Great. Thank you very much, everyone. I'm Max Skor, a Biotech Analyst with Morgan Stanley. Before we get started, for important disclosures, please see the Morgan Stanley research disclosure website at www.morganstanley.com/researchdisclosures. With that, I'm happy to introduce Mickael Chane-Du, Chief Scientific Officer for Adagene. Welcome. Thanks for having me. Great. For investors who may be less familiar with Adagene, could you briefly explain how the SAFEbody masking technology is designed to widen the therapeutic window and any other key takeaways you think are important to understanding the story? Of course. Adagene is a protein engineering company. As you mentioned, we're developing our own masking technology, wholly owned, wholly proprietary. If you take a look at what we do, we have our lead compound called ADG126, a masked CTLA-4. I will mention the fact that the compound is protease cleavable. I'll also mention that as far as ADG126 is concerned, we don't only need high concentration of protease within the tumor microenvironment for the mask to be cleaved and removed, but we also need a high level of expression of the target here, in this case, CTLA-4. The story of Adagene is not just limited to CTLA-4 and colorectal. We have a very broad library and early-stage pipeline. For people who are listening to us, keep in mind that we also have, for example, among others, a masked T- cell engager going after HER2 and CD3. We have other interesting things in the pipeline, but I'm just going to mention this for now. Okay. That sounds good. Maybe we'll start with ADG126 CTLA-4 targeting. Could you introduce the program evidence to date that the combination with pembrolizumab in patients with colorectal cancer without liver metastases, how these data look so far? Sure. We know that CTLA-4 is a very de-risked target from both from a clinical perspective as well as from a commercial perspective. You have the IMJUDO, the tremelimumab or the ipilimumab, YERVOY of the world that are now generating revenues close to $3 billion-$4 billion annualized. We know it works in a number of tumor types such as lung cancer, melanoma, RCC. Now, when it comes to cold tumors, especially looking at microsatellite stable colorectal cancer or MSS CRC, with or without liver metastases, we know that immuno-oncology agents, and in this case PD-1, CTLA-4, unfortunately, that kind of regimen doesn't really work. We know, for example, that PD-1 monotherapy has a response rate of close to 0%, including in patients without liver metastases. When you look at some data from a randomized phase II for tremelimumab, the response rate was 2%-3%, again, in patients with late-time MSS CRC without liver metastases. The fact that we at Adagene with ADG126 in combination with pembrolizumab, we have generated a response rate at the relevant doses between 15% and 36%, admittedly in a small data set, small population, small N. We believe that this is a very strong signal. The other thing that I want to mention, so we have SAFEbody. The whole idea of SAFEbody is to improve upon the safety profile of CTLA-4. The safety profile, the tolerability profile of CTLA-4 is very well established, you know that you come up with things such as pneumonitis, colitis, et cetera, and a lot of discontinuations due to adverse events. In our data sets in more than 60 patients with MSS CRC, our discontinuation rate due to adverse event was less than 10%, even though we are dosing patients at really high levels, up to 20 mg /kg. For those who are listening to us for benchmark, the first generation of CTLA-4 has been tested and approved at doses more around 1 mg/kg-3 mg/kg. If you are closer to 1 mg/kg-3 mg/kg, if you look at YERVOY ipilimumab, for example. Okay, that is helpful. Specifically, what gives you confidence that the masking approach can preserve anti-CTLA-4 activity in the tumor while limiting systemic toxicity? It is really the safety data that we have generated, as mentioned, in more than 60 patients with MSS CRC. We see a very controlled incidence of Grade 3 adverse events, no Grade 4, no Grade 5, despite the combination of ADG126 with pembrolizumab, and again, at a dose of up to 20 mg/kg. A dose level that has not been reached by any other CTLA-4s. The fact that we have this efficacy that seems to be very differentiated versus the PD-1 of the world or the first PD-1 CTLA-4, and more particularly durvalumab, tremelimumab in that setting of MSS CRC without liver metastases, is telling us that we do have a differentiated therapeutic index. Okay. Stepping back for a second, can we just talk about the market opportunity in microsatellite stable colorectal cancer? What are your thoughts on the incidence population, the opportunity? Sure. If you think of MSS CRC, microsatellite stable CRC, the initial addressable market for us would be late-line, non-liver mets. We are talking about a little bit north of 10,000 patients just in the U.S. We and some third parties do estimate that global market to be a little bit north of $1 billion. We are addressing this initial market through the combination of ADG126 plus pembrolizumab. Keep in mind that we also have, nowadays, a trial collaboration with Incyte, which is evaluating a combo of ADG126 with PD-1 TGF-β as I specifically said. That PD-1 TGF-β has generated, we believe, a very differentiated response rate compared to the pembrolizumab of the world. Again, close to 0%, where Incyte generated a response rate of 15% in ITT, 23% in patients without liver metastases, and 12% in patients with liver metastases. Okay. Thanks to that combo, we now have access to a broader late-line population. We are talking about more than 30,000 patients. Last one that I want to mention, talking about MSS CRC, we have an ongoing phase II trial in neoadjuvant CRC. Much broader patient population, maybe more than 150,000 patients just in the U.S. Okay. That is helpful. Yes, I recognize the efforts that Adagene is making, but there are competitors in this space. Could you comment on how the competitive landscape looks? Sure. I believe a couple of months ago, very recently, our very direct competitor, Agenus, announced a very important pivot for them. They abandoned. Not abandoned, sorry. We have had a fantastic end of phase I meeting. Last year, the FDA was very supportive. We expect the FDA to continue to be very supportive. Our data sets so far, we believe, show a very differentiated therapeutic index. We have a very safe CTLA-4 when combined with PD-1. Let us generate the data. Once we have the right data sets mature enough, we should have a good discussion with the FDA. Again, probably say around mid-2027. There we go. I was going to follow up with a timeline question. Around that time. Helpful. Thank you very much. Maybe if we can just talk on differentiation and the broader combination strategy. How do you see ADG126 differentiating within the evolving next generation CTLA-4 landscape? Which clinical measures will matter most? Any additional color would help. To tell it, we need to look at really the totality of the data. Response rate is important, but again, take a look at traditional response PFS, and OS, et cetera. Your question was about our ability to combine with beyond PD-1, in a sense, right? Listen, we are very excited about the combination with PD-1 TGF-β with Incyte, PD-1 IL-15 with Sanofi, but also with PD-1 VEGF. Remember that we generated data in first-line HCC with atezolizumab. The improved/differentiated therapeutic window that we have with ADG126 is opening a lot more venues than other CTLA-4, I believe. We can now think about combination with PD-1 VEGF in first-line HCC. I don't think that this is something that was pursued aggressively by prior companies. I think that if you take a step back, I think that down the road, Adagene's ADG126 would be hopefully perceived as a very natural combination partner, not just for PD-1, like the pembrolizumab of the world, but also for a lot of bispecifics or broader regimens. Okay. That's helpful. Can you comment, I believe you presented data at AACR recently, evaluating ADG126 in combination with regimens in first-line hepatocellular carcinoma, later line MSS CRC, which we commented on, but any takeaways we should have from that presentation? Yeah. In both cases, we believe that we have demonstrated our ability to be part of broader regimen, not just a dual mechanism of action of PD-1 CTLA-4. Here in both cases, I see fruquintinib as a multi-kinase inhibitor of a lot of activity against VEGF, but it's an MKI, right? We did show that CTLA-4 PD-1 VEGF could be a very important regimen or mechanism of action, especially in the context of first-line metastatic liver cancer. We're very excited. Keep in mind that the standard of care in the context of first-line HCC, a very important one is atezolizumab. The fact that we showed that we can be very safe, the safety profile that we had was great, although at a very small dose of ADG126, 6 mg/kg every six weeks. We strongly believe that we can dose higher in combination with PD-1 VEGF, and that dosing higher should hopefully lead to stronger outcomes from an efficacy perspective while maintaining an appropriate toxicity profile. Okay. Before maybe moving on to the collaborations, stepping back, big picture, how should we think about the CTLA-4 efforts evolving over time? I know we've touched on several different programs and indications you're interested in, but what over the next 6- 12 months or even longer should we look out for in regards to measuring how these efforts are developing? Sure. First and foremost, H1 2027 would have data from the randomized phase II in late-line metastatic CRC with liver metastases. This is a very important clinical milestone for the company. As mentioned earlier, the first addressable market for us. You should think of that market with a number of $1+ billion worldwide. I don't think people should expect data from the combination with Incyte. We don't control the timing of the data readout, but I think that Incyte should have a view on whether this is an appropriate combination or not internally. That would be my expectation given the pace of enrollment that we expect, as well as the protocol that we've put in place with them. Okay. Could you introduce the Incyte collaboration? Sure. Incyte collaboration is something that we announced back in April of this year. Incyte is the sponsor of a new trial, which will evaluate their PD-1 TGF-β bispecific with ADG126, our masked CTLA-4 in late line MSS CRC, with and without liver metastases. This is a very important one. We, as we speak, are the only CTLA-4 player evaluating such combination and looking at patients, at least in a substantial exhaustive manner, looking at patients with liver metastases. The hope is that we can improve upon the outcomes generated by the PD-1 TGF-β from Incyte. Remember, their response rate was 15%. They presented data last year at ESMO. 15% in ITT, 23% in patients without liver metastases, and 12% in patients with liver metastases. One reason why we are so excited, we and Incyte are so excited about that combo is because we may be addressing an important mechanism of resistance to that agent. We inhibit CTLA-4, we deplete Tregs, so the hope is that we can get to better response rate, long duration of response, et cetera. Down the road, can Incyte decide to go beyond late-line MSS CRC? Time will tell, and more importantly, data will tell. Yeah, that is fair. So how could the results from this study inform the broader development strategy for ADG126? What evidence would support expanding the collaboration or evaluating a combination in earlier treatment settings? I do not want to give a hard number in terms of what to expect, but I would say a number that is higher than what they showed at ESMO 2025 would certainly be a good start, right? On top of a manageable safety profile, right? You obviously do not want to see an outrageous discontinuation rate due to adverse event or an outrageous incidence of immune-related adverse event with this novel combination. So yeah, higher response rate and a manageable tox profile would be very welcome. Okay. Now maybe pivoting to the Sanofi collaboration, could you provide an update on the clinical collaboration with Sanofi and the broader portfolio strategy or plans for potential expanded external partnership? Sanofi is also sponsoring and executing on a new trial, and this one is evaluating ADG126 in combination with their PD-1 IL-15. We are also very excited about that combination. We have dosed a number of patients. We mentioned that in our H1 2026 results. The number of patients is not disclosed. You should think of solid tumor patients with the warmer histologies where PD-1 CTLA-4 are approved. Cannot give you an exact timing of when we will have data from that trial and novel combination. Sanofi is, here again, in control of the timing. Okay. Is Adagene in general interested in pursuing additional external partnerships or any color on business development strategy? Yeah. We want to remain very active on the BD front. We have shown in the past that we can raise non-dilutive capital. We have shown in the past that we can sign trial collaborations. Incyte and Sanofi are great examples. We are open to these kind of collaborations, but we also want to make sure that these kind of collaborations make sense from our standpoint. Okay. We want to see potential synergies between ADG126 and whichever molecule we would be testing with. Okay. Going back to CTLA-4, I guess, just briefly, are there any competitor readouts in the relative near term that we should keep a particular eye on? Next year, I believe that Agenus will have, in the context of the U.S. driven CLC, some interim analysis looking at the response rate, major pathological response rate for BOT/BAL. I think they expect it in the second half of 2027. Okay. Yeah. Now let's move over to the financial picture. Could you discuss your current cash position and runway? Yeah. Just a few months ago, we raised $70 million as part of a follow-on offering. We were very happy to have a syndicate of very high-quality investors in the U.S. Our cash runway now goes to the second half of 2028, which covers, obviously, the randomized phase II trial that we have discussed, and we would be partially funded for any future randomized phase III trial. Okay. I have some macro questions I'd like to get to, but before we move on, is there anything you think investors are missing in the overall story or anything you'd like to get across beyond what we've discussed so far? We've talked about a lot of relevant topics. I still believe, though, that investors are underestimating, underappreciating our novel collaborations, the new combinations that we have, the Incyte and Sanofi of the world. Look at the data that Incyte generated at ESMO last year. I believe that people underappreciate the potential market of first-line HCC. It was still talking about 15,000-20,000 patients just in the U.S. Traditional treatment could be long, longer than what people may have in mind. This is a big market, I believe, and because of our therapeutic index, we feel very confident that we can be very safely combined with PD-1 VEGF. Again, a very important standard of care in the context of first-line HCC. More and more investors are now paying attention. Obviously, they pay more attention to metastatic CRC. I think an increasing number of people are appreciating this initial market. I think that neoadjuvant CRC is something that people need to pay more attention to. Clarity on the regulatory front is probably helping the overall CTLA-4 story. Yes, 100%. Okay, that's helpful. I think this is pertinent given that Adagene does have a footprint in China. I was just wondering if you can comment on the rise of China origin innovation. How is it changing your competitive positioning? Has it had any impact on your R&D or BD playbook? Mm-hmm. We are very proud of our Chinese lineage. You may remember that Adagene is headquartered in Suzhou, close to Shanghai, in China. We are very happy to see that the pharma industry is realizing that China is not just a source of me-too molecules. They are a source of innovation. There's a lot of great molecules that are coming from there. We believe that ADG126 is one of them. I think this is a very important trend that we will benefit from down the road. When you potentially start a clinical trial or are developing a new drug, how do you decide where to start the trial? Is it easier, more beneficial to start in China versus the United States? Any color there. This is a very important question. First of all, we are, again, very strong Chinese lineage, but we are a global company. We run our trials across the globe. We have a very strong footprint in the U.S. We work with a lot of clinical centers in the U.S. But because of the Chinese lineage, we want to take advantage of it. There's a number of trials that will be announced there in the very near future. We can start in China, where the pool of patients is tremendous, really tremendous. The cost of enrolling there is also lower compared to the U.S. Starting in China and generate data there first, but at the same time, slowly expanding to centers in the U.S. and Europe, I think is potentially a great playbook. Okay. Yeah, and having experience on both sides is also beneficial, I imagine. For sure. Now moving on to AI, could you talk about any implementation Adagene has taken to leverage AI internally or thoughts overall would be helpful. Like a lot of people, we use AI every day these days, right? I don't think I'm sharing a secret here. Adagene has used AI from its very early days. We have actually used AI to identify novel antibodies. We were able to interrogate novel epitopes, the conformational diversity. ADG126 is a perfect example. We identified a differentiated epitope, and that differentiated epitope leads to much stronger ADCC compared to an ipilimumab, compared to an ipilimumab, for example, without the necessity of Fc engineering, the necessity to have mutations on the Fc portion. Again, ADG126 is a great example of that. You should think of AI as a way to improve R&D productivity as well. Okay, and then last macro question. This is more policy focused, so developments at the FDA, Medicare negotiation, most favored nations, tariffs, global pricing. Any comments on that? I know they're big topics. It's a lot of big topics, but I think if I have to pick one that is, I'm not saying that they are not important, but I think the most important one right now is really the FDA. We're very close to a randomized phase III. We're no longer an earlier stage company. So clarity from the FDA is probably the most important factor for us, in my humble opinion. Conversations with the FDA, would you say they're going on as predicted? Yes, they're constructive and as predicted so far. Okay, that's helpful. Then just to close up, is there anything I missed or anything you'd like to call out? No, I think we touched all the key topics. Thank you very much. Great. Great seeing you again, Mickael. Thanks, Max. Thank you very much.