Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the year-end results 2021 conference call of MorphoSys. Please note that this conference is being recorded and during the presentation you will be in a listen-only mode. After the presentation, there will be an opportunity to ask questions. Please note that only if you are registered, you can ask a question. Should anyone need assistance during this conference call, they may signal this by pressing star and zero on their telephone. Now I would like to turn the conference over to Julia Neugebauer. Please go ahead. Ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon and good morning. My name is Julia Neugebauer, Senior Director, Investor Relations at MorphoSys, and it is my pleasure to welcome you to our Q4 and full year 2021 financial results conference call. Joining me on the call today are Jean-Paul Kress, Chief Executive Officer, Sung Lee, Chief Financial Officer, Malte Peters, Chief Research and Development Officer, and Joe Horvat, US General Manager, who will be available for the Q&A session. Before we begin, I'd like to remind you on slide two that some of the statements made during the call today are forward-looking statements, including statements regarding our expectations for the commercialization of our products and our development plans, and expectations for the compounds in our pipeline, as well as the development plans of our collaboration partners. These forward-looking statements are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties that may cause our actual results to differ materially, including those described in MorphoSys 20-F and annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2021, and from time to time in other SEC documents of MorphoSys. It is important to keep in mind that our statements on this webcast speak as of today. On slide three, you will find the agenda for today's call. Jean-Paul will begin with an overview and will give an outlook. Malte will provide an update on our development pipeline before turning the call to Sung for a summary on our fourth quarter and full year 2021 financial results. Following these prepared remarks, we will open the call for your questions. With that, I'll now hand the call over to Jean-Paul. Thank you, Julia. Welcome everyone, and thank you for joining us today. At MorphoSys, our ambition is to be a leader in hematology oncology with two commercial products by 2025. 2021 was a transformational year for us. It was marked by our first full year of the Monjuvi launch in the U.S., and approvals and launches outside of the U.S. with our partner, Incyte. We also took a bold step with the acquisition of Constellation Pharmaceuticals, which expanded our clinical pipeline in hematology oncology. Our clinical pipeline has never been as robust as it is today. We currently have three pivotal studies enrolling, one for pelabresib in first-line myelofibrosis, which we believe has the potential to change the standard of care for patients with myelofibrosis. Two for Monjuvi, with one in first-line DLBCL and a second in relapsed refractory follicular lymphoma and marginal zone lymphoma. We are also progressing two phase II programs with CPI-0209 and felzartamab. In 2022, the major focus of us will be on rapidly enrolling our pivotal studies. Turning to our commercial results on slide six. Monjuvi fourth quarter net sales were $23.6 million and $79.1 million for the full year. The fourth quarter grew 39% year-over-year and 7% sequentially. The fourth quarter growth was driven primarily by demand, and roughly 70% of orders from sites of care come from the community setting and the balance from the academic setting. Since launch and through the end of 2021, approximately 2,000 patients have been treated with Monjuvi. We view this as significant considering the relatively short time Monjuvi has been available in the U.S. Close to 1,000 sites of care have ordered Monjuvi since launch through the end of 2021, which is an increase from Q3, where we stood at 850. In the fourth quarter, more than 70% of our orders from sites of care were repeat orders, which is indicative of the regular use of Monjuvi at those sites of care. We continue to have the leading market share of second-line new patient starts, and we are very pleased that Monjuvi was recently designated as a preferred regimen by the NCCN guidelines for the second-line treatment for adult patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. This will further facilitate the use of Monjuvi in earlier line patients as doctors receive clear guidance on the treatment sequence in this disease. We continue our efforts to educate healthcare providers on the optimal duration of therapy and the benefits of keeping patients on our immunotherapy treatment longer. The traditional behavior for physicians in the RR-DLBCL setting has been to treat for a few months. This is consistent with what we see with Monjuvi. While the actual time on treatment with Monjuvi is as long or even slightly longer than other available options, it's definitely not where the optimal regimen should be with an immunotherapy. Given the profile of the Monjuvi lenalidomide combination and the recent NCCN guideline, we are working to change this treatment behavior and to increase persistency over time. Moving to slide seven. Beyond the currently approved indication, we see the biggest opportunity for Monjuvi in first-line DLBCL. Our pivotal front-line trial is enrolling very well, with significant interest from the medical community. Recently published data from competitor trials have validated our approach to focus on high-risk patients with an IPI of 3-5. Another significant opportunity is Pelabresib, which we added to our portfolio through the acquisition of Constellation Pharma last year. We believe that Pelabresib has the potential to change the standard of care for patients with myelofibrosis. There remains a large unmet need for these patients, and this indication alone represents a significant commercial opportunity. We are especially excited about the opportunity in first-line myelofibrosis, where Pelabresib is currently being studied in a pivotal study called MANIFEST-2, and the enrollment of this trial is progressing very well. We recently announced exciting data at the ASH annual meeting, where the Arm 3 of the MANIFEST phase II trial confirmed earlier data cutoffs and increased our confidence for the pivotal trial and its probability of success. As we look to catalysts for 2022, we are excited that Roche is planning to announce data from the two pivotal GRADUATE studies with gantenerumab in Alzheimer's disease in the fourth quarter of this year. Roche also just initiated an additional phase III study with gantenerumab for the prevention of Alzheimer's, which is indicative of their confidence in this monoclonal antibody. We also expect GSK to share pivotal data for otilimab in rheumatoid arthritis. For both programs, we retain a substantial share of their royalties. Now for our own mid-stage programs, the EZH2 inhibitor, CPI-0209, and felzartamab in autoimmune diseases, we are expecting proof of concept data this year. In addition, from a financial standpoint, we have a strong balance sheet that takes us through Pelabresib pivotal data in 2024. We continue to stay focused on and invest in our largest potential value-creating opportunities and remain disciplined with our capital deployment. With that, I will now turn the call over to Malte for an R&D update. Malte, please. Thank you, Jean-Paul. As Jean-Paul mentioned, 2021 was a transformational year for MorphoSys. We significantly expanded our pipeline, supporting our ambition to become a leader in hematology and oncology. Let's start with pelabresib, our BET inhibitor. Pelabresib is currently being developed as a potential treatment for myelofibrosis. Myelofibrosis is a bone marrow cancer for which only limited treatment options are available, affecting approximately 35,000 people in the United States and in Europe. The current standard of care for myelofibrosis is ruxolitinib, a JAK inhibitor, but only 50% of patients are being adequately treated. Based on recently published data, we believe that Pelabresib has the potential to change the standard of care in the treatment of myelofibrosis, and we are receiving very positive feedback from key opinion leaders. We have two ongoing clinical trials. First, the MANIFEST phase II study is evaluating Pelabresib in different settings. The key setting is arm 3, in which we are exploring pelabresib in combination with ruxolitinib as first-line treatment for patients with myelofibrosis. In December 2021 at ASH, we presented the latest data from the MANIFEST study, both for the primary endpoint, SVR 35, which refers to a 35% spleen volume reduction at week 24, as well as the secondary endpoint, TSS 50, referring to a 50% reduction of total symptom score at week 24. The results demonstrated an SVR 35 score in 68% of patients and a TSS 50 score in 56%, which is numerically significantly higher than what was observed in ruxolitinib single-agent clinical trials. Additionally, analysis from an exploratory endpoint presented at ASH 2021 showed a reduction of megakaryocyte clustering in bone marrow and a correlation with spleen volume reduction. Megakaryocytes are the cells in the bone marrow responsible for making platelets, and the clustering of these cells are one of the signs of myelofibrosis. This data suggests that Pelabresib may have a potential in changing the course of myelofibrosis. In summary, this latest data reaffirm our confidence in our second study, which is called MANIFEST-2, and is our ongoing phase III study that is comparing the combination of ruxolitinib plus pelabresib versus ruxolitinib alone as first-line treatment for myelofibrosis. Let me provide some more details about this study. We have achieved a turnaround in the operational excellence for the execution of this study. Our measures, such as the addition of additional CROs, improvement of the interaction with investigators, and the expansion of the number of countries and study sites start to pay off. With all activities in place, enrollment is progressing well, and we expect to report top-line data from MANIFEST-2 in the first half of 2024. Now, moving to tafasitamab. We are also making progress with the clinical development of tafasitamab. We have two pivotal phase III studies ongoing, expanding the potential of this medicine into patients with first-line DLBCL and patients with relapsed refractory indolent lymphoma. The first-line DLBCL setting represents an area of significant unmet medical need. Our pivotal phase III study, frontMIND, is on track and enrolling at a good pace with significant interest from the medical community. Investigators are excited about this study, and we have added 40 additional sites in the United States to satisfy investigator and patient interest. Recently released data from competitor trials have reinforced the potential to enhance the current standard of care and increased the confidence in our trial design that focuses on high-risk patients with an IPI score of 3-5. We also see great interest in the inMIND study, our ongoing pivotal study in relapsed refractory follicular lymphoma and marginal zone lymphoma, which is conducted by our partner, Incyte. Shortly, we will also treat the first patients in our MINDway trial, a study that is investigating an optimized treatment schedule with a reduced number of administrations for patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Optimizing the treatment schedule is particularly important for patients with follicular lymphoma and relapsed refractory DLBCL. In 2022, we expect several data readouts from our mid-stage assets, CPI-0209 and felzartamab. We are encouraged by the progress of our CPI-0209 clinical trial and by the preliminary data we are observing. We plan to report data at a medical conference in the second half of this year. This EZH2 inhibitor, which we believe has best-in-class potential, is currently being assessed in a basket trial for several solid tumors as well as lymphoma. Felzartamab, our anti-CD38 antibody, is being evaluated in two kidney autoimmune indications, namely autoimmune membranous nephropathy and IgA nephropathy, for which there are limited treatment options available. In 2021, we presented early proof of concept data demonstrating that felzartamab can rapidly and significantly reduce anti-PLA2R antibody titers in difficult to treat patients with anti-PLA2R antibody positive membranous nephropathy. Our two ongoing trials, EMPLACE and NEWPLACE, are fully enrolled, and we expect to share more mature data, including data on proteinuria from this trial in the second half of this year. Also, our phase II trial in IgA nephropathy called IGNAZ is progressing well, and we will share data later this year. As you can see on slide 13, we expect to deliver a steady flow of clinical data over the next several years, which we believe have the potential to change the treatment paradigms of several types of cancers and autoimmune diseases. We are very excited about our progress and the potential of our pipeline. With that, I now turn the call over to Sung for a review of the financials. Thank you, Malte. We're pleased to share our financial results for the fourth quarter and full year of 2021. Moving to slide 15, Monjuvi sales were $23.6 million in Q4 2021, reflecting a 39% year-over-year growth. For the full year 2021, Monjuvi sales were $79.1 million. The fourth quarter benefited by approximately $2 million from inventory dynamics and clinical trial purchases, which will have an impact on the sequential change from Q4 - Q1. In the fourth quarter, we recorded EUR 0.6 million in royalty revenue for Monjuvi outside of the U.S. from our partner, Incyte. For the full year 2021, we recorded EUR 0.7 million in royalty revenues from Incyte. With Mounjaro royalty revenue becoming a recurring and important item in our P&L going forward, it's important to note that MorphoSys provides the commercial and clinical supply for ex-U.S. utilization at an agreed upon rate. The revenue from this supply is recorded in the licenses, milestones, and other category in our top line. The exact same amount is subsequently recorded in cost of sales, yielding a zero gross margin on Monjuvi supply sales. Moving to slide 16. Total revenues in 2021 were EUR 179.6 million compared to EUR 327.7 million in 2020. The year-over-year decline was driven by the upfront payment from Incyte in 2020 for the out-licensing of tafasitamab outside of the U.S. Total cost of sales was EUR 32.2 million in 2021 compared to EUR 9.2 million in 2020. The year-over-year increase was primarily driven by higher sales of Monjuvi in the U.S. Cost of sales specific to Monjuvi U.S. product sales was EUR 12.3 million in 2021. Turning to operating expenses. R&D expenses in 2021 were EUR 225.2 million compared to EUR 139.4 million in 2020. The growth primarily reflects the inclusion of R&D expenses from Constellation since July 15, 2021 and increased investment to support the advancement of our clinical-stage programs. Selling expenses increased to EUR 121.5 million in 2021 compared to EUR 107.7 million in 2020. The year-over-year increase was primarily driven by the first full year of commercialization activities for Monjuvi compared to the wrap-up of activities in 2020. G&A expenses in 2021 were EUR 78.3 million compared to EUR 51.4 million in 2020. This increase was driven by the inclusion of Constellation's G&A expenses as well as transaction-related costs. In 2021, EUR 37.3 million of transaction-related expenses associated with the Constellation and Royalty Pharma transactions were recorded in operating expenses, with the vast majority being recorded in G&A expenses. Separately, we recognized a non-cash expense of EUR 230.7 million in the fourth quarter for an impairment charge on goodwill. This is a direct result of the decision the company took in the fourth quarter to stop all US-based laboratory activities of the former Constellation Pharmaceuticals and to focus our research efforts on the most advanced programs being worked on at our research hub in Planegg, Germany. For the full year of 2021, we reported a consolidated net loss of EUR 514.1 million compared to a net profit of EUR 97.9 million in 2020. Turning to our balance sheet. We ended 2021 with cash and investments of EUR 976.9 million compared to EUR 1.24 billion at the end of 2020. As Jean-Paul mentioned earlier, this amount is sufficient to take us through the palovarotene pivotal data readout, which is anticipated in the first half of 2024. As a reminder, we also have available to us development funding bonds from Royalty Pharma in the range of $150 million-$350 million. We will communicate the exact amount that is drawn later this year. Nonetheless, the amount drawn will only serve to extend our cash runway. Turning to our guidance for 2022 on slide 17. We are reiterating our guidance that was provided at the beginning of this year in January. All aspects of our guidance remain the same. Specific to Monjuvi U.S. net product sales and the expected pace this year, we expect to see similar quarterly variations as we saw in 2021. As such, we are anticipating a sequential decline in Q1, followed by a sequential increase in subsequent quarters. With that, we would like to open the call up for questions. Operator? Ladies and gentlemen, we will now begin the question and answer session. We've received the first question. It's from James Quigley, Morgan Stanley. The line is now open for you. Hi there. Thanks for taking my questions. I've got a couple, Monjuvi related. You mentioned about the treatment duration being a matter of months and slightly ahead of what's used now in relapsed/refractory DLBCL. Thinking sort of specifically about the second line and the patients you treated so far, why are physicians not considering the data when they're treating patients? It sort of seems fairly clear in terms of the PFS benefit, but what are the pushbacks you're getting? Where are the aspects of the data that you think you need to really highlight and what most to physicians? Secondly, we saw some good data at ASH for the CAR T therapy in the second line, DLBCL. Monjuvi is approved in the transplant ineligible population, but to what extent could there be overlap between patients who can't receive a stem cell transplant and those who can receive CAR T, and how are you factoring that into your peak sales assumptions for Monjuvi? Thank you. Okay, James, thank you for the questions. Joe will answer the first question and join Malte for the second one. Joe, please. When we look at the duration of treatment, James, physicians are used to using short-term duration chemotherapies. As we introduce Monjuvi, which is an immunotherapy, and as they understand how an immunotherapy acts, they're beginning to see that they can extend the duration of treatment so that the patients can get the benefits. This is what we've seen in the solid tumor world, and now we're bringing those learnings to the oncologists in DLBCL. As it relates to CAR T, you know, the data as it moves into the second line, we position Monjuvi as the outpatient immunotherapy. Obviously, the CAR T is the inpatient. We'll have to wait to see how the physicians will react as it relates to the transplant-eligible population, but I think we're well-positioned in the second line. Great, thank you. If I could just have a very quick follow-up in terms of the NCCN guideline impact. I mean, to what extent do you think this could accelerate Monjuvi use? Was this included or was this impact potentially included in your peak sales guidance? Do you think this will help with the treatment duration, payors as well? Thank you. Joe. Hi, James. Yeah, we see this as a positive advancement. You know, this is additional endorsement and validation, recognizing Monjuvi as the only preferred non-chemo-based immunotherapy for second-line patients. As we continue to increase our penetration second line and create this behavior change with physicians, we do anticipate that the duration of treatment will continue to increase. Got it. Thank you very much. The next question is by Jason Butler, JMP Securities. The line is now open for you. Hi, it's Roy on for Jason. Thanks for taking our question. Sorry, just to follow up on the last one about the NCCN guidelines. I guess any thoughts that maybe this might point us towards a higher end of guidance for revenues for 2022? Just a quick one. I saw you guys were gonna start the combination trial with Plamotamab this quarter. Is that still on track? Thanks. Joe, please, for the first question. As it relates to the NCCN guidelines, again, as we see it, a positive development, and we continue to be positive on the growth that we expect year-over-year and to end up within our guidance for this year. Yeah, with One question. Yeah. With respect to the Plamotamab situation, we are expecting actually to enroll the first patient in this combination study any moment. We have almost finished the interaction and clarification with FDA on the protocol, and we are encouraged actually by our capability of combining tafasitamab with additional agents such as Plamotamab, but also with a BMS agent. We are continuing to receive additional inbound requests for additional combination study of additional agents with tafasitamab. We view this overall as a good sign confirming our confidence that tafasitamab is a drug that can be very well combined with other agents. Okay. Thank you. Mm-hmm. The next question is by James Gordon, JP Morgan. The line is now open for you. James Gordon, JP Morgan. Thanks for taking the questions. First question was on the sequential decline mentioned in Q1 for Monjuvi. Can you comment on the factors that are gonna drive the decline in Q1 and then the increase in Q2? Is it just COVID or other factors recurring that we've seen that's caused some of the quarterly fluctuations in the previous year? If we're looking at the January IQVIA data that shows a sequential decline, is that quite a good guide for what's actually going on in the market, or should we be careful about interpreting that data? Also, just on US Monjuvi, since you issued the 2022 guidance on January 7, have you grown more or less bullish on Monjuvi 2022 sales? 'Cause you've had the NCCN, but also maybe, you know, COVID's been a bit worse and the data we're seeing doesn't look quite as good. Did you already anticipate the soft start to the year, or have things gone, been a little bit more challenging? Yeah, just the other question with the EZH2 inhibitor, just confidence in success for this phase II asset and which tumor types you're most excited about, please. Okay, let's start with the two Monjuvi questions, James. Thanks for that. Sung, maybe you can address the Sequential. Sequential, yeah. Thank you. Yeah. Thanks for your question, James. On your question about the sequential decline, I did mention in my prepared comments that we did benefit in Q4 about $2 million from inventory dynamics and also clinical trial purchases. So that's simply not gonna recur in Q1. So that would be a reason for a sequential decline. In addition, obviously, there was an Omicron event in the U.S. in the latter part of Q4 and certainly in Q1. And we're still trying to understand the total impact of that to our Q1. But I think it's fair to think that there is some impact, but the magnitude of which sometimes you really don't understand until this is well behind you. As we get to see the growth in subsequent quarters, we can better measure what the real impact to Q1 would be. On your question about IQVIA data, I think you have to take all the hazards when you're looking at these market share or external data, because obviously there's more than that goes into just script data or demand into a quarterly number, such as inventory, clinical trial purchases, and other things that can impact the quarter. I think directionally, when you look at this over time, it is a good barometer, but will it ever get you to the exact place within a quarter? No. I think directionally, they serve as a good tool to forecast the future. Thanks. Malte on the EZH2. On the EZH2 study, James, we are making very good progress. As I said in my prepared remarks, the study consists of six different arms. Three arms are tumors that all have a specific genetic mutation called ARID1A mutation, and these tumors are ovarian cancer, endometrial cancer, and bladder cancer. We have an arm with various lymphoma types, including PTCL and also non-Hodgkin lymphoma. We have also a mesothelioma arm, which is almost fully enrolled, and we are excited about the prostate cancer arm. It's really a plethora of different indications in solid tumors and hematological tumors. Excitement is really, I would say, quite high for this trial, so that we are preparing ourselves to share the first preliminary data in the second half of this year, as I said earlier. Thanks, Malte. I realize we skipped the NCCN guideline question. Sung. Yeah, James, on your question about was the NCCN guideline change factored into our guidance, we were certainly aware that this was a possibility. Yes, we did factor in a range of scenarios that did include this event. The next question is by Suzanne van Voorthuizen. The line is now open for you. Hi. Good afternoon. Thanks for taking my questions. I have a couple. Let me start off by circling back to the treatment duration for Monjuvi. Can you provide an update as to what you see currently as average duration? I understood it was around three earlier in the year, so I'm just wondering where it stands today. Do you see a trend in that duration is increasing since? Then on peak sales guidance, do you still stand by the $500 million-$750 million today considering the context of the shorter-than-expected duration, or do you expect you may need to adjust it, this at some point? The last one is just to clarify on the financial guidance for the coming year. You're not expecting significant milestones. Now, if I'm not mistaken, you have not yet received milestone payments yet from the Incyte collaboration on Monjuvi. Can you remind us of the amount that is outstanding? Given that the Street has been wrong on this more than once, how should we be thinking of timing of those milestones? Thank you. Thanks, Susanne. Let's start by Joe for the first question. Joe, please. Hi, Susanne. Yeah, as it relates to the duration of treatment, you're certainly in the ballpark. We do see our duration beginning to increase as we continue our penetration in the second line and as prescribers see the benefit of using an immunotherapy versus those traditional short-term chemos that they've been using. Great. Yeah, Suzanne, on your question on milestones with regard to the Incyte collaboration and guidance. So in our guidance, we mentioned that there are no cash accretive milestones anticipated of significance this year. Now, we did recognize in the past, in Q4, a relatively small milestone related to the Incyte collaboration. So that's reflected in the licenses, milestones, and other line, in the EUR 1 million range. But in terms of the, I guess you would say the larger milestones, I think those can reasonably be expected sometime near the end of 2023 onwards. Could even be 2024 beginning and onwards. But as I mentioned in previous calls, because there's a lot of variables and what-ifs that go into whether these milestones are realizable or not. I would call these out in the year that we're in terms of potential, as part of our guidance. Got it. Thank you. Maybe on the peak sales guidance. Yes. Suzanne, on peak sales with regard to Monjuvi. Certainly our goal is still the range that we put out there before the $500 million-$750 million for second line DLBCL in the U.S. That is the goal, that remains the goal. Obviously, with the start that we've had, especially last year with the COVID headwinds, we were a bit challenged, and it's fair to think that the peak has been pushed out. Yeah, Suzanne, I would. I mean, it's probably too early for metrics, but I will also start to think about what the first line would provide us. The trial is going well, and as you know, with the recent results from competition, it validates our approach and it puts us probably in the preferred option probably for the future. Got it. Thank you. Thank you. As a reminder, if you want to ask a question, please press zero and one. Our next question is by Vineet Agarwal of Citi. The line is now open for you. Oh, hi there. It's Emily Hutchinson from Citi on for Vinit. Just one question please. As disclosed by Incyte, their share of the tafasitamab R&D expenses was down more than 40% in Q4. Could you possibly let us know what could be driving that, given the key trials in frontMIND DLBCL and the inMIND trial for FL ongoing? The decline looks a bit odd, so just trying to marry up that. Thank you. I'm not sure I understood the question correctly, but you're asking about the R&D expense, the collaboration with Incyte and what's driving the expenses. Well, recall that we have a co-development arrangement where MorphoSys pays 45% of the development and Incyte, our partner, pays the balance, 55%. There are two major pivotal studies ongoing right now. frontMIND, which MorphoSys drives, that's in first-line DLBCL, and then inMIND, which our partner Incyte drives, and that's in follicular lymphoma and marginal zone lymphoma. These studies were just ramping, or they were initiated. The first patients were dosed in the spring of 2021. We haven't approached peak costs for both of these studies as we continue to enroll both. It's fair to think that these two will continue to ramp and hence one of the major drivers of our year-over-year R&D expenses. You can see the guidance that we put out for R&D expenses between EUR 300 million-EUR 325 million. If you normalize for transaction costs, some embedded in the 2021 actuals, we're likely to see somewhere around 45% year-over-year increase in R&D expense, excluding transaction costs in 2021, and that's taking the midpoint of our 2022 R&D guidance. The major drivers of that, in addition to frontMIND, it's the ongoing MANIFEST-2 study for pelabresib. I hope I've answered your question. Yes. Thank you. The next question is by Rajan Sharma, Deutsche Bank. The line is now open for you. Hi, thanks for the question. Just on Monjuvi, just to kind of push a little bit more on the 2022 guidance. Could you potentially just talk to the various moving parts that get you to the higher end of that guidance range relative to the lower end? And then just on the peak sales guidance, could you just help us understand the ramp from where we are currently, based on 2022 guidance and how we get to the $500 million-$750 million at peak? And then finally, just a third one, if I can, just on the frontMIND trial, and obviously you've talked to increased confidence in that based on competitor data, and I'm assuming that that's based on the POLARIX trial? Could you just talk again to kind of your confidence in that trial and how confident you are that R-CHOP is the correct comparison arm? Thanks. Thanks, Rajan. Sung, can you handle the two first questions? Yes, absolutely, Rajan. Thanks for the questions. On your question about the Monjuvi 2022 guidance and what would get you to the upper end versus the bottom end. Well, regardless of the range, I think it always comes down to three variables, and how we think about it is patient persistence, patient starts, and then obviously, competitive dynamics or market share. I don't think it's any secret. The biggest opportunity that we have in front of us is elongating the persistence. That's a variable that Joe and the commercialization team here, and frankly, all of MorphoSys is really keenly focused on because we really have an opportunity there to change the standard of care, where right now, the duration of therapy is a few months, largely based on past practice. As we work to change the behavior and educate the prescriber base out there, we really see an opportunity in the future to elongate that. It's not all gonna happen in one year or a few quarters. This is gonna be ongoing work. Let's take one year at a time. That relates to your second question about the ramp to the peak. Obviously, we don't expect to peak in the next couple of years. There's a lot of work ahead of us, and persistency still represents the biggest opportunity. We'll take this one year at a time. Malte on the first one. Yeah. Let me just quickly reiterate what Jean-Paul Kress had already alluded to in terms of the frontline design. Jean-Paul Kress correctly mentioned that we are quite happy that we have limited our patient population to IPI 3-5 patients, for which the unmet medical need is extremely high. We know from other studies, such as ROBUST and the ECOG-ACRIN E1412 study that lenalidomide is actually working in these high-risk patients. We also know that lenalidomide and tafasitamab are highly synergistic components. We really feel that we have found maybe a very attractive treatment regimen in this patient population for which the medical need is extremely high. I think this is in summary, again, of why we are confident about our study and the potential probability of success. To your second remark related to the choice of R-CHOP in the comparator arm, we are enrolling really well, as Jean-Paul Kress also alluded to. We are hopeful that we will be either done with our enrollment or close to be done at the time of the POLARIX potential approval. Please also remember, currently the POLARIX frontline regimen is not an approved agent. It's still under review by FDA. It is currently not available for treatment in frontline DLBCL patients. The last comment I want to make is that currently our frontline study is the only large randomized study in frontline DLBCL. We have really a sweet spot here in terms of time of ensuring that we can maintain a high speed of enrollment. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today's conference call. If any of you would like to follow up, the investor relations team of MorphoSys is available for the remainder of the day. Once again, thank you for joining our call. Have a good day and goodbye.