Welcome to the Immuneering conference call to discuss the company's positive atebimetinib ASCO data update in first-line pancreatic cancer patients. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. Following management's prepared remarks, we will hold a question- and- answer session. To ensure that we have ample time to address everyone's questions, we would like to ask each person to limit themselves to one question and one follow-up. As a reminder, this call is being recorded today, Monday, June 1st, 2026. I would now like to turn the conference call over to Courtney Dugan, Vice President, Head of Investor Relations. Please go ahead. Thank you, operator. Joining us on the call today from Immuneering, are Co-Founder and CEO, Ben Zeskind, Chief Scientific Officer, Brett Hall, Chief Medical Officer, Igor Matushansky, and Chief Accounting Officer and Treasurer, Mallory Morales. During this call, management will make forward-looking statements, including statements related to its clinical trials of atebimetinib, as well as the timing of additional data from the trials and the company's development plans. Our actual results and the timing of events could differ materially from those anticipated in such forward-looking statements as a result of risks and uncertainties. Factors that could cause these results to be different from these statements include risk factors that the company describes in its securities filings, including its annual report from Form 10-K and quarterly reports from Form 10-Q. Immuneering undertakes no duty or obligation to update any forward-looking statements as a result of new information or future events or changes in its expectations. With that, I will turn the call over to Ben Zeskind, our CEO of Immuneering. Ben? Thank you, Courtney. Today, I will present the latest results in our efforts to engineer longer survival with fewer trade-offs for cancer patients, and I think you will see that we are making steady progress towards achieving that goal. Today, we are presenting compelling survival and tolerability data in first-line pancreatic cancer patients. Before reviewing the data, I want to acknowledge that this is an open-label, non-randomized study. Early phase II studies in oncology typically do not have a control arm, and ours was no exception. As a result, the data require careful interpretation, and we have been deliberate about characterizing our results in the context of established benchmarks. Phase III is the appropriate setting for definitive evaluation in a randomized clinical trial, which is why we are so excited that our MAPKeeper 301 study is now recruiting. Please turn to slide three. Here, you see data from our phase II-A study of atebimetinib at 320 mg once daily in combination with modified gemcitabine nab-paclitaxel chemotherapy in our original cohort of 34 patients with first-line pancreatic cancer. We see a median overall survival of 17.3 months. 17.3 months. And the tolerability that comes with that is notably favorable, with only two categories of treatment-related adverse events at the Grade 3 or higher level in more than 10% of participants, both of which were chemotherapy- related. I'd like to point out the patient numbers at the bottom of the chart, which essentially tell you how many patients have been alive and on study for at least that long. At 13 months, we still have 16 patients at risk, which is 47% and speaks to the maturity of the survival data we are reporting today. We are now bringing the combination of atebimetinib plus modified gemcitabine nab-paclitaxel to a larger number of first-line patients in our phase III study, the MAPKeeper 301 study, which is now recruiting. We are confident in the design of MAPKeeper 301 and believe the phase II-A data we are sharing today strongly support the evaluation of this combination in phase III. Let's put these results into context. Please turn to slide four. Here, we are plotting our overall survival data together with the data from the pivotal study of standard of care gemcitabine nab-paclitaxel, the MPACT study. We see very steady separation from the standard of care benchmark. What is particularly notable is how the separation is sustained over time. Median overall survival results can be fragile when the curves are intertwined and the separation is limited to a brief period of time. The opposite is true here. When you look at any time point, six months, nine months, 12 months, 15 months, the curves stay well- separated all the way out to our median overall survival of 17.3 months and beyond. Moreover, we have shared data using four different data cutoff dates over the course of the past year, and the separation between our overall survival and the standard of care benchmark has held well across all four cutoffs, which adds to the reproducibility of the observations. Overall, we believe these are compelling survival and tolerability data in first-line pancreatic cancer, and they provide strong rationale for the MAPKeeper 301 study, which is now recruiting. Please turn to slide five. Now, our original goal for this study was 30 patients, and we enrolled 34 in the original cohort and thought we were done. However, the demand from our sites was so high that we decided to accept more patients into the study and ended up taking another 21 patients, broadening the study to an expanded cohort of 55 patients. Here, you are seeing the survival of the original 34-patient cohort in purple and the expanded 55-patient cohort in blue. The curves are very similar, and the median overall survival is 17.3 months in the expanded 55-patient cohort as well. The fact that overall survival is essentially the same as we increase the cohort by 21 patients further adds to the strength of the data. This is important. In addition, the tolerability also remains steady as we expand the cohort from 34 to 55. We see only two categories of treatment-related adverse events at the Grade 3 level in more than 10% of patients, both chemotherapy-related. The fact that we added an additional 21 patients without substantially changing the shape of the overall survival curve, or the median overall survival, or the categories of common Grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events all speaks to the strength of the data, and we believe provides strong rationale for evaluating this combination in our phase III study. Now, gemcitabine nab-paclitaxel is the most relevant comparator because it is the one we are combining with, it's the control arm in our phase III study, is the most common global standard of care, and it is the one typically given to older patients, like the ones in our study. However, there are two other standard of care options available in first-line pancreatic cancer, FOLFIRINOX and NALIRIFOX. These regimens are typically given to younger, higher fitness patients because they are less tolerable, but with modestly better median overall survival, typically around 11 months. In a sense, they define the range of typical outcomes in first-line pancreatic cancer. Another way to assess the strength of our results is to compare them to all three standard of care treatments for first-line pancreatic cancer. Please turn to slide six. Here, you can see that the overall survival in our 55-patient expanded cohort is well- separated, not only from the pivotal MPACT study data for gemcitabine nab-paclitaxel in orange, but also from the data from the pivotal PRODIGE study of FOLFIRINOX in green and the pivotal NAPOLI-3 study of NALIRIFOX in red. Not only is our 17.3-month median overall survival well above those benchmarks, which each land around 11.1 months, but the curves show a steady separation across many months of treatment, not just at the median. We have included one more survival plot on this chart in brown. It is the Ahn et al. study of the modified schedule for gemcitabine nab-paclitaxel that we are combining with, the reduced schedule of every other week, as opposed to three weeks on, one week off. You can see that while it differs a bit from the orange gemcitabine nab-paclitaxel curve right around the median, the curves are generally quite intertwined. It is highly encouraging that our median overall survival and our overall survival plot more generally are both substantially higher than any of these other first-line studies. Please turn to slide seven. In oncology, even modest increases in survival frequently require patients to make serious trade-offs and accept a heavier toxicity burden. That does not appear to be the case here. Only two categories of treatment-related adverse events were observed at the Grade 3 or higher level in at least 10% of the patients, and both were chemotherapy-related. Importantly, of the 55 patients in our expanded cohort who had weight data at baseline and three months, 84% were weight stable or gained weight. This number has remained steady since we first reported it at an earlier time point and for the initial 34-patient cohort in January, which speaks to the strength of the effect. We believe this preservation of body mass may contribute to survival. Of note, prior literature has shown an increased risk of death when pancreatic cancer patients lose weight, a hazard ratio of 1.55 in Wang et al. 2025. Turning our attention from safety back to other endpoints, we have appropriately focused on overall survival because it is the gold standard in oncology. It is the thing that patients care most about, and it is the sole primary endpoint in our phase III study. However, it is also important to look at the other endpoints because they help speak to the strength of the overall survival result. Please turn to slide eight. Not only is our overall survival well- separated from standard of care, but our additional endpoints are also differentiated from the benchmarks for standard of care from the MPACT study, with a median PFS of 8.3 months versus 5.5 for the standard of care, a confirmed overall response rate of 36% versus 23% for the standard of care, and a disease control rate of 82%, well-separated from the 48% benchmark for the standard of care. The fact that these additional endpoints also show good separation adds further support to our overall survival observations. We are particularly encouraged by the disease control rate, which suggests most patients are deriving some benefit from atebimetinib plus modified gemcitabine nab-paclitaxel. Please turn to slide nine. Our waterfall plot shows the depth of response across the evaluable patients. The vast majority of patients in the disease control group are experiencing actual tumor regressions, not just tumors held below the 20% progression threshold. The number of scans is indicated above each bar, and many patients with stable disease are showing lesion shrinkage over multiple scans. Another key takeaway from the waterfall plot is that confirmed responses were seen across patients harboring a range of RAS mutations, as well as those without known RAS mutations, an outcome that aligns with our pre-clinical findings. This mutation-agnostic response pattern informed our decision not to mandate genetic testing for enrollment in this study or in our phase III trial, reducing barriers and streamlining access for patients seeking to participate. Let's go back to those patients with shrinking lesions and stable disease. It is somewhat unusual to have so many patients in this category, and w e believe this is consistent with atebimetinib's mechanism, which is designed to shrink tumors in a slow and steady way, as opposed to a fast and temporary way. Spider plots are one way to help understand this better. Please turn to slide 10. The spider plots demonstrate that the majority of patients experienced prolonged, deepening reductions in the size of their tumors. These data suggest that atebimetinib's strength may derive in part from its durability. Please turn to slide 11. Now, when comparing phase II results to phase III benchmarks, it is important to carefully assess the baseline demographics for differences that could contribute to differing outcomes. That does not appear to be the case here. 55 patients were enrolled at 14 sites across the United States with the following baseline demographics, which are generally consistent with the population in the MPACT benchmark study. Two baseline characteristics are particularly worth noting. Our patients were older, a median age of 68 versus 62 for the MPACT study. In terms of lung mets, which are associated with longer overall survival in the literature, we had a lower percentage than MPACT, 27% versus 35% in MPACT. Another notable difference is that a higher percentage of our patients were able to go on to second-line treatment, 60% in our study versus 40% in the benchmark study for standard of care. This is important because published data show that when pancreatic cancer patients cannot go on to second-line treatment, their risk of death is significantly increased, h azard ratio 1.51 in Weiss et al. 2024. We hypothesize that the weight preservation and tolerability of atebimetinib are the key drivers of the second-line treatment rate of 60%, although the impact of these drivers cannot be definitively separated from other factors. Please turn to slide 12. As I mentioned, MAPKeeper 301, our phase III study, is now recruiting. The data we are sharing at ASCO really could not have come at a better time for patients and physicians. MAPKeeper 301 is a global pivotal study with overall survival as the primary endpoint, with atebimetinib plus modified gemcitabine nab-paclitaxel randomized against a standard of care gemcitabine nab-paclitaxel control. One of the things that stands out about this trial is that no genetic testing is required prior to enrolling. Please turn to slide 13. Now, having delivered these important results in first-line pancreatic cancer, I want to highlight a number of further upcoming catalysts in both pancreatic cancer and beyond, some of which are potential milestones that we are announcing for the first time today. Beyond the phase III readout, our lung cancer combination program represents an important opportunity to demonstrate atebimetinib's potential in a second indication. The phase II data expected in late 2027 is designed to provide an independent test of the Deep Cyclic Inhibitor technology in a different disease setting and patient population. Let's walk through the milestones. First, we plan to dose the first patient in our MAPKeeper 301 phase III study in mid-2026. Next, we plan to dose the first patient in our lung cancer phase II trial of atebimetinib in combination with anti-PD-1 in the second half of the year. In the fourth quarter, we plan to share pre-clinical data on atebimetinib, plus an anti-PD-1 in a lung cancer model. Then, in 2027, we plan to begin IND-enabling studies on our next Deep Cyclic Inhibitor drug program, as well as announcing phase II clinical data from our lung cancer combination with an anti-PD-1 later that year. Then, in 2028, we plan to announce the top-line readout from our phase III MAPKeeper 301 study. And to remind you, we have cash runway into 2029. Please turn to slide 14. We're focused on engineering for longer survival with fewer trade-offs. Conventional wisdom in oncology has been to use chronic inhibitors, which suppress the pathway 24/7 in all the cells and often lead to toxicity and resistance. Our technology is called Deep Cyclic Inhibitors. These are compounds designed with a pulsatile inhibition greater than IC90 with once-daily oral dosing, and this has two key design benefits. They may generate greater tolerability because they provide a recovery window for healthy cells, and at the same time, they may have greater durability of effect on tumor cells because they work to limit adaptive and acquired resistance. This is achieved through a variety of characteristics in our chemistry, including a high free fraction Cmax, a fast off-rate, and a short half-life of two hours. The exciting possibility here is that the next generation of therapies targeting this pathway, built on the Deep Cyclic Inhibitor approach, may deliver longer survival with fewer trade-offs. The data we have shared today demonstrate the potential of this technology to deliver survival and tolerability. Please turn to slide 15. We apply this technology first to MEK, and we developed a drug called atebimetinib, which is demonstrating new potential for MEK as a target. Now, as you likely know, conventional MEK inhibitors have been ineffective in RAS mutant cancers. They've been poorly tolerated, and yet they have been shown to improve survival in RAS mutant cancers and to counteract cachexia and preserve body mass. What we've been able to do is design a new MEK inhibitor with a novel composition of matter that blocks RAS-mediated phosphorylation of MEK to enable it to work in RAS mutant disease. Then, with our Deep Cyclic Inhibitor technology, we're able to improve the tolerability and retain the counteraction of cachexia. So, what this does is provide a very new profile compared to prior MEK inhibitors, and MEK sits at a strategic point in the pathway, at the narrow part of the funnel. There's a reason why you very rarely see MEK mutant cancers. It's hard to mutate around. At AACR a few weeks ago, in Abstract 1873, we showed that acquired alterations in MAP kinase pathway genes are very rare in patients treated with atebimetinib. We rarely see the kinds of acquired alterations like KRAS amplifications and BRAF mutations that are commonly seen when inhibiting the pathway upstream. This also means that you do not have to do genetic testing, and in fact, we did not require genetic testing to enroll in our phase II, and we do not require it to enroll in our phase III. The result is atebimetinib, for which our U.S. composition of matter patent was granted last summer. Our Chief Scientific Officer is the lead inventor, and our goals in developing atebimetinib were really durability and tolerability. And I think you've seen that this new technology and this modern approach to an old target is delivering important results for patients with first-line pancreatic cancer. Please turn to slide 16. Let me conclude with a high-level overview of Immuneering and why we believe the company is uniquely positioned in oncology. At the core of our story is atebimetinib, which we believe represents a fundamentally different approach to targeting the MAP kinase pathway. Traditional MEK inhibitors have often been limited by the trade-off between efficacy and tolerability. Our Deep Cyclic Inhibitor technology was specifically designed to address that challenge by delivering potent pathway suppression while allowing recovery periods that may help reduce toxicity and delay resistance mechanisms. That technology is initially focused on MEK, one of the most important signaling nodes in cancer biology. Because MEK sits downstream of both RAS and RAF, it acts as a key convergence point for multiple oncogenic drivers. We believe that makes it an attractive target across a broad range of tumors, providing an ability to inhibit the pathway in a way that patients can tolerate over time. What makes us particularly excited is the clinical data we've generated to date. In first-line pancreatic cancer, atebimetinib has demonstrated compelling survival outcomes along with a distinctly favorable tolerability profile. We believe these results support our central thesis that deeper cyclic pathway inhibition can translate into meaningful clinical benefit without the burden of excessive toxicity. We've shown overall survival of 17.3 months. For reference, the benchmark from the pivotal study of standard of care gemcitabine nab-paclitaxel is eight and a half months. 84% of our patients have been stable or gained weight, and we have only two categories of Grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events observed in more than 10% of patients. These data are from a phase II-A single-arm study and provide strong rationale for evaluating the combination in phase III. MAPKeeper 301, the definitive phase III trial, is now recruiting in first-line metastatic pancreatic cancer. Beyond pancreatic cancer, we are advancing a phase II combination study in non-small cell lung cancer, along with a preclinical pipeline built on our Deep Cyclic Inhibitor technology. From a financial perspective, we ended the first quarter with approximately $199 million in cash, which we expect will fund operations into 2029. We also have a strong intellectual property position with patent protection on atebimetinib expected into late 2045. The compelling survival and tolerability data we have presented today are important for patients with first-line pancreatic cancer and demonstrate meaningful progress in our efforts to engineer longer survival with fewer trade-offs. Now, onward to phase III. With that, we're happy to take questions. Operator. At this time, I would like to remind everyone, in order to ask a question, press star then the number one on your telephone keypad. To ensure everyone has an opportunity to participate, we ask that each person limit themselves to one question and one follow-up. We'll pause for just a moment to compile the Q&A roster. Your first question comes from the line of Douglas MacPherson from Mizuho. Please go ahead. Hi there. Thanks for taking my question and c ongrats on the positive data. We love to see these continual good updates. I have a two-parter. The first is, curious about the one patient discontinuation who stayed on GnP. Was that a unique signal for atebi? The second part is competitive landscape-wise, RevMed's making quite the splash at ASCO. People seem to be very excited. Even though that's a second-line treatment, I'm curious if, because like the paradigm shifting maybe now with the introduction of their drug, if you think that could influence or impact the enrollment in the phase III study for the control arm for GnP, now that there's perhaps a better option for standard of care. Doug, thanks for the questions. You're right, it's really an exciting data set. Maybe I can answer them in the reverse order of how you asked them. I think your second question really went to atebimetinib's differentiation, and I think the overall survival data that we're sharing today, 17.3 months median overall survival in the first-line setting, is really very encouraging. The first-line setting is a different setting than second line in pancreatic cancer. It's a different group of patients with different characteristics and different needs, and I think particularly in the first-line setting, to see 17.3 months median overall survival is very encouraging. If you layer onto that the tolerability that we've shown, with only two categories of treatment-related adverse events at the Grade 3 or higher level in more than 10% of patients, I mean, that's truly differentiated, in terms of targeting this pathway, so w e're really encouraged by the tolerability as well. Ultimately, the fact that no genetic testing is required in this study, so that's I think what really differentiates atebimetinib and makes it unique is the kind of overall survival that we're showing, 17.3 months median, the tolerability, and the fact that we can treat a broad range of tumors and don't require testing. That's really for your second question. For the first question, I think it's really hard to draw too many conclusions from any one single patient experience. I think there's not really a whole lot you can extrapolate from an N of one. Cool. Thanks so much for taking my question. Really appreciate it, and congrats again. Thank you, Doug. Your next question comes from the line of Jay Olson from Oppenheimer. Please go ahead. Oh, hey. Congrats on these results and thanks for providing this update. You spoke about the patient's ability to not only survive but thrive, with 84% of participants weight stable or gaining weight. How much does that contribute to the patients on atebimetinib's ability to receive second-line treatment at a rate of 60%? Jay, thanks for the question. Look, we believe that the fact that 84% of our patients are weight stable or gaining weight is really important. In pancreatic cancer, muscle wasting is a real challenge for these patients. It's called cachexia, and it causes patients to lose weight, and actually increases their risk of death substantially. The ability to counteract this, we believe is one of the mechanisms contributing to survival, together with the tolerability that we have with only two categories of treatment-related adverse events at the Grade 3 level in more than 10% of patients, and certainly with the ability to have these long, slow, steady reductions in the tumors. We think all of these factors contribute ultimately to what you're pointing out, which is 60% of our patients were able to go on to second-line therapy versus 40% in the MPACT study. Certainly, our hypothesis is that all these factors are likely the key contributors. But to definitively answer that question and really tease apart all the factors, I think we'll have to do that in phase III. Okay, great. Thank you, and i f I could please ask one follow-up about the 17.3-month median OS. Of course. Go for it. Some investors have asked about how that correlates with OR and PFS, since in the case of atebi, it seems like your median OS seems to outshine ORR and PFS. Maybe if you could comment on that, please. Yeah. 17.3 months median overall survival is certainly very compelling. I think that overall survival is what matters most to patients. Right? Patients care most how long they live. It's also what matters most from a regulatory perspective. Overall survival is the gold standard. It's the primary endpoint in our clinical trial, our phase III clinical trial. The 17.3 months median overall survival is on the metric that matters most. The additional endpoints are really ways to kind of assess the consistency of what's ultimately the gold standard, which is overall survival. We're actually really encouraged by our PFS, our ORR, and our DCR because they all show consistent separation from the standard of care benchmarks. I think each of these factors together points to a picture of data that's very differentiated from the standard of care benchmarks. Look, atebimetinib shrinks tumors differently. Right? As you see in the spider plots, it's often a long, slow, steady reduction. I think that difference in mechanism can kind of affect some of those additional endpoints differently than others. At the end of the day, we're showing good separation on all of them. The gold standard is overall survival. It's the thing that matters most to patients, and that's why we're thrilled to have a 17.3 months median overall survival here. Great. Super helpful. Congrats again, thanks for taking the questions. Thank you, Jay. Your next question comes from the line of Allison Bratzel with Piper Sandler. Please go ahead. Hey, good morning, and thanks for taking the question. Could you maybe just talk to how the baseline characteristics of the first 34 patients enrolled compare to the subsequent 21 patients enrolled? Just sort of getting at the question of how do you expect that median OS number to evolve with longer follow-up? Thank you. Allison, thanks for the question. You're right, certainly the fact that in the initial 34 patients, we see 17.3 months median overall survival with a really nice 17-month median follow-up time, I think that's really exciting, and it's great that those data are mature. I think as you add in another 21 patients to see the median OS remain consistent at 17.3 months is really encouraging. I think you can certainly look at the baseline demographics that we have in the 55 and compare it against the 34 that we had previously reported on, and it's really a very similar population. There aren't major differences. Certainly, from a baseline characteristic perspective, I think these populations are quite similar. It's not just that the median overall survival is essentially the same in the 34 and the 55. It's the shape of the curves, right? I mean, if you look at the two curves overlaid on each other, they're really trending very, very consistently, and I think that speaks to the strength of this signal and the consistency of it. Thank you, Allison. Next question. Your next question comes from the line of Andrew Baird with Baird Partners. Please go ahead. Thanks, congrats on the progress, Ben. A couple from me. Are we going to get additional updates for this cohort of 55 patients? I know you're focused on the ongoing phase III program, but do you have any plans to test additional combination partners and maybe develop a chemo-free regimen for atebi? The last one I think is just a follow-up on an earlier question. Just given the enthusiasm for daraxonrasib amongst clinicians and patients, do you think that there's going to be an impact to your phase III program? Thanks. Thanks for the questions, Andy. In terms of additional updates, I don't have any guidance for you at this time. We're really excited to be sharing these data at ASCO here today, and we think it's a very exciting and comprehensive data set. In terms of additional combination partners, I think this is a really important point, right? The differentiated tolerability profile that we see with atebimetinib, right? To only have two categories of treatment-related adverse events at the Grade 3 or higher level in more than 10% of patients, even when combining with chemotherapy. By the way, the two that we have are from the chemotherapy. They're not from atebimetinib. To have that kind of a tolerability profile really is a huge opportunity to explore a wide variety of different combinations. As we discussed, we're going to be dosing the first patient in our combination study with an anti-PD-1 in lung cancer in the second half of this year. We've shown preclinical data from a wide variety of combinations, combinations with mutation-specific RAS inhibitors, combinations with BRAF inhibitors, and quite a few others. We're actively exploring a wide variety of combinations beyond the ones we talked about today. We're continuing to explore that, and I think that is a real unique aspect of atebimetinib. Regarding your last question, look, it's an exciting time for pancreatic cancer patients, right? There's a lot of options that are coming to patients who really need more options. I would just note that the first-line setting in pancreatic cancer is very different from the second line. It's great that there's sort of multiple companies attacking from different directions. Right? There's a lot of excitement about data in second line, so there's kind of treatments attacking from that direction. I think our data today, with 17.3 months median overall survival in first line, we're kind of attacking from the other direction, and we kind of have pancreatic cancer surrounded. So, I think it's great news for patients. It's great that there's going to be options. Look, certainly in the first-line setting, we're in phase III. Right? Our phase III is recruiting. There's really not that many phase III studies recruiting right now in first-line pancreatic cancer. It's probably in the single digits or thereabout. I think we're kind of in rarefied air in terms of being in phase III in first-line pancreatic cancer. What differentiates atebimetinib is really the tolerability, right? I mean, to only have two categories of treatment-related adverse events at the Grade 3 level in more than 10% of patients, I think is quite differentiating together with the kind of survival that we're seeing, 17.3 months. I think the exciting possibility for this kind of next generation of pancreatic cancer therapies, and particularly in the first-line setting, the exciting possibility, Andy, is that patients can have fewer trade-offs. Right? We believe atebimetinib plus gemcitabine can really make it possible for patients to have survival with fewer trade-offs. I think it's exciting that there's options, and we believe it's exciting that there'll be an option that has really differentiated tolerability and also doesn't require genetic testing. Right? I mean, the fact that our phase II and our phase III didn't require any genetic testing, that's really quite differentiating as well. It's great news for pancreatic cancer patients that there's options. It's great that we're attacking from first line, others are attacking from second line. It's really not an either/or, it's a both/and, right? I mean, it's the sequence of treatment. Right? Patients can get atebimetinib plus gemcitabine in the first line, followed by another treatment in the second line. In fact, the fact that we deliver 60% of patients able to go on to the second line, I think ultimately will be a sequencing advantage that'll be really impactful for these patients. We're really excited about the future for pancreatic cancer patients and the unique role that we believe atebimetinib will play in that, particularly in the first-line setting. Thank you. Your next question comes from the line of Li Watsek with Cantor. Please go ahead. Hey, good morning. This is [Rubin] on behalf of Li. Congrats on the new data. One question on your baseline patient population. Do you have any guidance or ideas on how your phase III baseline is going to look? Do we expect it to be similar to the phase II baseline? Thank you. Yeah. Thanks for the question. You're right. With a median overall survival as exciting as 17.3 months, it's important to, when the benchmark from the standard of care is 8.5 months from the MPACT study, it's important to look at the baseline characteristics. In a randomized study, you would expect that the baseline characteristics would be kind of well-matched. The areas where in some ways we had a more challenging population, our median age being 68 versus 62 in the MPACT study, I think with that balanced out, I think we're optimistic about the potential impact of that. Similarly, with regard to lung mets, w e had fewer patients with lung mets that are considered in the literature to have longer overall survival. I think having that balanced with our control arm, we're also optimistic about the potential impact of that. We look forward to the MAPKeeper 301, right? It's now recruiting. That'll be the definitive test. Certainly, our take on the baseline demographics makes us really optimistic that the separation we see from standard of care is well worth exploring in the phase III. All right. Thank you. Thank you very much. We have no further questions at this time. I will now turn the call back over to Ben Zeskind for closing remarks. Thank you. I want to thank everyone for joining our call today. We would also like to thank all the patients and investigators involved in our ongoing studies, and w e look forward to updating you on our further progress. Thank you, everyone. Ladies and gentlemen, that concludes today's call. Thank you all for joining. You may now disconnect.