Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Daniel Wolle. I'm one of the analysts at JPMorgan, covering biotech. It's my pleasure to introduce Mark Enyedy from ImmunoGen. Following the presentations, you have the opportunity to ask questions. You can do those either through the portal, or you can ask, there will be a mic going around, so you can pick up a mic and ask questions. Without further ado, Mark. Good afternoon. Our thanks to Daniel and the rest of the team at JPMorgan for the opportunity to speak with you today. Our presentation contains forward-looking statements. Please refer to our SEC filings for the risks and uncertainties that could cause our actual result to vary from those statements. For those of you who are new to ImmunoGen or revisiting our story, we are generating the next generation of ADCs to improve outcomes for cancer patients. With the recent approval and launch of ELAHERE, we've transitioned to a fully integrated oncology company with a pipeline of three additional clinical candidates and a deep and differentiated platform to pursue continued innovation in the ADC space. To drive this portfolio, we have an experienced leadership team with extensive development and commercialization experience and a strong balance sheet to support our future growth. 2022 was a transformative year for us, highlighted by the mid-November approval of ELAHERE for the treatment of FRα-positive platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. We also completed enrollment in MIRASOL, our confirmatory phase III trial, and look forward to sharing top-line data from that study early this year. Beyond ELAHERE, we reported initial data from our second pivotal program, Pivekimab or PVEC, which demonstrated significant activity and favorable tolerability in frontline BPDCN patients. In addition, in our fourth consecutive oral presentation at ASH, we shared compelling data from the triplet combining PVEC with azacitidine and venetoclax in front line and relapsed AML, and entered into a collaboration with Gilead to initiate a new cohort in combination with magrolimab in relapsed refractory AML. We also advanced our early-stage pipeline as we completed dose escalation for IMGC936 and initiated our first phase I study with IMGN-151. We ended the year with $275 million in cash on the balance sheet, which will fund our operations into 2024. With the momentum that we generated over the last 12 months, we're well-positioned to create significant value for both patients and shareholders in 2023. As we look to the year ahead, we set four strategic priorities for the business. First and foremost, successfully execute the ELAHERE launch, and as you'll see in a minute, we're off to a very strong start. Second, expand the ELAHERE label by moving into platinum-sensitive disease. Advance our clinical pipeline of novel ADCs for hematologic and solid tumors, finally, strengthen and expand our pipeline through both internal discovery and external partnerships. I'm gonna cover each one of these points individually, beginning with ELAHERE. Just eight weeks ago, we were thrilled to announce the approval of ELAHERE for the treatment of adult patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. This approval marked a number of important firsts. In particular, ELAHERE is the first and only ADC approved in ovarian cancer, the first new drug approved specifically for platinum-resistant disease since 2014, and our first independent product launch marking our evolution to a commercial company. To that end, to ensure a successful launch, we're focused on four imperatives. Redefine expectations for positive outcomes in platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. Drive adoption of early FRα testing. Third, gain broad approval, or broad payer coverage to support rapid access to ELAHERE. Lastly, ensure positive physician and patient experiences through a tailored education, and guidance on potential adverse events with the drug. We are seven weeks in at this point, and I'm pleased to report that we are off to a strong start with the ELAHERE launch. This slide provides a bit more color on the progress towards each of the apparent imperatives I outlined on the previous slide. First, uptake here has been broad and deep. Our first patient was treated on December 1st, and we generated $2.6 million in net sales for the quarter, with almost all of that coming in December. While our largest customers by volume are academic centers, as we expected, we are encouraged by the adoption in the community. So far, we've seen 70% of our orders from non-academic settings and 75% of our orders from accounts with no prior ELAHERE experience. Second, testing has significantly exceeded our expectations. Recall that the collaboration, in collaboration with our CDX partner, Roche, we set up four centralized labs to receive samples upon approval. Based upon our tracking data, we estimate that roughly 1,500 tests have been performed through year-end. Consistent with our education efforts, we believe a significant percentage of these tests are being ordered for newly diagnosed patients. While those patients are not eligible for treatment with ELAHERE today, we are creating a pool of eligible patients for future therapy. Our tracking data also suggests that FRα positivity rates are consistent with our clinical trial experience. Finally, as anticipated, there are a number of new labs requesting to be certified to run the diagnostic in-house, which we believe is another favorable sign of physician and patient interest at this point. Third, we're also off to a fast start in terms of access with a growing number of national and regional payers, including ELAHERE in coverage policies, which now include, as of the end of last week, 18% of Medicare and 25% of commercial lives, again, as of the end of last week. In addition, ELAHERE was recently added to the NCCN guidelines for both monotherapy and in combination with bevacizumab. Importantly, the listing for ELAHERE in combination with bevacizumab cites trials that include patients with medium and low levels of FRα expression, in addition to high expressers, which has the potential to expand the benefit to a broader group of patients. Lastly, our customer-facing teams have been highly active in terms of reach. Our commercial team has engaged 45% of our 4,300 total physician targets and 70% of our 400 tier one targets, who treat roughly 1/3 of the market. To complement these efforts, our medical affairs team is connected to 70% of its core medical experts and provided a full suite of support materials to healthcare providers. In summary, we've made very strong progress in the first weeks of launch, and we look forward to carrying this momentum through the remainder of this year. Looking beyond launch, our broader development program continues to advance as we work towards full FDA approval in the U.S., expand into Europe and move into platinum-sensitive disease. Reflecting on these efforts, we completed enrollment in our confirmatory MIRASOL study in the middle of last year and are on track, as I mentioned earlier, to report top line data early this year. We also advanced patient enrollment in PICCOLO, which is a single-arm study of ELAHERE monotherapy in recurrent platinum-sensitive patients with high FRα expression, and expect a readout on the primary endpoint of that study at the end of this year. As we look to position ELAHERE as a combination agent of choice in ovarian cancer, we initiated two additional studies. Our Phase III GLORIOSA study, which will evaluate the benefit of ELAHERE plus bevacizumab maintenance versus bevacizumab maintenance alone in second-line platinum-sensitive setting. Trial 420, our single-arm Phase II study of ELAHERE plus carboplatin, followed by ELAHERE continuation in platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer patients with low, medium and high levels of FRα expression. This study is intended to inform a potential path to registration in recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. In totality, the breadth of this program will cover a significant percentage of the recurrent ovarian cancer market, as outlined in more detail on the next slide for the U.S. market. We buy data from DRG and from IQVIA, as well as Kantar Health. Those data are shown here. There are roughly 34,000 drug treatable patients with recurrent ovarian cancer in the U.S., who are divided into two segments, 12,000 with platinum-sensitive disease and 22,000 with platinum-resistant disease. Roughly 35%-40% of all patients express high levels of FRα. Our initial market opportunity, based on our approved label, is in the platinum-resistant setting, where there are approximately 19,500 drug treatable second through fourth line patients, with roughly 75% of those patients currently receiving single agent chemotherapy or non-Bev regimens. This equates to an initial eligible population of roughly 5,200 patients. With the benefit of the NCCN compendia listing for the combination with bevacizumab and platinum-resistant disease, we add another 1,800 FRα high patients to the market opportunity. If we also factor in ELAHERE plus bevacizumab usage in FRα low and medium patients, we would further add 2,200 patients. Moving to the platinum-sensitive setting based on the development program outlined on the previous slide, PICCOLO adds a small but growing population of roughly 400 patients. Second, the ELAHERE carboplatin combination would cover another 6,100 patients in either the recurrent setting or the neoadjuvant setting. Lastly, GLORIOSA would add another roughly 800 patients in the maintenance setting. So taken together, our current label, the compendia listings and the output from the development program gives us an opportunity of over 14,000 FRα patients in the U.S. and a similar size market in the EU. Just a word on ex-U.S. markets. We plan to go direct in Europe, where the market is highly concentrated and addressable with a modest investment in commercial infrastructure. Outside of those direct markets, we plan to use a combination of distributors and strategic partnerships such as our collaboration with Huadong Medicine in China. That's all on mirvetuximab. I want to now move to our second pivotal program of Pivekimab sunirine and BPDCN, and slide 12 gives us an outline of that program. Pvec is a novel ADC that targets CD123, which is expressed on a range of hematologic malignancies. Our strategy for this program is to secure faster market approval in BPDCN, where we receive Breakthrough Therapy designation for the relapse refractory disease. We've aligned with FDA on a path to full approval, which I'll come back to shortly. We're also pursuing label expansion in AML and plan to explore proof of concept in other CD123 positive indications. On slide 13, you'll see that BPDCN is a rare, aggressive hematologic malignancy with an annual incidence of somewhere between 500 and 1,000 patients here in the US, and similar numbers in Europe. Frontline therapeutic options for BPDCN include intensive chemotherapy, as well as an approved agent, ELZONRIS, which is a diphtheria toxin conjugate targeting CD123. While these frontline therapies are associated with high initial response rates, they are challenging for patients to tolerate. With ELZONRIS in particular, patients are required to be hospitalized for five days to initiate treatment, and there's a risk of potentially fatal capillary leak syndrome. Most patients relapse. For those who with previously treated disease, the median overall survival is roughly eight months. To improve upon these options, we're pursuing development of Pvec as our lead indication. On slide 14, we outline a little bit of the development history in BPDCN. In 2020, we aligned with FDA on a pivotal frontline cohort of up to 20 patients in our phase II CADENZA study as a path to full approval with CR/CRc as the primary endpoint and duration of response as a key secondary endpoint. Enrollment in Cadenza initially did not distinguish between de novo BPDCN patients and those who presented with a prior or concomitant hematologic malignancy or PCHM. PCHM may prevent patients from achieving a full CR. In August of last year, we shared an initial analysis from the first 10 frontline patients enrolled in Cadenza and found that more than half of those patients had PCHM despite significant activity in both patient groups. In a follow-up discussion with FDA, we aligned that the primary efficacy evaluable population for Cadenza would be in the de novo BPDCN patients with CRCRC as the primary endpoint, and again, duration of response as the key secondary endpoint. Following the release of those data, enrollment has accelerated in this study. We now expect to complete enrollment before the end of this year and have data from this study in 2024. We will also continue to enroll as a separate cohort PCHM patients to support assessing CRH as an endpoint in this population. We're also investigating Pvec and AML, which is another CD123 positive malignancy with poor outcomes. At ASH in December, we presented safety and efficacy findings for Pvec in combination with Ven-Aza in patients with relapsed refractory AML and initial data from our frontline cohort. These data demonstrate the triplet's encouraging anti-leukemia activity and tolerability. Based on the strong results from the first 10 patients enrolled in the frontline, we've moved forward with two expansion cohorts to assess the optimal duration of venetoclax in the frontline setting. Tolerability and efficacy outcomes from these cohorts will guide pivotal development of the triplet in frontline AML. We also recently announced our partnership with Gilead to study Pvec in combination with magrolimab in relapsed refractory AML and look forward to initiating this new cohort as part of our 0802 study later this year. Moving to our earlier pipeline assets, starting with the IMGC936 on slide 17 of the deck. This is our first in class ADC directed towards ADAM9, which is overexpressed in a wide range of solid tumors and minimally expressed on normal tissue, which makes it an ideal ADC target. We've completed dose escalation with 936 and are focused on expanding into non-small cell lung cancer as well as triple negative breast cancer. We look forward to sharing initial data from these expansion cohorts as well as the totality of our Phase I experience in Q2 of this year. On slide 18, we've got our next generation Folate Receptor alpha targeting ADC, IMGN-151. Here we have the opportunity to further expand on our existing franchise, building on the success of ELAHERE. 151 integrates a number of important innovations to improve activity against tumors with lower levels of FRα expression. We recently initiated a Phase I study with 151 and look forward to enrolling our first patients before the end of this month. The final element of our strategy is to bolster our pipeline through internal discovery and external partnerships. While our strategic approach to partnering has evolved over time, the goal of these partnerships has remained the same, to maximize the value of our programs and novel ADC technology through risk sharing and levering complementary expertise. These relationships include our agreement with Huadong to develop and commercialize ELAHERE in Greater China, our co-development partnership with MacroGenics on IMGC936, and our collaborations with Oxford BioTherapeutics and Biosion to research first and best-in-class ADCs. Regarding our legacy partnerships, these deals have produced two marketed products to date. We view these agreements as financial assets. We can collect milestone payments, which total over $2.5 billion from our current agreement, as well as royalty streams that we can monetize as less diluted funding, as we did with Kadcyla. substantial value coming from this part of the business. Just to leave you with some closing thoughts. After a transformative 2022, we enter this year with significant momentum and strong prospects for the business, including building on the fast start to the launch and driving commercial uptake of ELAHERE here in the U.S. Reporting top line data early this year from our confirmatory MIRASOL study, which will set us up for our first approval in Europe next year. Expanding the broader ELAHERE development program in a platinum-sensitive disease, progressing the clinical studies of pvec, frontline BPDCN and frontline AML, and advancing our earlier stage clinical programs, evaluating novel ADCs in multiple tumor types, and importantly, continuing our legacy of innovation with our platform to bring more good days to cancer patients. Thanks for your attention, and we look forward to another exciting and productive year at ImmunoGen. I'm gonna ask Anna to come join me for some Q&A. As a reminder, you can either send the questions through the portal or raise your hand, and Ben can hand you a mic. Or maybe I'll start the first question. Anna, it will be a very difficult question. Can you further refine Q1 data for MIRASOL? We're on track for data early 2023 from MIRASOL, the confirmatory study. We had previously guided that we would have reached the requisite number of PFS events, 330 events, before the end of December. That has bled into early 2023. That being said, we're still on track for data, top-line data early this year. I will continue. I guess maybe while it's early, you know, what has been the feedback from physicians regarding the safety monitoring as per ELAHERE's label and the companion diagnostic? You know, are there any barriers to adoption? As you saw from the data that we outlined in the deck, the testing uptake has really exceeded our expectations with 1,500 tests through the end of the year. You know, we did a great job going out ahead of time to ask physicians to test patients early in their diagnosis. That seems to be, you know, supported with the data that we've just reported. Separately on the, you know, on the safety front, you know, again, we put together a full suite of materials to deal with things like the ocular events. I think the physicians are well-armed at this point in terms of managing folks on a go-forward basis. Obviously, we don't have data on things like, you know, discontinuations and so on, given how early it is. From a uptake perspective, we're very pleased. We're particularly gratified by the uptake in the community setting. You know, these are folks who are working with a miscellaneous J-code at this point in a buy and bill environment. As I mentioned in the presentation, you know, 75% of these physicians have no prior experience with ELAHERE. To see those folks writing scripts is gratifying and I think a reflection of how strong the commercial and medical teams that we have out on the field. I guess, of the 1,500 tests that have been done, how do you see them translating to actually paid patients over the next couple of months? The first thing you start with is FRα positivity, right? Our clinical experience with SORAYA says about 36% of those patients will be FRα high. As I mentioned earlier, the goal here was to have patients tested as early as possible in their journey. We believe that a significant percentage of those patients are newly diagnosed patients. Which for us means that they will go through, you know, a set of therapies before they're eligible for ELAHERE in the platinum-resistant setting. As we think about these patients, the next, you know, the next step would be for those who are, you know, treatment ready to be identified. You know, we're creating a pool of FRα-eligible patients in the, in the first instance. Then what's happening is, you know, these patients are monitored by their physicians, right? As they go forward, and the physicians see things like rising CA-125 levels, they can... If they're not a patient that hasn't been tested, send the sample in, and for those who have been tested, initiate therapy. All right. understanding that it's too early to give guidance, maybe, you know, another way of asking the question is: Are you comfortable with the 2023, you know, consensus projections for ELAHERE? Yeah. It's too early to comment on that. Had to try. Okay. maybe going, you know, moving on to MIRASOL. How should we think about the potential read-through from SORAYA to MIRASOL? Would you expect similar overall response rate or, and PFS data between the two trials? The SORAYA and the MIRASOL studies were slightly different but overlapping populations. SORAYA was platinum-resistant ovarian cancer with one to three priors, all FRα high, and they all have had prior bevacizumab. This tends to be a somewhat worse group of patients than the patients enrolled in MIRASOL, where prior bevacizumab was allowed but not required. We know from the prior FORWARD I randomized study that about half or maybe a little over half of the patients typically do get bevacizumab. The MIRASOL population will reflect that with about half or slightly more than half of the patients having had prior bevacizumab. What we can tell you at this point is, you know, the SORAYA data were quite impressive in terms of response rate and duration of response. During the BLA review process, FDA requested to see ORR data and DOR data from the ongoing MIRASOL study that was still enrolling at the time that they looked. You know, with MIRASOL not requiring prior bevacizumab, we were very pleased that the label that we got for ELAHERE was actually broader than that, the population for our accelerated approval trial. In other words, the label does not mention the need for prior bevacizumab, despite that being the subset of patients who were enrolled in our accelerated approval study. Turning to PFS, I would caution folks not to read through from the SORAYA study to MIRASOL, in terms of PFS for the reasons that I discussed, that it is a more heavily pretreated population. If folks are interested in thinking about what to expect from the MIRASOL study, I would remind you that we already performed randomized Phase III trial. When we properly identified patients, for FRα high expression by the PS2+ method, we already have demonstrated a hazard ratio of 0.6 with a median PFS on the mirve arm of 5.6 months, which compared quite favorably to the PFS on the control arm of about 3.2 months. Any more questions? With a broad label that covers, you know, a vast agnostic, you know, patients already in hand, how can your commercial strategy change following the MIRASOL readout? We're pretty happy with the reach and frequency that we're seeing with the, you know, team that we have in place. As, you know, some of the metrics that I mentioned to you, when you get to 70% of your tier one accounts, in the first six or seven weeks, I think you're getting the coverage that you want. As, you know, as we think about and look at adoption, where it's coming from, you know, the strategy is in place and performing well. I don't see a need to do that. You know, when you cut territories for a sales force, it's pretty disruptive to recut them if you wanna add additional reps to the field force. This team is executing at a very high level at this point. I think we're comfortable with the strategy that we have. Given the fact that the label doesn't you know, is not expanded with the, with the MIRASOL readout, I think we would leave it in place. I think the important point to take away from MIRASOL is really twofold. First is we see this as the path to registration in Europe. The authorities there and the payers there are not so interested in single-arm studies other than in exceptional circumstances. This randomized controlled study provides the basis for submitting the MAA for Europe. We expect to do that later this year with an approval next year. We've hired a head of international who's here in the room with us today and have a small office in Zug to support the expansion in that territory. The other point that's that's interesting and complicated is that the question for those who are following us with accelerated approvals is what constitutes available therapy. For us with SORAYA available therapy was single agent chemo, which has a response rate of, you know, somewhere between 4% and 13%. That was our benchmark. With full approval from MIRASOL, the available therapy then becomes, at least for FRα high patients, the response rate and duration of response that we see in the MIRASOL study. That becomes the regulatory benchmark, at least, for that subset of patients. For folks who are pursuing, you know, broader populations, not sure exactly how the FDA is gonna handle that. For at least those patients with FRα high expression, the data with ELAHERE become the benchmark. First of all, congrats again. Amazing stuff. The folate receptor alpha levels, do they change over time such that your pool, if they tested low, maybe you could retest them and see if they're high later on? Is it pretty stable? I can't remember. Folate receptor alpha expression is generally stable over time. There have been retrospective studies showing that, and we actually presented data several years ago now, in what we lovingly called the biopsy cohort. All patients were enrolled based on archival tissue, and then all patients got a pretreatment biopsy, and we showed greater than 70% concordance for trial eligibility. To your point, occasionally, there's a patient out there who doesn't have available tissue, primarily because they may have moved. Almost all ovarian cancer patients, because they have debulking surgery as part of their initial diagnosis and treatment, have plenty of tumor tissue available. Occasionally, about 5% of the time, a patient may need a fresh biopsy. Again, you know, if a physician did want to rebiopsy someone, they could. Actually, what I would point people to is that, in the NCCN compendia, we actually have broader indications. Patients with low or medium levels of FRα expression, would be appropriate for our mirvetuximab plus bevacizumab combination through the NCCN compendia. You've highlighted 14,000 patients that, you know, at peak can be potentially available for ELAHERE. I guess, can you translate that, you know, into a peak opportunity worldwide, and maybe break it down between US and Europe? In terms of patient numbers, the underlying population in the European market goes up to about $450 million. So you could take the ratio of 330 to 450 and get, you know, a perspective. Pricing tends not to be as high in Europe as it is here in the United States, so, you know, you then discount for whatever factor there is between the two geographies. Then, you know, our partner Huadong suggests to us that the population in China, at least from an incident rate, doesn't differ from the US population. So, you know, again, another significant market opportunity there, and we haven't really benchmarked the rest of the globe. As part of your prepared remarks, you mentioned, we're gonna have some data from PICCOLO this year, maybe can you highlight for us what we're gonna be able to see, whether ORR, DOR, and what the next paths of regulatory development that would entail? PICCOLO is our single-arm study of mirvetuximab monotherapy in later line platinum-sensitive disease. This is an evolving and growing unmet need because patients now with ovarian cancer typically get a PARP inhibitor as part of maintenance in the front line setting. They, you know, small percent of patients are cured with that maintenance therapy, but unfortunately, most still recur. Many of them recur with platinum-sensitive disease, but they're not as platinum-sensitive as they used to be in the pre-PARP days because PARP inhibitors, they impair the cell's ability to repair DNA damage. It seems that PARP inhibitors then create the situation where subsequent DNA-damaging agents, so subsequent chemotherapies, are no longer as effective as they used to be. These later line platinum-sensitive patients, there are more of them, but they're probably less platinum sensitive than they would have been in the pre-PARP days. This is an evolving unmet need. It's because of that unmet need that we started the Piccolo study. We had anecdotal data in a couple handfuls of patients from our phase I experience that suggested this might be a very nice opportunity for mirvetuximab. We're wrapping up enrollment in the Piccolo study. It's designed to be about 75 patients' worth of data, and we should have ORR data before the end of the year. Given how well these patients typically do in terms of long durations of response, we don't think that we'll have mature DOR data. Again, we'll have data that will help inform whether or not we have a potential registration strategy here, with the potential for a single-arm study to support accelerated approval. I have to acknowledge that we haven't yet engaged FDA on what the appropriate benchmark would be. I think the benchmark has shifted with the recent evolution with PARP inhibitors. More to be seen, but the more impressive the PICCOLO data will be, the easier that conversation with FDA will be. Hi. Yeah. Any, any thoughts on why the PFS events are accruing more slowly and, as well as just kinda how we should think about that impacting the statistics if the PFS is longer than you had originally thought? Yeah. We track the event rate, and the closer we are to the end of the study, the more accurate our estimations are. We've been tracking all along using data from the FORWARD I study, for example, to understand the event rate. Then we reprojected last year when there was a interim analysis for futility only that the IDMC took a look at. We had, again, a more, a larger number of events so that we could reproject. You know, there's two ways that you could interpret it. Well, there's three ways, really. One is that the entire population is doing better than you anticipated, or it could be that the control arm is doing better than you anticipated, or it could be that the experimental mirvetuximab arm is doing better than anticipated. Until we see the data, I don't know which of those three hypotheses is explaining it. You know, at the end of the day, it's all about the treatment effect in terms of the benefit of mirvetuximab over investigator choice chemotherapy. If we happen to enroll an overall better population, both arms do better. At the end of the day, based on the data we've already generated, we are highly confident that mirv will be better than what you see with investigator choice chemotherapy. If you show a strong trend on PFS, but not stat sig, I think you've already kind of alluded that you have an ORR benefit based on the prior look that the FDA had. Could you still get full approval, with just the trend and positive, stat sig on ORR? We need to have a positive study, a statistically significant improvement in our primary endpoint progression-free survival by investigator. We can also talk about all the other efficacy endpoints, but we do need to have statistical significance in that for the primary endpoint. If there's no more questions on ELAHERE, I can move on to Pivec. In light of the latest data in frontline AML that you presented at ASH, how should we think about the potential regulatory path for the Pivec triplet with aza and ven? Is a single arm study possible for an accelerated approval? Our triplet data of Pivec plus venetoclax plus azacitidine, we presented 10 patients worth of data, very encouraging, both from a tolerability perspective and a safety and an efficacy perspective, but it's early days. As we generate additional data in up to about 100 patients potentially of our triplet to optimize the dose, the duration of venetoclax, as Mark mentioned in his presentation, that'll give us a sense of whether or not our triplet really is as wonderful as we hope it will be, and would support us moving forward with a randomized phase III trial in the frontline setting, comparing our triplet against the Ven-aza standard of care. I don't think that a single arm study in the frontline setting would be possible. Okay. Maybe moving to 936 program. Can you tell us about the rationale on why you selected triple negative and lung cancer as the expansion cohorts? When we see data initially in Q2 2023, is this just gonna be from the expansion cohorts or we'll be able to see also data from the dose escalation studies? Sure. ADAM9 is a great target because it's highly expressed on a multitude of solid tumors, so pancreatic, colorectal, esophageal, triple negative breast and lung cancer. We've generated preclinical data in PDX models really showing nice activity kind of regardless of the expression level of ADAM9. The potential for this drug is quite big. When we look at the tumor types that are most amenable to a tubulin-directed payload, which is what our DM21 is, it's really triple negative breast cancer and lung cancer where we're gonna see the strongest signal. You know, in phase I trials, often the patients that are appropriate for phase I may often be colorectal cancer patients who have indolent tumors and are well enough to participate in trials, but colorectal cancer is not particularly sensitive to tubulin-directed payloads. There's other tumor types that get enriched in phase I trials like pancreatic cancer, where signals unfortunately are few and far between. It was really based on the patients that we've enrolled in the dose escalation part of the study that allowed us to get to the right dose and schedule that we decided, you know what, it makes a lot of sense to just hurry up and get some expansion data under our belt in the tumor types most likely to benefit, and we should have that data in Q2 to drive further decision-making for the drug. Okay. If there's no questions, I would like to thank Mark and Anna and the listeners. Thank you very much. Thank you.