Have decided to look into children's AML, and the reason is that we believe we have a good basis on our adult AML program, and the safety profile of the product also matches that setting. We have started preparing, and particularly also with U.S. clinical centers, potential expansion towards the pediatric setting. We have started our CML program, and we have successfully enrolled the first stage of the phase I trial called VITAL-CML in patients with suboptimal responses against current standard of care with TKIs. That also allows us to do as planned, a first readout in the second half of 2026. Because we have made that progress, we have also initiated preparations for the VITAL-TFR2 trial, which is a phase II trial, in combination with SAHMRI, which is a well-respected Australian research institute. This trial will be led by very prominent Australian researchers. It will be subject to the initial readout from the VITAL-CML trial. Since we have so successfully recruited that first stage, we believe it was also good to already start the preparations for the TFR2 trial so that we are in a position to start that trial later this year. The clinical advisory board that has supported our clinical strategy is a group of very well-respected international experts. We are very happy with the fact that they have supported us with expert advice on the updated clinical strategy. Also very importantly, recently there was an initiation of coverage by a U.S. analyst from the investment bank, Lucid Capital Markets, which is a well-respected investment bank in the U.S. This is, of course, an important step to increase our visibility towards U.S. investors. I would like to hand it over to Lotta for the summary of the financial situation. Yeah. Hi, everyone. For the quarter, the cost level was SEK 20.5 million compared to SEK 24.1 million last year for the same period. The main reason for the lower cost is that we made a big reorganization last year, so we let go of personnel. We are a more slimmed down organization right now, and we focus on the clinical trials and to take them forward. The cash position at the end of the quarter was SEK 59.9 million, and that will take us into the first quarter of 2027. Thanks for that. The clinical pipeline, in summary, positions our product across first-line treatment in AML. In adult AML, that comprises the chemotherapy setting, but also the less intensive first-line setting, which is called VEN+AZA or venetoclax plus azacitidine. Also, like I said, we have started preparations for a pediatric program. Those trials will guide us in the data that they produce towards the optimal path to market. In CML, as I mentioned, we have started preparing for two separate trials, of which one is now ongoing, and the second trial will be starting subject to the initial positive safety readout of the phase I VITAL-CML trial. That program is now on track. Again, very happy that such eminent experts in the field from the U.S., from Australia, from Europe, have joined our clinical advisory board and have been able to provide us with the advice that we needed to set out the clinical strategy that I just described. Also, it is good to see that there is growing momentum in industry around AML and CML. In both diseases, as I will explain, there is still high unmet medical need. AML is still a largely unresolved disease with a very poor five-year outcome. The fact that there is now increasing activity in the form of financings, in the form of M&A or partnerships in both areas, AML and CML, creates good momentum, and we feel that we are uniquely positioned in that competitive landscape. Also very relevant, yesterday, there was a major breakthrough in the development of cancer vaccines, and that validated one of the essential parts of our strategy that we have always advocated, which is that these kind of therapies, whereby you train the immune system against cancer cells, work best if you apply them in a setting where you want to prevent recurrence. In this case, this was a vaccine co-developed by Moderna and Merck in solid tumors, but of course, we have our own approach that specifically focuses on blood cancers. What's the rationale to apply immunotherapy and specifically our lead product, vididencel, in myeloid blood cancers? The unmet need is different in AML and CML, but the principle is the same. You want to train the immune system to have a durable control over residual cancer cells. In AML, that mostly translates into survival, because the relapse rates in AML are high, and relapse is almost always associated with death. In CML, that's a different story. There is a group of drugs called tyrosine kinase inhibitors or TKIs that successfully suppresses the disease, but you have to take these drugs for the rest of your life. That is, of course, a big burden, not only for the patient, for the adherence, the toxicity, and everything else that is associated with chronic drug use, but also for the healthcare system and the costs associated with that. So the ultimate goal in the treatment of CML is considered treatment-free remission, where we create conditions in which patients can safely stop their TKIs without the risk of their disease coming back. We know immunotherapy can be curative in these myeloid blood cancers, and the main reason for that is allogeneic stem cell transplant, or in the past, they're also called bone marrow transplant. It specifically relates to a mismatch between the immune system and the cancer cells. So only the allogeneic stem cell transplants are curative, so they have to come from a donor immune system. But as you can imagine, to transplant a foreign immune system in the body has a lot of side effects. Actually, there is around 20% transplant-related mortality, and also there are significant morbidity, particularly related to a phenomenon called graft versus host disease, where the new immune system actually also attacks the healthy tissues in the body. But we know that the so-called graft versus leukemia effect is curative both in AML and CML. Other immunotherapies have not been very successful. Interferon, which is an immune modulator, is a very complicated drug and has not delivered consistent success. Immune checkpoint inhibitors that have been very successful across solid tumors do not work and have not delivered clinical benefit in myeloid blood cancer. This leaves for us a unique positioning to address the prevention of recurrence and to establish long-term durable remissions of disease with a product that is safe. So one of the key elements of our product is that it has a good safety profile, so we can apply it across these myeloid blood cancers when the disease burden is low and when the initial treatment has been successful. So that defines our positioning. In AML, as I mentioned, the main focus is to prevent recurrence. The positioning of the product is when first-line treatment has successfully accomplished a remission. This is where the residual cancer cells can cause a recurrence or a relapse. Of course, you cannot continue to treat small levels of disease with very toxic therapy. This is why we want to train the immune system to help control the disease over longer periods of time. The ADVANCE II trial is the trial that we started in this setting, and we started in patients that had levels of disease that were detectable. This is called measurable residual disease. These patients have a relatively poor prognosis because of the presence of disease. Also in this specific setting, patients were not scheduled for transplant for different reasons. Sometimes there was no donor, sometimes patients were not fit enough to undergo transplant. This was an alternative to see if we could accomplish, first of all, a potential effect on the MRD, which we documented early on in the trial. We also showed that the immune responses triggered by the product were associated with these MRD responses. Of course, very importantly, we started to see what we were looking for, which is durable survival benefit. The majority of patients in this trial, it was 20 patients that entered the trial. 14 of those patients became long-term survivors, and 13 patients are still alive today. As I mentioned, the last patient that was still in long-term follow-up has passed the five-year mark, so we are now going to close this trial. We are, of course, very happy with this outcome, which we also see as validating for the concept that we are after, which is to train the immune system to control residual disease, leading to durable survival benefits. Now, how are we going to take this program forward? We are currently positioned in the chemotherapy setting or the high-intensity chemotherapy setting. AML patients that have a relatively good fitness are eligible for high-intensity chemotherapy. After that, they either get a transplant or they are in a very high risk of relapse. Again, we treated patients that were not scheduled for transplant for different reasons. That is the setting that we continue to work in with two trials, the ADVANCE II trial that we are now going to close and the CADENCE trial, which is ongoing in Australia. The other interesting part is that the effect of first-line treatment for those patients that are deemed not fit for chemotherapy has tremendously improved due to a new drug called venetoclax. Venetoclax is dramatically changing the AML landscape. It has led to much more successful complete remissions in patients unfit for chemotherapy, but also more and more clinical data come to the surface demonstrating that actually also for fit patients, the treatment with venetoclax combined with azacitidine could be beneficial because it results in better event-free survival in the first year. It results in less hospitalizations, less infections. But still, the overall survival or the long-term survival will be dependent on treatments that are basically effective after the first complete remission has been accomplished. That's why we also want to combine with this specific combination of venetoclax and azacitidine so that we can capture the broader first-line setting in AML. The CADENCE trial is ongoing in Australia, and the principal investigator is one of the world-leading KOLs called Andrew Wei. This trial has now recruited the first 20 patients. The trial is designed actually as a first 40-patient safety trial, and then with the possibility to expand it into a larger trial, up to 100 patients. We have now achieved the first 20-patient enrollment, and there were no product-related serious adverse events. This is a very important initial outcome that also if we combine our product with oral azacitidine it still maintains its very strong safety profile. Of course, now also we have collected samples during the trial, so we can start looking into correlative studies that, for example, look into the immune system, look at the levels of residual disease. This is a setting that we will further investigate and that will add to the data package that we have accumulated from the ADVANCE II trial. Now then going to the other setting, the venetoclax plus azacitidine setting. This is a trial called DIVA that we have now prepared. We are awaiting final sign-off of the ethics committee approval, and then we can start the trial in the third quarter of 2026 based on the assumption that there will be a positive decision by the ethics committee. That is a very significant trial because it will significantly broaden the positioning of the product in the first-line treatment landscape of AML. We hope to announce the start of this trial soon, then we are ready to engage in it. For the pediatric program, we have thought through how we can use the data that we have collected in the adult trials and specifically, of course, the long-term survival benefit combined with a strong safety profile to see if this can be of benefit for children diagnosed with AML. This will also be an expansion towards the U.S. The trials that we are now preparing for will both be in the U.S., with one trial potentially also expanding into Europe. They will focus first on the second complete remission setting, so where children have had a relapse but have successfully been brought into remission a second time. We are also planning for a trial in the first complete remission setting, which will be very similar to the setting that we have tested in adult AML in the CADENCE trial and in the ADVANCE II trial. This adds up to a pipeline that will deliver multiple milestones. Very importantly, the DIVA trial, when it starts, we expect to recruit relatively quickly and will allow us for an initial readout in the first quarter of next year, and then an initial readout on all 24 patients that we plan to enroll in this trial in the third quarter of next year. This will be an important validating step to show that we can combine our products safely and effectively with venetoclax plus azacitidine. This trial, because it is the first time we administer the product in this setting, will be focusing on MRD positive patients, because that will also allow us to pick up the initial efficacy signals based on potential changes in the MRD levels. The pediatric trial, as I explained, is in preparation. We hope to start that program in the first half of next year and basically address second line first and then the first line setting as a next step in potentially expanding our product towards pediatric AML. In CML, the numbers are a lot bigger than in AML when we talk about the patients affected by CML. Patients with CML are now well under control with tyrosine kinase inhibitors. The disease is well under control with tyrosine kinase inhibitors. As explained, the real challenge now is to see if we can find conditions to allow more patients to stop their TKIs. In the past, CML was very deadly disease like AML, and the only curative approach was allogeneic stem cell transplant. Today, we have a growing number of TKIs, and actually also there has been quite some innovation recently in finding stronger binding and more specific TKIs to suppress the disease. The future, again, is to see if we can find conditions to allow more patients to stop with chronic use of therapy. The two main hurdles to accomplish that goal are, first of all, according to the guidelines, only patients with what is called a deep molecular response or with an optimal response to TKI over multiple years are eligible to try and stop their TKIs. This is a setting that for most patients is not accomplished because they simply never reach these optimal responses to TKI, so they will never become TFR eligible. The second big hurdle in CML is once patients are TFR eligible and they can stop their TKIs, actually in half of the patients, the disease shows rising levels already in the first six months, and then patients can be safely put back on their original TKI or a next TKI. But of course, that is a TFR failure, and patients, again, have to see if they can find conditions under which they can stop their TKIs. This is a setting where we believe the training of the immune system may allow more patients to experience a successful TFR. The trial, which is now ongoing, is called VITAL-CML. It is a phase I trial in Bergen, Norway, under the watch of Professor Bjørn Gjertsen, and we are very happy with his dedication. He was also one of the largest contributors to our AML trial that I just discussed, the ADVANCE II trial. Also, of course, we are very grateful to the patients in his clinic that have participated in this trial and allowed us to recruit the first eight patients safety tolerability stage of the trial so efficiently before the summer. Which will allow us to have an initial readout after the summer, and the trial is continuing to recruit. We are now at 10 patients, and we expect that this trial will continue to recruit up to 24 patients. That will also, of course, lead to a next readout in the middle of next year for all of the patients that we treated in this trial. But very importantly, the initial eight patient safety tolerability data are also supporting the start of the VITAL-TFR2 trial, which is a trial that we will do in Australia with one of the world-leading KOLs specifically focused on TFR, a professor called Timothy Hughes. That is a trial that will be in the South of Australia and Adelaide with multiple centers involved. But the start of the trial is subject to a successful initial safety readout of the VITAL-CML trial. Both trials will continue to deliver data, and specifically mid-next year, we expect to have data from both trials that will validate the positioning of vididencel in CML and in both patient populations. So both the patients that have a suboptimal response to TKIs, where we can help more patients accomplish those deep molecular responses that we are looking for. And secondly, the patients that have accomplished a successful deep molecular response, but that, of course, once they stop their TKIs, want to see better outcomes of their TFR attempt. The reason this trial is called TFR 2 is that the TFR failure rates due to relapse are even higher in the second setting. So when patients had an earlier failed TFR attempt, the relapse rates are generally higher in the second TFR attempt. So this is a patient population we feel that will benefit most from our therapy, but of course also as a first step towards the broader TFR setting. With the momentum we have now created in the clinical pipeline, we expect a steady cadence of readouts for the next six to 12 months, and that will validate not only the positioning of vididencel in AML, but also the expanding positioning in AML to include the less intensive first-line treatment and of course, the expansion of this program towards CML with an active CML program focusing on both the suboptimal responders and the actual TFR challenge that we want to address in that setting. The ambition of the company is to continue to grow, both with trials but also with our international presence. We have established a network of centers and collaborators across the world. Our trials have always been in multiple centers throughout Europe and now also, of course, in Australia. But now also we have a clear plan to expand towards the U.S., and of course, we're also very happy that the visibility of what we are doing is picked up more and more, both by the clinical community, and now also with the U.S. analyst coverage that will expose us much more to U.S. investors. So with that, I would like to thank you for your attention and open this session for Q&A. We will now open up for questions. To ask a question, press star five on your telephone to enter the queue. When it is your turn to speak, press star six to unmute your microphone. The first question comes from Chien-Hsun Lee at Pareto Securities. Please go ahead. We cannot hear you yet. Hello? Yeah, now we can hear you. Can you hear me? Yep. Oh, yeah, sorry. I'm not so familiar with the new system. Yeah. Thanks for the update. A quick question from me. Regarding the CADENCE trial for the initial readout, what would you consider as meaningful apart from safety? Also, is the trial still tracking towards the larger 100 patient efficacy stage? Will that stage be separately funded or is it contingent on this readout? Thank you. Thanks for joining, Chien-Hsun, and thanks for your question. Let me take it in two parts. First of all, when you're in the early stage of a trial, what you want to see is initial signs of efficacy. As you may remember also from the ADVANCE II trial, one of the first things you start looking for is whether the immune system responds to the treatment. Of course, you want to see if you can correlate that to outcomes that are indicative of efficacy. Initially, you can't link that to the long-term survival that we have now brought to the surface in the ADVANCE II trial. So we'll look for MRD responses, for example, which means that the levels of disease may be varying. The technical part that is important to remember is that this trial is not focusing on MRD positive patients. The ADVANCE II trial was specifically focused on MRD positive patients. This trial incorporates the broader patient population independent of MRD. The reason is that that's the end goal that we have in mind. Also, MRD negative patients do have residual cancer cells. So it's not that because you can't detect them, they are not there. So we don't want to exclude or on a positive basis include only MRD positive patients. Also, the insights in what actually defines MRD and also meaningful MRD has shifted dramatically in the last years. So our molecular methods to measure MRD and specifically also mutations associated with AML that, for example, can be treated with specific targeted compounds, there's been an immense evolution in our understanding of MRD and also the way MRD is used in clinical practice. Instead of looking just at MRD positive patients and seeing if they can turn MRD negative, which was the start of the ADVANCE II trial, we are first of all now not excluding patients that don't have a formal MRD positive status, and we look much more longitudinally for what happens with their MRD levels, which can go up and down. So it's not going to be such a black-and-white signal as we saw initially in the ADVANCE II trial, but we're certainly trying to get as much correlative data already early out of the trial to establish what's going on. Of course, with the confidence level that we have from the ADVANCE II trial. But also to be realistic, this will be adding insights on top of the data we have accomplished from the ADVANCE II trial, including, of course, the long-term follow-up of the ADVANCE II trial. Then with respect to the path forward, the reason we want to keep optionality is that the first-line treatment landscape is changing so quickly. So where venetoclax is now becoming more and more successful in the patients not eligible for high-intensity chemotherapy, there is now also more and more data showing that it may also be beneficial for the patients that are chemo-eligible. So first of all, we need to make sure that the product can be combined with venetoclax because that will enormously expand our addressable patient population. But also when you think through what could be registration trial scenarios, you have to keep this in mind. So in other words, the CADENCE trial can be scaled up, and it can be even beyond the 100 patients that we have now planned for into a potential registration trial or as part of a registration trial. We have also to remind everybody of that had a successful end of phase II meeting with the FDA based on the ADVANCE II trial. We have successfully established large-scale manufacturing and our manufacturing alliance with NorthX Biologics. So in principle, this setting could be pushed into a registration trial, but we thought it wiser as a tactical decision to first make sure we can combine with venetoclax and then also at the same time, keep a close eye on how the first-line treatment landscape in AML will evolve. Because it could well be that venetoclax becomes so dominant that the path to market is more optimal if we combine with venetoclax. And there may even be an option that first-line treatment becomes a lot more granular, that we no longer separate patients black and white into chemo-eligible and chemo-ineligible, but that there will be much more interchangeability between first-line treatment with high-intensity chemotherapy, which has been around for now 40, 50 years and is still very effective. And venetoclax may be becoming a much more dominant treatment. So we want to just be in a position to be able to combine with both settings, Chien, and on the basis of that, design an optimal path to market. Okay. Yeah, that is clear. Thanks for taking my question. With pleasure. The next question comes from Richard Ramanius at Redeye. Please go ahead. I think everybody's still getting used to the new system, Robert. Richard? Hello. Yeah. Yes. Yes, I'm ready. We- My first question was about your increasing activity in the U.S. How do you find the interest among investors in the U.S. and in general in the pharma community for specifically CML? Well, thanks, Richard. I think you more or less implied the answer in your question. Let me start with the more general remark. In the U.S., there are still the most advanced specialist investors that take part in biotech financings, and also the bigger pockets of money. At a certain point in time, it becomes logical to shift focus towards the U.S. without losing your European, and in our case, also Nordic investor bases. We will always be mindful of all of our investors. But if you move to a situation where you expand your clinical pipeline like we are now doing, you have to be there. It is impossible to not be there. We also, of course, needed a basis to go there. Until now, we had a very successful recruitment of our trials in Europe. We have a very cash-efficient way of doing our trials in Australia also because we set up a daughter company in Australia called Mendus Australia, that benefits from tax reductions that you get in Australia and that are actually paid back even if you are not yet a profitable company. But if you now want to step up the clinical efforts the way we want to do it, you need deeper pockets of money. So we need to be in front of U.S. investors. Of course, what helped, and this is coincidental, we had been planning for our CML program already for multiple years. We had already presented preclinical data, so the plan has been shaping up. But what was a specific trigger for more investors and specifically U.S. investors to look into CML was that there was a big takeover in the beginning of this year of a company called Terns Pharmaceuticals, which has been acquired for $6.7 billion by Merck. The leading company in CML is still Novartis, and Novartis has also launched a next generation TKI called Scemblix, for which they have predicted $4 billion of peak sales. So Terns Pharmaceuticals, who also has a similar compound, was seen as a potential competitor. Now Merck, of course, is into the game after they acquired Terns Pharmaceuticals. Then there was also another company called Enliven Therapeutics that did also a discovery of a new TKI and raised a lot of money in the U.S. So I think the playground for CML has changed dramatically. It's been for a long time seen as a field with very little innovation and where nothing was happening, and all patients were under control. First of all, that is not the case. When you actually talk to doctors and talk to patients, you find out that the statistics are very different from the daily experience, and that adherence and lifelong treatment with all the side effects, and also for younger patients really having heavy impact on their lives, including not being able to raise a family, for example, is much more impactful than what you would see from clinical outcomes. I think it's very good that there's now a renewed interest for innovation in CML. I think we have a nice positioning because the next thing after these more improved TKIs will be increasing focus on TFR. That's the more general answer I can give you, Richard. I can, of course, not comment on how individual investors perceive our story, but I just can tell you that there's growing interest in the field and therefore also growing interest in us. Of course, we're very happy that we now also have more direct visibility towards U.S. investors because of the analyst conference that has started. No, it's a great answer. I'm satisfied. Just one last quick question. Who funds the VITAL-TFR2 study? That will be an investigator-sponsored trial, but it will be to a large extent, also sponsored by us. I think you understand the principle. The VITAL-CML trial that's now ongoing is a corporate sponsor trial, so we are formally the sponsor. But the setting in Australia with Professor Hughes is just a very well-organized setting. They've done very large trials, including also for Scemblix, for example. So they know exactly what they're doing. So we're more than happy to let them run the trial, but of course, it doesn't come without costs. So we'll have to also pay the CRO involved, which is SAHMRI, the institute that I mentioned. But also specifically, for example, for this trial, we will also have to make new GMP material. It's not going to be free, but of course, we're very happy with the way it's been set up, and it will again be very cost-efficient. Very good. Thanks for answering my questions. Thanks. The next question comes from Arron Aatkar at Edison Investment Research. Please go ahead. I'm sorry. I have quick questions on the expected biological information from the CADENCE combination trials. Could you clarify what kind of efficacy-related or biological information the investor should expect from this first data set? Yeah, I'm just going to check this was not Arron. This is Beibei Song maybe from Lucid Capital Markets? Yes. I'm sorry. Hi. No worries. No, it was not your mistake. You were just identified as somebody else. Thanks for joining the call. I think in an early stage of a trial, the best thing you can do is look for initial signs of efficacy, and that's both for the AML trial and the CML trials. What we'll always try to do is to have an initial indication of how the immune system is activated. Sometimes you start to see things quite early, and other times you have to wait a little bit longer. In the ADVANCE II trial, we've always continued to work on these translational data, and they have actually just been shaping up more and more. Things we are looking into, for example, is T cell repertoire. We're doing ELISpot assays. We've looked into how the humoral compartment compares to T cell compartment. I can't give you a real black-and-white answer right now. We have started to do these analysis both in our own labs in Leiden, in the Netherlands, but also in the labs of the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute that is associated with the principal investigator, with Andrew Wei. The first and most important part was to establish safety. That was also the original objective, of course, of the stage 1 of the CADENCE trial. These other data will come in in a more granular level. It will be focusing on immunological parameters that we can get to the surface and also, for example, whether we start to see MRD events that indicate that the immune system is actually taking care of the residual disease. In the CML setting, that will be very similar. In the VITAL-CML trial, of course, safety tolerability is the first and most important readout because it will also allow us to continue the trial and to start the VITAL-TFR2 trial. We have already started also to look into the specific gene that drives CML, which is sensitive to TKIs, called BCR-ABL. We have started to look into immunological parameters. Also there, we hope to quite quickly already after the initial safety readout, start to pick up what is called early molecular response data, where you start to look for levels of disease being potentially affected by the immune system. It is hard for me to predict right now in a black-and-white way what we exactly will pick up, except for the fact that we will, of course, pick this up in the rest of the year, so in a relatively short period of time. Really appreciate that. If you do not mind me to ask a follow-up questions. Regarding the magnitude or patterns of BCR-ABL1 reduction. What kind of level you would consider as clinical encouraging early signal? Yeah. Very good question, and let us put it this way. Patients that have been longtime suboptimal responders to TKIs, if you can convert any of those patients to a patient with sustainable DMR, so deep molecular response, that is a terrific outcome. Of course, we hope it will be more other than less patients, but we are looking for those initial signals that it is possible that we can create a situation whereby the immune system becomes supportive of the TKIs and where the combined therapy will lead more patients into a DMR that eventually will also maybe make them eligible for TFR. The initial signals can be quite subtle, but what we are looking for initially is the signals that we pick up after three months start of treatment, that is formally qualified as an early molecular response. Then at the end, you also want to see the 12-month data to see if those responses continue. That is the initial thing we will focus on. Any patient that we can convert from a suboptimal response to TKIs into a deep molecular response, we will see as a success. Of course, if we combine that with the immunological parameters and we start to pick up that actually something is happening in the immune system, like we have seen that in AML, but of course we need to confirm that in CML, I think that will already provide some at least very interesting initial correlative data showing that this principle holds up. Really appreciate that. Thank you so much. Thanks. We'll try again with Arron Aatkar at Edison Investment Research. Please go ahead. Hi there. Can you hear me? Yeah. Yeah. Perfect, Arron. Fantastic. Definitely getting used to the new system. Yeah. Thanks very much for taking my questions. I think most of them have been covered already actually, but I do have two left. The first of which is, it would be great if we could get a bit more detail on the planned U.S. pediatric AML expansion. Notably, what are some of the key hurdles between now and getting this program started in the first half of 2027? Yes, of course, Arron. Everything is subject to financing, right? All these trials that we have been preparing for, and that is also for the continuation of the trials that we have now put in place, is of course expecting that we are able to continue to fund the company and to also add these additional trials to our pipeline. We have prepared the groundwork. That is the long story short. The reason to move into these pediatric indications is twofold. First of all, there is a very high unmet medical need that we wish to address. Also, we are very happy that we can work with some of the best centers in the world to address specifically children with AML. The other reason is that the setting in the pediatric indications allows for a quicker and also more efficient path to market, which is necessary of course, because we are talking also about much smaller patient numbers. For us as a company, from a strategic perspective, it means that we on the one hand try to make the adult AML setting as big as possible because that has also been the main feedback that we have received from the pharmaceutical industry that there is a lot of competing drugs based on targeted therapies and fragments of the AML population. If we can deliver this as a therapy that applies across AML and across all of the first-line settings, or at least the backbone settings, then, of course, that has a lot bigger commercial value. But the trials that you need to get the product to market are quite bulky and can be lengthy, so they would ideally benefit from a pharma partnership. But to have a pediatric program that is a lot more concise, both in time and in patient numbers, will allow us to also take this product to market ourselves. And that is why it combines the unmet medical needs with also a more strategic element for the company. Okay, that's very helpful. Thank you. And just one more question. Reflecting again on the Moderna, Merck positive news just there, could you elaborate a little bit more on what you think this means for the broader cancer vaccine field, which I think it's fair to say has sort of come up and down in terms of attention. And also, do you believe this paints a more positive light to Mendus' approach with the off-the-shelf strategy as opposed to personalized? Yeah. That's an excellent question. So let's not make too many associations, but let's make the ones that are relevant. The most relevant is that we have discovered early on, and I think also more and more the field as a whole, including the specific setting that Moderna and Merck have been addressing, that the immune system is most effective to prevent recurrence and not so much to suppress higher levels of disease or to, in the solid tumor space, address more bulky tumor masses. The best setting to train the immune system against residual cancer cells is when you try to prevent recurrence, which is factually the largest cause of death in cancer worldwide. So it's very relevant, and I think this has really been a tremendous breakthrough that we have now seen in a late-stage trial that kind of effect. So hands down for the combination of Merck and Moderna for accomplishing that. What I think we should also be mindful of is that this doesn't solve everything. It starts with what makes an effective vaccine, right? Formally, we are, by the way, not a vaccine company. Our product is formally categorized as a cellular immunotherapy, but it is an immunization strategy, so with a bit of association, you could call it a cancer vaccine. There are specific details that can only provide context, which is that the solid tumors that have the highest mutation rates have also been shown to be most effective to the immune system, for example, the checkpoint inhibitors. It is logical that firms like Moderna, but also others like BioNTech, et cetera, have started developing algorithms and technology, in this case, mRNA technology, to design vaccines that can very specifically zoom in on personalized neoantigens that can become part of a potential immunization strategy. The myeloid blood cancers, where we are active, are very different. First of all, they seem to be unaffected by checkpoint inhibitors. Secondly, also to think through how we can design a product that is effective in training the immune system to take care of the residual cells. We have taken a very different principle, and the principle, again, by association, not direct scientific evidence, but it is a logical thing to keep in mind, is that we have learned from the transplants that the immune system can be curative and that there has to be an allogeneic mismatch between the immune system and the cancer cells. It does not work if you get your own stem cells back, right? The basic principle of allogeneic stem cell transplant is that you basically replace the whole immune system by somebody else's immune system. Whereas what we have tried to accomplish is to show that if you give an allogeneic product, a whole leukemic cell with all the antigens that it carries, in a way to the patient's immune system, that it triggers a broad immune response, that that also works but will be a lot safer. There are of course parallels, and I think specifically the parallel is that the recurrence of tumors, which is such an imminent threat to the health of patients, can potentially be treated by these kind of therapies. But I think we should also be mindful that such a breakthrough does not mean that everybody will be successful. I think it is still very important to find actual immunizations that work, and that has been historically difficult. If you look at the history of vaccines, for example, most vaccines were always designed on attenuated versions of the actual disease, and it was difficult to take them apart in individual antigens and what have you. The fact that we now have a new standard in technology, with Moderna and Merck showing that it can be done to filter out antigens and make personalized vaccines, I think that is, from a technology perspective, a massive breakthrough. But I do not think we can compare that directly to what we are doing. But I think we do have a very strong rationale and also, of course, very encouraging data to point out that our product may be very well-designed specifically for myeloid blood cancers. Fantastic. Great to hear your thoughts, Erik. No more questions from me, but congratulations again on a great quarter. Thanks, Arron. With that, we conclude the Q&A session. I hand the word back to Dr. Erik Manting for closing comments. Well, thanks, everybody, for joining. Also, on behalf of- Thank you. Lotta. Sorry if there were some few technical glitches with the new system, but we are very happy that we work with these people as well. We will continue to work on the technical details. I think it was a great call, and thanks, everybody, for joining.