We're 8:00 A.M. on the dot. Would you like to get started? Okay, let's go ahead and get started then. You're looking well. Good morning. I'm Sam Semenkow, one of the Senior Biotech Analysts here at Citi, and it's my pleasure to be hosting Allogene Therapeutics at Citi's 2026 Biopharma Back to School Summit. I'm joined this morning with Zach Roberts, President and CEO of Allogene. Zach, welcome, and thank you so much for being here. Thank you very much, Sam. Great to be here. Why don't we just start a little bit high level on the business. You've made a ton of progress this year on the pipeline. Could you just level set for the audience, where the company stands today and what we can expect throughout the rest of the year? Yeah. It's been a very productive year in 2026 so far. Beginning with our leading program, we released some data in April from an interim futility analysis. We also are moving very briskly through enrollment in our phase I program, which is a novel therapeutic CAR T-cell product in autoimmune disease indications. We'll have some data from that program later this year at an upcoming conference. That's setting us up for a very exciting, busy year of catalysts in 2027. Yeah, absolutely. And so you recently stepped into that CEO role. Congratulations. I am wondering how you are thinking about the business from that perspective. What do you bring from the company in this new seat, and how should we think about how you are going to drive the business going forward, particularly through busy 2027 and also 2028? Yeah. So I took over as CEO on July 1st of this year. Before that, I spent three and a half years as the head of R&D and Chief Medical Officer. So the programs that we will discuss today are programs that I designed and launched as the head of R&D. So it is quite a natural transition for me to step into the CEO role. So I have a very clear mandate from our board and shareholders, and internally, the plan is to continue to execute on our main programs, the pivotal cema-cel program and ALPHA3, and then the RESOLUTION study with ALLO-329. And really, those are going to be the focus for the coming months and years. We also have a very exciting preclinical pipeline. We have shared a little bit of data here and there at medical conferences this year. We have got some more coming up. Really, it is a focus on delivering on the lead programs and then continuing to build out the pipeline. Perfect. Well, so then let us just dive right in on cema-cel and ALPHA3. You had impressive MRD clearance data earlier this year where you demonstrated cema-cel as having that measurable effect on residual disease. And we know that MRD clearance is heavily predictive of EFS benefit. So how should that inform our thinking as we near the EFS analysis next year, as you mentioned, and then the final EFS analysis the year thereafter? Yeah. The study itself is a randomized trial of cema-cel, which is an off-the-shelf anti-CD19 CAR T-cell. The study is designed in a novel way where we are looking to see whether patients who have completed first-line treatment for their non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, B-cell-related non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, but remain positive for minimal residual disease using an ultrasensitive MRD test at the end of first-line therapy. Those patients who are MRD positive come into the study. Then they are randomized either to a dose of cema-cel, which is an off-the-shelf CAR T-cell, or the standard of care, which is just observation, a surveillance program. The analysis that you just alluded to occurred in April. It was a preplanned safety and futility analysis where we looked at 12 patients in each of these two arms. Rather than looking at the primary endpoint of the study, which is EFS, we looked at the ability for cema-cel to eradicate the residual disease. Everyone who comes into the study is MRD positive and who went from MRD positive to MRD negative. As you mentioned, we did have a positive outcome there. We saw about a 42% differential between the two arms, seven out of 12 patients in the MRD arm. Oh, sorry, in the cema-cel arm cleared their MRD, and two out of 12 in the observation arm cleared. When we revealed these data, and we were internally examining them, we asked ourselves the same question that you just asked: What does this mean for the potential EFS analyses that are upcoming? In 2027, we have a planned interim event-free survival analysis, and then in 2028 is the primary. Overall, the study is designed to detect a 50% reduction in risk of EFS events. We have to allocate the alpha spend between the 2027 and the 2028 analyses. We actually have a very small amount of alpha allocated to the interim analysis in mid-2027, and the majority of the alpha is reserved for the primary. When we saw this MRD differential back in April, first of all, we were overjoyed with the amount of signal that seemed to be coming from the cema-cel arm, and it gave us a great deal of confidence that this study was going to be positive when it was completed. As it pertains to the interim EFS analysis next year, that is a TBD, right? Because it is a small amount of alpha, which means the effect size would need to be overwhelmingly positive, probably to a degree that is maybe even a little bit greater than what we saw at the interim futility. Honestly, that is an independent data monitoring committee review of that data. They have a decision to make whether stop the study for efficacy or continue the study. We are focused solely on enrolling the trial, ensuring that we have an overall positive outcome because we believe that outcome would transform the way medicine is conducted for these patients. What is the disclosure plan for the interim EFS analysis? Is that something that you will be sharing, like that the study will continue or the study will stop? Is that the extent of what we will probably hear from you? There are a few stakeholders here, of course. The IDMC is going to perform the analysis, and then also the FDA is going to be watching carefully here. One of the things that we are committed to doing is ensuring that the data integrity remains fully intact so that we do not get to the end of the trial and there is a problem with bias that could have crept in from early disclosure. While the interim EFS analysis will occur, it is really up to the IDMC to make a recommendation on what to do with the study. Either continue on as planned or potentially stop the study for efficacy if it turns out that enrolling additional patients would be considered unethical because of such an imbalance in outcomes. It seems like a really high bar given the minimal alpha spend, but it is not a non-zero chance, theoretically. I am wondering if there is any pre-commercial steps, if any, you are considering as we near that interim analysis in the event that you do have something that is overwhelming success sufficient to stop the study. Or just maybe we could just talk more broadly as well, just about any commercial preparations you are already starting to make now. Yeah. We absolutely are beginning to start thinking about what our commercial launch plan is going to look like. Again, we assume that this study will be positive. We are building it for success. It is a little bit of a different launch than really any other CAR T-cell that has come before it because of this being intertwined with the MRD test itself, and that is a very interesting sort of side story to the ALPHA3 program, just how rapidly MRD is becoming part of the standard of care in oncology. Some of that work is being done outside of Allogene just by the natural evolution and really high degree of interest in MRD. The concrete steps that we have taken already is we have hired our first commercial hire. It's someone who is going to be focused on market access and reimbursement, because we think that this is going to be the area that requires the longest prep time. So that person will be on board very shortly, and that person will then begin to kind of figure out exactly what this launch plan would look like. The bulk of the commercial team would come later and really probably over the course of 2027. Okay. I guess, if that interim is positive, you have the ability to step up and accelerate any pre-commercial activities at that time. Yeah. I mean, if that interim is positive, of course, then we would approach the FDA to try to ascertain is this suitable for a BLA on its own? Do we need more follow-up? Those sorts of pre-BLA conversations would begin. If a BLA is submitted, of course, then there's a review interval as well. So that's going to push us into 2028, so we will have at least a year, if not 18 months of time to build out a commercial team and get ready for launch. Makes sense. Okay. You did mention the uptake of MRD testing, and if you follow those companies, they're all telling a very similar story where the uptake's just been growing at a very strong pace. What does that tell you about physicians' overall appetite to adopt MRD testing in large B-cell lymphoma, but also just more broadly across oncology? I think we are witnessing nothing short of a revolution in how we think about management of patients with cancer. Within the last three months, there have been major events from a regulatory approval perspective with MRD. Beginning in May when we had the approval of the IMvigor011 study, which is an atezolizumab study in completely resected bladder cancer, very analogous to the ALPHA3 trial. Patients with MRD got a year of atezolizumab versus placebo, very positive from a disease-free survival and overall survival benefit. Just last week, we saw the SERENA-6 data set approved, which was a little bit of a surprise. A good surprise, because the ODAC that they had had back in April suggested that maybe the FDA would not approve that drug based on the use of the MRD test in that context. We're absolutely starting to see a sea change in how people are thinking about these molecular tests to first understand prognosis and then eventually to make treatment decisions. Internally we have heard from our investigators that this is the future, that we've heard that since the day we designed ALPHA3, and that momentum has grown really consistently, almost sort of exponentially actually in the last couple of years. To cap it all off, we recently conducted a quantitative market research analysis internally here at Allogene and asked many questions, one of which being exactly this. What percentage of your patients are you currently testing for MRD? In the hypothetical context of a cema-cel approval, what percentage of your patients would you test? Already it was sort of in that 25%-30% currently being tested, which was a large number. But then if in the context of an approved agent for use in the context of an MRD positive result, that number jumped to about 80%. We see the world as really building quite an appetite to start to utilize these advanced diagnostics, particularly when it allows them to make a treatment decision for their patients. Yeah, that's measurable already, which I think is a bit surprising based on what maybe you had guided several years ago when you started ALPHA3. Can you just talk about, I mean, is it just excitement around the potential for a therapy that's really driving the use, even though there's nothing to be done for these patients if they're MRD positive right now? It is both, Sam, and right now you are absolutely correct. There is no treatment option for an MRD positive result that doctors can offer their patients, and that is actually really the niche that cema-cel will fill eventually. Right now, we are the only one that is really focusing on this area, so that is great for us from a competitive standpoint. In the current moment, most of the patients with large B-cell lymphoma are cured with their frontline therapy, about two-thirds or so. People are ordering these tests now, which are commercially available, because they are hoping to get a negative result, because that does significantly enhance their prognosis. Right now, PET-CT is the standard of care. Its false negative rate is quite high. Its false positive rate is even higher. It gives you a hint about what might happen with your disease. If you have an MRD test, particularly when it is used in conjunction with a PET-CT, that is a much stronger prognostic sign that your disease is cured. That is the reason that these tests are starting to take off. It is just a useful tool for prognosis. That will be further accelerated overnight once there is an opportunity to treat in response to an MRD positive result, which is unfortunately kind of an awkward conversation that doctors have to have with their patients at this point. Right. Okay. That makes a lot of sense. When you think about, I guess how the commercial potential for cema-cel is in the context of that MRD testing background being quite positive, one of the things that you have made a big push on is moving into community centers for adopting cema-cel. What feedback have you received from the community physicians and their comfort with prescribing cema-cel? It has been - Potentially? universally positive. This is coming from primarily the community oncologists who are part of our trial, and about 50% of our sites are community centers, many of which don't have CAR T or transplant or any kind of cell therapy available, so this is their first cellular therapeutic that they're administering in their clinics. All of them are really overjoyed to have access to CAR T, some of them for the first time in their career. Even outside the sort of folks who are on the front lines in the trial, we are hearing really quite positive feedback that this would constitute a revolution in the services that they can offer their patients, the ability to offer these potentially curative therapies when those patients generally are not actually receiving those. That's one of the biggest conundrums that these community practices face is if they have a patient who relapses, as I said, about one in three will relapse. That's really a difficult moment because many of these patients, frankly, are not interested in being referred to an advanced care center where they can receive CAR T, even if they live in the same city. There is such a demand for CAR T throughout the spectrum of treatment centers. In a world where only 15%-20% of patients who could benefit from autologous CAR T actually receive autologous CAR T, we are going to bridge that 80% gap, in our view, with this cema-cel strategy, with the consolidation, the safety profile that we showed at that interim futility. No cases of CRS, no cases of ICANS, fully outpatient regimen. This is really going to allow us to maximize that commercial opportunity, which is, in our estimate, about $2.5 billion-$3.5 billion annually. My understanding is that activating these treatment centers, whether they're community or academic, is a bit simpler than autologous CAR T. I guess how do you think about initially choosing which centers to launch in, and how quickly are you capable of expanding from there to really maximize across the country and then globally as well? When I was at Kite and we were completing the ZUMA studies and then planning for launch, there was just an awful lot of work, and I understand that work is ongoing, about what are the basic requirements, the training, the facilities, the personnel, the beds that are needed to onboard an autologous CAR T. It is an awful lot of work, it is an awful lot of investment by the company, and it is an awful lot of investment by the hospitals. I think you see those challenges, financial and logistical, reflected in the restricted access footprint that exists today for autologous products. There is an accreditation process known as FACT that is also involved. These centers have to be accredited by FACT in order to offer commercial and clinical CAR T. In ALPHA3 with cema-cel, we are currently treating patients at centers that do not have FACT accreditation. They do not have any of the infrastructure build-out that is required for autologous. These are our research personnel, nurses, and physicians who have never given CAR T, who are thawing our product at the bedside and infusing it in their outpatient infusion centers, and the patients are being sent home. This is the vision that we would want to carry forward into a commercial launch where the onboarding process is straightforward. This is what the product looks like when you receive it. This is how you handle it. If you need to ship it back, this is how you ship it back. The on-site storage is not something that we envision as being necessary because these products are shipped on liquid nitrogen. This is how you thaw and infuse. While all those steps are yet to be built out and will be under the purview of the future commercial leader, it is undoubtedly going to be significantly more straightforward than it is for an autologous product, and that really is key to our vision of increasing access to these products. Right. Okay. That makes sense. I think that is a good segue, perhaps, into the competition question I have, because since it is maybe easier for an allogeneic CAR T here. I have heard some concerns about bispecifics also easily moving into this space. I have heard some concerns about CAR Ts in the first-line setting, taking some of the share that cema-cel could have in the consolidation space. I just would love your thoughts on the landscape, where it stands today, anything potentially coming down the line, and how you envision maintaining that niche that you are actively building for cema-cel, where it has the ability to maintain that market share. I expect that anybody with a drug or a product that is active in large B-cell lymphoma is going to be strongly considering moving into the MRD space. For many reasons, some of which we touched on earlier, this is just a very natural place for us to be doing drug development, and regulators have clearly signaled their willingness to use MRD as a treatment decision point. I think that the desire to get into this space is probably universal. What makes an off-the-shelf, one-time infusion like cema-cel so attractive is that it is off the shelf and it is a one-time infusion, and you can give it right on the heels of the completed six cycles of first-line therapy. This is, we sometimes call it the seventh cycle of treatment. In our vision, what will happen is a patient completes their chemo, they come in for their MRD test and their PET scan on the same day, they get the results the same day, and then a decision is made, do you need cema-cel or do you not need cema-cel? If they need cema-cel, they can write for it, and the patient can come in literally the next day to get their lymphodepleting chemotherapy, and they can get their cells and they are done. If you look at bispecifics, which have the advantage of being off the shelf, so you can prescribe them quickly, there is going to be a treatment interval here, a period of time where these patients are likely going to need multiple infusions that maybe last six months or maybe even 12 months. This is going to be something that clearly is going to need to be thought out. That is just not going to be, in my view, speaking as an oncologist, very attractive to a patient who has been told from day one that they have a curable malignancy. Perhaps they have been told that they are in a complete PET remission, and then this blood test tells them that they need another six to 12 months of treatment. That is not going to go very well, in my view. On the other hand, on the autologous side, the autologous CAR T, there are some real challenges there. For example, patients who have just completed six cycles of R-CHOP generally do not have a lot of T-cells floating around. Manufacturing these products that close to the completion of therapy is going to be probably more difficult than it is in a patient who has got a few months since their last dose of chemo. I think the manufacturing failure rate is going to take a hit. The other problem is that most of the patients are being treated in the community for their front line, and that would still require a referral to an advanced treatment center, to be considered for CAR T. Recent publications from real-world data have shown that that often takes three to four months from the time that the patient is referred to the time of CAR T infusion in the real world. That interval of time will see a good third to maybe as many as half of the patients who are MRD positive, their disease will progress during that three to four month interval. All this to say is, obviously, there is clearly a growing desire to get into this space, but the product profile is going to be really dominant in determining who is the most successful here, and really, cema-cel has the best profile. You are well in the lead as well. Yes, at least two years in. Right. Okay. One more MRD question, actually. You said that the PET scan and the MRD testing can be done on the same day. Have payers embraced paying for the MRD testing? Has there been any pushback that you can see in your market research there? We are still somewhat in the early days. I will say that Medicare covers the commercial MRD test for large B-cell lymphoma, and that has been the case for a couple of years now, and we are seeing really impressive growth from Adaptive Biotechnologies, who makes clonoSEQ. Natera also has a marketed product called Signatera for lymphoma. Both of them report the growth of their MRD business on their quarterly calls, and it has been astonishing how fast these products have grown in market share. I think the commercial payer story is still evolving, but I think as acceptance of the prognostic value of MRD grows with more and more prospective data sets being published. There was just another paper that came out a few weeks ago with the Signatera showing very prognostic information for the MRD test at the end of therapy. I think incrementally, those commercial payers will begin to pick up the cost. Then, of course, when the MRD result is tied to a treatment decision, as would be the case for a cema-cel approval, I think in that case, as the NCCN, as other guidelines come out with category one recommendations for MRD testing, that will be the real catalyst to make sure that all of those tests are covered. We are already making strides towards universal coverage now. Right. Okay. Then maybe a bigger picture question for you. You are pioneers in leveraging MRD testing across the business, I think we can all agree that. Is it possible this becomes your niche? Set aside ALLO-329, which we are going to talk about in a minute, but could you consider leveraging MRD testing to replicate the success that you have already had with cema-cel, but in different settings, whether that is other blood cancers or solid tumors? Is there an appetite at Allogene for that direction? At the risk of sounding like a broken record, 100% yes. I believe strongly that any opportunity that we have communally, not just Allogene, but as in general, to treat patients when they have the smallest disease burden that you can measure, whether that is with CAR T or really anything else, that is what we should be doing. We know outcomes are better, safety outcomes are better, efficacy outcomes are better. So at Allogene, absolutely. I think we are validating this strategy in ALPHA3. There are other non-Hodgkin's lymphoma B-cell malignancies where MRD plays a role as well, so those are clear next potential steps for us. I am also thinking about it for solid tumors. We do not talk about it as much anymore, but we recently published the phase I experience from our metastatic renal cell carcinoma trial, just in July of this year in Journal of Clinical Oncology, where we showed a 31% durable response rate in patients with metastatic solid tumors using a different CAR, a CD70 CAR. There is emerging data now showing that MRD is prognostic in RCC. Very early days for that yet, but that data is out there. So one could easily envision an adjuvant study where patients who undergo a complete resection for early-stage RCC, they undergo an MRD test to see if there is residual micrometastatic disease, and then they receive a dose of ALLO-316 in the adjuvant setting. That is a study that I would love to do. The short answer is yes. The long answer is we are looking for ways to do that. Excellent. Looking forward to hearing more about that as we go on. That is a good segue, I think, to start talking about ALLO-329. So ALLO-329 is your CD19/CD70 for autoimmune diseases. I think one of the last updates you gave us with concrete numbers said you had at least nine patients dosed. I think this was in May. You are guiding to the first interim data readout by the end of this year. What should we be looking for in that data set and recognizing that you will still be in the dose escalation phase? Yeah. So with any first-in-human study, you have to be cautious and first and foremost is to ensure the safety of the product, ensure the safety of the patients that are coming into your trial. I think, with recent events in the news, that has, I think, shown to be a prescient decision and strategy of Allogene's. So, we started a very low dose, 20 million cells, flat dose, which is really low dose in the world of CAR T. Much lower than the autologous doses that are being given and far lower than those for the allogeneic peer companies. Then we have been quite methodical, and as you may recall, we have got two parallel dose escalations. It is a standard 3+3 design, but one is without lymph depletion, and one includes CYTOXAN-only lymph depletion. Then just recently, we added a third arm that was already in the protocol. We just opened it to include Flu/Cy conditioning for these patients. Now technically, we have three parallel dose escalation arms. That decision was primarily made because there was such a backlog of patients waiting to get into our study that this allowed us a third option to decompress that waiting list a little bit. What that means for us in terms of the Q4 update, is that we will have some patients with quite a long amount of follow-up, presuming that they're still being followed in the study. Those were patients with the 20 million cells that dosed towards the end of last year. Then as we have picked up steam over the course of 2027, we have reached 40 million and then 80 million and beyond for a cell dose across those three different LD arms. So we should actually have a reasonable number of patients that we share in Q4 with varying degrees of follow-up, but across all three of these different lymph depletions and up to 80 million cells and probably a dose level higher. It is a basket study across a couple of different rheumatology indications. Do you expect that, or looking at the enrollment that you have so far, will we have representation from each of those indications in the basket sufficient that we can start to get a feel for efficacy, again, be it at a dose escalation phase here? We will have patients from all three indications. Those three indications are systemic sclerosis or scleroderma, inflammatory myopathies, and lupus. So we will have patients across all three. It is a true basket study, meaning it is a first come, first served. There are no targets or quotas or thresholds that we have instituted for individual disease types. So, it is expected that we will have not a perfect balance between those three, but we will have some patients in each of the three arms. Got it. Okay. You alluded to some of the safety concerns that have been in the headlines recently, specifically IEC-HS. You also talked a little bit about ALLO-316, which you had some experience, that was your renal cell carcinoma asset, where you had some experience seeing that safety adverse event in that study. ALLO-329 leverages that same CD70 CAR. How should we think about the safety profile of ALLO-329? I know that you started very low, that was on purpose, you are prioritizing safety, but how should we think about the potential safety profile over time as you look for that ideal dose for ALLO-329? When we designed ALLO-329, we were well on our way with ALLO-316, so we were getting familiar with the toxicity profile that was unique to these Dagger-endowed products like ALLO-316 and ALLO-329. Dagger is our nickname for the CD70 CAR that drives very robust cell expansion and persistence in an allogeneic setting. We did a couple of things from the outset. First is we modified the CD70 CAR in ALLO-329, so we removed its costimulatory domain. It is technically a first-generation CAR. The reason that we did that is we saw a high degree of tonic signaling in vitro as we were designing these different CAR constructs, which suggested that this product, if both the CD19 and the CD70 CAR both had costimulatory domains, that it may be an overly hyperactive CAR. We tuned back its activity a little bit by removing that costimulatory domain. That turned out to make a much better product. From a product design perspective, we have already kind of detuned a little bit from where we were with the CD70, ALLO-316. Secondly is we have all the experience that we could have gathered from that TRAVERSE trial with ALLO-316. We encountered quite frequent and even high-grade IEC-HS in that program. We learned very well how to manage that, how to diagnose and manage that on the fly. We have created customized algorithms for these Dagger products and really a very specific management and surveillance for this entity and then rapid therapy. Those two tools, I think, are putting us in a good place. We train our physicians extensively on IEC-HS diagnosis and management, and in the wake of the news reports from last week, we pulled together an impromptu, kind of refresher on IEC-HS, which was very well attended. This is top of mind for everybody. We have not seen any IEC-HS in the RESOLUTION study yet. The safety profile looks pretty good, and we continue to dose escalate. But we know that you do not have IEC-HS until you do, so we want to be ready for if and when that does occur. Right. I think you've also said no high-grade CRS or ICANS in the study too. Is that accurate? In RESOLUTION? Yes. Yes. No high-grade CRS, no IEC-HS. The safety profile is looking pretty good so far, and that's why we continue to go up on the dose. Exactly. Okay. From a commercial perspective, it's a little bit crowded, maybe a little bit less with some of the pauses in studies, but those could resume. You have the potential for no lymphodepletion or a reduced lymphodepletion regimen, which would be a significant advantage commercially. When you look at the overall landscape, where do you see ALLO-329 potentially positioned, assuming you require lymphodepletion or none? That is a very good way to set up that question, Sam. It's kind of a fork in the road, and if no lymphodepletion is the selected regimen, which I hope will be the case, I think that substantially increases the opportunity for us to develop this drug in more indications and also more patients within a given indication. Because I think the risk tolerance will Not the risk tolerance, but the risk will actually drop if you're not giving chemotherapy. The appetite for a chemo-free regimen will go up. I think we can make a strong argument to doctors and to regulators that maybe we treat patients earlier in their disease history. Maybe they don't have to fail two regimens, maybe it's just one. Perhaps we go into indications where chemo is something that would never be considered, like type 1 diabetes, for example, and really start to brainstorm where we could go with a truly no lymphodepleting chemotherapy regimen. Obviously, that's what we're hoping we see, and that's why we're running the experiment the way we are. That said, if we need to use CYTOXAN, we've heard from many of our physicians and KOLs who are familiar with the program that that is not really a barrier in patients with treatment-resistant rheumatologic disease. In fact, we are using the very dose of CYTOXAN that is used in rheumatology. It's 1,000 milligrams per meter squared times one, so just a single dose. That's given, I wouldn't say routinely, but often in rheumatology clinics. So we did that with rheumatologists in mind. In the end, we're going to need to see what the safety is, we're going to need to see what the efficacy is, and I think either path is viable. But really the promise of Dagger is to try to get away from the need for chemotherapy-based lymphodepletion. Right. Well, looking forward to the data later this year. We're almost out of time, Zach, so I'm just wondering if you could just remind us your cash runway, perhaps recap us what we should expect over the next, call it, 12 months, and any other closing remarks you wanted to share. We raised some money back in April on the heels of the futility data from cema-cel that we talked about earlier. We reported about a $420 million cash on hand at our last call, and that gets us into 2029, which should cover all of the main catalysts for cema-cel, the interim futility, sorry, the interim EFS, as well as the primary EFS. Of course, all of the upcoming catalysts and data releases for ALLO-329. Beginning later this year and then throughout 2027, there is going to be opportunities for lots of news flow from Allogene, but on both of our lead programs, and we think that this is going to be a very, very exciting 12 months or so for the company. I am looking forward to it. Well, thank you so much for being here. This has been wonderful, and thank you for your time. Thanks, Sam.