Greetings, and welcome to ERYTECH Pharma webcast to present top line results for TRYbeCA-1 phase III trial. At this time, all participant lines are in a listen-only mode. Later, we will conduct a question- and- answer session, and instructions will be given at that time. To ask a question, you will need to press star then one on your telephone. As a reminder, this call is being recorded. If anyone should require operator assistance, please press star then zero. I would now like to hand the conference over to your host today, Gil Beyen, Chief Executive Officer. Please go ahead. Thank you. Good morning, good afternoon. [Foreign language]. Thank you for joining us for this webcast at short notice. We communicated indeed the top-line results of our phase III trial this morning. The press release and the presentation can be found on the investor relations pages of our website. Joining me on the call today is Dr. Iman El-Hariry, our Chief Medical Officer, who will present the phase III results. Eric Soyer, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer, will be there for questions at the end of the call. Before starting, moving to Slide two, I have to draw your attention to the disclaimer and to remind you that today's calls include forward-looking statements such as relating to the company's operations, timelines, and financials. As you know, they all involve risks and uncertainties, and that could cause actual timings and results to differ materially. Now switching to Slide three, the agenda of the call, I will take very little time to introduce, then pass on to Iman El-Hariry, our Chief Medical Officer. She will present the top-line results. After which I will come back to discuss next steps and strategic priorities for the companies. After which we'll have the Q&A open up for questions. Slide four. You know the slide. It's there for completeness. We are indeed, everything we do is on red blood cells, asparaginase in red blood cells, the e product, and you see it here, the phase III trial in second-line pancreatic cancer, the topic of today. Unfortunately, did not meet the primary endpoint, but there is a lot of interesting and good elements to discuss here, which Iman will do. Then there is the BLA in ALL. I'll take some time at the end to give an update on where we are there, sort of on track for the submission by the end of the year. Without further ado, I will now go to Slide four and pass the mic to Iman for the presentation of the top-line results. Thank you, Gil. Good morning, good afternoon. [Non-English content]. We are now on Slide six, and this is a recap of the study design, to help us actually understanding the outcome. TRYbeCA-1 was a Phase III pivotal trial in a pure second-line advanced pancreatic cancer. Patients who have had either a Stage 3 or Stage 4 advanced disease and with only one prior systemic therapy in the advanced setting. Patients needed to have a good performance status, zero or one, to be eligible to participate in the trial. The patients in this trial were randomized one to one to receive a chemotherapy with or without eryaspase. The chemotherapy backbone was a menu of two, with either gemcitabine/ABRAXANE or irinotecan, this therapy, ONIVYDE or the generic irinotecan with 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin. As it was a pivotal trial, the primary endpoint of the study was overall survival. We had, in hierarchical fashion, the secondary endpoint to look at the statistical significance, including progression-free survival, the overall survival in the subgroups, i.e., in the treatment backbone, whether the gem/ABRAXANE or the irinotecan. Of course, disease control rate, as well as many other objectives, for example, quality of life, biomarkers, safety, and tolerability, of course. Patients were stratified on these three stratification criteria. The first one was the performance status, which is an important prognosis factor, so zero versus one. The chemotherapy regimen, patients were random stratified to either the gem/ABRAXANE or the irinotecan-based. The third stratification criterion was the time since diagnosis of advanced disease, less or more than 12 months. This study was conducted in 11 countries in Europe and U.S. with approximately 90 clinical sites. That was, in our view, a true global study. Slide number seven, please. On Slide number 7seven we have completed enrollment beginning of January of this year for a total of 512 patients. You can see that this was slightly above the target enrollment of 482 patients. For us, if you look at the graph on this slide, we have month-on-month able to achieve the projected enrollment rate in this trial despite the COVID pandemic, which hit us all back in March 2020. Also, it's important to remember that we have an IDMC that oversaw the study. The IDMC met 4x. The first three were safety review, and the last one, which was in February, was a safety as well as a superiority review. Our data cut-off for the final analysis was on end of August of this year, and we needed to have 420 events. 420 events were accrued. Just to remind everyone of the statistical assumption in this trial, this trial was set to achieve a hazard ratio of 0.725 in favor of the eryaspase arm, assuming a median survival of 6 months in the control arm and 8.3 months in the active arm. We were looking at an absolute difference of 2.3 months to declare the study statistically significant. Starting with the study results, Slide number eight. We have selected some patient disposition, but of course, if you have any additional questions, we'd be happy to answer. Important in this study, it's an ITT trial for the primary outcome. All the 100 patients enrolled in the study were included in the ITT analysis. The safety population, of course, any patient who has received at least one dose of treatment. Here we have, it's almost, again, approaching the 100%. We have the per protocol. The per protocol here comprise two criteria. Patients must have received at least one dose of a study drug and no major protocol violations. We have 97% of the patients on the active arm included in the per protocol, compared to 95% in the chemotherapy arm. The reason for that slight drop were mainly because several patients actually withdrew consent prior to the start, or their general health deteriorated prior to receiving the first line. In terms of protocol violations, we have, I think, maybe one and two in each arm, so three patients in total. At this stage, you can see just the reasons for the randomized untreated, which would explain the safety population as well as the per protocol population. Slide number nine. The baseline characteristics and patient demographics. The median age was 63 in both treatment arms. This is expected of this disease. The stage of study entry, primarily Stage 4, which is expected since this is a second-line study. The median time from initial diagnosis to randomization was, again, 11 months in the two treatment arms. We have 60% or 60/40 performance status of one versus zero. Importantly, the backbone chemotherapy included 60% of our patients, approximately in the two treatment arms, received gem/ABRAXANE, and the remaining 40% received irinotecan therapy, whether it is ONIVYDE or the generic irinotecan with folinic acid leucovorin. You can see in this slide that the baseline characteristics very well balanced between the two treatment arms. We go now to Slide 10, and that's to show you the primary endpoint, which was overall survival. The Kaplan-Meier is shown on the right side of the slide in the ITT patient population. Study is pretty mature, and so you can see we have more than 80% of patients received with an event. That's really a good maturity of the study. Median survival was 7.5 months versus 6.7 months, which will clearly give the hazard ratio of.92, and of course, statistically insignificant. You can still see a separation in advantage of the active arm, eryaspase, and you can see a mild benefit in terms of the median survival. Again, this did not mount to a statistical significance. We are not showing the subgroups or the first plot. We really would like to reserve this to the publication and the upcoming medical conference. I can tell you that the first plot showed that very robust and consistent stable effect across prognostic factors. That, again, indicates that the study not only was well-designed but balanced and no treatment interaction in specific, at least for the known prognostic variables. Slide number 11. Per the study, the pre-specified statistical analysis plan, we have looked also at the backbone chemotherapy and interaction with eryaspase. Interestingly enough, in the subgroup of patients who received fluoropyrimidine/irinotecan, we saw an interesting improvement in surviving these patients with a median survival of eight months compared to 5.7 in the control arm. The hazard ratio was 0.77. Of course, because it is subgroup, we didn't meet the primary endpoint, actually this subgroup was small enough to declare any statistical or even nominal statistical significance. You can see a nice separation of the curves throughout, until the end, from the beginning to the end. That is one thing that we saw in this trial. Efficacy indicators, not only with the overall survival, but we also looked at progression-free survival and the disease control rate. Progression-free survival, we saw also a benefit, not a statistically significant benefit with, again, nominal improvement of the median PFS from 3.4- 3.7 months in this group with a hazard ratio of 0.89. Interestingly, we have seen also an increase in the number of patients who achieved either objective response, even complete response in four patients versus one. Also overall in the disease control rate with 58% of patients achieving some sort of control compared to 49 in the control arm. Again, even though the P value is 0.04, but because you have not made the statistical significance, so this is a nominal P value here. That's interesting. I think from all the efficacy indicators, there seemed to be an advantage, a nominal advantage, with eryaspase but did not really make the cut for the study to be declared positive. Slide number 13. We talked about efficacy. Here it's very important to really stress the fact that the treatment was very well-tolerated. A few key highlights here. Number one, we just here included the preferred term, regardless of causal relationship to the study drug. You can see in the first 30%. Otherwise, the slide would have been very crowded. Essentially, what you are seeing on the left side of the slide, the preferred terms, is what you basically see with the backbone chemotherapy or the disease. For instance, asthenia, this is a very typical adverse event that is seen in almost every single pancreatic cancer patient. Treatment side effects were generally similar in both treatment arms. The key message here is that we do not believe that eryaspase enhanced the toxicity of the backbone chemotherapy. Of course, we are giving asparaginase. We are also looking at key adverse events of special interest, these which are related to asparaginase therapy in general. These included embolic, thrombotic, or hemorrhagic events, as well as hepatic toxicity, hypersensitivity reactions, and pancreatitis. You can see, again, the percentages in the two treatment arms are generally equivalent. There is no really marked increase in these specific events with the addition of eryaspase. In conclusion, Slide number 14. The study, TRYbeCA study, did not meet the primary endpoint. However, we have seen that all efficacy indicators, including overall survival, progression-free survival, ORR, DCR, they all showed nominal improvement with the addition of eryaspase. We have seen an interesting trend towards improving of overall survival in patients who received eryaspase with a 5-FU, irinotecan, compared to the control arm. Overall, the study is very well-balanced in terms of the baseline characteristics. We have also looked at the subsequent anti-cancer therapy. They are markedly similar between the two treatment arms. This study overall was executed very well. It is a very robust, accurate study output. We have carefully looked at any possible confounding factors that could have compromised the study outcome, we actually could not come with one single factor that could have led to the study results. The treatment effect also, or the lack of, I guess, the treatment effect was very consistent and stable across all subgroups. Treatment was very well-tolerated, the addition of eryaspase did not enhance the cytotoxicity of chemotherapy. We are expecting the rest of the full data before end of the year, and we'll be presenting this in upcoming medical conference. I think it's still, again, it's important to highlight the fact that we've done everything right to make sure that this study, when it reports, if it failed, it failed not for the wrong reasons, and that's exactly what we have been able to deliver. There are certainly, and just before I end, certainly some excellent lessons for the oncology community. I think if we go to the next slide, for instance. This is really very important. Despite the study did not make it in terms of the overall survival, the second-line treatment of pancreatic cancer patients still remain to be defined. That will continue to be, at least for the past two decades. When you look at least the trials and the programs, we think over the years, at least in the past five years, some improvement in overall survival in this difficult-to-treat patient population. For example, you look at, in this slide, the NAPOLI-1 improvement compared to FOLFIRINOX with the addition of ONIVYDE with a median survival of 6.1 compared 4.2. That is, in fact, actually, this is really the only positive trial in the past, probably two decades. You know the SEQUOIA trial, you know the PANCREOX study. They also showed some improvement. They were negative trials. Again, the median survival was very much on the same mark around the 6 months median survival. When you look at our phase II pancreatic trial, which we have reported back in 2017, we saw again improvement over backbone chemotherapy with a median survival of six with the addition of gemcitabine, which it didn't make it this time around, but importantly with FOLFOX, which actually was overall, we have a median survival of six months. Of course, the TRYbeCA-1. This is probably the first trial ever to show that despite the negativity of the studies, that you can improve the median survival and the survival of this patient population. If you look at the entire study, okay, it is at seven months, but with the subgroup in the FOLFIRI/nal-IRI subgroup, we increased from 5.7- 8, which is if you think about it is 2.3 months absolute improvement, which we would have liked to see in the entire study. This will be the first study ever to provide a reference for the oncology community in terms with our gem/ABRAXANE in a second-line, what is the impact of that for patient treatment, and also whether there will be additional validation for this patient second line to be treated with 5-FU irinotecan/ONIVYDE in that setting. Which in our study, 40%, and that represents very much the current standard of care in pancreatic cancer. I think without further ado, I was going to stop here. I'm sure we will have lots of questions, so I'll hand over to Gil to walk us through the next steps. Thank you, Iman. Yes, indeed, next steps. Slide 17. Clearly the results are disappointing. Disappointing for the patients, disappointing for the team here, obviously for the shareholders. Also there is a lot of very, as Iman explained, I think this trial has become a reference trial for second-line pancreatic cancer, and we can be incredibly proud of what we achieved over these past years in this challenging trial. With this also to thank Iman and her team for the delivery of this trial in these difficult conditions. It is top-line data that was shown. Yes, the primary endpoint we didn't meet, but this ONIVYDE, not ONIVYDE. Yes, it's in fact predominantly ONIVYDE in the FOLFIRI arm is really interesting. We had feedback from the investigators, from the PIs saying, There's really something there. A few more patients in this arm, we could have had a positive trial. These are ifs, but still. We will first of all continue to explore what the final data, and also try to further understand the effect. We also have this ReSPECT trial. I'll come to it, the phase I IST ongoing, which we will continue because it is in first line, but it is also in combination, not with FOLFIRI, but with FOLFIRINOX. If you remember that in fact, our phase II trial also had the strongest signal in combination with FOLFOX this time. These are different variations on the theme. There's clearly something there that we want to further understand and if possible, take to the next level. In the meantime, luckily, we have our second shot at goal and we are in ALL, as you remember, the positive data that were presented at ASH last year. We're making progress to apply for an approval in this hypersensitive segment as well. I'll explain a bit more about this. Thirdly, yes, given the situation we are now, I think we have this ALL asset, we have our manufacturing asset, we have this pancreatic signal in an arm. Probably the best for us now is to look at all options in terms of financing, strategic partnering to be able to notwithstanding sort of this setback to accelerate the commercial efforts first in ALL. Basically, next slide. The first-line locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer, as I mentioned, it's an IST, it's a trial we are doing in view of bringing eryaspase to first-line locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer in Georgetown. We already have nine patients in the trial. The investigators were able to declare the MTD at the dose of 100 units per kilogram. What is interesting here is that we saw a very encouraging efficacy signal in the first six evaluated patients. All patients had disease control, and half of them had partial response. One of them we know very strong partial response, and two others, significant partial response. It's small numbers, but it's encouraging, especially since it's in the same treatment group like what we saw the signal also in the phase III trial. We will continue this trial. It was foreseen to 18 patients. We expect that Marcus Noel will be able to come to the final data somewhere in the first half of next year. That's one. Next clearly is hypersensitivity to asparaginase. We know this is a significant opportunity. This in ALL. In ALL, asparaginase is the cornerstone of treatment, and it is an important contributor to the current survival, which is over 90%. It's also known that if you have to stop asparaginase treatment, this reduces the outcomes, and this is mainly due to this hypersensitivity. It's about 15%-20% of the patients develop these treatment-limiting hypersensitivities. It's about 1,000 patients per year in the U.S. and a similar number in Europe. This is smaller but still very significant market segment and medical need. We estimate around EUR 200 million. In fact, there was one product approved in the U.S., the Erwinaze, which was the only option. At their peak moment, it was about EUR 200 million in sales. It reduced due to shortages. There is now the RYLAZE, the sort of successor of Erwinaze. We think that indeed this segment will, at least for now, sort of be in the order of EUR 200 million but well-positioned for future growth. In there, started in 2015, there was a trial ongoing at the NOPHO, the Nordic Society of Paediatric Haematology and Oncology. It ran a trial in these hypersensitive patients. Results were presented at ASH, so trial was positive, showed good activity levels even 14 days after infusion, low hypersensitivity risk, few adverse events, and the PI here mentions it, a convenient dosing schedule. With this data, we have then further evaluated whether we can bring this forward, and we see clearly an opportunity here for eryaspase because you will see it on the next slide. We have a very good duration of activity, very good tolerability, also high completion of intended course of treatment, and then this convenience where we have two doses every month versus 12 or even 14 doses per month for the Erwinaze and the RYLAZE, which are expensive products. RYLAZE can cost well over $100,000 per month. For us, we would not have to invest that much because our current manufacturing capacity is sufficient to cover the demand of this product. You see here a comparison. It's an inter-trial comparison. On Slide 22, I'm here on Slide 22 comparing the different slides. If you look at, for example, the discontinued therapies or your medium doses that were given, the activity levels or the hypersensitivity, all of them point in the favor of eryaspase in these treatments. We are working towards an approval, at least first a BLA. We're sort of ready and on track to submit the BLA by the end of this year, and are already also working on the commercial activity. We have a clear roadmap development for commercial launch. It is a smaller opportunity, so it really allows a go-alone commercial approach. We're seeking to build and have started the first seeds of this, a small internal commercial team with leveraging external capabilities and focusing obviously on awareness creation, advocacy first, selecting the pediatric oncologist. With a relatively small sales force, 10, 15 people on the ground, we think we can cover the U.S. territory with this product. To be continued, clearly an indication that is not the same size as pancreatic cancer, but an attractive and potentially profitable opportunity for ERYTECH. With this, I want to just summarize our key milestones, and I'm on Slide 24 now. Basically, submission of this BLA in hypersensitive ALL, still this quarter. With then, we hope, an approval, mentioned here, second half next year. Hope it's in the first part of the second half of next year. We have, as you know, the Fast Track designation here. We have Orphan Drug designation in ALL, so basically everything will be put forward to try to obtain this approval. Iman mentioned it, that we're working on the full data in TRYbeCA-1 to be presented at a medical meeting in the first half of next year, and the further analysis of the data. Also around that time, the results of the first-line study in pancreatic cancer. There's still a good news flow in the coming 12 months with important catalyst for the company. With this, I think we will stop the presentation and want to open up for any questions you may have. Thank you. To ask a question, you will need to press star then one on your telephone. To withdraw your question, please press the pound key. Please stand by while we compile the Q&A roster. Our first question comes from the line of Reni Benjamin with JMP Securities. Your line is now open. Hey, good morning, guys. Sorry for the negative results and, obviously, good luck moving forward. I guess just a couple of questions for us. Is there any biological rationale why eryaspase might work with a fluoropyrimidine sort of based backbone versus gemc/ABRAXANE? Second, can safety database that was generated here be utilized in combination to essentially bolster the ALL/ BLA? Thanks. Yeah. Thank you, Reni. I think, indeed, Iman will be best placed to answer these questions. Yeah. Reni, it is also unfortunate for us, that's for sure. In terms of biological rationale for the irinotecan/5-FU, we know 5-FU is an antimetabolite. Really part of it does target the DNA synthesis. Also irinotecan, whether it is ONIVYDE or the generic irinotecan, we're talking about again targeting another pathway which also interacts with the DNA synthesis, and this is the topoisomerase. What we believe here is that the way we're looking, we're almost looking for a sort of synthetic lethality. I think, probably, we need to look into that in non-clinical setting, but it really is inducing more lethal effect on the cells with these three agents together. It's like a double act. That is, I think, what we believe that's the rationale. Most of these, in fact, just these three agents, when you look at the pathways and their mode of action, individual mode of actions, as well as the asparaginase mode of action, there is almost a conversion in terms of the pathway, for example, the mTOR pathway, for instance. This is what we believe. It could truly exert a synergistic effect. Why we are not seeing what we have seen in the phase II trial, this is something that we will need to figure out. Again, we have accumulated really a golden resource in terms of the liquid biopsies as well as the tissue biopsies. It'll be really interesting to see why the gem/ABRAXANE in this subgroup really didn't, it's very minor, absolutely minor. It's almost no effect why it didn't make it. How do we? A safety database? Absolutely. For the next submission, we will have to include the safety database from this trial. It's a large database. It's almost double what we have in the ALL. It would be critical that the FDA sees that. In fact, also, we will be checking, as part of the submission, whether we'll have to submit the study report for the TRYbeCA-1, which clearly will show the study outcome, the patient population, et cetera, because there is a benefit. Yes, it is not significant, but you can see a nominal benefit. I think that can be another aspect that can bolster our ALL submission. I hope this answers your two questions, Reni. Yes. Thank you very much. Good luck going forward. Thank you. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Boris Peaker with Cowen. Your line is now open. Good morning. I have two questions. First is maybe how we should be thinking about the R&D and G&A expenses going forward and just any kind of a restructuring, how and when the impacts will be felt. Second, any updates on the breast cancer program? I haven't heard you guys mention that. Obviously, we will have to sort of regroup and see how we can further continue on the different programs that are going. Base assumption is, yes, that the main focus is ALL, and ALL is a smaller opportunity than pancreatic, so there will be adapting of the size of the organization to the size of the opportunity, all in keeping as much as possible of the ongoing work like the ReSPECT trial, like the work like the analyzing of the phase III data. For the TRYbeCA-2, the breast cancer trial, we may have based on this, because it's also a gemcitabine-based regimen. It's a GemCarbo regimen in TRYbeCA-2. First step will be a discussion with the investigators whether they still want to continue, and that could be that we also would have to sort of conclude that we don't continue there. That's too early to tell. At this point, it sounds like you're not in a position to give quantitative decline in R&D and G&A spend. Not yet, no. Got it. Great. Thank you for taking my question. Okay. Thank you, Boris. Our next question comes from the line of Philippa Gardner with Jefferies. Your line is now open. Yeah. Thanks. A couple of questions if I could, please. First of all, I just wanted to clarify a couple of comments in terms of ALL. You're talking about sort of options in order to accelerate the commercial opportunity in ALL, but I think you also sort of said that this is a small enough indication that this could be a go-it-alone strategy. When you're talking about accelerating commercial in ALL and the options for that, what are you kind of thinking of in that respect? Secondly, just coming back to the phase III trial, it looks like your control group basically did slightly better than the design, but eryaspase did slightly worse than you were expecting. What do you think led to the decline in the eryaspase performance versus what you saw in the phase II? Thank you. Thank you, Philippa. I'll take the first one, and I'll ask Iman to take the second one. I think indeed, in ALL, that was before we had the pancreatic data, the plan was ALL, small indication, high margin indication. Go-alone strategy is an option here, and we are continuing to think that. Obviously, we may not have all the options that we had before, in terms of our resources, cash runway, et cetera. Basically, the message of evaluating strategic alternatives is that in parallel to seeking ways to get us to the launch of this product, we will also look at partnering, including full partnering M&A opportunities, to be able to continue the work in these different indications. Okay. Does that answer the first question, Philippa? Yeah. I do have a follow-up to that, but maybe we'll come back to that once Iman has spoken on the other topic. Okay. Philippa, when you actually look at the median survival, you're right, it's 6.7, which is not hugely really different from our assumption of six months. When we looked at the subgroup, of course, we already mentioned that the 5.7 for the irinotecan subgroup and for the gem ABRAXANE was slightly higher, with 6.9. What we have done was based particularly on the ONIVYDE subgroup. That is the only true evidence that we have seen at the study design stage, and it still is the best evidence that we have in terms of what you would expect. Whether actually the gem ABRAXANE behaved a little bit better, maybe we know that in first-line setting with the MPACT trial, as you know, it's about 8.3 months. The 6.9 months may be reasonable, maybe slightly above the expectation. Overall, I can tell you what we've done. One of the things that we did is that we did some post hoc sensitivity analysis. We assume if the control arm acted exactly as we wanted, six rather than 6.7 months, would the study have been positive? Based on that, it would have improved slightly, the hazard ratio, but it would not have made it a negative trial. That's what we believe, that whether it was a six or 6.7, it really doesn't make a huge difference. Okay, thanks. I guess you baked in some buffer in terms of your assumption for the eryaspase effect versus what you saw in the phase II, and it still came out even, I guess, worse than that. I guess these are what clinical trials are set out to do, I'm just wondering why the effect was so much less than you expected with eryaspase. I think it's the unknown. If you look at it, the ABRAXANE added a lot to the gem. In fact, the hypothesis that it was indeed based on the one and only large phase II trial in second line was the only, the NAPOLI-1 trial. The trial holds perfectly because we wanted to see 2.3 months difference, and we saw 2.3 months difference in that subgroup. What was very unexpected is indeed that the gem ABRAXANE added so much median survival to the gem. Okay. Just my last question, if I could, please. I know you sort of mentioned pricing of RYLAZE in ALL. I guess, now that you don't have to consider eryaspase perhaps in other indications in the near term, has this changed your thoughts around the pricing in ALL at all? It's true that we obviously, like always, completely prepare a plan A and a plan B scenario, and in the pancreatic scenario plus ALL, the pricing would have been different than in the ALL only. In ALL only, there is a clear reference with the Erwinaze and RYLAZE, and It's very clear. In pancreatic, and it's pediatric, and it's life-saving, et cetera. There's a higher price point in ALL. Indeed, the ALL, and then in pancreatic cancer, which is older patients, life adding two, three months, it's a different setting. Yes, ALL is a smaller indication. I think I saw your note of roughly EUR 100 million peak sales is probably about right. A much larger margin opportunity than we could have had in pancreatic cancer, I think. Okay, perfect. Thank you. Thanks, Philippa. As a reminder to ask a question, you will need to press star, then one on your telephone. One moment for questions. That is star one to ask a question. All right. There are no further questions. I will now turn the call back to Gil Beyen for closing remarks. Thank you. With this, I want, again, to thank you all for your attendance to this webcast, for your interest, for your continued support. We will obviously keep you posted as we evolve in our different plans that we outlined here. Hope to give updates soon. Our earnings call is mid-November somewhere. Next occasion to already give a first update. In the meantime, I wish you all a great day, and speak soon. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today's conference call. Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.