Cardiff Oncology, Inc. (CRDF) Business

ITEM 1. BUSINESS

We are a clinical-stage biotechnology company leveraging PLK1 inhibition, a well-validated oncology drug target, to develop novel therapies across a range of cancers with the greatest unmet medical need. Our goal is to target tumor vulnerabilities with treatment combinations of onvansertib, our oral and highly selective PLK1 inhibitor, and standard-of-care ("SoC") therapeutics. We are focusing our clinical program in indications such as RAS-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer ("mCRC"), as well as in investigator-initiated trials in metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma ("mPDAC"), small cell lung cancer ("SCLC"), metastatic triple negative breast cancer ("mTNBC") and Chronic Myelomonocytic Leukemia ("CMML"). Our clinical development programs incorporate tumor genomics and biomarker assays to refine patient selection and assessment of patient response to treatment.

Our Lead Drug Candidate, Onvansertib

Onvansertib is an oral, small molecule drug candidate that is highly specific for PLK1 inhibition with a 24-hour half-life.

We believe the attributes of onvansertib described below, as well as early clinical evidence of favorable safety and efficacy, with expected on-target, manageable and tolerable side effects, may prove beneficial in addressing clinical therapeutic needs across a variety of cancers:

•
Onvansertib is highly potent and highly selective against the PLK1 enzyme (IC50 = 2nM; IC50 is the concentration for 50% inhibition), compared to prior PLK1 inhibitors that were pan-inhibitors of several PLK targets. Low or no activity of onvansertib was observed on a panel of 63 kinases (IC50500 nM), including the PLK members PLK2 and PLK3 (IC5010,000 nM);

•
Onvansertib is orally bioavailable, allowing for relative ease and flexibility of dosing;

•
Onvansertib has a relatively short drug half-life of 24 hours, allowing for flexible dosing and scheduling that has demonstrated a favorable safety profile across multiple clinical trials.

In vitro studies have shown synergistic effects when onvansertib was administered in combination with different cytotoxic agents including microtubule-targeting agents, topoisomerase 1 inhibitors, antimetabolites, alkylating agents, proteasome inhibitors, kinase inhibitors, PARP inhibitors, BCL-2 inhibitors, and androgen biosynthesis inhibitors.

In addition, in vivo combination studies have confirmed the positive results obtained in vitro and additive or synergistic effects on efficacy have been observed in xenograft models of onvansertib in combination with irinotecan, 5-fluorouracil ("5-FU"), abiraterone, PARP inhibitors, venetoclax, paclitaxel, or bevacizumab. Combining onvansertib with SoC cancer agents may provide opportunities for synergy with many cancer therapies.

There are several ongoing clinical trials of onvansertib in multiple indications: one trial (CRDF-004) in first-line treatment in patients with RAS-mutated mCRC, and investigator-initiated trials in first-line mPDAC, relapsed SCLC, unresectable locally advanced or metastatic TNBC and CMML.

RAS-mutated mCRC Program:

CRDF-004 Randomized Clinical Trial in First-Line RAS-mutated mCRC

CRDF-004 is a Phase 2 open-label, randomized multi-center clinical trial to assess the efficacy of two doses of onvansertib (20mg and 30mg) in combination with FOLFIRI and bevacizumab or FOLFOX and bevacizumab, compared with FOLFIRI or FOLFOX and bevacizumab (SOC) alone, for the treatment of confirmed metastatic and unresectable colorectal cancer (mCRC) in patients with a KRAS or NRAS mutation in the first-line setting. Trial endpoints include objective response rate ("ORR"), progression-free survival ("PFS") and duration of response ("DoR") together with pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics and safety assessments. Selection of the recommended phase 3 onvansertib dose will be based on a benefit-risk assessment of the totality of the evidence,

6

including numerical differences between the onvansertib and SoC arms. The trial enrolled 110 patients in the intent-to-treat ("ITT") population and is conducted in partnership with Pfizer Ignite, an end-to-end service for biotech companies. For more information, please visit NCT06106308 at www.clinicialtrials.gov.

Contingent upon the results of CRDF-004, we plan to initiate CRDF-005, a Phase 3, randomized trial with registrational intent. The FDA agreed at a Type C meeting in June 2023 that a seamless trial with an interim endpoint of ORR, with DoR, is acceptable to pursue accelerated approval, with PFS and lack of detriment on overall survival being the endpoints for full approval. The complete Phase 3 trial design will be finalized after discussion with the FDA upon sharing the full CRDF-004 trial results.

Data provided in the press release dated January 27, 2026 included updated data from the ongoing CRDF-004 Phase 2 randomized clinical trial in first-line RAS-mutated mCRC. The results as of the data cut-off date of January 22, 2026, are shown below.

Bev=bevacizumab; BICR=Blinded Independent Central Review; CI=confidence interval; HR=hazard ratio; NR=not reached; Onv=onvansertib; ORR=objective response rate; PFS=progression-free survival; SoC=standard of care.

aORR is confirmed responses

bProgressive disease events were based on combined BICR and Investigator assessments due to very small number of events in BICR assessment. The earliest reported date was used for a conservative estimate.

cSoC is the combination of the FOLFIRI/bev and FOLFOX/bev arms

dPFS HR is the comparison of the onvansertib arm to FOLFIRI/bev

ePFS HR is the comparison of the onvansertib arm to SoC

fFisher’s exact test

gLog-rank test

Onvansertib in combination with chemo/bevacizumab was well-tolerated and to date there have been no major or unexpected toxicities observed. The patients who remain on the CRDF-004 study are continuing to be monitored for efficacy as well as safety in the ongoing trial.

Other Clinical Programs:

Phase 1b/2 Investigator-Initiated Clinical Trial in First-Line mPDAC

In February 2024, the FDA approved NALIRIFOX as a first-line treatment option for mPDAC. As a result, we are currently supporting an investigator-initiated mPDAC Phase 1b/2 trial of onvansertib in combination with first-line SoC NALIRIFOX, which is now open for enrollment at the University of Kansas Medical Center. The trial

7

replaced a previously planned two-cohort, non-randomized Phase 2 trial of onvansertib in combination with first-line SoC Gemzar® and Abraxane®. For more information, please visit NCT06736717 at www.clinicaltrials.gov.

The primary objective in this study is to determine anti-tumor activity by measuring ORR. The secondary objectives are to determine treatment safety based on toxicities in participants who have received at least one dose of onvansertib, to determine anti-tumor activity by Progression Free Survival ("PFS"), to determine anti-tumor activity by Disease Control Rate ("DCR"), to determine Overall Survival ("OS").

Phase 2 Investigator-Initiated Clinical Trial in SCLC

A single-arm, two-stage, Phase 2 trial of onvansertib monotherapy in patients with relapsed SCLC is open for enrollment at the University of Maryland, Baltimore. The trial is designed to enroll 15 patients in Stage 1, with the study proceeding to Stage 2 if 2 or more Stage 1 patients achieve an objective response. Stage 2 is designed to enroll an additional 20 patients. The primary endpoint of the trial is ORR, while key secondary endpoints include PFS and OS. For more information, please visit NCT05450965 at www.clinicialtrials.gov.

An examination of the safety data from the first six patients by the institutional review board confirmed the trial can continue to enroll as planned. Preliminary efficacy data for seven patients presented on September 26, 2023, showed one confirmed partial response (“PR”), three stable disease (“SD”) and three progressive disease (“PD”). The DCR, including PR and SD, is 57% (4 of 7 patients).

Phase 1b Investigator-Initiated Clinical Trial in mTNBC

A single-arm, Phase 1b trial of onvansertib in combination with paclitaxel in patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic TNBC at Dana Farber Cancer Institute ("DFCI") has completed enrollment. The trial was designed to treat approximately 14-16 patients with different doses of onvansertib in combination with a fixed dose of paclitaxel to determine the maximum tolerated dose and the safety and efficacy of onvansertib in combination with paclitaxel.

In June 2025, the investigator presented promising data from this trial at ASCO:

•
Patients enrolled in the trial received a median of 3 prior lines of chemotherapy.

•
Onvansertib in combination with paclitaxel demonstrated 40% objective response rate by RECIST 1.1 at RP2D of 18mg/m2 (n=10), with two confirmed partial responses and two unconfirmed partial responses.

•
The combination of onvansertib and paclitaxel was well-tolerated and demonstrated a safe and manageable toxicity profile with myelosuppression being the most common adverse event.

•
Collectively, this clinical data further supports the potential exploration of the combination of onvansertib plus paclitaxel for the treatment of mTNBC.

For more information, please visit NCT05383196 at www.clinicialtrials.gov.

Phase 1 Investigator-Initiated Clinical Trial in CMML

This phase I trial is designed to evaluate the safety, effectiveness, and best dose of onvansertib for the treatment of patients with chronic myelomonocytic leukemia and Myelodysplastic syndrome/myeloproliferative neoplasm (MDS/MPN) overlap neoplasms that has come back (recurrent) or that does not respond to treatment (refractory).

Data presented at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) meeting on December 8, 2025, from this ongoing Phase 1 dose-escalation trial (N=9) showed that onvansertib monotherapy was generally well tolerated and demonstrated preliminary efficacy in approximately 40% of patients. One patient achieved an optimal marrow response at the 9 mg/m² dose and three patients achieved clinical benefit at 6 mg/m2 and 12 mg/m2. Dose expansion is currently open and recruiting at the 12 mg/m2 dose.

8

These findings, together with previously reported results from an investigator-sponsored trial in small cell lung cancer, support onvansertib’s single-agent activity across both hematologic and solid tumors.

Identifying Biomarkers that Predict Patient Benefit

Our laboratory in San Diego, California, enables us to optimize drug development and patient care. In the clinical development of our lead drug candidate, onvansertib, correlative biomarker analyses are being used to help inform decisions in the evaluation of dose-response and optimal regimen for desired pharmacologic effect and safety. Additionally, some biomarkers can be used as a surrogate endpoint for efficacy and/or toxicity, as well as identifying certain patient populations that are more likely to respond to the drug therapy.

In our ongoing CRDF-004 clinical trial in RAS-mutated mCRC, we are quantitatively assessing changes in the RAS mutational burden with a blood test based on ctDNA. In TROV-054, our phase 1b/2 single-arm clinical trial in KRAS-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer, decreases in KRAS Mutant Allelic Frequency ("MAF") in ctDNA after the first cycle of treatment were highly predictive of subsequent radiographic response observed as tumor shrinkage.

Operating Segment and Geographic Information

We operate in one business segment, using one measurement of profitability to manage our business. We do not assess the performance of geographic regions on measures of revenue or comprehensive income (loss) or expense. In addition, all of our principal operations, assets and decision-making functions are located in the U.S. We do not produce reports for, or measure the performance of, geographic regions on any asset-based metrics. Therefore, geographic information is not presented for revenues or long-lived assets.

The Market

Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

Colorectal Cancer ("CRC") is a common cause of cancer death in the US. The American Cancer Society's estimates for the number of CRC diagnoses expected in the US in 2026 are 108,860 new cases of colon cancer and 49,990 new cases of rectal cancer, with an estimated 55,230 deaths predicted during 2026. Cancer‑specific mortality of CRC is predominantly due to metastatic disease. Despite significant progress in the treatment of mCRC, the majority of patients with mCRC succumb to the disease. RAS mutations in the CRC population are common, with greater than 50% of tumors from CRC patients harboring a RAS mutation (43% KRAS, 9% NRAS).

The efficacy of first-line therapy in terms of response and survival prolongation remains limited. Therefore, improving the treatment options and effectiveness of treatment is critical to changing the outcomes for the RAS-mutated patient population.

Additional Cancer Indications

We and certain investigators are currently conducting signal-finding clinical trials to explore the treatment opportunity for onvansertib in mPDAC, SCLC, TNBC and CMML.

Collaborative Relationship

Pfizer, Inc.

In November 2021, we entered into a Securities Purchase Agreement (the “SPA”) with Pfizer Inc., as part of the Pfizer Breakthrough Growth Initiative, pursuant to which Pfizer purchased 2.4 million shares of our common stock at a purchase price per share of $6.22 for gross proceeds of approximately $15.0 million. In connection with the stock purchase, we and Pfizer entered into an Information Rights Agreement pursuant to which Pfizer had the right until May 17, 2024 to appoint an individual to our Scientific Advisory Board. Currently Nicholas Choong, MD, Vice President of Clinical Development and Therapeutic Area Head of GI cancers, Gynecologic cancers and Melanoma is Pfizer's designee to our Scientific Advisory Board. In addition, until May 17, 2024 we agreed to

9

provide Pfizer with rights of first access to any pre-clinical or final clinical data and results generated as part of the onvansertib development program at least two business days prior to us providing such data to a third party.

In August 2023, we announced that Pfizer Ignite, a new end-to-end service for biotech companies, will be responsible for the clinical activities of our new CRDF-004 trial in first-line RAS-mutated mCRC. This expands the relationship established in November 2021 and extends the term of the Information Rights Agreement through the conclusion of the CRDF-004 clinical trial. Pfizer Ignite is a new end-to-end service for biotech companies with high potential science that leverages Pfizer Inc.’s significant R&D capabilities, scale and expertise to accelerate the development of breakthrough therapies. We are financially responsible for all clinical trial activities performed by Pfizer Ignite and maintain full economic ownership and control of onvansertib.

Intellectual Property

We consider the protection of our proprietary technologies and products, as well as our ability to maintain patent protection that covers the composition of matter of our product candidates, their methods of use, and other related technologies and inventions, to be a critical element in the success of our business. As of December 31, 2025, our owned and licensed intellectual property included 51 issued patents and 65 pending patent applications in the U.S. and abroad. The pending patent applications include multiple international patent applications filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty that may be used as the basis for multiple additional patent applications worldwide.

Our owned intellectual property includes twenty-five patent families relating to onvansertib. One of the patent families includes U.S. Patent Nos. 12,144,813 and 12,263,173 with an expected expiration date of no earlier than 2043. The claims of these patents cover the method of using onvansertib in combination with bevacizumab (bev) for the treatment of KRAS mutated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients who have not previously been treated with bev. Additional families are directed to treating cancer using PLK1 inhibitors and determining efficacy of the treatment, treating benign prostatic hyperplasia using onvansertib, treating prostate cancer using PLK1 inhibitors, determining or predicting efficacies or responsiveness of PLK1 inhibitor treatments based on biomarkers, and treating cancers with combination therapies of PLK1 inhibitors (including combination therapies of PLK1 inhibitors with B-cell lymphoma 2 inhibitors, poly ADP ribose polymerase inhibitors, fibroblast growth factor receptor inhibitors, lysine-specific demethylase 1 inhibitors, irinotecan, MTDP inhibitors, anti-angiogenics, cell cycle inhibitors, phosphoinositide 3-kinase inhibitors, Akt (protein kinase B) inhibitors). Any patents issued in these families will expire between 2039 and 2045.

Our intellectual property includes two patent families licensed from MIT. On September 19, 2018, we entered into an Exclusive Patent License Agreement with MIT to a patent family directed to combination therapies including an antiandrogen or androgen antagonist and a polo-like kinase inhibitor (such as onvansertib) for the treatment of cancer. The license agreement as amended covers the rights to develop combination therapies, expanding potential indications for onvansertib. Under the agreement, we have exclusive rights to develop, make, use, and sell combination therapies that include a PLK inhibitor in combination with an anti-androgen or androgen antagonist, or in combination with a microtubule polymerization inhibitor, for the treatment of cancer. The exclusive license agreement is part of our strategy to explore the efficacy of onvansertib in combination with an anti-androgen drug or a microtubule polymerization inhibitor in cancers including prostate, breast, pancreatic, lung and gastrointestinal.

The family relating to the combination of a PLK inhibitor and an anti-androgen or androgen antagonistincludes U.S. Patent Nos. 9,566,280, 10,155,006, 10,772,898, and 12,115,171 which will expire in 2035. U.S. Patent No. 9,566,280 encompasses using abiraterone in combination with onvansertib to treat cancer. U.S. Patent Nos. 10,155,006, 10,772,898 and 12,115,171 broaden earlier issued U.S. Patent No. 9,566,280, by expanding the use of onvansertib to encompass combination therapies with any anti-androgen and androgen antagonist drug, such as Zytiga®, Xtandi® and Erleada® for the treatment of cancer, including metastatic and non-metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer.

10

Our intellectual property includes three patent families licensed from Nerviano Medical Sciences ("NMS" or "Nerviano"). We licensed onvansertib from NMS pursuant to a license agreement dated March 13, 2017 which grants us exclusive, worldwide rights under a portfolio of three patent families of U.S. and foreign patents covering three broad areas: (1) onvansertib (composition of matter), related compounds and processes for making compounds; pharmaceutical compositions and methods of treating diseases characterized by dysregulated protein kinase activity; (2) salts and pharmaceutical compositions of onvansertib; methods of treating mammals in need of PLK inhibition; and (3) synergistic combinations of onvansertib and one or more of a broad range of antineoplastic agents, and pharmaceutical compositions of those combinations. Patents of this licensed portfolio will expire between 2027 and 2030. U.S. patents of this licensed patent portfolio will expire in 2030, with patent term extension up to 2035.

On February 18, 2026, Nerviano sent us a written notice alleging that we are in material breach of the license agreement with respect to (i) alleged joint ownership of certain of our U.S. patents nos. 12.144.813 and 12.263.173 (the “Cardiff Patents”) and (ii) the filing of a joint invention continuation patent application. We are currently reviewing the notice and believe we have meritorious defenses to the allegations contained therein. The referenced Cardiff Patents are based on the results of our TROV-054 study with claims that cover the method of using onvansertib in combination with bevacizumab for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer patients who have not previously been treated with bevacizumab. We intend to vigorously defend our rights under the license agreement. If we are unable to cure or successfully dispute the alleged breach, Nerviano may have the right to terminate the license agreement, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Wherever possible, we seek to protect our inventions by filing U.S. patent applications as well as foreign counterpart applications in select countries. Because patent applications in the U.S. are maintained in secrecy for at least eighteen months after the applications are filed, and since publication of discoveries in the scientific or patent literature often lags behind actual discoveries, we cannot be certain that we were the first to make the inventions covered by each of our issued or pending patent applications, or that we were the first to file for protection of inventions set forth in such patent applications. Our planned or potential products may be covered by third-party patents or other intellectual property rights, in which case continued development and marketing of our products would require a license. Required licenses may not be available to us on commercially acceptable terms, if at all. If we do not obtain these licenses, we could encounter delays in product introductions while we attempt to design around the patents, or we could find that the development, manufacture or sale of products requiring such licenses are not possible.

In addition to patent protection, we also rely on know-how, trade secrets and the careful monitoring of proprietary information, all of which can be difficult to protect. We seek to protect some of our proprietary technologies and processes by entering into confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants, and contractors. These agreements may be breached, we may not have adequate remedies for any breach and our trade secrets may otherwise become known or be independently discovered by competitors. To the extent that intellectual property owned by others is used by our employees, consultants or contractors, disputes may arise as to the rights in related or resulting know-how and inventions.

Manufacturing and Distribution

We currently rely on third-party manufacturers and distributors to supply and distribute onvansertib used in our clinical studies and nonclinical development programs.

Government Regulation

We operate in a highly regulated industry that is subject to significant federal, state, local and foreign regulation. Our present and future business has been, and will continue to be, subject to a variety of laws including, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDC Act”), and the Public Health Service Act, among others.

The FDC Act and other federal and state statutes and regulations govern the testing, manufacturing, safety, effectiveness, labeling, storage, record keeping, approval, advertising and promotion of our products. As a result of

11

these laws and regulations, product development and product approval processes are very expensive and time-consuming.

FDA Approval Process

In the United States, pharmaceutical products, including biologics, are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA. The FDC Act and other federal and state statutes and regulations, govern, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacturing, storage, record keeping, approval, labeling, promotion and marketing, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, sampling, and import and export of pharmaceutical products. Failure to comply with applicable U.S. requirements may subject a company to a variety of administrative or judicial sanctions, such as FDA refusal to approve pending New Drug Applications (“NDAs”) or Biologics License Applications (“BLAs”) warning letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, civil penalties, and criminal prosecution.

Pharmaceutical product development in the United States typically involves preclinical laboratory and animal tests, the submission to the FDA of an Investigational New Drug Application ("IND"), which must become effective before clinical testing may commence, and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to establish the safety and effectiveness of the drug or biologic for each indication for which FDA approval is sought. Satisfaction of FDA pre-market approval requirements typically takes many years and the actual time required may vary substantially based upon the type, complexity and novelty of the product or disease.

Pre-clinical tests include laboratory evaluation as well as animal trials to assess the characteristics and potential pharmacology and toxicity of the product. The conduct of the pre-clinical tests must comply with federal regulations and requirements including good laboratory practices. The results of pre-clinical testing are submitted to the FDA as part of an IND along with other information, including information about product chemistry, manufacturing and controls, and a proposed clinical trial protocol. Long term pre-clinical tests, such as animal tests of reproductive toxicity and carcinogenicity, may continue after the IND is submitted.

A 30-day waiting period after the submission of each IND is required prior to the commencement of clinical testing in humans. If the FDA has not objected to the IND within this 30-day period, the clinical trial proposed in the IND may begin.

Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational drug to healthy volunteers or patients under the supervision of a qualified investigator. Clinical trials must be conducted in compliance with federal regulations and Good Clinical Practices (“GCP”) as well as under protocols detailing the objectives of the trial, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. Each protocol involving testing on U.S. patients and subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND.

The FDA may order the temporary or permanent discontinuation of a clinical trial at any time or impose other sanctions if it believes that the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with FDA requirements or presents an unacceptable risk to the clinical trial patients. The clinical trial protocol and informed consent information for patients in clinical trials must also be submitted to an Institutional Review Board (“IRB”) for approval. An IRB may also require the clinical trial at the site to be halted, either temporarily or permanently, for failure to comply with the IRB’s requirements, or may impose other conditions.

Clinical trials to support NDAs or BLAs, which are applications for marketing approval, are typically conducted in three sequential Phases, but the Phases may overlap. In Phase 1, the initial introduction of the investigational drug candidate into healthy human subjects or patients, the investigational drug is tested to assess metabolism, pharmacokinetics, pharmacological actions, side effects associated with increasing doses and, if possible, early evidence on effectiveness.

Phase 2 usually involves trials in a limited patient population, to determine the effectiveness of the investigational drug for a particular indication or indications, dosage tolerance and optimum dosage, and identify common adverse effects and safety risks. In the case of product candidates for severe or life-threatening diseases such as cancer, the initial human testing is often conducted in patients rather than in healthy volunteers.

12

If an investigational drug demonstrates evidence of effectiveness and an acceptable safety profile in Phase 2 evaluations, Phase 3 clinical trials are undertaken to obtain additional information about clinical efficacy and safety in a larger number of patients, typically at geographically dispersed clinical trial sites, to permit the FDA to evaluate the overall benefit-risk relationship of the investigational drug and to provide adequate information for its labeling.

After completion of the required clinical testing, an NDA or, in the case of a biologic, a BLA, is prepared and submitted to the FDA. FDA approval of the marketing application is required before marketing of the product may begin in the United States. The marketing application must include the results of all preclinical, clinical and other testing and a compilation of data relating to the product’s pharmacology, chemistry, manufacture, and controls.

The FDA has 60 days from its receipt of an NDA or BLA to determine whether the application will be accepted for filing based on the agency’s threshold determination that it is sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth review. The FDA has agreed to certain performance goals in the review of marketing applications. Most such applications for non-priority drug products are reviewed within ten months. The review process may be extended by the FDA for three additional months to consider new information submitted during the review or clarification regarding information already provided in the submission. The FDA may also refer applications for novel drug products or drug products 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. The FDA is not bound by the recommendation of an advisory committee, but it generally follows such recommendations. Before approving a marketing application, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCP.

Additionally, the FDA will inspect the facility or the facilities at which the drug product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve the NDA or, in the case of a biologic, the BLA unless compliance with CGMPs is satisfactory and the marketing application contains data that provide substantial evidence that the product is safe and effective in the indication studied. Manufacturers of biologics also must comply with FDA’s general biological product standards.

After the FDA evaluates the NDA or BLA and the manufacturing facilities, it issues an approval letter or a complete response letter. A complete response letter outlines the deficiencies in the submission and may require substantial additional testing or information in order for the FDA to reconsider the application. If and when those deficiencies have been addressed in a resubmission of the marketing application, the FDA will re-initiate their review. If the FDA is satisfied that the deficiencies have been addressed, the agency will issue an approval letter. The FDA has committed to reviewing such resubmissions in two or six months depending on the type of information included. It is not unusual for the FDA to issue a complete response letter because it believes that the drug product is not safe enough or effective enough or because it does not believe that the data submitted are reliable or conclusive.

An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the drug product with specific prescribing information for specific indications. As a condition of approval of the marketing application, the FDA may require substantial post-approval testing and surveillance to monitor the drug product’s safety or efficacy and may impose other conditions, including labeling restrictions, which can materially affect the product’s potential market and profitability. Once granted, product approvals may be withdrawn if compliance with regulatory standards is not maintained, or problems are identified following initial marketing.

Other Regulatory Requirements

Once a NDA or BLA is approved, a product will be subject to certain post-approval requirements. For instance, the FDA closely regulates the post-approval marketing and promotion of therapeutic products, including standards and regulations for direct-to-consumer advertising, off-label promotion, industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities and promotional activities involving the internet.

Biologics may be marketed only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved labeling. Changes to some of the conditions established in an approved application, including changes in indications, labeling, or manufacturing processes or facilities, require submission and FDA approval of a new BLA

13

or BLA supplement, before the change can be implemented. A BLA supplement for a new indication typically requires clinical data similar to that in the original application, and the FDA uses the same procedures and actions in reviewing BLA supplements as it does in reviewing BLAs. We cannot be certain that the FDA or any other regulatory agency will grant approval for our product candidate for any other indications or any other product candidate for any indication on a timely basis, if at all.

Adverse event reporting and submission of periodic reports is required following FDA approval of a BLA. The FDA also may require post-marketing testing, known as Phase 4 testing, risk evaluation and mitigation strategies, and surveillance to monitor the effects of an approved product or place conditions on an approval that could restrict the distribution or use of the product. In addition, quality control as well as product manufacturing, packaging, and labeling procedures must continue to conform to CGMPs after approval. Manufacturers and certain of their subcontractors are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies, and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA during which the agency inspects manufacturing facilities to assess compliance with CGMPs. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money, and effort in the areas of production and quality control to maintain compliance with CGMPs. Regulatory authorities may withdraw product approvals or request product recalls if a company fails to comply with regulatory standards, if it encounters problems following initial marketing, or if previously unrecognized problems are subsequently discovered.

U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

The U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, to which we are subject, prohibits corporations and individuals from engaging in certain activities to obtain or retain business or to influence a person working in an official capacity. It is illegal to pay, offer to pay or authorize the payment of anything of value to any foreign government official, government staff member, political party or political candidate in an attempt to obtain or retain business or to otherwise influence a person working in an official capacity.

Federal and State Fraud and Abuse Laws

Healthcare providers, physicians and third-party payors play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of drug and biologic product candidates which obtain marketing approval. In addition to FDA restrictions on marketing of pharmaceutical products, pharmaceutical manufacturers are exposed, directly, or indirectly, through customers, to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations that may affect the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which a pharmaceutical manufacturer can market, sell and distribute drug and biologic products. These laws include, but are not limited to:

The federal Anti-Kickback Statute which prohibits, any person or entity from, among other things, knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting, or receiving any remuneration, directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, in cash or in-kind, to induce or reward either the referring of an individual for, or the purchasing, leasing, ordering, or arranging for the purchase, lease, or order of any healthcare item or service reimbursable, in whole or in part, under Medicare, Medicaid, or any other federally financed healthcare program. The term “remuneration” has been broadly interpreted to include anything of value. This statute has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers on one hand and prescribers, purchasers, and formulary managers on the other hand. Although there are a number of statutory exemptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting certain common activities from prosecution, the exemptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly, and practices that involve remuneration intended to induce prescribing, purchases, or recommendations may be subject to scrutiny if they do not qualify for an exemption or safe harbor.

The federal false claims and civil monetary penalty laws, including the Federal False Claims Act, which imposes significant penalties and can be enforced by private citizens through civil qui tam actions, prohibits any person or entity from, among other things, knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false, fictitious or fraudulent claim for payment to the federal government, or knowingly making, using or causing to be made, a false statement or record material to a false or fraudulent claim to avoid, decrease or conceal an obligation to pay money to the federal government. In addition, 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 False Claims Act. As a result of a modification made by the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009, a claim includes “any request or demand”

14

for money or property presented to the U.S. government. In addition, manufacturers can be held liable under the False Claims Act even when they do not submit claims directly to government payors if they are deemed to “cause” the submission of false or fraudulent claims. Criminal prosecution is also possible for making or presenting a false, fictitious or fraudulent claim to the federal government. Several pharmaceutical and other healthcare companies have been prosecuted under these laws for allegedly providing free product to customers with the expectation that the customers would bill federal programs for the product. Other companies have been prosecuted for causing false claims to be submitted because of the company’s marketing of the product for unapproved, and thus non-reimbursable, uses.

The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) which, among other things, imposes criminal liability for 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 creates federal criminal laws that prohibit knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations, or making or using any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry in connection with the delivery of, or payment for, benefits, items or services.

HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology and Clinical Health Act of 2009 (“HITECH”) and its implementing regulations, which impose certain requirements relating to the privacy, security, transmission and breach reporting of individually identifiable health information upon entities subject to the law, such as health plans, healthcare clearinghouses and healthcare providers and their respective business associates that perform services for them that involve individually identifiable health information. HITECH also created new tiers of civil monetary penalties, amended HIPAA to make civil and criminal penalties directly applicable to business associates, and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in U.S. federal courts to enforce the federal HIPAA laws and seek attorneys’ fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions.

The federal physician payment transparency requirements, sometimes referred to as the “Physician Payments Sunshine Act,” and its implementing regulations, which require certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (with certain exceptions) to report annually to the United States Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) information related to payments or other transfers of value made to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors) and teaching hospitals, as well as ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members.

State and foreign law equivalents of each of the above federal laws, such as anti-kickback and false claims laws, that may impose similar or more prohibitive restrictions, and may apply to items or services reimbursed by non-governmental third-party payors, including private insurers.

State and foreign laws that require pharmaceutical companies to implement compliance programs, comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government, or to track and report gifts, compensation and other remuneration provided to physicians and other healthcare providers, and other federal, state and foreign laws that govern the privacy and security of health information or personally identifiable information in certain circumstances, including state health information privacy and data breach notification laws which govern the collection, use, disclosure, and protection of health-related and other personal information, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not pre-empted by HIPAA, thus requiring additional compliance efforts.

Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of the safe harbors, it is possible that some business activities can be subject to challenge under one or more of such laws. The scope and enforcement of each of these laws is uncertain and subject to rapid change in the current environment of healthcare reform, especially in light of the lack of applicable precedent and regulations. Federal and state enforcement bodies have recently increased their scrutiny of interactions between healthcare companies and healthcare providers, which has led to a number of investigations, prosecutions, convictions and settlements in the healthcare industry.

15

Ensuring that business arrangements with third parties comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations is costly and time consuming. If business operations are found to be in violation of any of the laws described above or any other applicable governmental regulations a pharmaceutical manufacturer may be subject to penalties, including civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, individual imprisonment, exclusion from governmental funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, additional reporting obligations and oversight if subject to a corporate integrity agreement or other agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, and curtailment or restructuring of operations, any of which could adversely affect a pharmaceutical manufacturer’s ability to operate its business and the results of its operations.

Healthcare Reform in the United States

Among policy makers and payors in the United States, there is significant interest in promoting changes in healthcare systems with the stated goals of containing healthcare costs, improving quality and/or expanding access. In the United States, the pharmaceutical industry has been a particular focus of these efforts and has been significantly affected by major legislative initiatives. In March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”), which substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers in the United States, was signed into law and significantly affected the pharmaceutical industry. The ACA contains a number of provisions, including those governing enrollment in federal healthcare programs, reimbursement adjustments and fraud and abuse changes. Additionally, the ACA increases the minimum level of Medicaid rebates payable by manufacturers of brand name drugs from 15.1% to 23.1%; expanded manufacturer Medicaid rebate liability to include utilization by beneficiaries enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations; imposed a non-deductible annual fee on pharmaceutical manufacturers or importers who sell “branded prescription drugs” to specified federal government programs; modified the AMP definition under the MDRP for drugs that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted or injected; increased the number of entities eligible for discounts under the 340B program; and included a discount on brand name drugs for Medicare Part D beneficiaries in the coverage gap, or “donut hole.”

Since its enactment, there have been judicial, executive and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA. On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the most recent judicial challenge to the ACA without specifically ruling on the constitutionality of the ACA. Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision, an executive order was issued to initiate a special enrollment period from February 15, 2021 through August 15, 2021 for purposes of obtaining health insurance coverage through the ACA marketplace. The executive order also instructed certain governmental agencies to review and reconsider their existing policies and rules that limit access to healthcare, including among others, reexamining Medicaid demonstration projects and waiver programs that include work requirements, and policies that create unnecessary barriers to obtaining access to health insurance coverage through Medicaid or the ACA.

Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted, including aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers, which went into effect on April 1, 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, will remain in effect through 2031, with the exception of a temporary suspension from May 1, 2020 through March 31, 2022, 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, reduced Medicare payments to several providers, including hospitals, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. More recently, on March 11, 2021, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 was signed into law, which eliminates the statutory cap on the Medicaid drug rebate, currently set at 100% of a drug’s AMP, beginning January 1, 2024.

The cost of prescription pharmaceuticals in the United States has also been the subject of considerable discussion. There have been several Congressional inquiries and proposed bills designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products. Most recently, on August 16, 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (“IRA”) was signed into law. Among other things, the IRA requires manufacturers of certain drugs to engage in price negotiations with Medicare (beginning in 2026), with prices that can be negotiated subject to a cap; imposes rebates under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation (first due in 2023); and replaces the Part D coverage gap discount

16

program with a new discounting program (beginning in 2025). The IRA permits the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) to implement many of these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years. For that and other reasons, it is currently unclear how the IRA will be effectuated.

Individual states in the United States have also become increasingly active in implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and other transparency measures, and, in some cases, measures designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. In addition, regional healthcare authorities and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine which drugs and suppliers will be included in their healthcare programs. Furthermore, there has been increased interest by third party payors and governmental authorities in reference pricing systems and publication of discounts and list prices.

Regulation in the European Union

Biologics are also subject to extensive regulation outside of the United States. In the European Union, for example, there is a centralized approval procedure that authorizes marketing of a product in all countries of the European Union, which includes most major countries in Europe. If this procedure is not used, approval in one country of the European Union can be used to obtain approval in another country of the European Union under two simplified application processes, the mutual recognition procedure, or the decentralized procedure, both of which rely on the principle of mutual recognition. After receiving regulatory approval through any of the European registration procedures, pricing and reimbursement approvals are also required in most countries.

Data Privacy and Security

We are subject to laws and regulations governing data privacy and the protection of health-related and other personal information. In the United States, numerous federal and state laws and regulations, including data breach notification laws, health information privacy and security laws, including HIPAA, and federal and state consumer protection laws and regulations (e.g., Section 5 of the FTC Act), that govern the collection, use, disclosure, and protection of health-related and other personal information could apply to our operations or the operations of our partners. In addition, certain state and non-U.S. laws, such as the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”), the California Privacy Rights Act (“CPRA”), and the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”), govern the privacy and security of personal information, including health-related information in certain circumstances, some of which are more stringent than HIPAA and many of which differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same effect, thus complicating compliance efforts. Failure to comply with these laws, where applicable, can result in the imposition of significant civil and/or criminal penalties and private litigation. Privacy and security laws, regulations, and other obligations are constantly evolving, may conflict with each other to complicate compliance efforts, and can result in investigations, proceedings, or actions that lead to significant civil and/or criminal penalties and restrictions on data processing.

Other Regulations

We are also subject to numerous federal, state and local laws relating to such matters as safe working conditions, manufacturing practices, environmental protection, fire hazard control, and disposal of hazardous or potentially hazardous substances and biological materials. We may incur significant costs to comply with such laws and regulations now or in the future.

Some drugs benefit from additional government incentives. Orphan drugs receive special consideration from the FDA in order to encourage pharmaceutical companies to develop treatments for rare diseases. Incentives for the development of orphan drugs include quicker approval time and potential financial assistance, including waiver of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (“PDUFA”). Companies are often permitted to charge substantial prices for orphan drugs, making them more profitable than they would be without government intervention. As a result, the development of orphan drugs continues to grow at a faster rate than the development of traditional pharmaceuticals.

Competition

17

Onvansertib is not the first PLK inhibitor that has entered clinical development; however, we believe it currently is the only oral PLK1 inhibitor in active clinical development that delivers highly selective PLK1 inhibition. Onvansertib is also synergistic in combination with numerous chemotherapies and targeted therapeutics and may enhance and/or extend response to treatment across a number of solid tumor cancers. Over 400 patients have been dosed with onvansertib across multiple clinical programs and onvansertib was shown to be well-tolerated when dosed as a single agent or in combination with other therapies.

The PLK inhibitor that reached the latest stage of clinical development (Phase 3), is volasertib, a pan-PLK inhibitor developed by Boehringer Ingelheim. Boehringer Ingelheim was developing volasertib plus LDAC for the treatment of AML which did not meet the primary endpoint of ORR (EHA 2016). The data showed an unfavorable overall survival trend with the safety profile of volasertib plus LDAC considered as the main reason. Volasertib's safety profile may have resulted from the fact that its inhibition of PLK1 is not highly selective and it also inhibits PLK2 and PLK3. By contrast, onvansertib is able to deliver much more selective inhibition of PLK1 than volasertib. Onvansertib also has a half-life of 24 hours vs. volasertib's 135 hours and it is orally administered.

One additional PLK1 inhibitor in early-stage clinical development is plogosertib, which is being developed by Cyclacel. Plogosertib has primary selectivity for PLK1 and secondary selectivity for PLK2 and PLK3.

Our most advanced onvansertib program is in RAS-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The competitive landscape in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) includes approved and investigational therapies, including BMS’s KRAZATI® (adagrasib), which has received accelerated FDA approval for previously treated KRAS G12C-mutated locally advanced or mCRC, as well as ongoing clinical trials in mCRC sponsored by Amgen, Pfizer, BMS, and Summit Therapeutics evaluating targeted and immuno-oncology approaches focusing on KRAS G12C inhibitors, ID-1/VEGF and PD-L1/VEGF.

Human Capital

The human capital objectives we focus on in managing our business include attracting, developing, and retaining key personnel. Our employees are critical to the success of our organization and we are committed to supporting our employees’ professional development. We believe our management team has the experience necessary to effectively implement our growth strategy and continue to drive shareholder value. We provide competitive compensation and benefits to attract and retain key personnel, while also providing a safe, inclusive and respectful workplace.

As of February 19, 2026, we had a total of 31 employees, 30 of whom were full-time. None of our employees are covered by a collective bargaining agreement, and we consider our relations with our employees to be good.

Corporation Information

We were originally incorporated under the laws of the State of Florida in April 2002. In January 2010, we re-incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware and changed our name to Trovagene, Inc. In May 2012, our common stock was listed on The Nasdaq Capital Market ("Nasdaq") under the ticker symbol TROV. In May 2020 we changed our name to Cardiff Oncology, Inc. and our Nasdaq ticker symbol changed to CRDF. Our corporate website address is www.cardiffoncology.com. Our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, proxy statements, current reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, are available free of charge at www.cardiffoncology.com as soon as reasonably practicable after electronically filing such reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Any information contained on, or that can be accessed through, our website is not incorporated by reference into, nor is it in any way a part of, this Annual Report on Form 10-K. These reports are also available at www.sec.gov.