So first, please allow me to introduce the expert, Professor Weilong. I think you all know him very well, and he is the mentor for the PhD students, IASLC Outstanding Scientific Award receiver, and he is the Guangdong Province Lung Cancer Institution head. And also he is very famous for the chest lung cancer care. And also we are very pleased to have Dr. Su Wei Guo from HUTCHMED, I think you all know him very well. So let's start with Dr. Su. Thank you, Yingqi. Good afternoon, dear investors. It is from very— it is my pleasure to have the opportunity to talk with you. HUTCHMED (China) Limited, savolitinib combined with osimertinib in NSCLC. Our 2 major studies. Yingqi mentioned for these 2 studies announced in this year's ASHMO 2026. Firstly, let's do a very quick review. Savolitinib journey. In 2010, we initiated this project. We approved this project. It is for NSCLC treatment. Last year in 2025, In China, it was approved in the second-line EGFR mutation and also MET amplification and CLC. treatment of patients based on the phase 3 research result. And for this June, it was approved for the gastronomic cancer treatment for phase 3. So we also have simultaneous therapeutic result. So for this year, for the ASMO 2026, one is Cenovo, one is Saffron studies. Cenovo is a Chinese study led by Professor Wu and completed I personally think this is very significant and very innovative and groundbreaking potential research. And also for this research, later on, Professor Wu will give a very brief, detailed introduction. And also for the Saffron research led by AstraZeneca, And this year, Professor Lu in ASMO 2026, he did presentation. Saffron has achieved a very successful result. And for this result, is correlated to China phase 3. It is aligned with our China data. Later on, we will show you the figure. So for these 2 studies to prove MET, no matter for high expression or amplification in terms of EGFR, mutant patients' EGFR TKI treatment, it will prove poor prognosis, or for the MET high expression will greatly reduce EGFR TKI. simultaneously to blockade EGFR and MET signal pathway will benefit our patients better. I think for the sunitinib has experienced a decade, more than 10 years research journey. I think for the MET, and EGFR mutant patients' prognosis. I think it has a better understanding for those segment patients. So I'd like to give floor to Professor Wu. Professor Wu will give more details on the SAFIRUN and the SANNOVO data interpretation and the clinical significance of those data. Thank you, Dr. Su. So we know the sunitinib from the early stage research, and then it will step into the global market. commercialization and to cover frontline, second-line, and multiple indications. So like Dr. Su said, we will invite Professor Wu to help us to interpret the data of the SAFIRUN and the SANNOVO. Later on, we will have roundtable discussion. We will invite 2 experts to tell us the outlook for the clinical application. Finally, we will have a Q&A session. So for investors, please use Zoom to raise your hands to raise your questions. Now let's give floor to Professor Wu. Good afternoon. I come from Guangdong Research Institution, Guangdong People's Hospital. I am Professor Weilong. In this October in Madrid, Spain, in ISMO 2026, on behalf of Guangdong Provincial Research Team, I did a presentation in the ISMO 2026. I give the presentation about SAVO combined with Osi in frontline treatment after the biomarker selection, frontline patients treatment for this research. And for the enrolled patients, they must have meet 2 requirements. First requirement, they have a very EGFR mutant patients, they missing 19 and 21 mutation. And for the second requirement, for the OR biomarker, and we use IHC to identify those patients, they are MET overexpression. So for the MET overexpression, we have 2 definitions. One definition, first of all, we will look at the strong expression for IHC above 3+, above 90% tumor cell, they have a very demonstrate strong stain. And the second definition is the IHC 2+. IHC 2+, we use a very normal method, EdgeScore. EdgeScore is above 220, and for the tumor cells demonstrating strong staining below 90%, So people do not know what the IHC meaning, 2 meanings, is the numbers and the grade of the expression. So for the 2 requirements, it will give EdgeScore. As we all know, since IHC 3 to IHC 5, 2. And so how about we make the judgment in order to give a right, accurate judgment? So we do not only look at the strong staining, and also we need to look at the quantity. Then we use EdgeScore. EdgeScore must above 220. There are 320 patients to be enrolled, and according to 19 under 21, IHC 3+. and IHC 2+, and whether it have the brain metastasis. And we allow brain metastasis patient to be enrolled randomized. There are 2 group of patients, One is sablitinib combined with osimertinib, and the other is Plisbu combined with osimertinib. This is the most classic and most recognized Plisbu with contrast arm. So for the placebo, so to make our research and make our positions, and the patients, they do not know. So the patients actually, they use what kind of drug in order to make sure the justification of the drug and the fair of the research. So, We also look at the resistance and the intolerable toxicity progression time, and we call it PFS. And secondly, because of independent PFS and toxicity and safety and efficacy. we will adopt method adopted. And a lot of people ask a question, why we will use the PFS for the research since we use the placebo contrast. So no matter what kind of medicine we use without, I think this is recognized. So here, there are, we selected 1,896 patients, among which 144 patients, they have EGFR. Mutant patients, we tested MAD-IHC. So actually the randomization patients is 326, among which 162 they come to our research group, and the 166, they are in the placebo arm. And as you can see, until we got the data, cutoff date is July 31st, 2026. So as you can see, in SABO combined with osimertinib, 37.7% patients are doing ongoing treatment, For the placebo group, only 24.4% patients, they accept ongoing treatment. This is the result, very beautiful result. As you can see, according to our research statistic, 3 IHC, 3+, IHC 3+, according to outstanding, this is the most strong indication. So for IHC 3+, 30.4%. So as you can see today, if we look at follow-up, time, this duration is relatively long. And for the other follow-up, maybe it's around 10 months or more than 10 months. So as you can see, we follow up longer time to observe the result. So as you can see, the result is very stable. The result is more persuasive. As also, if we look at median PFS, so the disease progression is 24.8 months above 2 years under to oseltinib. is 10.2 months and reduced the death rate by 55%, and the p-value below 0.01. So as you can see, 24 months is 43.7%, and for the 3 years, as you can see, 26.9% to 14.4%. So the data is very good. So as you can see, we're across different population. Edge score 2 patients, we also recruit edge score 2 patients. And also we can see a 0.56, P is 0.01, and the median PFS is 24.9, oseltinib is 24.8. So as you can see, for those 2 lines, it's from the beginning to the 2 process, it is, as you can see, the 2 curves have a very wide gap. So as you can see, it's very clear, difference, not a difference at certain point. This is its significance. So as you can see, this is the median follow-up, 38.7 months. You know, the OS, OS is the primary endpoint. The secondary endpoint in our research, secondary endpoint, we attach great importance as well. So as we can see, so far it's 40.5, and 34.9, HR is 0.48. So as you can see, by 3 years, well, as you can see, the 20% gap. 67.4% versus 47.4%. This is also a good result, which means in our research, in terms of PFS and OS, this is a very important 2 endpoints and a secondary important endpoint. We can see We have achieved good result. In terms of toxicity, if you look at this table, for the Sanovo, for the sabrolitinib in terms of the toxicity versus ozimeritinib combined. As you can see, there are some similarities and differences. Similarities, it will hurt our liver and our renal, and also it has peripheral edema. So for the upper limb and the lower limb, this is the commonality. So as you can, for the MET, in terms of the toxicity, above 3 is 7.2% versus 38.4%. And for the severe is 54.9%, 28.7%. So as you can see, for the leading to dose discrimination is 14.8, not very high. So this data is acceptable. So we can conclude in terms of the safety, the safety for our non-SABO and OC are consistent with known profiles. There is no new unpredicted toxicity. So this is the Cenobu in the first line. This is Saffron in second line. Well, in Shanghai Chest Hospital, Professor Lu, he delivered a presentation So for the patients previously, they use third generation and they have the drug failure. So let's look at the Kombu. How does Kombu perform? So as we know, and for the enrollment of the patients, they must meet 2 requirements. One requirement is overexpression, 3+, above 90%, IHC 3+. About 90%. I think it's aligned with our core standards, but also it has another requirement, the FISH, FISH amplification above 10% for those enrollment patients. So as you can see, the requirements are similar and different from Sanova. So in Saffron, stratified by Asian or non-Asian, the baseline brain metastasis line of treatment is second line and third line. So as you can see, it's 1:1 randomized. There are 324 patients, and they— we use osimertinib combined with sabritinib. Contrast group is perimetrex combined with carboplatin or combined with cisplatin. And as you can see, for the 4 cycles, So as you can see, the primary endpoint is PFS, but for the PFS, we use independent data to do the evaluation. Because this is not a blind test, that is why we must have the test value so we comply with our requirements and guidelines to conduct our research. So as you can see, this is the PFS, 7.6 months, Ozzy plus SAVO, and for platinum, Permitrex is 5.4%. So HR is 0.55. So as you can see, to reduce the death rate by 45%, so in 12 months, 36% versus 10%. As you can see, this is a very wide gap, wide difference, and it is very, very important in terms of the statistical significance. In terms of the OS, 17.8 months versus 12.9 months. And as you can see, that reduced death rate by 30%. So as you can see, the 70% versus 53%, Ozzy plus SAVO in second-line treatment achieved a great success in terms of PFS, OS, achieved good results in the endpoints. It's also international multicenter including European patients, US patients, Asian patients, plus PR value, PFS, and OS value. So as you can see, we deliver keynote speeches simultaneously. We issue the results in the New England Journal of Medicine. It is a successful research. So as you can see, according to our forecast, we can say, no doubt, it will become the regulatory— we will file for the regulatory approval and it will become a routine standard of care. So this is about the toxicity. Likewise, just now I showed the first-line treatment, some similarities, grade above 3, 64%. And as you can see, the 2 figures are very close. And for the serious, 41%, not very great difference. Well, it's once again the combo in terms of the safety. The safety is quite consistent. No matter for the frontline and the second-line treatment. This is my today's presentation. Thank you. Thank you, Professor Wu. Thank you for your introduction. And also, I'd like to congratulate on the savatinib in terms of Sanovo Saffron and groundbreaking data. Congratulations on your presentation. So now we're going to move to our roundtable interaction. So here we can see is important in the NSCLC. So let's start from Sanovo. I'd like to ask Professor Wu several questions. So for recent years, as you can see, the MET overexpression during the patient's Well, according to the literature in the frontline mutation or MET overexpression, the proportion is very high. Some people say 10, 20, 50. But it seems like there's no unified figure. My question is for Professor Wu. What was the actual proportion of patients with MET overexpression during the patient screening process of the Sanovo study? Do you think MET testing has the potential to become a routine screening item in frontline EGFR mutant lung cancer to help our doctors to choose a tailored treatment? Regimen. It's a great question. As we all know, We know the MET gene abnormal, there are 3 aspects. One is mutation, gene mutation. We know the exon skipping. And the other is amplification, you know, the amplification. Amplification. In the EGFR, it's a bypass. Once the bypass activated, and it will cause the disease. And the third is overexpression. Before we did our research, people didn't think overexpression is not a good biomarker. Why this time we emphasize on the expression? This is because we have laid a good foundation beforehand for the first, when we use a MET inhibitor, Tafatinib, back then we have already made— did the contrast of the expression and amplification. So the overexpression, MET overexpression, can indicate its value. More importantly, before we always use MET amplification as our biomarker in our previous study. Later on, we have noticed that amplification in the clinical prevalence, it is not very good in terms of the testing. Testing is troublesome because you must use FISH and other methods. In clinical practice at present, firstly, we will use gene sequencing method. Secondly, we will use IHC to help us to do the testing. Well, we never choose FISH as our preferred one until we cannot find other methods, then we will use FISH. So far, we won't use FISH as our preferred one. So it's quite restricted in the clinical practice. Because of that reason, we are very broadly, we use overexpression to become our option because MET overexpression it is very simple to be tested and we're able to get to the proportion. So what is the proportion if the number is very, low, we don't think it is very meaningful. So among 1,000 patients, 149 have EGFR mutation, and for 2, plus, 3 plus. So as you can see, it's 58%. So as you can see, this figure, the figure is big and high, but I think for this figure, we should have, we need to identify that figure, but from Savono to Sapron, so IHC 3+, is around 20%, is very stable. IHC 2+, because of 2 reasons, I think this figure needs to be identified later on. But at least in terms of Sanovo, among 1,000 patients, successfully tested, the proportion is 58%. So it's a big population, it's prevalence. And I think this is a good result. So in my presentation in the ISMO 2026, in a panel discussion, So the Lung Cancer Association, he is specialized in IHC. He commented, he said before they want to use IHC as the biomarker to do the selection, but they failed. But today, we are the first one to use IHC clinically practiced. It's very successful. Versus the other method. It's simple, it's cost-effective. Thank you, Professor Wu. Follow-up question. Well, so for the first-line options are highly diverse, including osimertinib plus chemo, Johnson & Johnson's RipaVent combo, upcoming ADCs will be expanded in frontline treatment. Do you believe cevlotinib plus osimertinib has already demonstrated a strong competitiveness in frontline setting based on Sanovo's data? and oral convenience. Well, like I— we all know, starting from the year 2022, we have already been aware that in lung cancer, we're able to choose a gene-targeted drug to treat the lung cancer, we can achieve a good result. For example, we use EGFR testing from generation 1 to generation 3. So as you can see, we are able to extend OS and PFS, but later on we find the mutations have the similar characteristics. In terms of the lung cancer, as you can see, there is large commonalities. If there is a target, we select a targeted therapy, well, in terms of the survival, the survival can be extended. So based on this fact, as you can see in the overall, in our research, the PFS achieved 22.5 months. So this is a very good result, outstanding result, as you can see. In OS, we can achieve 40% result versus existing med polo Flora-2. So as you can see, we are able to achieve the same level, but pay attention to the details in contrast group. So when we versus Flora, well, if you look at the PFS shortened. That is why according to our forecast, Flora-2, mariposa are specifically for the MET driver patients, we cannot achieve a good efficacy because it's a broad treatment. China population testing. But now this is all function. But for the HR, Sanova is 0.48. But for the other 2 is 0.7% in clinical research, HR is above 0.7%, we think it's not very clear advantage. But it's below 0.6. This is outstanding. This is clinical significance. So as you can see, for the Sanova is 0.48 in terms of HR. In terms of the safety, we think Sanova has achieved a good safety. And also for the AE discontinuation of the drug, well, if you— the final question is the side effects. Side effects leads to discontinuation. Well, for the side effects will lead to a discontinuation. But if you look at Sanova, it's 14.8%, around 15%. But for the mariposa is 40 to 50%, Flora 48%, nearly 50%. So Sanova is more safer. Sanova has the potential to become the frontline SOC. Thank you, Professor. You mentioned about the MAD testing. I also want to ask the question, so when the physician have the MAD plan will test the MAD in order to missing the frontline targeted window. I think that this is a good question. Well, if you look at Well, this is a progressive process. At the very beginning, we only do one mutation testing. People ask, why, why do we do mutation test? Well, this is around more than 10 years ago. The cost was really high because for the patients, they do not have this kind of necessity to be tested, but we ask them to take the medicine, so it will cause them to have the mutation. So in the lung cancer, but first of all, we need to do tests firstly. When we do tests in advance, including MET overexpression in Guangdong Gastric Cancer Research Institution, when we recruit all the patients, we will test them. Well, we test them first. So when the medicine is approved nationwide and accepted, of course it will be listed in our guidelines. and national drug list. Well, like I have answered your question in question 1, it's a simple method, it's a cost-effective method. Of course, it has its potential to become a routine testing method. Thank you, Professor Wu. Well, after talking about Sanova, now I'd like to talk about saffron. What was the proportion of matched alternations during the screening process of the saffron study? Is this patient segment relatively common among the EGFR-resistant population? coli. Before, our old concept was if So for the post-resistance, if we look at MAD application, it's around 25 to 30%. It was an old concept, but for the saffron research result, we noticed that the population is over 30%, from 30% to 35%, achieved to reach 35%. Why is it a high population? This is because it could in MAD application. So as you can see, MAD overexpression. So as you can see, the figure grow. So if you achieve EGFR+, MAD amplification is 25% to 30%. This is our research. So when we versus the previous 2 research for the overexpression, MAD overexpression, we can cover more population. Very clear. Thank you, Professor Wu. My follow-up question is, saffron is the world's first phase 3 study to achieve statistically significant PFS and OS benefits following EGFR TKI resistance. Where does its core differentiated advantage lie against ADCs, bispecifics, and does it possess standard of care potential? So for the SAVO combined with OC, does it have the potential of SOC? Well, for the combo, we use including the OC plus CAMEL or ADCs. Every year, you know, one or two research studies will be released. Well, I remember the first release of the FLORA-2. Well, I was the person who disclosed the person. So in the discussion, I asked a question. To everybody. Now we have oral drug, and when patients take the drug, so the patients, he can walk normally. And he can have a good life quality, who can live in a normal life. If we use intravenous injection to this patient every week, this patient need to go to hospital to receive the injection. His family members need to accompany this patient to go to the hospital. So as you can see, Actually, the patient's life quality has been decreased. So I asked a question back then when I raised the question, well, The New England Journal of Medicine also give me a medicine, give me comments and feedback. And also I released this in that journal. However, So So for our routine option. Thank you. In terms of the amiventanab plus lasatinib, well, clinical practice, it can achieve 80% efficacy because of the side effects. Because patients need to go to hospital to receive the injection. But today, if we use the osimertinib plus Savo, those are oral drugs. So the patients does not need to, do not need to visit hospital weekly. So as you can see, the life quality has been greatly improved. Well, and also for the Savo and Orsi, Well, it doesn't have any side effects as a cost for the chemotherapy. And also, for example, the patients need to live in the hospital, as you can see. The cost is high in terms of accessibility and easy to use. Well, it enjoys its advantage. And the third key factor, Well, if you look at HR, 0.68, below 0.7. So as you can see, for the combo, the HR, and for the Mariposa-2, HR is 0.73. So by comparison, in the future, for the the convenience and low side effects, and also plus its low cost, and it's not— it will become So after asking Professor Wu, my questions is for Mr. Su, well, for City We know combining the exciting data from the SANNOVO study, does AstraZeneca have opportunities for global regulatory filings or initiation of overseas clinical trials? Mr. Su, thank you for your question. I'd like to answer your question for AZ in terms of the ASML data release. We also have investors meeting back then and we also did introduction. During the meeting, they mentioned They're working with regulatory bodies to discuss opportunities for global regulatory filings. Well, if you look at several global research after the ending of the filing, Once sabritinib go to the market, it's more accessible by the patients in the frontline treatment. Sabritinib will be accessed by some patients in the first line. Whether Chinese data can support global filing, can be approved globally, I think we will talk and discuss to regulatory bodies. But for the AC, we have this plan, but the plan is under negotiation. Thank you. My second question is from a commercialization perspective. How do you evaluate the global market potential of sabritinib? What are the company's expectations regarding the future peak sales? Well, from a commercialization perspective, For the AZ, AZ is responsible for the commercialization. In China, if you look at indications, some indications have been approved. AXON-14 skipping indication. In China, there are more products highly competitive market in China in terms of a MAT exon 14 drug. But we have a second line combined with OZI, SABO, and also as you can see, it has been approved. And also for the third line gastric cancer to be approved, and also for the Sanovo Research. It is expected to be approved in the front line and will cover larger population, and the duration of care will be longer. So I'd like to talk about following perspectives. From the perspective of AZ, Osimertinib, I think it's a very valuable combo regimen. Well, like I mentioned, no matter in the front, in the second line, in the future in the front line, Sablotinib combined with for the patients. And more than Sablotinib cells, since it combined with Osimertinib. On one hand, it will benefit AZ to consolidate Osimertinib market share. Because in China, there are a lot of generation 3 TKI to be approved and to get access to the market. So for the Osimertinib, has been challenged by our competitors' products in terms of market share. But for the Sanovo research specific to EGFR mutation and MAD overexpression, it will help and benefit AstraZeneca's Osimertinib market share in Chinese market specific to our patients. And we're able to prolong the drug duration. As you can see, the PSF is doubled. Well, it does not only benefit the sales of Savo but also help to consolidate Osimertinib's market share in China. Plus, Sablotinib, potential market. globally, well, it is have the global filing and apply for the approval globally based on the SAFRON research. I personally believe, well, it has clinical significance, but also it will have a big potential for commercialization. Well, it will achieve the $1 billion AstraZeneca. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Su. What is the current status of regulatory filings and registrations for the Cenovo and SAFRON studies in China and globally? What is the planned timeline for anticipated approvals? SAFRON global filing is responsible by Later on, I'll show you a PowerPoint. At present, Approved. For the US FDA, we applied in September, by the end of this year, and we think we will get the result. And for the EU and Japan, Well, we released our news in the EU and Japan. We applied and have been accepted. We have filed and be accepted. So according to our forecast in the 2027, 12 months, 6 to 12 months. And it will be approved. And for the EMA and the PDMA filing, according to their schedule, it will be I think overseas, I think the earliest one is in the US market. For the Sanovo, NMMDA application will be completed soon. So you can anticipate in the near term we will release the news. And the NDA in China filing for Chinese market. Thank you, Professor Su. My final question. Back then, I'd like to ask you to give us a summary. Abnormal MET expression is widely prevalent across a variety of solid tumors, generally dictating poor prognosis. Will we consider expanding into other tumor types in the future, including the EGFR wild-type population? Professor Wu, could you please help to answer the question first? I think this is a great question. If you know the MET, abnormal MET expression research history, Around 20 years ago, back then, we worked together with the U.S. And we did the research of the transformation during our research for abnormal MET expression. Apart from EGFR TKI resistance, in the clinical research, we noticed, and for the cells didn't have any mutation, but still they had abnormal MET expression. for this translational research. And also in our tissue sample, we proved that research. 15 years ago, I wrote an article and I said the future of the MET And 3 research directions. First direction is today, in the from and such. So at the very beginning, when there is a MET amplification, when we detected it, then we use the combo. to treat this type of patients. The other is for the EGRI. mutation. And at the very beginning, we used a combo. So for today, the Sanovo has already proved that the 3rd research direction is EGFR without EGFR mutation. So at the beginning we used the MAT to do the treatment. So for the MAT inhibitor was approved. the application in China. So China is the only to approve the first MAT abnormal expression can be used to treat a first-line treatment. So according to my forecast, as you can see, the research are following those 3 directions. According to the Sanovo design. So at the very beginning, if you look at the resistance, I think in the future, in the very beginning, if there is no mutation, we're able to use this kind of treatment. Last year we did a research, it's a phase 2 study. We're lacking of phase 3 research. If Su is brave enough, well, like before, we're able to initiate the phase 3 research. And I think this is a very good research. On top of that, if you look at the MET overexpression, Well, in the Sanovo, it is the first time we emphasize on the MET overexpression. It will cause a ripple effect because for the global medical conference. without EGR mutation, If you start a question, then a lot of people will following on to research the questions. Well, like the gastric cancer and for other carcinoma, likewise, physicians around the world will do the research. So if we can achieve success in the lung cancer, we are able to cover other diseases. And also in China, we have done some tests. Well, for different tumors and we put them together and we use a targeted treatment. Well, in China we have the traditional, yes, for the different diseases, we can use the same method to treat, or we can use different methods to treat same diseases. I think we can use the similar Chinese concept to treat the lung cancer or the the oncology. So for our researcher, we need to be bold enough to do this kind of research. Thank you, Professor Wu. Very interesting. So my question is, I'd like to ask Mr. Su to answer the question. From commercialization point of view, Saffron Research plus Sanova, 2 researchers have proved that. MAT abnormal or MAT overexpression. This is the marker of the prognosis for the patients with poor prognosis in the clinical study, how can we tailor and precisely select patients like IHC 3+ above 90% edge score, But we know one thing. research. below 220, Higher MAT expression cause to lower and prognosis and lower PFS and OS. So for the same target with different targets, like EGFR mutation and the MAT overexpression are 2 targets. Since we identified the prognosis related to MAT and to block it, MAT can benefit our patients better from this perspective. I think we're able to cover other population. Professor Wu, who is the expert and who has been studying MAT for over 20 years. So for the EGFR wild-type NSCLC patients, EGFR wild-type NSCLC, MAT overexpression level is also very high. So in our study of Cenobio, we selected many patients with EGFR wild-type high, MAT expression, and the positive confirmation rate is very similar, very high. So for this segment of patients, they may consider use SABO as a standard of care so that the efficacy can be further improved. I think it's valuable for us to explore this direction apart from lung cancer. Professor Wu also mentioned about gastric cancer and other tumors. So for the MAT, abnormal MAT overexpression, a lot of solid tumors have high expression, and for the gastric, cancer, we have more knowledge and one research initiated research, well, in the intestinal cancer to explore the standard of care. for the sablitinib for the MAT high expression can improve the efficacy of SOC. approval of the Savrion, of the sablitinib to be approved globally and accessibility, I think, The test of MAT, test of tumor, well, the bar is higher. Well, in China, the same for the IHC. IHC testing is more convenient. A lot of patients A lot of physicians they may focus on the MET high expression and they will increase the testing frequency, and also they may cover more tumors. So from commercialization, MET high expression has a poor prognosis. Sonovo and Saffron researchers high expression of MET plus sorbitinib to benefit our patients better. I believe on one hand, MET test I believe. Whistler. Well, improve. The SOC exploration in other types of tumors, well, like the gastric cancer, and like the intestinal cancer. So I believe for other types of tumors, we also have— we'll cover more. Cancers to do the research. And Professor Wu also mentioned about we need to be bold enough to register the research. I think we can discuss on this topic. We need to discuss with AstraZeneca on this topic in terms of the feasibility, and also we need to discuss Do we have enough data to support this kind of research? Sanova. Sanova is a Chinese clinical research. So it's Chinese patients to be recruited. Well, and the Sachi is also a Chinese study, and also we need to push to the global study so that we're able to cover more patients worldwide. AstraZeneca also talked to me. They're making the evaluation by using Sanova data. Can this data to be applied maybe we can do 1 or 2 tests. This test will be very quick. So we can do the bridging test. Maybe we do not need to have a lot of patients Well, in the US we do a bridging test and the research was successful. worldwide? Well, I think So I think for the Sanova model, we can shift the model from China to the worldwide. Thank you. Thank you for your excellent sharing. So for the Ozemertinib and also for the market potential, we have a very deep understanding. So for the interest of time, we will have the Q&A session and we will ask our investors to raise their questions. If the investors want to ask questions, you can raise your hands and we will unmute. The first investor. From Morgan. Mr. Liu. Professor Su. Professor Wu, thank you for giving me this opportunity to ask your questions. I have noticed that in China, Sachi Research, also the research, the data was good. Well, it's perfectly to copy Chinese data to the global context. My question is, well, in terms of the comparison of the 2 studies in terms of the clinical efficacy, any difference or similarities? And also in terms of clinical design, any differences which will lead to the different results? This is my question. Do you mean the other study, SACH? I think his question is Chinese SACH. Such. Unlike us. Well, in China, well, in the MET inhibitor, China developed very fast. Well, in ESMO conference simultaneously, also have the question of the osimertinib plus lamitinib. So as you can see, the design of the study has similarities and differences. I think the Chinese study design, well, according to my remember, we use FISH testing method, doesn't include MET of expression method. In the future, in a clinical practice, in the application, FISH may have some restrictions and limitations. Secondly, so far, if we read the report and we know for the PFR, Well, as you can see, the OS, the overall survival hasn't have public data. If the future, the OS can achieve a good result. I think the time is longer, but now the time is shorter. But if you look at the initial result, as you can see, the 2 lines are overlapped, unlike saffron. Well, well, as you can see, the 2 lines have a very wide gap. So I think for the Sashi, it may has a very long follow-up time to prove But in terms of the selection of biomarkers, Well, we can recruit more patients and to make it more accessible by more patients. Well, I'd like to add more information. One, if we talk about the SOCI and SAFRON results, as you can see, the results are consistent. SOCI refers to Chinese patients, but SAFRON refers to global patients, including patients in EU and the US. The biggest difference for the SOCI enrollment patients, Generation 1, 2, 3 TKI failure. But for the SAFRON, SAFRON restricted to the Generation 3 TKI because SOCI started earlier in China for Generation 3 TKI. Generation 1 TKI covered more patients in China. Some patients are taking TKI. So after several years, if you look at Generation 1 and 2, TKI, less patients are using Generation 1 and 2 TKIs. In terms of the population, population number are different. SOCI cover all TKI Generation 1, 2, 3, TKIs, but SAFRON only recruit Generation 3 TKI failure patients. Secondly, biomarker selections are different. SOCI only use FISH, only recruit amplification patients, but for the SAFRON, SAFRON broad to FISH and IHC. So as you can see, to expand the population, So with more data support, we have broadened FISH and IHC patients. For those patients, they are able to be enrolled So as you can see, this is the difference. But the results, the results between SOCI and SAFRON, PFS is 7.8 months, are quite consistent. The results of 2 researches are quite consistent, are at the similar level. Thank you. Very clear. Thank you. For the interest of time, Last question. From seller side. Changjiang Securities. Mr. Wang. Please unmute. Professor Su, Dr. Su, Professor Wu, good afternoon. Thank you, Peng, for giving me this opportunity to ask questions. I have 2 questions. I will ask one by one. First question is about saffron test. Saffron study versus other competitors' products. Saffron Mariposa 2, if we versus these 2 studies, saffron has achieved significant OS benefit. My first question is, I'd like to ask 2 experts why saffron can achieve significant OS benefit versus the competitor study. Why, you ask me, reason why saffron are able to achieve OS benefit? Why Maporal cannot achieve OS benefit? I think this question It's very hard for me to answer, but if you look at basic data, we can tell the reason a little bit. Firstly, if you look at the Maprola, this is a bispecific antibody inhibitor. So on one hand, it is on the surface of the cell to do the inhibitor, but for the saffron, Apart from inhibitor, it can also enter inside the cell. So as you can see, this is in-depth function. And also please take a look, HR value. HR value has a big difference. Maporal, if you look at HR, is 0.7% around. But for the saffron research, saffron study is around 0.5%. For this kind of difference at the very beginning, it's very clear. That is why it leads to the subsequent difference. According to our experience, we clearly know that If we look at PFS and HR is around 0.8% in the future, it's very hard to achieve the similar OS. This is based on our existing experience. Second question. Because of. small differentiation. So we need a large sample size to help us to solve the difference. For the Metoprolol, well, is not around 1,000 sample size. So as you can see, the sample size does not comply to OS sample. That is why the result is the difference. The result is not very much differentiated. Well, it is very hard to prove the difference of the OS. for the HR value is around 0.8%. If we look at a subgroup, 1.5, so the sample size is insufficient. It must use larger sample size, but larger sample size will lead to a smaller differentiation. So as you can see, the clinical significance is not very good. For example, among 1,000 patients, then the 10 patients will have this kind of issue. That is why today the sample size So if you look at the mechanism I have mentioned, it is a large molecule and a small molecule of the antibody. So also we need to look at the pathway. Overall expression, the small molecule has a very good HR value. So for— from the above factors, you can explain the reason. Okay, thank you. Thank you for your comprehensive answer. My second question is about the SANOVO study. As we can see for the SANOVO study versus other study, the other products like Mariposa, FLORA-2, studies. So for poor prognosis patients, accompanied by MET amplification, Sanova can achieve a better clinical benefit, lower HRR value. Could you please help me to answer this question? Sanova benefit study. Well, I think what makes me feel very proud Finally, we used overexpression as our selection of biomarker. For this, Well, a lot of people, they meet me and they say, I am very smart and I use overexpression as biomarker. We designed 2 methods. IHC 3+, and then we will look at overall. This is because we are the first one to have the new test method, and we are very brave. And we do not know whether this biomarker is good or not. We're very cautious. We look at small segments of patients and we have a better knowledge and then we select a biomarker. The biomarker has never been validated before, where it's just like gambling. Actually, you play a gamble, but we are very firm and with success in our gambling. So as you can see, this is the first— we are the first one to prove this concept. And also we have followers, the risks, are smaller and the successful possibilities are higher. And then versus other products apart from biomarkers, And in our presentation, we mentioned because this is the dual oral drugs, it is more convenient for patients. Well, For the patients, they ask me the question, I want to use the oral drug. If there is no oral drug, so the patients do not want to do the CAMEL. And they ask the similar questions like those. So as you can know, when we design our research, we meet our patients' needs, convenient, low toxicity, and the duration is long. So as you can see, we can meet all those requirements. Versus every week, every twice a week, patients need to visit hospitals, family members like parents, wives, husbands, sons, to accompany the patients to visit hospital. So the life quality is lower. So we have a tailored and precise treatment, and we want to make it convenient We want to make it more accessible, and also we want to give good benefit to our patients. So as you can see, this is the big difference of our study with the oral drug. future bispecific antibody drugs. Thank you. Thank you for your excellent answering. And also we look forward to the sablitinib progress and the highlight of the HUTCHMED in the future. I do not have any further questions. Give the floor back to our chairman. Well, thank you. Thank you, Professor. Wu and Dr. Su. And also, we also like to thank our investors for your questions. And also, we're looking forward to the commercialization success of the sablitinib. for our investors. If you have further questions, please welcome to contact Citi Asia Healthcare Research and HUTCHMED. Thank you for your time. See you next time. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you all.