Endocyte (ECYT) 8-K Tony Russo, Ph. D., Russo Partners, (212) 845 4251

Endocyte Inc.

Supplemental PRECEDENT Trial Analysis

December 13, 2011

Exhibit 99.2

Forward-Looking Statements

During the course of this presentation, we will make forward-looking statements regarding future events and our future

performance.

The

words

“believe”,

“anticipate”,

“expect”,

“estimate”,

“intend”,

“plan”,

“may”,

“will”

and

other

similar

expressions generally identify forward-looking statements. In addition, any statements that refer to expectations, projections

or

other

characterizations

of

future

events

or

circumstances

are

forward-looking

statements.

Forward-looking

statements

entail various significant risks and uncertainties that could cause our actual results to differ materially from those expressed

in such forward-looking statements. You are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements,

which speak only as of the date hereof. We do not intend to update any of the information contained in any forward-looking

statement, except as required by law. 

More information about the risks and uncertainties faced by Endocyte, Inc. is contained in the company’s periodic reports

filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Endocyte, Inc. disclaims any intention or obligation to update or revise

any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

PRECEDENT Trial Supplemental Analysis

2

Purpose

Results

Validate EC20 to select FR

positive patients

Validated (inter-reader

agreement  85%)

Test robustness of PFS

primary endpoint

(investigator assessed)

PFS robust (no evidence of

bias)

Confirmed PFS results in

FR(++) group

Update OS analysis (102

events)

OS underpowered and

inconclusive

FR Positive Platinum-Resistant Ovarian Cancer Is an

Attractive Patient Population for Drug Approvals

•

Platinum-resistant ovarian cancer overall survival       

12.7 months

•

Current drugs don’t delay progression or extend survival

and have toxicities that reduce quality of life

3

n= 149 patients

Platinum resistant

ovarian cancer patients

(failed first or second

platinum therapy < 6

months)

EC145 + PLD

PLD only

EC20 Scan

EC145= 2.5mg TIW wks 1, 3

PLD=50

mg/m

2

(IBW) every 28 days

PLD= 50

mg/m

2

(IBW) every 28 days

EC20 Validates

Reader Agreement

FR(+) >

1 positive lesion

87%

FR(++) all lesions positive

85%

Independent reader study validates EC20 to select FR positive patients

for phase 3 study

Targeted >70% agreement

4

Investigator PFS Assessment Passed

Standard Battery of Tests for Robustness

5

Test for Imbalances

Pass / Fail

Results

Patient populations

Pass

Adjusted for imbalances in patient prognostic

factors (e.g. performance status)

HR 0.597*

Study discontinuance

Pass

Treat discontinuance as event

HR 0.610*

Clinical progressions

Pass

Censor clinical progression

HR 0.601*

Off-schedule assessments

Pass

Off-schedule assessments

4.6% equal in both arms

Investigator delays calling

progression in treatment arm

versus control arm

**

Pass

IRC called progression earlier less often in

treatment arm

(Treatment  38% versus Control 43%).

*  P-value <0.05

**  # Patients IRC PFS date Less than investigator / total # patients with > 1 CT scan

As Expected Treatment Arm Median

Decreased More Than Control Arm

6

Note:

#

of

patients

with

>

1

follow

up

CT

scan

–

EC145/PLD

33

and

PLD

11

Investigator and IRC PFS Results

7

FR(++) results are statistically significant and clinically

meaningful in both analyses

PFS Conclusions

•

Primary endpoint (investigator assessed PFS) is robust and

unbiased

•

IRC confirmed statistically significant and clinically meaningful

results in FR(++) group

•

Greater confidence that phase 2 results can be repeated in

phase 3 (blinded) confirmatory study

8

Historical PLD Phase 3 Trials in Platinum

Resistant Ovarian Cancer

9

Study

Drug

N

OS

Gordon et al. (2004)

PLD

130

8.3

Topotecan

128

9.5

Mutch et al. (2007)

PLD

99

13.5

Gemcitabine

96

12.7

Ferrandina et al. (2008)

PLD

76

12.7

Gemcitabine

77

11.5

Vergote et al. (2009)

PLD or Topotecan

229

13.5

Canfosfamide

232

8.5

Monk et al. (2010)

PLD

115

12.4

PLD + trabectedin

113

14.2

Colombo et al. (2010)

PLD

417

12.7

Patupilone

412

13.2

Historical Median Overall Survival of 12.7 months (8.3 -

13.5 months)

Overall Survival Underpowered and

Indeterminate

Overall Survival

ITT

n=149

FR(++)

n=38

EC145/PLD

PLD

EC145/PLD

PLD

Median (months)

14.1

16.9

14.0

16.4

Hazard Ratio (95% CI)

1.099 (0.722, 1.673)

1.420

(0.631, 3.194)

6-month Survival Rate

81%

70%

73%

60%

12-month Survival Rate

62%

63%

64%

53%

10

•

ITT OS hazard ratio is 1.0.  Higher in FR(++) group

•

PLD arm much longer than historical  (16.9 versus 12.7 months)

•

EC145/PLD arm median OS is longer than historical and early survival rates

favor EC145/PLD

2:1 Randomization Introduced Greater

Variability in Control Arm OS Curve

Months

ITT Patient Population

EC145 + PLD (n=100)

PLD Alone (n=49)

PRECEDENT PLD control survival is more than 4 months longer than

historic

11

EC145/PLD

Median

PLD

Median

Imbalance in PFI and Post-Trial Platinum

Therapy May Have Confounded OS Results

% of Patients

ITT

FR(++)

EC145/PLD

PLD

EC145/PLD

PLD

>

3 months platinum free interval*

56%

76%

57%

73%

Received post-study chemotherapy

70%

71%

65%

80%

Platinum

18%

33%

17%

27%

Topotecan

34%

31%

44%

33%

Gemcitabine

27%

37%

22%

33%

Paclitaxel/Docetaxel

24%

29%

30%

40%

Bevacizumab

18%

14%

22%

20%

12

* Last platinum dose to progression

OS Exploratory Analysis

Overall Survival Hazard Ratio

Population

(events by arm)

N

(1)

Unadjusted Analysis

Adjusted Analysis

(2)

ITT  (events: 70/32)

149

1.099

0.928

FR(++) (events: 18/10)

38

1.420

0.495

1.

EC20 scan assessment available for 94 of 149 patients.

2.

Results from Cox proportional hazards model with age, platinum failure, CA-125 level, geography, tumor size, months since last

platinum

treatment,

and

ECOG

as

baseline

factors

included

in

the

model.

13

Adjusting OS results based on PFS prognostic factors improve OS

results particularly in FR(++) group

Overall Survival Conclusions

•

Underpowered, particularly in the control arm (49 patients)

•

Control arm curve median is significantly longer than in

historical PLD trials

•

Imbalance in platinum free interval and post platinum

therapy may have impacted results

•

Results inconclusive

14

Implications for Phase 3 Study

•

Validation of EC20 allows

us to focus on FR(++)

population

•

Higher confidence that

phase 2 results repeated in

phase 3 study

•

Primary endpoint of phase

3 on blinded investigator

reads

•

Include platinum free

interval in stratification

•

1:1 Randomization

15

FR(++) Population

EC145/PLD

PLD

Investigator Assessment

PFS Median (months)

5.5

1.5

PFS Hazard Ratio

0.381 (p=0.0134)

IRC Assessment

PFS Median (months)

4.0

1.5

PFS Hazard Ratio

0.465 (p=0.0498)

Overall response rate

(1)

17.4%

6.7%

Median OS (months)

14.0

16.4

OS Hazard ratio (unadjusted)

1.420

OS Hazard ratio (adjusted)

(2)

0.495

1.

Response confirmed by follow-up CT scan.

2.

Results from Cox proportional hazards model with age, platinum failure, CA-125 level, geography, tumor size, months since last

platinum treatment, and ECOG as baseline factors included in the

model.

Questions & Answers