Oncolytics ($ONCY): Can Colorectal Data Outrun the Funding Need?

01 Scenarios: randomized evidence has to arrive with enough capital behind it

Bull case: colorectal results justify the next stage

The favorable scenario requires REO 033 to demonstrate a credible improvement over its concurrent control and the company to finance a pivotal expansion on workable terms. The September 28, 2026 update says substantially all planned sites are active and several patients are enrolled. Management expects an interim update by year-end, conditional on the number of evaluable patients enrolled by the end of October. A favorable outcome requires useful comparative data, sufficient follow-up and tolerability that allows patients to receive the treatment combination. A promotional response-rate headline alone would not satisfy that test. Source

The financial counterpart is capital that gets the program beyond an initial signal. At June 30, 2026, cash was $4.115 million and first-half operating activities used $15.431 million. A partner payment, equity financing or another arrangement would therefore have to support execution. Stronger data could improve the negotiating position, but a partnership becomes funding only when an agreement specifies obligations and cash is received. The favorable case combines evidence, capital and a practical development path. Source

Base case: progress continues while funding remains a constraint

The company reports early randomized observations, but the sample and maturity leave the decision about a pivotal Part B dependent on further evidence and FDA discussion. Enrollment continues, while the ATM provides financing incrementally. The August 18, 2026 FDA-feedback announcement describes alignment on a potential route and a future End-of-Phase meeting, not final approval of every element of a registration program. Clinical progress and regulatory preparation can therefore coexist with substantial uncertainty. Source Source

Under this scenario, the share count continues to matter almost as much as the cash balance. Raising money keeps the study moving but reduces existing holders’ percentage ownership. The important comparison is how much clinical progress is purchased by each financing and whether the resources extend beyond the next announcement. An interim update followed immediately by another funding gap would be a different outcome from a supported program with a clear next milestone.

Bear case: weak differentiation meets expensive financing

The randomized study fails to reproduce the earlier signals, the update slips because too few patients are evaluable, or treatment burden prevents a useful benefit. A historical randomized colorectal study illustrates why response rate and longer disease control must be considered separately: adding pelareorep increased response but produced worse progression-free survival in that different first-line combination. That result does not determine REO 033, but it prevents treating tumor shrinkage as sufficient proof of value. Source

The downside becomes more severe if access to capital weakens while clinical costs continue. The June filing explicitly identifies substantial doubt about continued operation and insufficient resources for twelve months. The separate Nasdaq bid-price compliance period runs to January 19, 2027 under the July notice. Neither disclosure means an immediate shutdown or delisting, but both can affect financing flexibility while the company awaits clinical evidence. Source Source

What Would Falsify This Reading

The assessment treats pelareorep’s colorectal opportunity as a testable clinical hypothesis under material financing pressure. These developments would change that interpretation.

• A concurrent control confirms a useful net benefit. An interpretable response advantage accompanied by durability and manageable toxicity would strengthen the case. A weak comparison, short-lived responses or treatment interruptions that offset benefit would weaken it. The historical randomized study shows why ORR alone is insufficient. Source Source
• Capital supports more than the next announcement. Actual partner receipts or financing sufficient for the next meaningful development stage would reduce funding uncertainty. Repeated short extensions funded by increasing share issuance would preserve the per-share risk. The June going-concern statement remains material. Source
• The regulatory and listing paths become concrete. A defined, funded pivotal plan and written Nasdaq compliance would remove separate execution risks. An unresolved program design, delayed evaluability or deteriorating market access would make the development timetable less reliable. Source Source Source

These are observations that would weaken the interpretation, not forecasts of inevitable events.

02 The business and the central development question

On June 16, 2026, Oncolytics announced an issued U.S. patent covering its pelareorep manufacturing process, with protection expected into 2044. A separate method-of-use application remained under examination and, if granted, was expected to extend into 2046. Issued claims and a pending application are different protections; neither establishes clinical efficacy or regulatory approval. Oncolytics patent update (SEC filing).

Oncolytics Biotech is a clinical-stage company developing pelareorep, an intravenously administered investigational immunotherapy. The company completed its move of corporate domicile to Nevada on March 31, 2026 and reports in U.S. dollars from January 1, 2026. Older Canadian-dollar figures are not directly comparable with the current accounts because of currency and period differences. ONCY trades on the Nasdaq Capital Market. Source

Pelareorep is a proprietary reovirus intended to replicate selectively in tumors and stimulate immune activity. The practical hypothesis is that it can make other treatments work better in cancers with limited immune responsiveness. That mechanism is a rationale for combination studies, not evidence that the drug is approved or improves outcomes in every tumor type. Source

The current strategy focuses on gastrointestinal cancers, particularly colorectal cancer, with anal and pancreatic programs offering additional possibilities. The financial value is concentrated in the same underlying asset, so multiple indications do not provide the diversification of several established commercial products. A manufacturing or safety problem affecting pelareorep could influence several programs at once. Source

There is also no established product cash flow financing the development cycle. The company expects meaningful revenue only if the drug becomes approved and commercially viable. Licensing arrangements and research support can contribute resources, but their accounting balances, contingent milestones and actual receipts need to remain separate. The immediate business question is whether clinical evidence can support the next development step before financing constraints force a change in the plan. Source

03 The near-term catalyst: an interim update with an enrollment condition

The September 28, 2026 announcement is an operational update rather than a new efficacy result. Nearly all planned REO 033 sites were activated, with multiple patients enrolled. Management expected enough Part A information for an interim update by year-end, based on the number of evaluable patients enrolled by the end of October. The condition matters: an open site is not an evaluable patient, and enrollment is not the same as completed response assessment. Source

Part A is expected to include approximately 60 patients. The clinically important comparison is the contribution of pelareorep when added to FOLFIRI and bevacizumab in second-line RAS-mutant, microsatellite-stable metastatic colorectal cancer. Randomization provides a concurrent comparison that the earlier small signal-generating study lacked. The first update may still be less mature than the eventual Part A dataset. Source

On the day of the release, the useful facts will be the number assessed, the response difference, duration of observation, adverse events and whether treatment could be delivered as intended. A percentage calculated from a small early subset can change materially as more patients become evaluable. The denominator and follow-up should therefore be read before extrapolating toward a registration trial.

Year-end 2026 is a company window, not a fixed reporting date. Missing that window because of evaluability would initially be an execution and timing issue; it should not automatically be called an efficacy failure. Conversely, meeting the date with a small dataset would not automatically establish the drug’s contribution. The next decision depends on what the data support and what resources remain to act on them. Source Source

The planned 60-patient Part A is a total study population, not 60 patients receiving pelareorep. The March launch announcement described approximately 30 patients per arm. In a complete 30-person arm, one additional responder changes the simple observed response fraction by 3.3 percentage points; in an early ten-person subset, one responder changes it by ten points. This is denominator arithmetic, not an expected response rate or a substitute for the trial’s statistical plan. The first interim could contain fewer assessed patients than the final enrollment target, and response confirmation or missing assessments could change the relevant analysis set. A headline percentage should therefore be accompanied by both its numerator and denominator, the control-arm result and the assessment date.

For an illustrative comparison only, ten responders among 30 treated patients would equal 33.3%, while five among 30 controls would equal 16.7%, a difference of 16.7 percentage points. Those invented counts are not REO 033 results and do not show statistical significance. They show why reproducing the older 33% response headline would not answer the current question by itself: the concurrent control could do better or worse than the hypothetical example. The confidence interval, follow-up and analysis rules matter in addition to the point estimate. If an interim reports only evaluable patients, readers also need to know how many randomized patients have not yet reached assessment and why they were excluded from that snapshot.

04 What the FDA feedback does and does not show

The July 13, 2026 plan described a larger randomized Part B retaining the REO 033 core design and adding blinded independent central review, intended to support potential accelerated and full approval within the same study. At that time, the company targeted first-quarter 2027 enrollment, subject to FDA feedback. The later August feedback already discussed here does not turn that target into enrollment achieved or final agreement on every design element. Oncolytics REO 033 update (SEC filing).

The August 18, 2026 release says written FDA feedback supported alignment around a possible pivotal Part B expansion. The contemplated accelerated-approval route would use objective response and duration of response, with progression-free survival supporting potential full approval. The agency also suggested an End-of-Phase meeting to reach final agreement on key elements. The company elected to forego its scheduled Type D meeting after receiving the written responses. Source

This is useful regulatory preparation: the company has a possible way to move from exploratory randomized evidence toward registration. It is not approval of pelareorep, a guarantee that Part B will start, or acceptance of a marketing application. Initial Part A findings are intended to inform whether to proceed and the size and execution of the next stage. Source Source

The distinction is particularly relevant when a development path is described as efficient. Fewer administrative delays can help, but efficacy, safety, manufacturing and financing requirements remain. A trial can be compatible with an accelerated pathway without ultimately producing a response profile sufficient to use it. A favorable FDA discussion does not supply the missing patient outcomes.

For shareholders, the most useful regulatory follow-up would explain what is agreed, what remains conditional and how the resulting program will be funded. Fast Track status can facilitate development and interaction; it is not a substitute for successful trials. The same distinction applies to the company’s anal and pancreatic development opportunities. Source Source

05 Earlier colorectal evidence: promising signals with different populations

In its September 28, 2026 update, Oncolytics summarized REO 022 with a 33% objective response rate, median progression-free survival of 16.6 months, overall survival of 27.0 months and response duration of 19.5 months. The company explicitly describes the study as small and non-randomized. Comparisons with older standard-of-care studies do not control for patient selection, treatment exposure or follow-up. These are reasons to run REO 033, rather than proof that its control arm will perform like a historical benchmark. Source

The peer-reviewed Goel publication from 2020 illustrates the importance of identifying the actual group behind a number. At the recommended Phase 2 dose, three of six patients had a partial response, with median progression-free survival of 65.6 weeks and overall survival of 25.1 months. Those figures describe that dose group; the company’s later 33% summary does not refer to an identically defined population. Source

The published safety observations included myelosuppression, fatigue and diarrhea. An investigational treatment that is biologically active still needs to be deliverable alongside the chemotherapy and antibody regimen. If toxicity reduces exposure to effective background treatment, a higher response rate need not translate into better overall disease control. That possibility is relevant to evaluating a combination rather than the drug in isolation. Source Source

The current randomized study is intended to answer the missing comparative question prospectively. A credible response advantage accompanied by durable control and manageable toxicity would strengthen the case. A comparison based only on the most favorable older subset or a historical survival benchmark would provide much weaker support for a pivotal expansion. Source

The six-patient recommended-dose subgroup demonstrates how sensitive the earlier signal is to individual outcomes. Three partial responses out of six gives 50%; two would give 33.3% and four 66.7%. These alternative counts are illustrative, not additional observations. They explain why the published subgroup estimate has substantial uncertainty and cannot be used as a precise target for a larger randomized trial. The reported 65.6-week progression-free median also belongs to that selected dose group, while the later company summary uses a different clinical summary. Matching dose, prior therapy and population before comparing medians avoids creating a composite result that no single study population actually produced.

06 The historical randomized result that response headlines can miss

The 2018 IND.210 publication reported 103 randomized patients: 51 received pelareorep with first-line FOLFOX and bevacizumab and 52 received the background regimen alone. Progression-free survival was worse in the pelareorep group, with medians of seven versus nine months, hazard ratio 1.59, an 80% confidence interval of 1.18–2.15 and p=0.046. Overall survival was 19.2 versus 20.1 months, without a statistically significant difference, p=0.38. Source

Response rate increased, with an adjusted odds ratio of 2.52 and p=0.03, but median response duration was shorter, five versus nine months, p=0.028. The publication described more hypertension and proteinuria, more omissions of bevacizumab and a tendency toward reduced exposure to the standard agents. The important lesson is that tumor shrinkage and sustained patient benefit can diverge. Source

This older trial used a different chemotherapy backbone, treatment line and population from REO 033. It would be incorrect to declare the new study unsuccessful in advance because of that history. It would be equally incorrect to describe the colorectal evidence as uniformly positive. The new randomized comparison has to demonstrate that the revised combination produces a useful net benefit.

For the coming update, response durability, progression and the ability to maintain background treatment deserve attention alongside ORR. The August regulatory strategy itself recognizes this distinction by linking an accelerated route to response-based evidence and potential full approval to progression-free survival. A higher early response percentage can be encouraging while leaving the more important long-term question unresolved. Source Source

The historical hazard ratio of 1.59 compares the progression-or-death event rate over follow-up under the analysis model; it does not mean that every patient progressed 59% sooner or that 59% more patients had progressed at a fixed date. Similarly, the two-month difference between reported medians is not an estimate of the time lost by each individual. The confidence interval quoted in the publication is an 80% interval, not the more commonly encountered 95% interval. These distinctions do not soften the unfavorable primary finding. They make it possible to describe the finding accurately while avoiding an unsupported conversion from a study-level statistic to an individual outcome.

07 Anal cancer and the limits of extrapolating from other indications

On February 24, 2026, Oncolytics said it had concluded GOBLET enrollment and was prioritizing registration-focused anal and colorectal programs. It stopped further enrollment in the pancreatic Cohort 5 at approximately 20 patients per arm, while continuing follow-up of enrolled patients until the data matured. This was a capital and development-priority decision, not a new randomized efficacy result. On October 14, 2026 the company guided initial Cohort 5 results to the first half of 2027, a timeline that could be extended as patients continue treatment and follow-up. Oncolytics press release, February 24, 2026.

The June-quarter filing describes third-line anal cancer observations announced in January 2026 in 14 evaluable patients: four objective responses, comprising two complete and two partial responses, approximately 29%. Median response duration was approximately 17 months, also reported as 67 weeks. These are encouraging observations in heavily pretreated patients, but they are not the result of a new randomized registration trial. Source

Enrollment in that GOBLET cohort was complete; on October 14, 2026 Oncolytics said it expects to report final Cohort 4 results in the fourth quarter of 2026. Source The company described a potential randomized study in second-line or later disease following an April FDA meeting. Fast Track designation was granted in July 2026. Regulatory preparation and an observed response signal do not mean that the proposed pivotal program is already delivering confirmatory results. Source

Legacy breast-cancer work provides additional clinical context, not a direct estimate for gastrointestinal cancers. The 2025 BRACELET-01 publication enrolled 48 patients, with 45 randomized. Sixteen-week response rates were 20% with paclitaxel, 31% with paclitaxel/pelareorep and 14% with the three-drug avelumab combination; median progression-free survival was 6.4, 12.1 and 5.8 months. Formal statistical comparisons across groups were not planned. Source

The paper also reports greater toxicity in the combinations, particularly infusion reactions, and no obvious efficacy improvement from the third drug. It supports investigating selected combinations carefully, rather than assuming that more immune therapy necessarily creates a better regimen. The current gastrointestinal strategy still requires its own evidence and funding decisions. Source Source

08 September preclinical news: biological support rather than patient outcomes

The September 10, 2026 pan-RAS announcement reported a colorectal cancer model in which pelareorep activity was maintained alongside RAS inhibition. During more intensive initial dosing, the treatments reduced tumor growth; after pelareorep moved to weekly dosing, its incremental activity became less evident. That qualification matters because the experiment supports further optimization, not an already established durable combination benefit in patients. Source

The company plans further work on schedules and tumor models. Those experiments could help identify a useful combination or support business-development discussions, but a preclinical result is several steps removed from a commercial treatment. Describing biological compatibility as proven prevention of resistance would go beyond the finding. The possibility of deeper or longer responses remains a development hypothesis. Source

On September 29, 2026, Oncolytics announced a PNAS publication about the immune environment in liver cancer. The reported work was preclinical. The company expressly said liver cancer was not an indication it intended to pursue at that time. The news therefore supports its broader biological narrative; it does not add a new human efficacy readout or an active liver registration program. Source

For a trader, both announcements should be weighed below direct randomized clinical outcomes and financing sufficient to pursue them. Scientific breadth can improve the range of future options, but it does not replenish cash by itself. The value of such options becomes more concrete when a partner, a funded study or reproducible patient evidence attaches to them. Source Source Source

09 Cash and monthly consumption: the dated balance is already a warning

At June 30, 2026, cash and equivalents were $4.115 million, down from $5.202 million at December 31, 2025. Operating activities used $15.431 million in the first half, with another $0.006 million spent on equipment. The calculated combined monthly consumption was $2.573 million, versus approximately $2.572 million for operating cash use alone. The company was financing development on a scale much larger than its remaining quarter-end cash balance. Source

Dividing June cash by the historical operating-plus-capex pace gives approximately 1.6 months. That is a static illustration, not an October cash estimate, a date of insolvency or a forecast that subsequent financing did not occur. The same filing reports additional ATM sales after June. The actual current balance depends on those receipts, later issuance and intervening spending. Source

Management’s assessment is nevertheless explicit: existing cash, even together with available capital under equity distribution arrangements, supports near-term milestones but not planned operations for at least twelve months from the accounts’ issuance. The report identifies substantial doubt about continued operation and dependence on additional capital. That statement should not be softened into an assumption that an available ATM solves the funding requirement. Source

The next financial update must show net funds raised and cash remaining after costs. For a development company, the important milestone is not simply reaching a data announcement; it is retaining enough funding to produce the next decisive evidence if the announcement is favorable. An attractive result with no financed next step can still leave existing shareholders exposed to difficult terms.

The first-half cash bridge can be traced directly from the statement of cash flows. Starting with $5.202 million, subtracting $15.431 million of operating use and $0.006 million of equipment spending, adding $14.385 million of net financing and subtracting the $0.035 million exchange-rate effect gives the reported $4.115 million ending balance. Financing covered approximately 93.2% of combined operating and equipment use during those six months. This calculation shows how dependent the period was on repeated equity access; it does not imply that a comparable proportion will be financed in the next period. The exchange-rate adjustment is also a reminder that movements in reported cash need not consist solely of spending and new shares.

A spending sensitivity gives scale without inventing a current balance. At a monthly rate 25% above the historical $2.573 million, consumption would be approximately $3.216 million; at 50% above it, approximately $3.860 million. Dividing June cash by those illustrative rates gives about 1.28 and 1.07 months, both measured from the historical balance date and excluding subsequent financing. These are not remaining-runway estimates on October 4. They illustrate why launching or enlarging a pivotal program would need a funding plan that reflects its actual budget. Conversely, a lower spending pace could lengthen coverage while potentially slowing trial activity, so a cash-preservation measure would need to be assessed alongside its effect on enrollment and data maturity.

10 ATM financing and the actual increase in shares

The first half of 2026 brought $14.385 million of net ATM financing through 15,305,933 shares. That was less than the $15.437 million combined operating and equipment outflow. Financing largely replenished expenditure rather than creating a large reserve. It also increased the number of shares over which any future successful product value would be spread. Source

The previous BTIG arrangement ended in March. The new Jefferies agreement established April 6, 2026 permits up to $75 million of gross sales. During the June quarter, the company sold 7,859,359 shares under that arrangement for $7.152 million gross and $6.771 million net, at an average price of $0.91. Between July 1 and August 10 it sold another 2,322,984 shares for $1.890 million gross and $1.834 million net, averaging $0.81. Source

The offering ceiling is not cash committed by a lender. Actual receipts depend on sales, market conditions, regulatory availability and costs. Likewise, a remaining authorization calculated from June disclosures would not establish the amount still available in October. The historical decline in average sale price illustrates why the same dollar requirement can demand more shares when prices are lower. Source

Outstanding common shares increased from 108,021,271 at December 31, 2025 to 124,637,521 at June 30, 2026, approximately 15.4% calculated. The August 10 cover count was 127,510,505. The first half also included 1.3 million shares issued for consulting services: this preserves cash relative to paying cash for the same services, but is not free to existing shareholders. Source

The June-quarter Jefferies sales produced about $0.862 of net proceeds per share, calculated as $6.771 million divided by 7,859,359 shares. The subsequent July-to-August disclosure gives approximately $0.790 net per share from $1.834 million divided by 2,322,984 shares. Net receipts per share therefore declined by about 8.4% between these disclosed blocks. The first block includes offering costs as well as commissions, so this difference does not reflect solely a change in the quoted market price. For the same desired net funding, lower realized proceeds per share require more shares, but the next transaction could have different prices and costs. Neither historical block establishes the amount raised after August 10.

Common shares increased by 16,616,250 between December and June, while reported ATM issuance accounted for 15,305,933 shares and consulting issuance for 1,300,000. The remaining 10,317 shares were issued pursuant to restricted share unit awards, so the total movement was not entirely ATM issuance. An unchanged holder’s proportional ownership would fall to approximately 86.7% of its December proportion, calculated from 108,021,271 divided by 124,637,521. That is an approximately 13.3% ownership reduction, distinct from the 15.4% increase in the share count because the denominators differ. Neither percentage describes a realized investment loss or measures the value of the clinical work purchased with the financing.

11 Warrants, incentives and capacity for further dilution

At June 30, 2026, there were 8,203,743 outstanding warrants: 7,667,050 at a $2.81 exercise price and 536,693 at $2.25. These are potential issuance channels under their terms, not cash that can be assumed available. Exercise depends on holders and economics; funding a trial on the assumption that out-of-the-money warrants will be exercised would be unreliable. The dated October 23 reference close was $0.502. Source Source

The company also reported 22,097,374 options, including 1.9 million performance-based options, plus 469,992 RSUs and 3,292,750 conditional share awards at June 30. The conditional awards vest on entry into a definitive acquisition or exclusive pelareorep licensing agreement. The CEO’s component equals 2% of the then-outstanding shares, equivalent to 2,492,750 at the June count. That percentage-based award can change with the denominator; it is not a fixed June number for every future transaction. Source

Available capacity under the incentive plan was 6,490,577 shares at June 30. From January 2027 through January 2036, the plan allows annual increases equal to the lesser of 6% of prior year-end outstanding shares or a smaller amount set by the board or committee. This is reserve capacity, not automatic immediate issuance to employees. Authorized common shares total one billion, with 100 million preferred authorized and none issued at June 30. Source

The useful denominator is therefore layered: actual common shares, issued rights, conditional awards and unused capacity. Adding all categories into today’s float would be wrong, while ignoring them would understate prospective dilution. A financing or partnership announcement should be assessed together with the shares and incentives that accompany it, not only its headline dollar value.

At the June reference count, the 8.204 million warrants alone represent about 6.6% additional shares if all were exercised. That is an issuance sensitivity, not an assumption about exercise or expected cash. The contractual prices of $2.25 and $2.81 are materially above the dated $0.502 market reference, and holders may not find exercise economically attractive under those conditions. Options, RSUs and transaction-dependent awards have different exercise, service or performance requirements and are not interchangeable. An acquisition or license could also affect the percentage-linked CEO award through a later share denominator. The useful analysis is therefore a schedule of rights and triggers, rather than one falsely precise fully diluted share count presented as current float.

12 Obligations, research support and the Nasdaq deadline

The June 2026 balance sheet does not show a conventional term loan, but that does not make the business self-funded. It reports operating lease liabilities of approximately $0.448 million and a $4.910 million contract liability associated with Adlai Nortye. The latter concerns earlier licensing consideration and future accounting recognition; it is neither a new cash receipt nor ordinary loan principal. The balance sheet also showed a stockholders’ deficit of $6.167 million. Source

PanCAN support illustrates the difference between entitlement, expense recognition and cash. The award can provide up to $5 million, but first-half 2026 cash funding received was zero. The company recognized a $0.648 million reduction of eligible research costs and had a $1.175 million receivable at June 30. Those amounts cannot also be added to cash already in the bank. Collection and eligible work determine their actual funding effect. On October 14, 2026 Oncolytics said it expects to receive the final PanCAN grant payment later in the fourth quarter, after completing certain Cohort 5 activities; the amount was not disclosed. Source

The July 24 filing discloses Nasdaq’s July 20 notice after the bid price remained below $1 for thirty consecutive business days. The initial compliance period ends January 19, 2027. Regaining compliance generally requires at least ten consecutive business days with a closing bid of at least $1, subject to Nasdaq’s discretion. The notice had no immediate effect on the listing. Source

An additional compliance period is conditional, not guaranteed. The relevant future facts are written confirmation of compliance, any extension or a formal company action to address the issue. The dated warning belongs alongside funding needs because weaker market access can make capital raising harder. It is neither an already completed delisting nor a clinical catalyst. Source

The PanCAN receivable rose from $0.527 million to $1.175 million, an increase of $0.648 million matching the first-half research-cost reduction while no cash funding was received. The accounting support improved reported research expense without providing first-half cash receipts. Collection of that receivable would represent approximately 0.46 months of the historical $2.573 million monthly consumption, before considering the timing and restrictions of eligible work. That scale comparison is illustrative and does not assert that collection occurred after June. It also prevents double counting: the maximum $5 million award, the cumulative receivable and expenses already offset are different views of the same support arrangement, not three independent funding sources to add together.

13 Ownership, insider activity and the final checklist

The definitive proxy schedules the 2026 virtual annual meeting for November 19 at 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time. It proposes election of seven directors and ratification of Baker Tilly US as auditor for 2026. The September 22 record-date denominator was approximately 131,120,719 common shares entitled to vote; this is a newer dated count, not a restatement of the June balance-sheet share count. Oncolytics SEC filing dated October 2, 2026.

Finviz data as of October 23, 2026 report float of 98.81 million, short float of 7.46%, a short ratio of 7.12, institutional ownership of 11.56% and insider ownership of 1.55%. These are third-party figures as of that date, not positions newly settled that day. The third-party share count of 124.64 million also differs in date from the later August 10 SEC count. The dated balance and the third-party market data are separate sources, not one live ownership table. Source Source

The annual report’s March 23, 2026 ownership table identified Anson at 7,649,050 beneficial shares and 6.18%, based on an earlier ownership filing. That is historical beneficial ownership, with its own treatment of exercisable rights, not proof of an unchanged October position. It does not necessarily match the later institutional-ownership percentage reported by market-data services. Source

The June 3 insider disclosures include a June 1 award of 755,000 options to CEO Jared Kelly and 260,000 to CFO Kirk Look, each at $1.06 with service-based vesting. These are compensation grants, not open-market purchases demonstrating a cash investment by management. The filing type alone does not show whether an insider bought, sold or received an award. Source Source

The decisive checklist is compact: evaluable patients and comparative results for the year-end window; response durability and tolerability; the next FDA agreement; net financing and shares issued; cash remaining to support Part B; and resolution of the Nasdaq condition. Oncolytics has a credible question to test, but the shareholder outcome depends on a clinically useful answer arriving with enough capital to pursue it. Scientific promise, approval and commercial value remain separate stages. Source Source Source Source