Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us for Harpoon Therapeutics' ESMO 2023 webcast, where we will be discussing the data from the HPN328 program that was presented earlier today in the poster session at ESMO in Madrid, Spain. You can access the press release that was issued this past Saturday, as well as the slides that we will be reviewing by going to the investor section of our website. Before I turn it over to our speakers, I'd like to remind you that we will be making forward-looking statements pursuant to the Safe Harbor Provisions. For risks and uncertainties associated with these statements, we refer you to Harpoon's filings with the SEC, which are available on sec.gov or on Harpoon's website. Please be advised that today's webcast is being recorded, and listeners are able to submit questions through a chat feature. After the speaker's presentation, there will be a question-and-answer session. Joining me today are Julie Eastland, our Chief Executive Officer, Dr. Luke Walker, our Chief Medical Officer. Our interim CFO, Mike Wood, and our Senior Vice President of Business Development, Haibo Wang, will be available for the question and answer portion of the webcast. With that, I would now like to hand over the conference to Julie Eastland, CEO of Harpoon. Julie? Thank you, Anna, and good morning to each of you who are joining us today on the call. Harpoon was built around the idea of developing a novel class of T-cell engagers to target both solid and liquid tumors, with the idea of expanding the therapeutic index. We're very much looking forward to sharing our perspective on the results and why they continue to leave us as excited as ever on HPN328's potential in large market opportunities, such as small cell lung cancer and other neuroendocrine tumors. However, before we begin, I want to also note that we're very excited to announce this morning a financing of up to $150 million. With the close of this financing, we do expect to be able to fund our plans and our programs into 2026. So, while our lead program is HPN328, we also have a pipeline of next-generation T-cell engagers that follow closely behind. The HPN328 is the largest data set that we have presented here at ESMO, and we're very excited by the clinical benefit we are seeing, especially the response data in our 1-milligram priming dose cohorts, importantly, from which we plan to select the recommended Phase 2 dose by the end of this year. The interim update today on HPN328, that we presented in the poster session here at ESMO, provides a basis for clinical activity that validates our approach to the target, and we believe has the potential for best-in-class efficacy as we select the optimized dose to study across these multiple tumor types, including small cell lung cancer, neuroendocrine prostate cancer, and other neuroendocrine neoplasms. The opportunity for HPN328 includes both high-grade neuroendocrine neoplasms, otherwise known as NEN, including small cell lung cancer. These tumor types typically have high DLL3 expression. In total, there are over 120,000 incidences across the seven major markets, including the U.S., the five European large markets, and Japan. If you think about the treatment opportunity across the lines of therapy, this opportunity is even larger. The tumor types have very poor prognosis and have quite limited treatment options, and although PD-L1 inhibitors were approved for small cell lung cancer in the frontline setting, they benefit, they benefit a small portion of the patients and extend the median overall survival by only a couple months. For other neuroendocrine neoplasms, the treatment options are even more limited, with chemotherapy being the only approved agents. In this data set, we are seeing the emergence of clinical data that have the potential to transform the treatment landscape of high-grade neuroendocrine neoplasm patients. I now would like to turn over the conversation to Luke Walker, who will walk you through the data that's presented, and after which we'll take questions. Luke? Great. Thank you, Julie. I'm gonna walk through the data that was presented at ESMO earlier today. For context, DLL3 is an important target, as it is significantly expressed in tumor cells, in small cell lung cancer, and in other neuroendocrine tumors. The HPN328 molecule was intentionally designed with the potential of better solid tumor penetration, both with its small size, as well as the use of albumin binding, which acts not only to prolong half-life, but also to potentially accumulate in solid tumors. Its design also helps to minimize nonspecific activation and avoid any FC receptor engagement. Both of these features are design attempts to increase the therapeutic window. In terms of trial design, this is a standard dose escalation trial in phase 1, with extensive stage small cell lung cancer and other neuroendocrine tumor types, including both neuroendocrine prostate and other tumors that express DLL3. All patients are relapsed or refractory to standard of care chemotherapy, including platinum for patients with small cell lung cancer. Neuroendocrine tumors other than small cell and prostate require DLL3 expression for patient eligibility. Testing for small cell lung and prostate cancers is being done retrospectively. In this phase 1 study, we are, of course, looking at safety, PK, and PD, as well as early anti-tumor activity. We're studying a couple of different administration schedules, both weekly and every other week. The focus of this data presentation is the monotherapy dose escalation cohorts, where we anticipate to complete enrollment this week. Additionally, we recently began the 3 + 3 dose escalation cohorts of the atezolizumab combination in patients with small cell lung cancer. That data is not part of this presentation as enrollment in those cohorts just began. All patients receive pre-medication with dexamethasone, acetaminophen, and diphenhydramine, along with HPN328 doses during the first cycle. We also use a step dosing strategy to help mitigate the risk of CRS, wherein we give a smaller first dose that is enough to activate the immune system, but enables us to investigate higher and potentially more efficacious target doses. I'll now review how dose escalation has played out during the trial. Looking to the bottom left of the slide, you'll see we started with fixed-dose, single-patient cohorts, followed by initial step-dose escalation cohorts. During escalation of the step dose and priming doses, at the 2 mg priming dose, we had 2 dose-limiting toxicities of grade 3 CRS. As a result, per protocol, we de-escalated to a 1 mg priming dose. Since then, with the 1 mg prime, we have been able to rapidly dose escalate from 6 to 12 and now to 24 mg target doses. You'll also note that for the 24 mg target dose cohorts, we proactively instituted a second single-step dose of 12 mg only in week two, just because the jump from the step dose to the target dose in this cohort is larger. We anticipate that one or more of these 1 mg cohort regimens is likely to be recommended for further development in phase 2 and beyond. Of note, the 12- and 24-milligram cohorts have continued to enroll beyond this data cut, so data in these cohorts is the least complete. We will complete enrollment in these cohorts this week so that all the cohorts in the dark blue that you see here, the 1-milligram priming dose cohorts, will have at least 10 patients to enable a selection of dose or doses for phase 2 based on both safety and activity. We plan to select our recommended phase 2 dose or doses by the end of this year and go to regulatory agencies in the first part of next year to discuss both dose selection as well as our late-stage development plans. I'll now move on to the data from the trial, starting with patient characteristics and followed by safety and efficacy. Here's the baseline characteristics of our 71 patients in our safety set enrolled as of September 12. About two-thirds of the patients had small cell lung cancer, with the other third of patients having either prostate or other neuroendocrine tumors. Overall, we see a heavy disease burden in these patients, with a significant number of patients with liver and/or brain metastases. These patients are relatively frail, with the majority of patients having ECOG 1. It is also a relatively late-line population, with a median of between 2 and 3 prior lines of therapy. The majority have been treated with checkpoint inhibitors, with this number going up to above 90% among small cell lung cancer patients. Looking at the safety data so far, we see that HPN328 has a manageable safety profile, with cytokine release syndrome or CRS being the most common adverse event. CRS typically occurs with the priming dose and occurs infrequently after the second dose as a result of using the step-up priming approach. CRS, CRS has typically been grade 1 or 2, and the only 2 reported grade 3 CRS events were the DLTs mentioned previously, and those were at the higher priming dose of 2 milligrams that we no longer use. No additional grade 3 CRS have been reported since moving to the 1-milligram priming approach. We also, of course, looked closely at neurologic events, as this is a known risk with T-cell engagers. We saw 5 total cases of ICANS, but these have been low grade, transient and manageable events. I'll also add that we've had 1 serious event of pneumonitis. This was a Grade 5 event, which occurred after the data cut for the ESMO poster, and so was not included in the ESMO poster presentation. Notably, pulmonary consultants who were involved in this patient's care saw that the patient probably had undiagnosed interstitial lung disease, which predated study enrollment, and this may have predisposed the patient to the risk of pneumonitis. This diagnosis would have made the patient ineligible if it had been known at the time of enrollment. Now to look at activity. This waterfall slide includes patients in our 1-milligram cohorts who have had at least one scan. So far in the trial, we're seeing a confirmed response rate of 35% across all tumor types and an overall response rate of 54%. To help orient you a bit on this waterfall plot, the small cell patients are on the left, the prostate cancer patients on the far right, and other neuroendocrine tumors are in the middle. The colors signify the different dosing cohorts, the yellow and blue circles representing response, and then those with the C in the middle are confirmed responses. And while we're pleased with the responses that we saw in the 6-milligram cohort, we are also very excited about the early activity we are seeing in our 12-milligram and 24 milligram cohorts, and are looking forward to seeing the full data in these cohorts once they have completely enrolled. The data we are seeing in our patients with neuroendocrine tumors is also very compelling. These are indicated by the seven bars here in the middle, where five out of the seven patients have confirmed responses, including two complete responses. The prostate group has also seen some signs of clinical benefit. Three of these patients had an initial response, and although they did have RECIST criteria progression afterwards, two of these patients have actually stayed on therapy after the initial progression because of the clinical benefit. One of these patients has remained on treatment for over 35 weeks. Overall, we are very pleased with the early data we are seeing across all tumor groups, and are looking forward to completing the 12 and 24 milligram cohorts, where early data is promising, to see how their safety and efficacy may compare. Now let's look onto the swimmers plot. This includes all 47 patients who have received any dose of the 1 mg priming by the time of the data cutoff. While our follow-up at this point is relatively short in this group, because we began the 6 mg dose escalation in December, we do have some long-term responders, even in that cohort, who are already out almost 40 weeks. All but two confirmed responses have remained on study at the time of this analysis, so evaluation of the median duration of response continues to mature. As noted on the slide, in the earlier dose escalation cohorts, which are not shown here, we did have three patients on treatment for over a year, even while they were on low doses. Of course, one of the important features of T-cell engagers is the potential for very durable responses. So we remain optimistic about the potential for durability here and should be able to have a better sense of that numerically in subsequent data presentations next year. On this Swimmers Plot, you can also see the tumor types that were included in the other neuroendocrine category. This includes genitourinary tumors like bladder and cervix, as well as other lung carcinomas other than small cell. As I mentioned before, we remain very excited about the durable responses we're seeing in these patients, where there is a large unmet medical need. I'll now review a couple of patient vignettes that will help give a better picture of the data. This first is a patient with extensive stage small cell lung cancer who has had a complete response. He was 61, diagnosed with extensive stage small cell lung cancer and had 60% of cells positive for DLL3. He had widespread metastases, was treated with cisplatin and Etoposide, and then later was treated with carboplatin, Etoposide, and Atezolizumab. This was followed by treatment with another investigational agent. As you can see in the radiographs on the right, the patient had significant disease in the neck and in the thorax. But by week 8, these disease areas had completely responded, and the patient continues to have a complete response, which has been confirmed. This is one of our patients who had one of the other neuroendocrine tumor types, in this case, cervical small cell. This patient had metastases in the pelvis and in the lung. She had previously been treated with surgery, radiation, and brachytherapy, followed by chemotherapy with carboplatin and Etoposide, plus Atezolizumab and maintenance. You can see in the radiographs here that the patient had complete resolution of her pelvic mass. Lung masses that were seen also completely resolved. This was by week 9, and then the treatment was, the response was confirmed by week 27. This patient continues on treatment as of this data cut as well. So to summarize, this data shows that HPN328 in our 1 milligram priming dose cohorts is clinically active and has been well tolerated in this ongoing dose escalation study. We showed a 54% overall response rate across all tumor types, including a 32% rate of confirmed responses in small cell lung cancer patients. 5 of 7 patients with other neuroendocrine tumor types had confirmed responses, and there was a 69% disease control rate across all tumor types. The tolerability of the agent has been generally a good one across the 1 milligram priming cohorts. CRS events were most common with the initial priming dose, and only grade 1 or 2 CRS was seen in these 1 mg priming cohorts. There has been no evidence of any ICANS at grade 3 or above. In terms of upcoming anticipated milestones, the phase 1 monotherapy dose optimization cohorts are planned to complete enrollment this week, and we will be able to go on and select a monotherapy-recommended phase 2 dose by the end of this year. With that, I'll turn it over to Julie. Thanks, Luke. Thanks for those of you who've joined. I just want to express my gratitude to not only the patients and our investigators, but to the employees of Harpoon, who've worked very hard to bring this data forward. And in addition, we're very pleased, as I mentioned earlier, to have the funding now to move rapidly into late-stage development with a high quality and very supportive investor syndicate. So at this point now, I'll pause, and we'll take some questions. I'll go ahead and read some of the questions that have come through on the chat. The first question is: What do you view as the differentiating features of your compound versus the evolving DLL3 landscape? Sure. You know, there's obviously been a lot of exciting developments in this space, and it's a really important good news for patients with these types of cancers. We've had really a lot of unmet medical need for decades at this point. You know, I think that when we look at our response rates over a variety of different doses, we're very excited about the 32% and 35% response rates that we're seeing already. We also know though, that dose optimization matters. You know, there's a reason why the FDA is so keen on making sure that we use optimized doses. So we're looking forward to being able to choose an optimized dose, and with the idea that with an optimized dose, you're going to have an optimal safety profile and the possibility for further improvements in response rate. You know, we're really excited about what we're seeing early in the 12- and 24-milligram cohorts, and are looking forward to being able to see the remainder of the data as those data mature and the patients are fully enrolled in the trial. In addition, we're very excited about the potential for differentiation within the other neuroendocrine tumor spaces, both for prostate as well as the other neuroendocrine tumors, where we're seeing a very high response rate in our early data, and these responses have been durable. These are, of course, a patient population for which there is very little available. Great. Thanks, Luke. I think we saw from data that's been presented from others in this space the benefit of looking at that optimized dose and studying that in phase 2, whereas the response rates we're seeing, of course, today on comparison in phase 1 dose escalation are a blended rate. So we do think that that can be a differentiating feature in particular at the higher doses that we're even seeing in this data set. The next question coming in is the question of: What are the next development steps for small cell lung cancer and the other neuroendocrine neoplasms in NEPC? Luke, you've mentioned this a little bit earlier in the call about where we're thinking about coming into year-end. Would you like to provide just a little bit more color there on how we see opportunities in these settings? Yeah. I mean, as mentioned, we hope to have a selection of the Recommended Phase 2 Dose or doses by the end of this year. We would then take that along with our development plans to the agency in the first part of next year. That discussion, I think, would include both discussions around small cell lung cancer and there are opportunities there in different lines of therapy as well as for patients with neuroendocrine tumor types. And, you know, we'll be able to share details of those plans later pending further discussions with the agencies. We have several other questions coming in. One question's asking: When will the next clinical data catalyst be? What stage of development do you expect this financial raise will support? Luke, maybe you can talk about the data catalyst, and I can help add about expectations on a run rate, or Mike can as well. Yeah. I think, you know, certainly selection of this recommended Phase 2 dose and getting regulatory feedback on it is next up and is key. We would then be able to also, you know, present the full clinical data sometime mid-next year. We would also look forward to, in a similar timeframe, being able to present initial data for our patients with the atezolizumab combination, in addition. Great. And Mike, do you wanna address the runway in terms of the recent financing? Sure. Thanks, Julie. We believe that the financing provides us with the funds that we need to generate meaningful data in one or more late-stage trials across multiple tumor types, as the financing funds our operations into 2026. That's great. Thanks. You know, obviously, we're gonna be having conversations with the agency about the designs that we intend to study, and we'll have more on our development plans a little bit later on in the year or into the first part of next year. We have a question regarding the Grade 5 pneumonitis. Luke, can you describe any details about this adverse event, such as whether there were any comorbidities, the time course of the event, and the dose that the patient was at? Sure. You know, this is one of our patients in the 24 milligram weekly cohorts. And the patient passed away approximately two months after being after receiving the last dose of HPN328. I think the most significant comorbidity is that what I mentioned earlier, that there was an undiagnosed or unrecognized interstitial lung disease, which is known to predispose patients to this type of an adverse event and you know, otherwise would have made the patient ineligible for the trial. In the course of the patient's illness, you know, there were other comorbidities, infection, that you know, make it complicated to understand the etiology of the course as well. That's something I think that's not uncommon in these patients with small cell who have you know significant underlying pulmonary comorbidities. Thanks, Luke. A question coming in: How would you compare and contrast the efficacy against tarlatamab? ... No, I think it's gonna be, you know, hard to do an apples to apples comparison at this point. You know, again, as I mentioned before, and Julie said, you know, there is a dose optimization process, and looking at that, single dose, you know, the response rate at an optimized dose, you would expect to see an increase in the response rates, compared to a look over a variety of different doses, some of which may be less efficacious, and have different safety profiles. So, you know, I think that we're quite excited about where we're landing right now, in a look at our response rate across multiple different dosing regimens. I think once we get the chance to further expand and explore efficacy and safety in our optimized dose, we would look forward to having similar types of improvements going forward. We're also very pleased with where our data stack up in terms of safety and are looking forward to being able to see the full data set with our 12 and 24 milligram patients. Great. It's. I know we're getting a little close on time, but we'll take a few more questions here. Just to confirm, the priming dose plus the Q weekly schedule, should that be the dosing strategy you take forward? It doesn't look like the Q2W is as efficacious. Yeah, it's, it's probably too early to, to say that. I mean, we, we only really have a very small handful of patients that have had the Q2W so far. And so, you know, I think that with our dosing cohorts that are gonna be at, you know, at least 10 patients apiece, will give us a better idea to really kind of figure out which of these regimens and doses is appropriate. That being said, that being said, I think, you know, in the end, efficacy trumps all, and if we have better efficacy and safety profile in a weekly cohort, we would work to bring that forward as well. That's great. We have a question on dose response. Can you comment on dose response? It seems that it may be of an issue with the DeLLphi-301 may have also been related to dose reductions, interruptions. I think the question here is: Can you comment on the relationship between a dose and response? Yeah, it is certainly an interesting feature of that data, and I, of course, don't want to comment further on the data of others, beyond what is available. You know, certainly there's always the possibility that you know, safety issues leading to dose intensity can potentially contribute to that lack of dose response, or apparent lack of dose response. But I think the verdict's still out on that, and we'll obviously look at this within our 6, 12, and 24 milligram cohorts, to see which is optimized. That may not be the highest dose, but we'll have to wait for the data to see. That's great. I think the majority of the topics of the questions that have been submitted have been addressed in terms of subject content. We do wanna thank those of you who joined today, and of course, are available for additional questions and follow-up at a later time. We're very, very excited about this data. Obviously, we will continue to track the patients for duration and durability in the study, and we have seen evidence of that in our lower dose cohorts. And as you can see from the data, on the waterfall plot, in the 1 milligram cohorts, there's very encouraging signals, as Luke mentioned. Really, when you look at the two highest dose cohorts, they're 12 and 24, you see response rates, confirmed and otherwise, that certainly are even better than the blended rate that we're sharing with you today. So we think this is a very competitive profile in the marketplace. We're excited about moving quickly into other tumor types besides small cell as well. And we now feel certainly compelled to move quickly with the financing that's been announced today. So, thank you all for your time. As always, we really appreciate both patience and the attention on this program. It certainly is exciting to see this data mature. So I'll turn it back over to you, Jade, but... we can conclude the call.