidates or other testing, if the results of these trials or tests are not positive or are only modestly positive or if there are safety concerns, we may:

Our drug development costs will also increase if we experience delays in testing or regulatory approvals. We do not know whether any of our clinical trials will begin as planned, will need to be restructured or will be completed on schedule, or at all. Significant pre-clinical study or clinical trial delays also could shorten any periods during which we may have the exclusive right to commercialize our drug candidates or allow our competitors to bring products to market before we do and impair our ability to successfully commercialize our drug candidates and may harm our business and results of operations. Any delays in our pre-clinical or future clinical development programs may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly.

We may choose not to develop a potential drug candidate, or we may suspend, deprioritize or terminate one or more discovery programs or pre-clinical drug candidates or programs.

At any time and for any reason, we may determine that one or more of our discovery programs or pre-clinical drug candidates or programs does not have sufficient potential to warrant the allocation of resources toward such program or drug candidate. Accordingly, we may choose not to develop a potential drug candidate or elect to suspend, deprioritize or terminate one or more of our discovery programs or pre-clinical drug candidates or programs. For example, we have previously determined to suspend our discovery program for inhibitors of neurotrophic tyrosine receptor kinase, or NTRK, and predicted NTRK resistant mutants, and to deprioritize our discovery program targeting protein kinase cAMP-activated catalytic subunit alpha fusions for the treatment of fibrolamellar carcinoma. If we suspend, deprioritize or terminate a program or drug candidate in which we have invested significant resources, we will have expended resources on a program that will not provide a full return on our investment and may have missed the opportunity to have allocated those resources to potentially more productive uses, including existing or future programs or drug candidates.

If we experience delays or difficulties in the enrollment of patients in clinical trials, our receipt of necessary regulatory approvals could be delayed or prevented.

We may not be able to initiate or continue clinical trials for our drug candidates if we are unable to locate and enroll a sufficient number of eligible patients to participate in these trials as required by the FDA or similar regulatory authorities outside the United States. In particular, because we are focused on diseases in genomically defined patient populations, our ability to enroll eligible patients may be limited or may result in slower enrollment than we anticipate. In addition, some of our competitors have ongoing clinical trials for drug candidates that treat the same indications as our drug candidates, and patients who would otherwise be eligible for our clinical trials may instead enroll in clinical trials of our competitors’ drug candidates.

Patient enrollment may be affected by other factors including:

Because the target patient populations for our drug candidates are relatively small, it may be difficult to successfully identify patients, could delay enrollment for our trials. If the market opportunities for our drug candidates are smaller than we believe they are, our product revenues may be adversely affected and our business may suffer.

We focus our research and product development on treatments for cancer and rare genetic diseases, including genomically defined cancer and diseases driven by abnormal kinase activation. Because the target patient populations for our drug candidates are relatively small, it may be difficult to successfully identify patients. We have entered into agreements with third parties to develop a companion diagnostic test for avapritinib in order to identify GIST patients with the PDGFRα D842V mutation, BLU-554 in order to identify HCC patients with FGFR4 pathway activation and BLU-667 in order to identify NSCLC patients with RET fusions. We may engage third parties to develop companion

diagnostic tests for use in some of our other current or future clinical trials. However, third parties may not be successful in developing such companion diagnostic tests, furthering the difficulty in identifying patients for our clinical trials.

Our inability to enroll a sufficient number of patients in our clinical trials would result in significant delays and could require us to abandon one or more clinical trials altogether. Enrollment delays in our clinical trials may result in increased development costs for our drug candidates, which would cause the value of our company to decline and limit our ability to obtain additional financing. If we are unable to include patients with the driver of the disease, including the applicable genomic alteration for diseases in genomically defined patient populations, this could compromise our ability to seek participation in the FDA’s expedited review and approval programs, including breakthrough therapy designation and fast track designation, or otherwise to seek to accelerate clinical development and regulatory timelines. In addition, our projections of both the number of people who have these diseases, as well as the subset of people with these diseases who have the potential to benefit from treatment with our drug candidates, are based on estimates. These estimates may prove to be incorrect, and new studies may reduce the estimated incidence or prevalence of these diseases. The number of patients in the United States, European Union and elsewhere may turn out to be lower than expected, may not be otherwise amenable to treatment with our drug candidates or patients may become increasingly difficult to identify and access, all of which would adversely affect our business, prospects and ability to achieve or sustain profitability.

If we are not able to obtain, or if there are delays in obtaining, required regulatory approvals both for our drug candidates and for any related companion diagnostic tests, we will not be able to commercialize, or will be delayed in commercializing, our drug candidates, and our ability to generate revenue will be materially impaired.

Our drug candidates and any related companion diagnostic tests, including the companion diagnostic tests that we are developing for avapritinib in order to identify GIST patients with the PDGFRα D842V mutation, BLU-554 in order to identify HCC patients with FGFR4 pathway activation and BLU-667 in order to identify NSCLC patients with RET fusions, and the activities associated with their development and commercialization, including their design, testing, manufacture, safety, efficacy, recordkeeping, labeling, storage, approval, advertising, promotion, sale, distribution, import and export, are subject to comprehensive regulation by the FDA and other regulatory agencies in the United States and by comparable authorities in other countries. Before we can commercialize any of our drug candidates, we must obtain marketing approval. We may also need marketing approval for any related companion diagnostic tests, including the companion diagnostic tests that we are developing for avapritinib, BLU-554 and BLU-667. We have not received approval to market any of our drug candidates or related companion diagnostic tests from regulatory authorities in any jurisdiction, and it is possible that none of our current or future drug candidates or related companion diagnostic tests will ever obtain regulatory approval. We have only limited experience in filing and supporting the applications necessary to gain regulatory approvals and expect to rely on third-party CROs and/or regulatory consultants to assist us in this process. Securing regulatory approval requires the submission of extensive pre-clinical and clinical data and supporting information to the various regulatory authorities for each therapeutic indication to establish the drug candidate’s safety and efficacy. Securing regulatory approval also requires the submission of information about the drug manufacturing process to, and inspection of manufacturing facilities by, the relevant regulatory authority. Our drug candidates may not be effective, may be only moderately effective or may prove to have undesirable or unintended side effects, toxicities or other characteristics that may preclude our obtaining marketing approval or prevent or limit commercial use.

The process of obtaining regulatory approvals, if approval is obtained at all, both in the United States and abroad is expensive, may take many years if additional clinical trials are required and can vary substantially based upon a variety of factors, including the type, complexity and novelty of the drug candidates involved. Changes in marketing approval policies during the development period, changes in or the enactment of additional statutes or regulations, or changes in regulatory review for each submitted NDA for a drug candidate, Pre‑Market Approval, or PMA, application for a companion diagnostic test or equivalent application types, may cause delays in the approval or rejection of an application. The FDA and comparable authorities in other countries have substantial discretion in the approval process and may refuse to accept any application or may decide that our data are insufficient for approval and require additional pre-clinical, clinical or other studies. Our drug candidates could be delayed in receiving, or fail to receive, regulatory approval for many reasons, including the following:

In addition, even if we were to obtain approval, regulatory authorities may approve any of our drug candidates for fewer or more limited indications than we request, may not approve the price we intend to charge for our drugs and related companion diagnostic tests, may grant approval contingent on the performance of costly post‑marketing clinical trials, or may approve a drug candidate with a label that does not include the labeling claims necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of that drug candidate. Any of the foregoing scenarios could materially harm the commercial prospects for our drug candidates.

If we experience delays in obtaining approval or if we fail to obtain approval of our drug candidates and related companion diagnostic tests, the commercial prospects for our drug candidates may be harmed and our ability to generate revenues will be materially impaired.

Our drug candidates may cause undesirable side effects that could delay or prevent their regulatory approval, limit the commercial profile of an approved label, or result in significant negative consequences following marketing approval, if any.

Undesirable side effects caused by our drug candidates could cause us to interrupt, delay or halt pre-clinical studies or could cause us or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials and could result in a more restrictive label or the delay or denial of regulatory approval by the FDA or other regulatory authorities. As is the case with all oncology drugs, it is likely that there may be side effects associated with the use of our drug candidates. Results of our trials could reveal a high and unacceptable severity and prevalence of these or other side effects. In such an event, our trials could be suspended or terminated and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities could order us to cease further development of or deny approval of our drug candidates for any or all targeted indications. The drug‑related side effects could affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete the trial or result in potential product liability claims. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly.

Further, our drug candidates could cause undesirable side effects in clinical trials related to on‑target toxicity. For example, the FGF19/FGFR4 signaling axis has been shown to play a role in the regulation of de novo bile acid synthesis. Modulation of this signaling axis by treatment with a small molecule FGFR4 inhibitor could lead to the clinical symptoms that were observed with administration of an FGF19 antibody. If on‑target toxicity is observed, or if our drug candidates have characteristics that are unexpected, we may need to abandon their development or limit development to more narrow uses or subpopulations in which the undesirable side effects or other characteristics are less

prevalent, less severe or more acceptable from a risk‑benefit perspective. Many compounds that initially showed promise in early stage testing for treating cancer have later been found to cause side effects that prevented further development of the compound.

Further, clinical trials by their nature utilize a sample of the potential patient population. With a limited number of patients and limited duration of exposure, rare and severe side effects of our drug candidates may only be uncovered with a significantly larger number of patients exposed to the drug candidate. If our drug candidates receive marketing approval and we or others identify undesirable side effects caused by such drug candidates (or any other similar drugs) after such approval, a number of potentially significant negative consequences could result, including:

We believe that any of these events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of the affected drug candidates and could substantially increase the costs of commercializing our drug candidates, if approved, and significantly impact our ability to successfully commercialize our drug candidates and generate revenues.

A breakthrough therapy designation by the FDA for our drug candidates, including avapritinib for the treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic GIST harboring the PDGFRα D842V mutation, may not lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process, and it does not increase the likelihood that our drug candidates will receive marketing approval.

In June 2017, the FDA granted breakthrough therapy designation to avapritinib for the treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic GIST harboring the PDGFRα D842V mutation. We may also seek breakthrough therapy designation for some of our other drug candidates. A breakthrough therapy is defined as a drug that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs, to treat a serious or life‑threatening disease or condition, and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. For drugs that have been designated as breakthrough therapies, interaction and communication between the FDA and the sponsor of the trial can help to identify the most efficient path for clinical development while minimizing the number of patients placed in ineffective control regimens. Drugs designated as breakthrough therapies by the FDA are also eligible for accelerated approval.

Designation as a breakthrough therapy is within the discretion of the FDA. Accordingly, even if we believe one of our drug candidates meets the criteria for designation as a breakthrough therapy, the FDA may disagree and instead determine not to make such designation. In any event, the receipt of a breakthrough therapy designation for a drug candidate may not result in a faster development process, review or approval compared to drugs considered for approval under conventional FDA procedures and does not assure ultimate approval by the FDA. In addition, even if one or more of our drug candidates qualify as breakthrough therapies, the FDA may later decide that the drugs no longer meet the conditions for qualification.

A fast track designation by the FDA may not actually lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process.

In October 2016, the FDA granted fast track designation to avapritinib for the treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic GIST that progressed following treatment with imatinib and a second tyrosine kinase inhibitor and for the treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic GIST with the PDGFRα D842V mutation regardless of prior therapy. We may also seek fast track designation for some of our other drug candidates. If a drug is intended for the treatment of a serious or life‑threatening condition and the drug demonstrates the potential to address unmet medical needs for this condition, the drug sponsor may apply for fast track designation. The FDA has broad discretion whether or not to grant this designation, so even if we believe a particular drug candidate is eligible for this designation, we cannot assure you that the FDA would decide to grant it. Even though we have received fast track designation for avapritinib for treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic GIST that progressed following treatment with imatinib and a second tyrosine kinase inhibitor and for the treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic GIST with the PDGFRα D842V mutation regardless of prior therapy, or even if we receive fast track designation for our other drug candidates, we may not experience a faster development process, review or approval compared to conventional FDA procedures. The FDA may withdraw fast track designation if it believes that the designation is no longer supported by data from our clinical development program.

While we have received orphan drug designation for two of our most advanced drug candidates, avapritinib and BLU‑554, for specified indications, we may seek orphan drug designation for some of our other drug candidates. However, we may be unsuccessful in obtaining or may be unable to maintain the benefits associated with orphan drug designation, including the potential for market exclusivity.

In September 2015, the FDA granted orphan drug designation to BLU‑554 for the treatment of HCC, and in January 2016, the FDA granted orphan drug designation to avapritinib for the treatment of GIST and mastocytosis. In addition, in July 2017, the European Medicines Agency granted orphan drug designation to avapritinib for the treatment of GIST. As part of our business strategy, we may seek orphan drug designation for some of our other drug candidates, and we may be unsuccessful. Regulatory authorities in some jurisdictions, including the United States and the European Union, may designate drugs for relatively small patient populations as orphan drugs. Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may designate a drug as an orphan drug if it is a drug intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally defined as a patient population of fewer than 200,000 individuals annually in the United States, or a patient population greater than 200,000 in the United States where there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing the drug will be recovered from sales in the United States. In the United States, orphan drug designation entitles a party to financial incentives such as opportunities for grant funding towards clinical trial costs, tax advantages and user‑fee waivers.

Similarly, in the European Union, the European Commission grants orphan drug designation after receiving the opinion of the European Medicines Agency’s, or EMA, Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products on an orphan drug designation application. Orphan drug designation is intended to promote the development of drugs that are intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of life‑threatening or chronically debilitating conditions affecting not more than 5 in 10,000 persons in the European Union and for which no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention, or treatment has been authorized (or the product would be a significant benefit to those affected). In addition, designation is granted for drugs intended for the diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of a life‑threatening, seriously debilitating or serious and chronic condition and when, without incentives, it is unlikely that sales of the drug in the European Union would be sufficient to justify the necessary investment in developing the drug. In the European Union, orphan drug designation entitles a party to financial incentives such as reduction of fees or fee waivers.

Generally, if a drug with an orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first marketing approval for the indication for which it has such designation, the drug is entitled to a period of marketing exclusivity, which precludes the

EMA or the FDA from approving another marketing application for the same drug and indication for that time period, except in limited circumstances. The applicable period is seven years in the United States and ten years in the European Union. The European Union exclusivity period can be reduced to six years if a drug no longer meets the criteria for orphan drug designation or if the drug is sufficiently profitable so that market exclusivity is no longer justified.

Even if we obtain orphan drug exclusivity for a drug, that exclusivity may not effectively protect the designated drug from competition because different drugs can be approved for the same condition. Even after an orphan drug is approved, the FDA can subsequently approve the same drug for the same condition if the FDA concludes that the later drug is clinically superior in that it is shown to be safer, more effective or makes a major contribution to patient care. In addition, 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 orphan designation. Moreover, 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 quantity of the drug to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition. Orphan drug designation neither shortens the development time or regulatory review time of a drug nor gives the drug any advantage in the regulatory review or approval process. While we intend to seek orphan drug designation for our other drug candidates in addition to BLU‑554 for the treatment of HCC and avapritinib for the treatment of GIST and mastocytosis, we may never receive such designations. Even if we receive orphan drug designation for any of our drug candidates, there is no guarantee that we will enjoy the benefits of those designations.

Even if we receive regulatory approval for any of our drug candidates, we will be subject to ongoing obligations and continued regulatory review, which may result in significant additional expense. In addition, our drug candidates, if approved, could be subject to labeling and other restrictions and market withdrawal and we may be subject to penalties if we fail to comply with regulatory requirements or experience unanticipated problems with our drugs.

If the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority approves any of our drug candidates, the manufacturing processes, labeling, packaging, distribution, adverse event reporting, storage, advertising, promotion and recordkeeping for the drug will be subject to extensive and ongoing regulatory requirements. These requirements include submissions of safety and other post‑marketing information and reports, registration, as well as continued compliance with current Good Manufacturing Practices, or cGMPs, and Good Clinical Practices, or GCPs, for any clinical trials that we conduct post‑approval. Any regulatory approvals that we receive for our drug candidates may also be subject to limitations on the approved indicated uses for which the drug may be marketed or to the conditions of approval, or contain requirements for potentially costly post‑marketing testing, including Phase 4 clinical trials, and surveillance to monitor the safety and efficacy of the drug. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a drug, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with our third‑party manufacturers or manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in, among other things:

The FDA’s policies may change and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of our drug candidates. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any marketing approval that we may have obtained, which would adversely affect our business, prospects and ability to achieve or sustain profitability.

We may not be successful in our efforts to use and expand our discovery platform to build a pipeline of drug candidates.

A key element of our strategy is to use our novel target discovery engine to identify kinases that are drivers of diseases in genomically defined patient populations with high unmet medical need in order to build a pipeline of drug candidates. Although our research and development efforts to date have resulted in a pipeline of drug candidates, we may not be able to continue to identify novel kinase drivers and develop drug candidates. Even if we are successful in continuing to build our pipeline, the potential drug candidates that we identify may not be suitable for clinical development. For example, they may be shown to have harmful side effects or other characteristics that indicate that they are unlikely to be drugs that will receive marketing approval and achieve market acceptance. If we do not successfully develop and commercialize drug candidates based upon our approach, we will not be able to obtain drug revenues in future periods, which likely would result in significant harm to our financial position and adversely affect our stock price.

We may expend our limited resources to pursue a particular drug candidate or indication and fail to capitalize on drug candidates or indications that may be more profitable or for which there is a greater likelihood of success.

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

Risks Related to Commercialization

The incidence and prevalence for target patient populations of our drug candidates have not been established with precision. If the market opportunities for our drug candidates are smaller than we estimate or if any approval that we obtain is based on a narrower definition of the patient population, our revenue and ability to achieve profitability will be adversely affected, possibly materially.

The precise incidence and/or prevalence for SM, GIST, HCC, RET-driven NSCLC, RET-driven MTC and FOP are unknown. Our projections of both the number of people who have these diseases, as well as the subset of people with these diseases who have the potential to benefit from treatment with our drug candidates, are based on estimates. We estimate that in the United States, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom and Japan, or the Major Markets, there are approximately: (i) 20,700 patients with SM, including 2,600 patients with advanced SM, 1,800 patients with SSM and 16,300 patients with ISM; (ii) 500 patients with PDGFRα D842V-driven GIST; (iii) 24,100 patients with GIST, including approximately 19,300 patients with KIT-driven GIST; (iv) 28,100 first and second line patients with FGFR4-activated HCC; (v) 10,200 patients with RET-driven NSCLC and approximately 780 patients with RET-driven MTC; and (vi) 1,100 patients with FOP.

The total addressable market opportunity for avapritinib for the treatment of patients with GIST and SM, BLU‑554 for the treatment of patients with HCC, BLU‑667 for the treatment of patients with RET-driven NSCLC and RET-driven MTC or BLU-782 for the treatment of patients with FOP will ultimately depend upon, among other things, the diagnosis criteria included in the final label for each of avapritinib, BLU‑554, BLU‑667 and BLU-782, if our drug candidates are approved for sale for these indications, acceptance by the medical community and patient access, drug pricing and reimbursement. The number of patients in the Major Markets and elsewhere, including the number of addressable patients in those markets, may turn out to be lower than expected, patients may not be otherwise amenable to treatment with our drugs, or new patients may become increasingly difficult to identify or gain access to, all of which would adversely affect our results of operations and our business.

We face substantial competition, which may result in others discovering, developing or commercializing drugs before or more successfully than we do.

The development and commercialization of new drugs is highly competitive. We face competition with respect to our current drug candidates, and will face competition with respect to any drug candidates that we may seek to develop or commercialize in the future, from major pharmaceutical companies, specialty pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology companies worldwide. There are a number of large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies that currently market and sell drugs or are pursuing the development of therapies in the field of kinase inhibition for cancer and other diseases. Some of these competitive drugs and therapies are based on scientific approaches that are the same as or similar to our approach, and others are based on entirely different approaches. 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.

Specifically, there are a large number of companies developing or marketing treatments for cancer, including many major pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. If avapritinib receives marketing approval for advanced SM, it will face competition from Novartis AG’s midostaurin, a multi-kinase inhibitor with KIT D816V inhibitory activity that was approved in April 2017 by the FDA for the treatment of advanced SM. If avapritinib receives marketing approval for third line advanced GIST, it will face competition from Bayer AG’s regorafenib, and if avapritinib receives marketing approval for second line advanced GIST, it will face competition from Pfizer Inc.’s sunitinib. In addition, if avapritinib receives marketing approval for advanced SM, GIST and/or for GIST patients with the PDGFRα D842V mutation, it may face competition from other drug candidates in development for these indications, including drug candidates in development by AB Science S.A., ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, AROG Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Celldex Therapeutics, Inc., Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, LLC and Plexxikon Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Daiichi Sankyo Company, Limited. If BLU-554 receives marketing approval for patients with FGFR4-activated HCC, it will face competition from Bristol-Myers Squibb Company’s nivolumab, an immune checkpoint inhibitor, which was approved in September 2017 by the FDA for the treatment of HCC, as well as sorafenib and regorafenib, multi-kinase inhibitors for the treatment of HCC. In addition, BLU-554 may face competition from other drug candidates in development by Abbisko Therapeutics Co., Ltd, AstraZeneca plc, Bayer AG, Celgene Corporation, Eisai Inc., H3 Biomedicine Inc., Incyte Corporation, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis AG, Sanofi S.A., Taiho Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., U3 Pharma GmbH, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Daiichi Sankyo Company, Limited, and Xoma Ltd. If BLU‑667 receives marketing approval for patients with RET-driven cancers, it may face competition from other drug candidates in development, including drug candidates in development by ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, AstraZeneca plc, Eisai Inc., Exelixis, Inc., GlaxoSmithKline plc, Loxo Oncology, Inc., Mirati Therapeutics, Inc., Novartis AG, Pfizer Inc. and Roche.

Many of the companies against which we are competing or against which we may compete in the future have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, pre-clinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals and marketing approved drugs than we do. Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical, biotechnology and diagnostic industries may result in even more resources being concentrated 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 and establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs.

Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize drugs that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient or are less expensive than any drugs that we or our collaborators may develop. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their drugs more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we or our collaborators are able to enter the market. The key competitive factors affecting the success of all of our drug candidates, if approved, are likely to be their efficacy, safety, convenience, price, the effectiveness of any related companion diagnostic tests, the level of generic competition and the availability of reimbursement from government and other third-party payors.

Product liability lawsuits against us could cause us to incur substantial liabilities and could limit commercialization of any drug candidates that we may develop.

We will face an inherent risk of product liability exposure related to the testing of our drug candidates in human clinical trials and use of our drug candidates through compassionate use programs, and we will face an even greater risk if we commercially sell any drug candidates that we may develop. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against claims that our drug candidates caused injuries, we could incur substantial liabilities. Regardless of merit or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:

Although we maintain product liability insurance coverage, it may not be adequate to cover all liabilities that we may incur. We anticipate that we will need to increase our insurance coverage when we begin later-stage clinical trials and if we successfully commercialize any drug candidate. Insurance coverage is increasingly expensive. We may not be able to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or in an amount adequate to satisfy any liability that may arise.

If we or our collaborators are unable to successfully develop and commercialize companion diagnostic tests for our drug candidates, or experience significant delays in doing so we may not realize the full commercial potential of our drug candidates.

Because we are focused on precision medicine, in which predictive biomarkers will be used to identify the right patients for our drug candidates, we believe that our success may depend, in part, on the development and commercialization of companion diagnostic tests. There has been limited success to date industrywide in developing and commercializing these types of companion diagnostic tests. To be successful, we need to address a number of scientific, technical and logistical challenges. We have entered into agreements to develop and commercialize companion diagnostic tests with third parties for avapritinib in order to identify GIST patients with the PDGFRα D842V mutation, BLU‑554 in order to identify HCC patients with FGFR4 pathway activation and BLU-667 in order to identify NSCLC patients with RET fusions. However, we have not yet initiated commercialization of these companion diagnostic tests or development and commercialization of companion diagnostic tests for any of our other programs. We have little experience in the development and commercialization of companion diagnostic tests and may not be successful in developing and commercializing appropriate companion diagnostic tests to pair with any of our drug candidates that receive marketing approval. Companion diagnostic tests are subject to regulation by the FDA and similar regulatory authorities outside the United States as medical devices and require separate regulatory approval prior to commercialization. Given our limited experience in developing and commercializing companion diagnostic tests, we are relying on third parties to design, manufacture, obtain regulatory approval for and commercialize the companion diagnostic tests for avapritinib, BLU-554 and BLU-667, and we expect to rely in whole or in part on third parties to design, manufacture, obtain regulatory approval for and commercialize any other companion diagnostic tests for our drug candidates. We and our collaborators may encounter difficulties in developing and obtaining approval for the companion diagnostic tests, including issues relating to selectivity/specificity, analytical validation, reproducibility, or clinical validation. In addition, our collaborators for any companion diagnostic test that we may seek to develop:

Any delay or failure by us or our collaborators to develop or obtain regulatory approval of the companion diagnostic tests could delay or prevent approval of our drug candidates. If we, or any third parties that we have engaged or may in the future engage to assist us are unable to successfully develop and commercialize companion diagnostic tests for our drug candidates, or experience delays in doing so:

As a result, our business would be harmed, possibly materially.

In addition, third party collaborators may encounter production difficulties that could constrain the supply of the companion diagnostic tests, and both they and we may have difficulties gaining acceptance of the use of the companion diagnostic tests in the clinical community. If such companion diagnostic tests fail to gain market acceptance, it would have an adverse effect on our ability to derive revenues from sales of our drug candidates, if approved. In addition, the diagnostic company with whom we contract may decide to discontinue selling or manufacturing the companion diagnostic test that we anticipate using in connection with development and commercialization of our drug candidates or our relationship with such diagnostic company may otherwise terminate. We may not be able to enter into arrangements with another diagnostic company to obtain supplies of an alternative diagnostic test for use in connection with the development and commercialization of our drug candidates or do so on commercially reasonable terms, which could adversely affect and/or delay the development or commercialization of our drug candidates.

Even if we are able to commercialize any drug candidates, such drugs may become subject to unfavorable pricing regulations or third-party coverage and reimbursement policies, which would harm our business.

The regulations that govern regulatory approvals, pricing and reimbursement for new drugs vary widely from country to country. Some countries require approval of the sale price of a drug before it can be marketed. In many countries, the pricing review period begins after marketing approval is granted. In some foreign markets, prescription pharmaceutical pricing remains subject to continuing governmental control even after initial approval is granted. As a result, we might obtain marketing approval for a drug candidate in a particular country, but then be subject to price regulations that delay our commercial launch of the drug candidate, possibly for lengthy time periods, and negatively impact the revenues we are able to generate from the sale of the drug candidate in that country. Adverse pricing limitations may hinder our ability to recoup our investment in one or more drug candidates, even if our drug candidates obtain marketing approval.

Our ability to commercialize any drug candidates successfully also will depend in part on the extent to which coverage and reimbursement for these drug candidates and related treatments will be available from government authorities, private health insurers and other organizations. Government authorities and third-party payors, such as

private health insurers and health maintenance organizations, decide which medications they will pay for and establish reimbursement levels. A primary trend in the U.S. healthcare industry and elsewhere is cost containment. Government authorities and third-party payors have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular drugs. Increasingly, third-party payors are requiring that drug companies provide them with predetermined discounts from list prices and are challenging the prices charged for drugs. We cannot be sure that coverage will be available for any drug candidate that we commercialize and, if coverage is available, the level of reimbursement. Reimbursement may impact the demand for, or the price of, any drug candidate for which we obtain marketing approval. If reimbursement is not available or is available only to limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize any drug candidate for which we obtain marketing approval.

There may be significant delays in obtaining reimbursement for newly approved drugs, and coverage may be more limited than the purposes for which the drug is approved by the FDA or similar regulatory authorities outside the United States. Moreover, eligibility for reimbursement does not imply that any drug will be paid for in all cases or at a rate that covers our costs, including research, development, manufacture, sale and distribution. Interim reimbursement levels for new drugs, if applicable, may also not be sufficient to cover our costs and may not be made permanent. Reimbursement rates may vary according to the use of the drug and the clinical setting in which it is used, may be based on reimbursement levels already set for lower-cost drugs and may be incorporated into existing payments for other services. Net prices for drugs may be reduced by mandatory discounts or rebates required by government healthcare programs or private payors and by any future relaxation of laws that presently restrict imports of drugs from countries where they may be sold at lower prices than in the United States. Third-party payors often rely upon Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement policies. Our inability to promptly obtain coverage and profitable payment rates from both government-funded and private payors for any approved drugs that we develop could have a material adverse effect on our operating results, our ability to raise capital needed to commercialize drugs and our overall financial condition.

Healthcare legislative reform measures may have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

In the United States, there have been and continue to be a number of legislative initiatives to contain healthcare costs. For example, in March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, or the Affordable Care Act, was passed, which substantially changes the way health care is financed by both governmental and private insurers, and significantly impacts the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. The Affordable Care Act, among other things, subjects biologic products to potential competition by lower-cost biosimilars, addresses 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, increases the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program and extends the rebate program to individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations, establishes annual fees and taxes on manufacturers of certain branded prescription drugs, and a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program, in which manufacturers must agree to offer 50% point-of-sale discounts off negotiated prices of applicable brand drugs to eligible beneficiaries during their coverage gap period, as a condition for the manufacturer’s outpatient drugs to be covered under Medicare Part D.

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the Affordable Care Act was enacted. On August 2, 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011 among other things, created measures for spending reductions by Congress. A Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, tasked with recommending a targeted deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion for the years 2013 through 2021, was unable to reach required goals, thereby triggering the legislation’s automatic reduction to several government programs. This includes aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year. These reductions went into effect on April 1, 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, will remain in effect through 2025 unless additional Congressional action is taken. On January 2, 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was signed into law, which, among other things, further reduced Medicare payments to several types of providers.

Moreover, payment methodologies may be subject to changes in healthcare legislation and regulatory initiatives. For example, the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 required that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the agency responsible for administering the Medicare program, or CMS, reduce the Medicare clinical laboratory fee schedule by 2% in 2013, which served as a base for 2014 and subsequent years. In addition, effective January 1, 2014, CMS also began bundling the Medicare payments for certain laboratory tests ordered while a patient received services in a hospital outpatient setting. We expect that additional state and federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments

will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for our drug candidates or companion diagnostic tests or additional pricing pressures.

U.S. President Donald Trump and his administration have indicated that enacting changes to or repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act is a legislative priority. While Congress has not passed repeal legislation to date, the TJCA includes a provision repealing the individual mandate, effective January 1, 2019. Further, on January 20, 2017, U.S. President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order directing federal agencies with authorities and responsibilities under the Affordable Care Act to waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of any provision of the Affordable Care Act that would impose a fiscal burden on states or a cost, fee, tax, penalty or regulatory burden on individuals, healthcare providers, health insurers, or manufacturers of pharmaceuticals or medical devices.

On October 13, 2017, President Trump signed an Executive Order terminating the cost-sharing subsidies that reimburse insurers under the Affordable Care Act. Several state Attorneys General filed suit to stop the administration from terminating these subsidies, but on October 25, 2017, a federal judge in California denied their request for a restraining order. In addition, CMS has recently proposed regulations that would give states greater flexibility in setting benchmarks for insurers in the individual and small group marketplaces, which may have the effect of relaxing the health benefits required under the Affordable Care Act for plans sold through these marketplaces. There may be further action to repeal, replace or modify the Affordable Care Act. It is unclear what impact any changes to the Affordable Care Act will have on the availability of healthcare and containing or lowering the cost of healthcare. We plan to continue to evaluate the effect that the Affordable Care Act and its possible repeal and replacement may have on our business.

Healthcare reforms stemming from the repeal of, and potential replacement for, the Affordable Care Act may result in more rigorous coverage criteria and lower reimbursement among regulated third-party payors, and in additional downward pressure on the prices that we receive for sales of our products, if approved. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government-funded federal programs, including the Veterans Health Administration, or state healthcare programs could lead to a similar reduction in payments from private commercial payors. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may thus prevent us from being able to generate revenue or attain profitability.

The delivery of healthcare in the European Union, including the establishment and operation of health services and the pricing and reimbursement of medicines, is almost exclusively a matter for national, rather than EU, law and policy. National governments and health service providers have different priorities and approaches to the delivery of health care and the pricing and reimbursement of products in that context. In general, however, the healthcare budgetary constraints in most EU member states have resulted in restrictions on the pricing and reimbursement of medicines by relevant health service providers. Coupled with ever-increasing EU and national regulatory burdens on those wishing to develop and market products, this could prevent or delay marketing approval of our product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities and affect our ability to commercialize any products for which we obtain marketing approval.

We are currently unable to predict what additional legislation or regulation, if any, relating to the health care industry may be enacted in the future or what effect recently enacted federal legislation or any such additional legislation or regulation would have on our business. The pendency or approval of such proposals or reforms could result in a decrease in our stock price or limit our ability to raise capital or to enter into collaboration agreements for the further development and potential commercialization of our products.

If, in the future, we are unable to establish sales and marketing capabilities or enter into agreements with third parties to sell and market our drug candidates, we may not be successful in commercializing our drug candidates if and when they are approved, and we may not be able to generate any revenue.

We do not currently have a sales or marketing infrastructure and have limited experience in the sale, marketing or distribution of drugs. To achieve commercial success for any approved drug candidate for which we retain sales and marketing responsibilities, we must build our sales, marketing, managerial, and other non‑technical capabilities or make arrangements with third parties to perform these services. In the future, we may choose to build a focused sales and marketing infrastructure to sell, or participate in sales activities with our collaborators for, some of our drug candidates if and when they are approved.

There are risks involved with both establishing our own sales and marketing capabilities and entering into arrangements with third parties to perform these services. For example, recruiting and training a sales force is expensive and time-consuming and could delay any drug launch. If the commercial launch of a drug candidate for which we recruit a sales force and establish marketing capabilities is delayed or does not occur for any reason, we would have prematurely or unnecessarily incurred these commercialization expenses. This may be costly, and our investment would be lost if we cannot retain or reposition our sales and marketing personnel.

Factors that may inhibit our efforts to commercialize our drug candidates on our own include:

If we enter into arrangements with third parties to perform sales, marketing and distribution services, our drug revenues or the profitability of these drug revenues to us are likely to be lower than if we were to market and sell any drug candidates that we develop ourselves. In addition, we may not be successful in entering into arrangements with third parties to sell and market our drug candidates or may be unable to do so on terms that are favorable to us. We likely will have little control over such third parties, and any of them may fail to devote the necessary resources and attention to sell and market our drug candidates effectively. If we do not establish sales and marketing capabilities successfully, either on our own or in collaboration with third parties, we will not be successful in commercializing our drug candidates. Further, our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects will be materially adversely affected.

Our relationships with customers and third-party payors will be subject to applicable anti-kickback, fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations, which could expose us to criminal sanctions, civil penalties, exclusion from government healthcare programs, contractual damages, reputational harm and diminished profits and future earnings.

Although we do not currently have any drugs on the market, once we begin commercializing our drug candidates, we will be subject to additional healthcare statutory and regulatory requirements and enforcement by the federal government and the states and foreign governments in which we conduct our business. Healthcare providers, physicians and third-party payors play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any drug candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. Our future arrangements with third-party payors and customers 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 market, sell and distribute our drug candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. Restrictions under applicable federal and state healthcare laws and regulations include the following:

Ensuring that our future business arrangements with third parties comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations could involve substantial costs. 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, including anticipated activities to be conducted by our sales team, were to be found to be in violation of any of these laws or any other governmental regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, exclusion from government-funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations. If any of the physicians or other providers or entities with whom we expect to do business is found to be not in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government-funded healthcare programs.

Our future growth may depend, in part, on our ability to penetrate foreign markets, where we would be subject to additional regulatory burdens and other risks and uncertainties.

Our future profitability may depend, in part, on our ability to commercialize our drug candidates in foreign markets for which we may rely on collaboration with third parties. We are not permitted to market or promote any of our drug candidates before we receive regulatory approval from the applicable regulatory authority in that foreign market, and we may never receive such regulatory approval for any of our drug candidates. To obtain separate regulatory approval in many other countries we must comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of such countries regarding safety and efficacy and governing, among other things, clinical trials and commercial sales, pricing and

distribution of our drug candidates, and we cannot predict success in these jurisdictions. If we obtain approval of our drug candidates and ultimately commercialize our drug candidates in foreign markets, we would be subject to additional risks and uncertainties, including:

Foreign sales of our drug candidates could also be adversely affected by the imposition of governmental controls, political and economic instability, trade restrictions and changes in tariffs.

Governments outside the United States tend to impose strict price controls, which may adversely affect our revenues, if any.

In some countries, particularly countries in the European Union, the pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals is subject to governmental control. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after the receipt of marketing approval for a drug. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval in some countries, we may be required to conduct a clinical trial that compares the cost-effectiveness of our drug candidate to other available therapies. If reimbursement of our drugs is unavailable or limited in scope or amount, or if pricing is set at unsatisfactory levels, our business could be materially harmed. In addition, in 2016, the United Kingdom referendum on its membership in the European Union resulted in a majority of United Kingdom voters voting to exit the European Union, often referred to as Brexit. Brexit has already and may continue to adversely affect European and/or worldwide regulatory conditions. Brexit could lead to legal uncertainty and potentially divergent national laws and regulations, including those related to the pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals, as the United Kingdom determines which European Union laws to replicate or replace. If the United Kingdom were to significantly alter its regulations affecting the pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals, we could face significant new costs. As a result, Brexit could impair our ability to transact business in the European Union and the United Kingdom.

If we fail to comply with environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, we could become subject to fines or penalties or incur costs that could have a material adverse effect on the success of our business.

We are 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. Our operations involve the use of hazardous and flammable materials, including chemicals and biological and radioactive materials. Our operations also produce hazardous waste products. We generally contract with third parties for the disposal of these materials and wastes. We cannot eliminate the risk of contamination or injury from these materials. In the event of contamination or injury resulting from our use of 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.

Although we maintain workers’ compensation insurance to cover us for costs and expenses we may incur due to injuries to our employees resulting from the use of hazardous materials, this insurance may not provide adequate coverage against potential liabilities. We do not maintain insurance for environmental liability or toxic tort claims that may be asserted against us in connection with our storage or disposal of biological, hazardous or radioactive materials.

Risks Related to Our Dependence on Third Parties

We may seek to establish additional collaborations, and, if we are not able to establish them on commercially reasonable terms, we may have to alter our development and commercialization plans.

Our drug development programs and the potential commercialization of our drug candidates will require substantial additional cash to fund expenses. For some of our drug candidates, we may decide to collaborate with additional pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies for the development and potential commercialization of those drug candidates.

We face significant competition in seeking appropriate collaborators. Whether we reach a definitive agreement for a collaboration will depend, among other things, upon our assessment of the collaborator’s resources and expertise, the terms and conditions of the proposed collaboration and the proposed collaborator’s evaluation of a number of factors. Those factors may include the design or results of clinical trials, the likelihood of approval by the FDA or similar regulatory authorities outside the United States, the potential market for the subject drug candidate, the costs and complexities of manufacturing and delivering such drug candidate to patients, the potential of competing drugs, the existence of uncertainty with respect to our ownership of technology, which can exist if there is a challenge to such ownership without regard to the merits of the challenge and industry and market conditions generally. The collaborator may also consider alternative drug candidates or technologies for similar indications that may be available to collaborate on and whether such a collaboration could be more attractive than the one with us for our drug candidate. The terms of any additional collaborations or other arrangements that we may establish may not be favorable to us.

We may also be restricted under our collaboration agreement with Roche from entering into future agreements on certain terms with potential collaborators. Collaborations are complex and time-consuming to negotiate and document. In addition, there have been a significant number of recent business combinations among large pharmaceutical companies that have resulted in a reduced number of potential future collaborators.

We may not be able to negotiate additional collaborations on a timely basis, on acceptable terms or at all. If we are unable to do so, we may have to curtail the development of the drug candidate for which we are seeking to collaborate, reduce or delay its development program or one or more of our other development programs, delay its potential commercialization or reduce the scope of any sales or marketing activities, or increase our expenditures and undertake development or commercialization activities at our own expense. If we elect to increase our expenditures to fund development or commercialization activities on our own, we may need to obtain additional capital, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms or at all. If we do not have sufficient funds, we may not be able to further develop our drug candidates or bring them to market and generate drug revenue.

In addition, our collaboration with Roche, as well as any future collaborations that we enter into, may not be successful. The success of our collaboration arrangements will depend heavily on the efforts and activities of our collaborators. Collaborators generally have significant discretion in determining the efforts and resources that they will apply to these collaborations. Disagreements between parties to a collaboration arrangement regarding clinical development and commercialization matters can lead to delays in the development process or commercializing the applicable drug candidate and, in some cases, termination of the collaboration arrangement. These disagreements can be difficult to resolve if neither of the parties has final decision-making authority. Collaborations with pharmaceutical or biotechnology companies and other third parties often are terminated or allowed to expire by the other party. For example, in the fourth quarter of 2017, Alexion terminated our collaboration related to fibrodysplasia ossificans progressive for convenience following a strategic review by Alexion of its research and development portfolio. Any termination or expiration of our collaboration agreement with Roche or any future collaboration agreement could adversely affect us financially or harm our business reputation.

We rely on third parties to conduct our clinical trials for our drug candidates. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties, comply with regulatory requirements or meet expected deadlines, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for or commercialize our drug candidates and our business could be substantially harmed.

We do not have the ability to independently conduct clinical trials. We rely on medical institutions, clinical investigators, CROs, contract laboratories and other third parties to conduct or otherwise support clinical trials for our drug candidates. We rely heavily on these parties for execution of clinical trials for our drug candidates and control only certain aspects of their activities. Nevertheless, we are responsible for ensuring that each of our clinical trials is conducted in accordance with the applicable protocol, legal and regulatory requirements and scientific standards, and our reliance on CROs will not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities. For any violations of laws and regulations during the conduct of our clinical trials, we could be subject to warning letters or enforcement action that may include civil penalties up to and including criminal prosecution.

We and our CROs are required to comply with regulations, including GCPs, for conducting, monitoring, recording and reporting the results of clinical trials to ensure that the data and results are scientifically credible and accurate, and that the trial patients are adequately informed of the potential risks of participating in clinical trials and their rights are protected. These regulations are enforced by the FDA, the Competent Authorities of the Member States of the European Economic Area and comparable foreign regulatory authorities for any drugs in clinical development. The FDA enforces GCP regulations through periodic inspections of clinical trial sponsors, principal investigators and trial sites. If we or our CROs fail to comply with applicable GCPs, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to perform additional clinical trials before approving our marketing applications. We cannot assure you that, upon inspection, the FDA will determine that our current or future clinical trials comply with GCPs. In addition, our clinical trials must be conducted with drug candidates produced under cGMPs regulations. Our failure or the failure of our CROs to comply with these regulations may require us to repeat clinical trials, which would delay the regulatory approval process and could also subject us to enforcement action. We also are required to register ongoing clinical trials and post the results of completed clinical trials on a government-sponsored database, ClinicalTrials.gov, within certain timeframes. Failure to do so can result in fines, adverse publicity and civil and criminal sanctions.

Although we intend to design the clinical trials for our drug candidates, CROs will conduct all of the clinical trials. As a result, many important aspects of our development programs, including their conduct and timing, will be outside of our direct control. Our reliance on third parties to conduct current or future clinical trials will also result in less direct control over the management of data developed through clinical trials than would be the case if we were relying entirely upon our own staff. Communicating with outside parties can also be challenging, potentially leading to mistakes as well as difficulties in coordinating activities. Outside parties may:

These factors may materially adversely affect the willingness or ability of third parties to conduct our clinical trials and may subject us to unexpected cost increases that are beyond our control. If the CROs do not perform clinical trials in a satisfactory manner, breach their obligations to us or fail to comply with regulatory requirements, the development, regulatory approval and commercialization of our drug candidates may be delayed, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval and commercialize our drug candidates, or our development program materially and irreversibly harmed. If we are unable to rely on clinical data collected by our CROs, we could be required to repeat, extend the duration of, or increase the size of any clinical trials we conduct and this could significantly delay commercialization and require significantly greater expenditures.

If any of our relationships with these third-party CROs terminate, we may not be able to enter into arrangements with alternative CROs. If CROs do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or obligations or meet expected deadlines, if they need to be replaced or if the quality or accuracy of the clinical data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our clinical protocols, regulatory requirements or for other reasons, any clinical trials such CROs are associated with may be extended, delayed or terminated, and we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for or successfully commercialize our drug candidates. As a result, we believe that our financial results and the commercial prospects for our drug candidates in the subject indication would be harmed, our costs could increase and our ability to generate revenue could be delayed.

We contract with third parties for the manufacture of our drug candidates for pre-clinical development and clinical trials, and we expect to continue to do so for commercialization. This reliance on third parties increases the risk that we will not have sufficient quantities of our drug candidates or drugs or such quantities at an acceptable cost, which could delay, prevent or impair our development or commercialization efforts.

We do not currently own or operate, nor do we have any plans to establish in the future, any manufacturing facilities or personnel. We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties for the manufacture of our drug candidates for pre-clinical development and clinical testing, as well as for the commercial manufacture of our drugs if any of our drug candidates receive marketing approval. This reliance on third parties increases the risk that we will not have sufficient quantities of our drug candidates or drugs or such quantities at an acceptable cost or quality, which could delay, prevent or impair our development or commercialization efforts.

The facilities used by our contract manufacturers to manufacture our drug candidates must be approved by the FDA pursuant to inspections that will be conducted after we submit our marketing applications to the FDA. We do not control the manufacturing process of, and will be completely dependent on, our contract manufacturers for compliance with cGMPs in connection with the manufacture of our drug candidates. If our contract manufacturers cannot successfully manufacture material that conforms to our specifications and the strict regulatory requirements of the FDA or others, they will not be able to secure and/or maintain regulatory approval for their manufacturing facilities. In addition, we have no control over the ability of our contract manufacturers to maintain adequate quality control, quality assurance and qualified personnel. If the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority does not approve these facilities for the manufacture of our drug candidates or if it withdraws any such approval in the future, we may need to find alternative manufacturing facilities, which would significantly impact our ability to develop, obtain regulatory approval for or market our drug candidates, if approved. Further, our failure, or the failure of our third-party manufacturers, to comply with applicable regulations could result in sanctions being imposed on us, including clinical holds, fines, injunctions, civil penalties, delays, suspension or withdrawal of approvals, license revocation, seizures or recalls of drug candidates or drugs, if approved, operating restrictions and criminal prosecutions, any of which could significantly and adversely affect our business and supplies of our drug candidates.

We do not have any long-term supply agreements with our contract manufacturers, and we purchase our required drug supply, including the drug product and drug substance used in our most advanced drug candidates, on a purchase order basis. In addition, we may be unable to establish or maintain any agreements with third-party manufacturers or to do so on acceptable terms. Even if we are able to establish and maintain agreements with third-party manufacturers, reliance on third-party manufacturers entails additional risks, including:

Our drug candidates and any drugs that we may develop may compete with other drug candidates and approved drugs for access to manufacturing facilities. There are a limited number of manufacturers that operate under cGMP regulations and that might be capable of manufacturing for us.

Any performance failure on the part of our existing or future manufacturers could delay clinical development or marketing approval. We do not currently have arrangements in place for redundant supply for bulk drug substances. If our current contract manufacturers cannot perform as agreed, we may be required to replace such manufacturers. Although we believe that there are several potential alternative manufacturers who could manufacture our drug candidates, we may incur added costs and delays in identifying and qualifying any such replacement.

Our current and anticipated future dependence upon others for the manufacture of our drug candidates or drugs could result in significant delays or gaps in availability of such drug candidates or drugs and may adversely affect our future profit margins and our ability to commercialize any drugs that receive marketing approval on a timely and competitive basis.

The third parties upon whom we rely for the supply of the active pharmaceutical ingredient, or API, drug product and drug substance used in our most advanced drug candidates are our sole source of supply, and the loss of any of these suppliers could significantly harm our business.

The API, drug product and drug substance used in our most advanced drug candidates are currently supplied to us from single-source suppliers. Our ability to successfully develop our drug candidates, supply our drug candidates for clinical trials and to ultimately supply our commercial drugs in quantities sufficient to meet the market demand, depends in part on our ability to obtain the API, drug product and drug substance for these drugs in accordance with regulatory requirements and in sufficient quantities for clinical testing and commercialization. Although we have entered into arrangements to establish redundant or second-source supply of some of the API, drug product or drug substance for our most advanced drug candidates, if any of our suppliers ceases its operations for any reason or is unable or unwilling to supply API, drug product or drug substance in sufficient quantities or on the timelines necessary to meet our needs, it could significantly and adversely affect our business, the supply of our drug candidates and our financial condition.

For all of our drug candidates, we intend to identify and qualify additional manufacturers to provide such API, drug product and drug substance prior to submission of an NDA to the FDA and/or an MAA to the EMA. We are not certain, however, that our single-source suppliers will be able to meet our demand for their products, either because of the nature of our agreements with those suppliers, our limited experience with those suppliers or our relative importance as a customer to those suppliers. It may be difficult for us to assess their ability to timely meet our demand in the future based on past performance. While our suppliers have generally met our demand for their products on a timely basis in the past, they may subordinate our needs in the future to their other customers.

Establishing additional or replacement suppliers for the API, drug product and drug substance used in our drug candidates, if required, may not be accomplished quickly. If we are able to find a replacement supplier, such replacement supplier would need to be qualified and may require additional regulatory approval, which could result in further delay. While we seek to maintain adequate inventory of the API, drug product and drug substance used in our drug candidates, any interruption or delay in the supply of components or materials, or our inability to obtain such API, drug product and drug substance from alternate sources at acceptable prices in a timely manner could impede, delay, limit or prevent our development efforts, which could harm our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects.

Risks Related to Intellectual Property

If we are unable to adequately protect our proprietary technology or obtain and maintain patent protection for our technology and drugs or if the scope of the patent protection obtained is not sufficiently broad, our competitors could develop and commercialize technology and drugs similar or identical to ours, and our ability to successfully commercialize our technology and drugs may be impaired.

Our commercial success depends in part on our ability to obtain and maintain proprietary or intellectual property protection in the United States and other countries for our lead drug candidate, avapritinib, as well as our other most advanced drug candidates, BLU‑554, BLU‑667 and BLU-782, and our core technologies, including our novel target discovery engine and our proprietary compound library and other know-how. We seek to protect our proprietary and intellectual property position by, among other methods, filing patent applications in the United States and abroad related to our proprietary technology, inventions and improvements that are important to the development and implementation of our business. We also rely on trade secrets, know-how and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain our proprietary and intellectual property position.

We own patents and patent applications that relate to avapritinib, BLU‑554, BLU-667 and BLU-782 as composition of matter. We also own applications relating to composition of matter for KIT inhibitors with multiple compound families, composition of matter for FGFR4 inhibitors with multiple compound families, composition of matter for inhibitors of RET, including predicted RET resistance mutations, with multiple compound families, and composition of matter for inhibitors of ALK2, with multiple compound families, as well as methods of use for these novel compounds. The issued patent directed to BLU‑554 composition of matter has a statutory expiration date in 2034, the issued patent directed to avapritinib composition of matter has a statutory expiration date in 2034.

As of February 15, 2018, we owned five issued U.S. patents, four pending U.S. non-provisional patent applications, one pending U.S. provisional patent application, 36 foreign patent applications in a number of jurisdictions, including Australia, Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Canada, China, the European Union, Hong Kong, Israel, India, Japan, Lebanon, Mexico, New Zealand, Pakistan, Paraguay, Philippines, Russia, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Taiwan, Uruguay and Venezuela, one pending Patent Cooperation Treaty, or PCT, patent application and two U.S. provisional applications directed to our KIT program, including avapritinib. Any U.S. or ex‑U.S. patents issuing from the pending applications covering avapritinib will have a statutory expiration date of October 2034. Patent term adjustments or patent term extensions could result in later expiration dates.

As of February 15, 2018, we owned five issued U.S. patents, three pending U.S. non-provisional patent applications, one pending U.S. provisional patent application, three issued foreign patents and 41 pending foreign patent applications in a number of jurisdictions, including Argentina, Australia, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, China, Egypt, the European Union, Hong Kong, Israel, India, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Lebanon, Mexico New Zealand, Pakistan, Paraguay, Philippines, Russia, Singapore, South Africa, Taiwan, Thailand, Uruguay and Venezuela, and one pending PCT patent application directed to our FGFR4 program, including BLU‑554. Any U.S. or ex‑U.S. patent issuing from the pending applications covering BLU‑554 will have a statutory expiration date of July 2033, December 2033, October 2034, September 2037 or April 2038. Patent term adjustments or patent term extensions could result in later expiration dates.

As of February 15, 2018, we owned five pending U.S. non-provisional patent applications, four pending PCT applications, six pending foreign patent applications filed in Argentina, Lebanon, Uruguay and Taiwan, and one pending U.S. provisional patent applications directed to our RET program, which, if issued, will have statutory expiration dates of 2036 or 2037. Patent term adjustments or patent term extensions could result in later expiration dates.

As of February 15, 2018, we owned one pending U.S. patent application, one pending U.S. provisional patent application and one pending PCT international application directed to our ALK2 program, including BLU-782, which, if issued, will have statutory expiration dates of April 2037 or October 2038.

The intellectual property portfolio directed to our platform includes patent applications directed to novel gene fusions and the uses of these fusions for detecting and treating conditions implicated with these fusions. As of February 15, 2018, we owned ten pending U.S. patent applications and ten pending European Union patent applications directed to this technology, which, if issued, will have statutory expiration dates ranging from 2034 to 2035.

The patent position of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies generally is highly uncertain, involves complex legal and factual questions and has in recent years been the subject of much litigation.

The degree of patent protection we require to successfully commercialize our drug candidates may be unavailable or severely limited in some cases and may not adequately protect our rights or permit us to gain or keep any competitive advantage. We cannot provide any assurances that any of our patents have, or that any of our pending patent applications that mature into issued patents will include, claims with a scope sufficient to protect avapritinib, BLU‑554, BLU-667, BLU-782 or our other drug candidates. In addition, the laws of foreign countries may not protect our rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States. Furthermore, patents have a limited lifespan. In the United States, the natural expiration of a patent is generally twenty years after it is filed. Various extensions may be available; however, the life of a patent, and the protection it affords, is limited. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new drug candidates, patents protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized. As a result, our owned patent portfolio may not provide us with adequate and continuing patent protection sufficient to exclude others from commercializing drugs similar or identical to our drug candidates, including generic versions of such drugs.

Other parties have developed technologies that may be related or competitive to our own, and such parties may have filed or may file patent applications, or may have received or may receive patents, claiming inventions that may overlap or conflict with those claimed in our own patent applications or issued patents, with respect to either the same methods or formulations or the same subject matter, in either case, that we may rely upon to dominate our patent position in the market. Publications of discoveries in the scientific literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the United States and other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing, or in some cases not at all. Therefore, we cannot know with certainty whether we were the first to make the inventions claimed in our owned or licensed patents or pending patent applications, or that we were the first-to-file for patent protection of such inventions. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our patent rights cannot be predicted with any certainty. For example, we are aware of U.S. patents owned by third parties that have generic composition of matter and method of treatment claims that may cover BLU‑554 or generic method of treatment claims that may cover BLU-667. If the claims of any of these third-party patents are asserted against us, we do not believe BLU‑554, BLU-667 or our proposed activities related to such compounds would be found to infringe any valid claim of these patents. While we may decide to initiate proceedings to challenge the validity of these patents in the future, we may be unsuccessful, and courts or patent offices in the United States and abroad could uphold the validity of any such patents. If we were to challenge the validity of any issued United States patent in court, we would need to overcome a statutory presumption of validity that attaches to every United States patent. This means that in order to prevail, we would have to present clear and convincing evidence as to the invalidity of the patent’s claims.

In addition, the patent prosecution process is expensive and time-consuming, and we may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. Further, with respect to some of the pending patent applications covering our drug candidates, prosecution has yet to commence. Patent prosecution is a lengthy process, during which the scope of the claims initially submitted for examination by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, have been significantly narrowed by the time they issue, if at all. It is also possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development output before it is too late to obtain patent protection. Moreover, in some circumstances, we do not have the right to control the preparation, filing and prosecution of patent applications, or to maintain the patents, covering technology that we license from third parties. Therefore, these patents and applications may not be prosecuted and enforced in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business.

Even if we acquire patent protection that we expect should enable us to maintain such competitive advantage, third parties may challenge the validity, enforceability or scope thereof, which may result in such patents being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable. The issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity or enforceability, and our owned and licensed patents may be challenged in the courts or patent offices in the United States and abroad. For example, we may be subject to a third-party submission of prior art to the USPTO challenging the priority of an invention claimed within one of our patents, which submissions may also be made prior to a patent’s issuance, precluding the granting of any of our pending patent applications. We may become involved in opposition, derivation, reexamination, inter partes review, post-grant review or interference proceedings challenging our patent rights or the patent rights of others from whom we have obtained licenses to such rights. Competitors may claim that they invented the inventions claimed in our issued patents or patent applications prior to us, or may file patent applications before we do. Competitors may also claim that we are infringing on their patents and that we therefore cannot practice our technology as claimed under our patents, if issued. Competitors may also contest our patents, if issued, by showing the patent examiner that the invention was not original, was not novel or was obvious. In litigation, a competitor could claim that our patents, if issued, are not valid for a number of reasons. If a court agrees, we would lose our rights to those challenged patents.

In addition, we may in the future be subject to claims by our former employees or consultants asserting an ownership right in our patents or patent applications, as a result of the work they performed on our behalf. Although we generally require all of our employees, consultants and advisors and any other third parties who have access to our proprietary know-how, information or technology to assign or grant similar rights to their inventions to us, we cannot be certain that we have executed such agreements with all parties who may have contributed to our intellectual property, nor can we be certain that our agreements with such parties will be upheld in the face of a potential challenge, or that they will not be breached, for which we may not have an adequate remedy.

An adverse determination in any such submission or proceeding may result in loss of exclusivity or freedom to operate or in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable, in whole or in part, which could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical technology and drugs, without payment to us, or

could limit the duration of the patent protection covering our technology and drug candidates. Such challenges may also result in our inability to manufacture or commercialize our drug candidates without infringing third-party patent rights. In addition, if the breadth or strength of protection provided by our patents and patent applications is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to license, develop or commercialize current or future drug candidates.

Even if they are unchallenged, our issued patents and our pending patents, if issued, may not provide us with any meaningful protection or prevent competitors from designing around our patent claims to circumvent our owned or licensed patents by developing similar or alternative technologies or drugs in a non-infringing manner. For example, a third party may develop a competitive drug that provides benefits similar to one or more of our drug candidates but that has a different composition that falls outside the scope of our patent protection. If the patent protection provided by the patents and patent applications we hold or pursue with respect to our drug candidates is not sufficiently broad to impede such competition, our ability to successfully commercialize our drug candidates could be negatively affected, which would harm our business.

Third parties may initiate legal proceedings alleging that we are infringing their intellectual property rights, the outcome of which would be uncertain and could have a material adverse effect on the success of our business.

Our commercial success depends upon our ability and the ability of our collaborators to develop, manufacture, market and sell our drug candidates and use our proprietary technologies without infringing the proprietary rights and intellectual property of third parties. The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by extensive and frequent litigation regarding patents and other intellectual property rights. We may in the future become party to, or threatened with, adversarial proceedings or litigation regarding intellectual property rights with respect to our drug candidates and technology, including interference proceedings before the USPTO. Our competitors or other third parties may assert infringement claims against us, alleging that our drugs are covered by their patents. Given the vast number of patents in our field of technology, we cannot be certain that we do not infringe existing patents or that we will not infringe patents that may be granted in the future. Many companies have filed, and continue to file, patent applications related to kinase inhibitors. Some of these patent applications have already been allowed or issued, and others may issue in the future. For example, we are aware of U.S. patents owned by third parties that have generic composition of matter and method of treatment claims that may cover BLU‑554 or generic method of treatment claims that may cover BLU-667. If the claims of any of these third-party patents are asserted against us, we do not believe BLU‑554, BLU-667 or our proposed activities related to such compounds would be found to infringe any valid claim of these patents. While we may decide to initiate proceedings to challenge the validity of these patents in the future, we may be unsuccessful, and courts or patent offices in the United States and abroad could uphold the validity of any such patents. If we were to challenge the validity of any issued United States patent in court, we would need to overcome a statutory presumption of validity that attaches to every United States patent. This means that in order to prevail, we would have to present clear and convincing evidence as to the invalidity of the patent’s claims.

Since this area is competitive and of strong interest to pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, there will likely be additional patent applications filed and additional patents granted in the future, as well as additional research and development programs expected in the future. Furthermore, because patent applications can take many years to issue and may be confidential for 18 months or more after filing, and because pending patent claims can be revised before issuance, there may be applications now pending which may later result in issued patents that may be infringed by the manufacture, use or sale of our drug candidates. If a patent holder believes our drug or drug candidate infringes on its patent, the patent holder may sue us even if we have received patent protection for our technology. Moreover, we may face patent infringement claims from non-practicing entities that have no relevant drug revenue and against whom our own patent portfolio may thus have no deterrent effect.

If we are found to infringe a third party’s intellectual property rights, we could be required to obtain a license from such third party to continue developing and marketing our drug candidates and technology. However, we may not be able to obtain any required license on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Even if we were able to obtain such a license, it could be granted on non-exclusive terms, thereby providing our competitors and other third parties access to the same technologies licensed to us. Without such a license, we could be forced, including by court order, to cease developing and commercializing the infringing technology or drug candidates. In addition, we could be found liable for monetary damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees if we are found to have willfully infringed such third-party patent rights. A finding of infringement could prevent us from commercializing our drug candidates or force us to cease some of our business operations, which could materially harm our business.

We may become involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our patents and other intellectual property rights, which could be expensive, time-consuming and unsuccessful.

Competitors and other third parties may infringe, misappropriate or otherwise violate our patents and other intellectual property rights. To counter infringement or unauthorized use, we may be required to file infringement claims. A court may disagree with our allegations, however, and may refuse to stop the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our patents do not cover the third-party technology in question. Further, such third parties could counterclaim that we infringe their intellectual property or that a patent we have asserted against them is invalid or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims challenging the validity, enforceability or scope of asserted patents are commonplace. In addition, third parties may initiate legal proceedings against us to assert such challenges to our intellectual property rights. The outcome of any such proceeding is generally unpredictable. Grounds for a validity challenge could be an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, including lack of novelty, obviousness or non-enablement. Patents may be unenforceable if someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld relevant information from the USPTO or made a misleading statement during prosecution. It is possible that prior art of which we and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution exists, which could render our patents invalid. Moreover, it is also possible that prior art may exist that we are aware of but do not believe is relevant to our current or future patents, but that could nevertheless be determined to render our patents invalid.

An adverse result in any litigation proceeding could put one or more of our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly. If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity or unenforceability of our patents covering one of our drug candidates, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection covering such drug candidate. Competing drugs may also be sold in other countries in which our patent coverage might not exist or be as strong. If we lose a foreign patent lawsuit, alleging our infringement of a competitor’s patents, we could be prevented from marketing our drugs in one or more foreign countries. Any of these outcomes would have a materially adverse effect on our business.

Intellectual property litigation could cause us to spend substantial resources and distract our personnel from their normal responsibilities.

Litigation or other legal proceedings relating to intellectual property claims, with or without merit, is unpredictable and generally expensive and time-consuming and is likely to divert significant resources from our core business, including distracting our technical and management personnel from their normal responsibilities. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation. In addition, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments and if securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a substantial adverse effect on the price of our common stock. Such litigation or proceedings could substantially increase our operating losses and reduce the resources available for development activities or any future sales, marketing or distribution activities.

We may not have sufficient financial or other resources to adequately conduct such litigation or proceedings. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their greater financial resources and more mature and developed intellectual property portfolios. Accordingly, despite our efforts, we may not be able to prevent third parties from infringing upon or misappropriating or from successfully challenging our intellectual property rights. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could have a material adverse effect on our ability to compete in the marketplace.

Obtaining and maintaining patent protection depends on compliance with various procedural, document submission, fee payment and other requirements imposed by governmental patent agencies, and our patent protection could be reduced or eliminated for non-compliance with these requirements.

The USPTO and various foreign governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent application process. In addition, periodic maintenance fees on issued patents often must be paid to the USPTO and foreign patent agencies over the lifetime of the patent. While an unintentional lapse can in many cases be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules, there are situations in which noncompliance can result in abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction.

Non-compliance events that could result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application include, but are not limited to, failure to respond to official actions within prescribed time limits, non-payment of fees and failure to properly legalize and submit formal documents. If we fail to maintain the patents and patent applications covering our drugs or procedures, we may not be able to stop a competitor from marketing drugs that are the same as or similar to our drug candidates, which would have a material adverse effect on our business.

We may not be able to effectively enforce our intellectual property rights throughout the world.

Filing, prosecuting and defending patents on our drug candidates in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive. The requirements for patentability may differ in certain countries, particularly in developing countries. Moreover, our ability to protect and enforce our intellectual property rights may be adversely affected by unforeseen changes in foreign intellectual property laws. In addition, the patent laws of some foreign countries do not afford intellectual property protection to the same extent as the laws of the United States. Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in certain foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of some countries, particularly developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents and other intellectual property rights. This could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents or the misappropriation of our other intellectual property rights. For example, many foreign countries have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner must grant licenses to third parties. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the United States. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own drugs and, further, may export otherwise infringing drugs to territories where we have patent protection, if our ability to enforce our patents to stop infringing activities is inadequate. These drugs may compete with our drug candidates, and our patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing.

Proceedings to enforce our patent rights in foreign jurisdictions, whether or not successful, could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and resources from other aspects of our business. Furthermore, while we intend to protect our intellectual property rights in the major markets for our drug candidates, we cannot ensure that we will be able to initiate or maintain similar efforts in all jurisdictions in which we may wish to market our drug candidates. Accordingly, our efforts to protect our intellectual property rights in such countries may be inadequate.

Changes to the patent law in the United States and other jurisdictions could diminish the value of patents in general, thereby impairing our ability to protect our drug candidates.

As is the case with other biopharmaceutical companies, our success is heavily dependent on intellectual property, particularly patents. Obtaining and enforcing patents in the biopharmaceutical industry involve both technological and legal complexity and is therefore costly, time-consuming and inherently uncertain. Recent patent reform legislation in the United States and other countries, including the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or Leahy-Smith Act, signed into law on September 16, 2011, could increase those uncertainties and costs. The Leahy-Smith Act includes a number of significant changes to U.S. patent law. These include provisions that affect the way patent applications are prosecuted, redefine prior art and provide more efficient and cost-effective avenues for competitors to challenge the validity of patents. In addition, the Leahy-Smith Act has transformed the U.S. patent system into a “first-to-file” system. The first-to-file provisions, however, only became effective on March 16, 2013. Accordingly, it is not yet clear what, if any, impact the Leahy-Smith Act will have on the operation of our business. However, the Leahy-Smith Act and its implementation could make it more difficult to obtain patent protection for our inventions and increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents, all of which could harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on several patent cases in recent years, either narrowing the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances or weakening the rights of patent owners in certain situations. In addition, there have been recent proposals for additional changes to the patent laws of the United States and other countries that, if adopted, could impact our ability to obtain patent protection for our proprietary technology or our ability to enforce our proprietary technology. Depending on future actions by the U.S. Congress, the U.S. courts, the USPTO and the relevant law-making bodies in other countries, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that would weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce our existing patents and patents that we might obtain in the future.

If we are unable to protect the confidentiality of our trade secrets, our business and competitive position may be harmed.

In addition to the protection afforded by patents, we rely upon unpatented trade secret protection, unpatented know-how and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain our competitive position. With respect to the building of our proprietary compound library, we consider trade secrets and know-how to be our primary intellectual property. We seek to protect our proprietary technology and processes, in part, by entering into confidentiality agreements with our collaborators, scientific advisors, employees and consultants, and invention assignment agreements with our consultants and employees. We may not be able to prevent the unauthorized disclosure or use of our technical know-how or other trade secrets by the parties to these agreements, however, despite the existence generally of confidentiality agreements and other contractual restrictions. Monitoring unauthorized uses and disclosures is difficult, and we do not know whether the steps we have taken to protect our proprietary technologies will be effective. If any of the collaborators, scientific advisors, employees and consultants who are parties to these agreements breaches or violates the terms of any of these agreements, we may not have adequate remedies for any such breach or violation, and we could lose our trade secrets as a result. Enforcing a claim that a third party illegally obtained and is using our trade secrets, like patent litigation, is expensive and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, courts outside the United States are sometimes less willing to protect trade secrets.

Our trade secrets could otherwise become known or be independently discovered by our competitors. Competitors could purchase our drug candidates and attempt to replicate some or all of the competitive advantages we derive from our development efforts, willfully infringe our intellectual property rights, design around our protected technology or develop their own competitive technologies that fall outside of our intellectual property rights. If any of our trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor, we would have no right to prevent them, or those to whom they communicate it, from using that technology or information to compete with us. If our trade secrets are not adequately protected so as to protect our market against competitors’ drugs, our competitive position could be adversely affected, as could our business.

We may be subject to damages resulting from claims that we or our employees have wrongfully used or disclosed alleged trade secrets of our competitors or are in breach of non-competition or non-solicitation agreements with our competitors.

We could in the future be subject to claims that we or our employees have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed alleged trade secrets or other proprietary information of former employers or competitors. Although we try to ensure that our employees and consultants do not use the intellectual property, proprietary information, know-how or trade secrets of others in their work for us, we may in the future be subject to claims that we caused an employee to breach the terms of his or her non-competition or non-solicitation agreement, or that we or these individuals have, inadvertently or otherwise, used or disclosed the alleged trade secrets or other proprietary information of a former employer or competitor. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. Even if we are successful in defending against these claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and could be a distraction to management. If our defenses to these claims fail, in addition to requiring us to pay monetary damages, a court could prohibit us from using technologies or features that are essential to our drug candidates, if such technologies or features are found to incorporate or be derived from the trade secrets or other proprietary information of the former employers. An inability to incorporate such technologies or features would have a material adverse effect on our business, and may prevent us from successfully commercializing our drug candidates. In addition, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel as a result of such claims. Moreover, any such litigation or the threat thereof may adversely affect our ability to hire employees or contract with independent sales representatives. A loss of key personnel or their work product could hamper or prevent our ability to commercialize our drug candidates, which would have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Risks Related to Employee Matters, Managing Growth and Other Risks Related to Our Business

Our future success depends on our ability to retain key executives and to attract, retain and motivate qualified personnel.

We are highly dependent on the research and development, clinical, business development, financial and legal expertise of Jeffrey W. Albers, our President and Chief Executive Officer, Anthony L. Boral, our Chief Medical Officer, Marion Dorsch, our Chief Scientific Officer, Kathryn Haviland, our Chief Business Officer, Michael Landsittel, our

Vice President of Finance, Tracey McCain, our Chief Legal Officer, and Christopher Murray, our Senior Vice President of Technical Operations, as well as the other principal members of our management, scientific and clinical team. Although we have entered into employment agreements with our executive officers, each of our executive officers may terminate their employment with us at any time. We do not maintain “key person” insurance for any of our executives or other employees. In addition, we rely on consultants and advisors, including scientific and clinical advisors, to assist us in formulating our research and development and commercialization strategy. Our consultants and advisors may be employed by employers other than us and may have commitments under consulting or advisory contracts with other entities that may limit their availability to us. If we are unable to continue to attract and retain high quality personnel, our ability to pursue our growth strategy will be limited.

We expect to continue hiring qualified development personnel. Recruiting and retaining qualified scientific, clinical, manufacturing and sales and marketing personnel will be critical to our success. The loss of the services of our executive officers or other key employees could impede the achievement of our research, development and commercialization objectives and seriously harm our ability to successfully implement our business strategy. Furthermore, replacing key employees and executive officers may be difficult and may take an extended period of time because of the limited number of individuals in our industry with the breadth of skills and experience required to successfully develop, gain regulatory approval of and commercialize drugs. Competition to hire from this limited pool is intense, and we may be unable to hire, train, retain or motivate these key personnel on acceptable terms given the competition among numerous pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies for similar personnel. We also experience competition for the hiring of scientific and clinical personnel from universities and research institutions. Failure to succeed in clinical trials may make it more challenging to recruit and retain qualified scientific personnel.

We will need to develop and expand our company, and we may encounter difficulties in managing this development and expansion, which could disrupt our operations.

As of February 15, 2018, we had 149 full-time employees, and we expect to continue to increase our number of employees and expand the scope of our operations. To manage our anticipated future growth, we must continue to implement and improve our managerial, operational and financial systems, expand our facilities and continue to recruit and train additional qualified personnel. Also, our management may need to divert a disproportionate amount of its attention away from its day-to-day activities and devote a substantial amount of time to managing these development activities. Due to our limited resources, we may not be able to effectively manage the expansion of our operations or recruit and train additional qualified personnel. This may result in weaknesses in our infrastructure, give rise to operational mistakes, loss of business opportunities, loss of employees and reduced productivity among remaining employees. In the second quarter of 2017, we entered into a lease agreement for new office and laboratory space located at 45 Sidney Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, and we relocated our corporate headquarters to the new premises in the first quarter of 2018. Additional physical expansion of our operations in the future may lead to significant costs, including capital expenditures, and may divert financial resources from other projects, such as the development of our drug candidates. If our management is unable to effectively manage our expected development and expansion, our expenses may increase more than expected, our ability to generate or increase our revenue could be reduced and we may not be able to implement our business strategy. Our future financial performance and our ability to commercialize our drug candidates, if approved, and compete effectively will depend, in part, on our ability to effectively manage the future development and expansion of our company.

Unfavorable global economic conditions could adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Our results of operations could be adversely affected by general conditions in the global economy and in the global financial markets. For example, the global financial crisis caused extreme volatility and disruptions in the capital and credit markets. A severe or prolonged economic downturn, such as the global financial crisis, could result in a variety of risks to our business, including, weakened demand for our drug candidates and our ability to raise additional capital when needed on acceptable terms, if at all. A weak or declining economy could also strain our suppliers, possibly resulting in supply disruption, or cause our customers to delay making payments for our services.

Following its June 23, 2016 vote to leave the European Union, on March 29, 2017, the United Kingdom invoked Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty and formally began the process of exiting the European Union. Although Brexit has already and may continue to adversely affect European and/or worldwide economic or market, political or regulatory conditions and may contribute to instability in the global financial markets, political institutions and regulatory agencies,  

the resulting immediate changes in foreign currency exchange rates have had a limited overall impact due to natural hedging. The long-term impact of Brexit, including on our business and our industry, will depend on the terms that are negotiated in relation to the United Kingdom’s future relationship with the European Union, and we are closely monitoring the Brexit developments in order to determine, quantify and proactively address changes as they become clear. Despite the Brexit developments, we do not expect macroeconomic conditions to have a significant impact on our liquidity needs, financial condition or results of operations.

We or the third parties upon whom we depend may be adversely affected by earthquakes or other natural disasters and our business continuity and disaster recovery plans may not adequately protect us from a serious disaster.

Earthquakes or other natural disasters could severely disrupt our operations, and have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects. If a natural disaster, power outage or other event occurred that prevented us from using all or a significant portion of our headquarters, that damaged critical infrastructure, such as the manufacturing facilities of our third-party contract manufacturers, or that otherwise disrupted operations, it may be difficult or, in certain cases, impossible for us to continue our business for a substantial period of time. The disaster recovery and business continuity plans we have in place may prove inadequate in the event of a serious disaster or similar event. We may incur substantial expenses as a result of the limited nature of our disaster recovery and business continuity plans, which, could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Our internal computer systems, or those of our third-party CROs or other contractors or consultants, may fail or suffer security breaches, which could result in a material disruption of our drug candidates’ development programs.

Despite the implementation of security measures, our internal computer systems and those of our third-party CROs and other contractors and consultants are vulnerable to damage from computer viruses, unauthorized access, natural disasters, terrorism, war and telecommunication and electrical failures. While we have not experienced any such system failure, accident, or security breach to date, if such an event were to occur and cause interruptions in our operations, it could result in a material disruption of our programs. For example, the loss of clinical trial data for our drug candidates could result in delays in our regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. To the extent that any disruption or security breach results in a loss of or damage to our data or applications or other data or applications relating to our technology or drug candidates, or inappropriate disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, we could incur liabilities and the further development of our drug candidates could be delayed.

Our employees, principal investigators, CROs and consultants may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including non-compliance with regulatory standards and requirements and insider trading.

We are exposed to the risk that our employees, principal investigators, CROs and consultants may engage in fraudulent conduct or other illegal activity. Misconduct by these parties could include intentional, reckless and/or negligent conduct or disclosure of unauthorized activities to us that violate the regulations of the FDA and other regulatory authorities, including those laws requiring the reporting of true, complete and accurate information to such authorities; healthcare fraud and abuse laws and regulations in the United States and abroad; or laws that require the reporting of financial information or data accurately. In particular, sales, marketing and business arrangements in the healthcare industry are subject to extensive laws and regulations intended to prevent fraud, misconduct, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. These laws and regulations may restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, sales commission, customer incentive programs and other business arrangements. Activities subject to these laws also involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of clinical trials or creating fraudulent data in our pre-clinical studies or clinical trials, which could result in regulatory sanctions and cause serious harm to our reputation. We have adopted a code of conduct applicable to all of our employees, but it is not always possible to identify and deter misconduct by employees and other third parties, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to comply with these laws or regulations. In addition, we are subject to the risk that a person could allege such fraud or other misconduct, even if none occurred. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business, including the imposition of civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, monetary fines, possible exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal healthcare programs, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, and curtailment of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations.

We may acquire businesses or drugs, or form strategic alliances, in the future, and we may not realize the benefits of such acquisitions.

We may acquire additional businesses or drugs, form strategic alliances or create joint ventures with third parties that we believe will complement or augment our existing business. If we acquire businesses with promising markets or technologies, we may not be able to realize the benefit of acquiring such businesses if we are unable to successfully integrate them with our existing operations and company culture. We may encounter numerous difficulties in developing, manufacturing and marketing any new drugs resulting from a strategic alliance or acquisition that delay or prevent us from realizing their expected benefits or enhancing our business. We cannot assure you that, following any such acquisition, we will achieve the expected synergies to justify the transaction.

We may be subject to adverse legislative or regulatory tax changes that could negatively impact our financial condition.

The rules dealing with U.S. federal, state and local income taxation are constantly under review by persons involved in the legislative process and by the IRS and the U.S. Treasury Department. Changes to tax laws (which changes may have retroactive application) could adversely affect our stockholders or us. In recent years, many such changes have been made and changes are likely to continue to occur in the future. We cannot predict whether, when, in what form, or with what effective dates, tax laws, regulations and rulings may be enacted, promulgated or decided, which could result in an increase in our, or our stockholders’, tax liability or require changes in the manner in which we operate in order to minimize increases in our tax liability.

On December 22, 2017, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, or TCJA, was enacted. The TCJA significantly reforms the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. The TCJA, among other things, includes changes to U.S. federal tax rates, imposes significant additional limitations on the deductibility of interest and net operating loss carryforwards and allows for the expensing of capital expenditures. Our net deferred tax assets and liabilities were revalued as of December 31, 2017 at the newly enacted U.S. corporate rate, and the impact was recognized in our tax expense in the year of enactment but was offset by a corresponding reduction to the valuation allowance. We continue to examine the impact this tax reform legislation may have on our business. The impact of this tax reform is uncertain and could be adverse. 

Risks Related to Our Common Stock

The price of our common stock has been and may in the future be volatile and fluctuate substantially.

Our stock price has been and in the future may be subject to substantial volatility. In addition, the stock market in general, and Nasdaq listed and biopharmaceutical companies in particular, have experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have often been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of these companies. For example, our stock traded within a range of a high price of $92.00 and a low price of $13.04 per share for the period beginning on April 30, 2015, our first day of trading on The Nasdaq Global Select Market, through February 15, 2018. As a result of this volatility, our stockholders could incur substantial losses. In addition, the market price for our common stock may be influenced by many factors, including:

These and other market and industry factors may cause the market price and demand for our common stock to fluctuate substantially, regardless of our actual operating performance, which may limit or prevent investors from readily selling their shares of common stock and may otherwise negatively affect the liquidity of our common stock. In the past, when the market price of a stock has been volatile, holders of that stock have instituted securities class action litigation against the company that issued the stock. If any of our stockholders brought a lawsuit against us, we could incur substantial costs defending the lawsuit. Such a lawsuit could also divert the time and attention of our management.

An active trading market for our common stock may not be sustained, and investors may not be able to resell their shares at or above the price they paid.

Although we have listed our common stock on The Nasdaq Global Select Market, an active trading market for our shares may not be sustained. In the absence of an active trading market for our common stock, investors may not be able to sell their common stock at or above the price at which they acquired their shares or at the time that they would like to sell. An inactive trading market may also impair our ability to raise capital to continue to fund operations by selling shares and may impair our ability to acquire other companies or technologies by using our shares as consideration.

If equity research analysts do not publish research or reports about our business or if they publish negative evaluations of or downgrade our common stock, the price of our common stock could decline.

The trading market for our common stock relies in part on the research and reports that equity research analysts publish about us or our business. We do not control these analysts. We may never obtain research coverage by industry or financial analysts. If no or few analysts commence coverage of us, the trading price of our stock would likely decrease. Even if we do obtain analyst coverage, if one or more of the analysts covering our business downgrade their evaluations of our common stock, the price of our common stock could decline. If one or more of these analysts cease to cover our common stock, we could lose visibility in the market for our common stock, which in turn could cause our common stock price to decline.

Our executive officers, directors, principal stockholders and their affiliates maintain the ability to exercise significant influence over our company and all matters submitted to stockholders for approval.

Our executive officers, directors and stockholders who own more than 5% of our outstanding common stock, together with their affiliates and related persons, beneficially own shares of common stock representing a significant percentage of our capital stock. As a result, if these stockholders were to choose to act together, they would be able to influence our management and affairs and the outcome of matters submitted to our stockholders for approval, including the election of directors and any sale, merger, consolidation, or sale of all or substantially all of our assets. This concentration of voting power could delay or prevent an acquisition of our company on terms that other stockholders may desire. In addition, this concentration of ownership might adversely affect the market price of our common stock by:

Anti-takeover provisions in our charter documents and under Delaware law could make an acquisition of us, which may be beneficial to our stockholders, more difficult and may prevent attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our current management.

Provisions in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws may delay or prevent an acquisition of us or a change in our management. These provisions include a classified board of directors, a prohibition on actions by written consent of our stockholders and the ability of our board of directors to issue preferred stock without stockholder approval. In addition, because we are incorporated in Delaware, we are governed by the provisions of Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, which limits the ability of stockholders owning in excess of 15% of our outstanding voting stock to merge or combine with us. Although we believe these provisions collectively provide for an opportunity to obtain greater value for stockholders by requiring potential acquirors to negotiate with our board of directors, they would apply even if an offer rejected by our board were considered beneficial by some stockholders. In addition, these provisions may frustrate or prevent any attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our current management by making it more difficult for stockholders to replace members of our board of directors, which is responsible for appointing the members of our management.

Future sales of our common stock, including by us or our directors and executive officers or shares issued upon the exercise of currently outstanding options, could cause our stock price to decline.

A substantial portion of our outstanding common stock can be traded without restriction at any time. In addition, a portion of our outstanding common stock is currently restricted as a result of federal securities laws, but can be sold at any time subject to applicable volume limitations. As such, sales of a substantial number of shares of our common stock in the public market could occur at any time. These sales, or the perception in the market that the holders of a large number of shares intend to sell shares, by us or others, could reduce the market price of our common stock or impair our ability to raise adequate capital through the sale of additional equity securities. In addition, we have a significant number of shares that are subject to outstanding options. The exercise of these options and the subsequent sale of the underlying common stock could cause a further decline in our stock price. These sales also might make it

difficult for us to sell equity securities in the future at a time and at a price that we deem appropriate. We cannot predict the number, timing or size of future issuances or the effect, if any, that any future issuances may have on the market price for our common stock.

Commencing January 1, 2018, we are no longer an “emerging growth company,” and the reduced disclosure requirements applicable to emerging growth companies no longer apply to us.

As of June 30, 2017, the market value of our common stock that was held by non-affiliates exceeded $700 million, and as a result, as of January 1, 2018 we no longer qualified as an “emerging growth company,” as defined in the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012. As a large accelerated filer, we are subject to certain disclosure requirements that are applicable to other public companies that were not applicable to us as an emerging growth company. These requirements include:

In addition, we are no longer able to take advantage of transition periods for complying with new or revised accounting standards that are available to emerging growth companies.

We have incurred and will continue to incur increased costs as a result of operating as a public company, and our management is required to devote substantial time to new compliance initiatives and corporate governance practices.

As a public company, we have incurred and expect to continue to incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses. In addition, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and rules subsequently implemented by the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, and Nasdaq have imposed various requirements on public companies, including establishment and maintenance of effective disclosure and financial controls and corporate governance practices. Our management and other personnel will need to devote a substantial amount of time to these compliance initiatives. Moreover, these rules and regulations will increase our legal and financial compliance costs and make some activities more time-consuming and costly.

Pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, or Section 404, we are required to furnish an annual report by our management on our internal control over financial reporting. Because we are no longer an emerging growth company, we are required to include with this annual report an attestation report on internal control over financial reporting issued by our independent registered public accounting firm. To achieve compliance with Section 404 within the prescribed period, we have been and will continue to be engaged in a process to document and evaluate our internal control over financial reporting, which is both costly and challenging. In this regard, we will need to continue to dedicate internal resources, potentially engage outside consultants and adopt a detailed work plan to assess and document the adequacy of internal control over financial reporting, continue steps to improve control processes as appropriate, validate through testing that controls are functioning as documented and implement a continuous reporting and improvement process for internal control over financial reporting.

Despite our efforts, there is a risk that in the future neither we nor our independent registered public accounting firm will be able to conclude within the prescribed timeframe that our internal control over financial reporting is effective as required by Section 404 or that we will not be able to comply with the requirements of Section 404 in a timely manner. If this were to occur, the market price of our stock could decline and we could be subject to sanctions or investigations by the SEC or other regulatory authorities, which would require additional financial and management resources. Furthermore, investor perceptions of our company may suffer if deficiencies are found, and this could cause a

decline in the market price of our stock. Irrespective of compliance with Section 404, any failure of our internal control over financial reporting could have a material adverse effect on our stated operating results and harm our reputation. If we are unable to implement these requirements effectively or efficiently, it could harm our operations, financial reporting, or financial results and could result in an adverse opinion on our internal control over financial reporting from our independent registered public accounting firm.

Because we do not anticipate paying any cash dividends on our capital stock in the foreseeable future, capital appreciation, if any, will be the sole source of gain for our stockholders.

We have never declared or paid cash dividends on our capital stock. We currently intend to retain all of our future earnings, if any, to finance the growth and development of our business. In addition, under the loan and security agreement with Silicon Valley Bank, we are currently restricted from paying cash dividends, and we expect these restrictions to continue in the future. In addition, the terms of any future debt agreements may preclude us from paying dividends. As a result, capital appreciation, if any, of our common stock will be the sole source of gain for our stockholders for the foreseeable future.

Our ability to utilize our net operating loss carryforwards and certain other tax attributes may be limited.

Under Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, if a corporation undergoes an “ownership change” (generally defined as a greater than 50% change (by value) in the ownership of its equity over a three year period), the corporation’s ability to use its pre-change net operating loss carryforwards and certain other pre-change tax attributes to offset its post-change income may be limited. We may have experienced such ownership changes in the past, and we may experience ownership changes in the future as a result of shifts in our stock ownership, some of which are outside our control. As of December 31, 2017, we had federal net operating loss carryforwards of approximately $288.6 million, and our ability to utilize those net operating loss carryforwards could be limited by an “ownership change” as described above, which could result in increased tax liability to us. In addition, pursuant to the TCJA, we may not use net operating loss carry-forwards to reduce our taxable income in any year by more than 80%, and we may not carry back any net operating losses to prior years. These new rules apply regardless of the occurrence of an ownership change.

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments.

None.

Item 2. Properties.

Our headquarters are located at 45 Sidney Street in Cambridge, Massachusetts where we occupy approximately 99,833 rentable square feet of office and laboratory space under a lease that commenced on October 1, 2017 and will expire on November 30, 2029. The lease agreement also provides us with an option to extend the lease agreement for two consecutive five-year periods at the then fair market annual rent, as defined in the lease agreement, as well as a right of first offer with respect to leasing additional space adjacent to the existing leased premises.

We also lease our former corporate headquarters at 38 Sidney Street in Cambridge, Massachusetts under a lease that will expire on October 31, 2022. The lease agreement also provides us with an option to extend the lease for five additional years. In the first quarter of 2018, we fully subleased our former corporate headquarters through October 31, 2020. The sublessee has the option to extend the sublease through October 31, 2022, subject to specified exceptions under the sublease agreement.

We believe that our existing office and laboratory space is sufficient to meet our needs for the foreseeable future and that suitable additional space will be available as and when needed.

Item 3. Legal Proceedings.

We are not currently a party to any material legal proceedings.

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures.

Not applicable.

Part II

Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities.

Certain Information Regarding the Trading of Our Common Stock

Our common stock trades under the symbol “BPMC” on the Nasdaq Global Select Market and has been publicly traded since April 30, 2015. Prior to this time, there was no public market for our common stock. The following table sets forth the high and low sales prices of our common stock as reported on the Nasdaq Global Market for the periods indicated:

Holders

As of February 15, 2018, there were approximately 21 holders of record of our common stock. This number does not include beneficial owners whose shares are held by nominees in street name.

Dividends

We have never declared or paid cash dividends on our capital stock. We currently intend to retain all available funds and any future earnings, if any, to fund the development and expansion of our business, and we do not anticipate paying any cash dividends in the foreseeable future. In addition, pursuant to our loan and security agreement with Silicon Valley Bank, we are prohibited from paying cash dividends without the prior written consent of Silicon Valley Bank. Moreover, the terms of any future debt agreements may preclude us from paying dividends. Any future determination to pay dividends will be made at the discretion of our board of directors and will depend on various factors, including applicable laws, our results of operations, financial condition, future prospects and any other factors deemed relevant by our board of directors. Investors should not purchase our common stock with the expectation of receiving cash dividend.

Stock Performance Graph

The following performance graph and related information shall not be deemed to be “soliciting material” or to be “filed” with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, nor shall such information be incorporated by reference into any future filing under the Exchange Act or Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Act, except to the extent that we specifically incorporate it by reference into such filing.

The following performance graph compares the performance of our common stock to the Nasdaq Composite Index and to the Nasdaq Biotechnology Index from April 30, 2015 (the first date that shares of our common stock were publicly traded) through December 31, 2017. The comparison assumes $100 was invested in our common stock and in each of the foregoing indices after the market closed on April 30, 2015, and it assumes reinvestment of dividends, if any.

The stock price performance included in this graph is not necessarily indicative of, nor is it intended to forecast, future stock price performance.

Item 6. Selected Financial Data.

You should read the following selected consolidated financial data together with our financial statements and the related notes appearing at the end of this Annual Report on Form 10-K and Item 7 “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” section of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We have derived the consolidated statement of operations data for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015 and the consolidated balance sheet data as of December 31, 2017 and 2016 from our audited consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We have derived the consolidated statement of operations data for the year ended December 31, 2014 and the consolidated balance sheet data as of December 31, 2015 and 2014 from our audited consolidated financial statements and related notes not included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. The selected historical financial information in this section is not intended to replace our financial statements and the related

notes thereto. Our historical results for any prior period are not necessarily indicative of results to be expected in any future period.