Good afternoon, and welcome to the Iovance fourth quarter and full year 2020 financial results conference call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. After the speaker's presentation, there will be a question -and-answer session. To ask a question during that portion of the call, you will need to press star one on your telephone. If you require any further assistance, please press star zero. I would like to turn the call over to your speaker, Sara Pellegrino, Vice President, Investor and Public Relations at Iovance. Please go ahead. Thank you, operator. Good afternoon, and thank you for joining us. Speaking on today's call, we have Maria Fardis, our president and chief executive officer; Friedrich Finckenstein, our chief medical officer; and Jean-Marc Bellemin, our chief financial officer. We are also joined by Jim Ziegler, Senior Vice President, Commercial. This afternoon, we issued a press release that can be found on our website at iovance.com, which includes the financial results for the three and 12 months ended on December 31st, 2020, as well as corporate updates. Before we start, I would like to remind everyone that statements made during this conference call will include forward-looking statements regarding Iovance's goals, business focus, business plans, pre-commercial activities, clinical trials, and regulatory plans and results, potential future applications of our technologies, manufacturing capabilities, regulatory feedback and guidance, payer interactions, collaborations, cash position and expense guidance, and future updates. Forward-looking statements are subject to numerous risks and uncertainties, many of which are beyond our control, including the risks and uncertainties described from time to time in our SEC filings. Our results may differ materially from those projected during today's call. We undertake no obligation to publicly update any forward-looking statements. With that introduction, I will hand the call over to Maria. Thank you, Sara, and good afternoon, everyone. I am pleased to highlight our 2020 progress as well as our 2021 priorities at Iovance during today's conference call. During 2020, we continued to advance and broaden our tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, or TIL, platform across multiple indications, including metastatic melanoma, cervical, head and neck, and non-small cell lung cancers. For our lead TIL product candidate, lifileucel in metastatic melanoma, we reported new and updated data from our ongoing C-144-01 clinical study, demonstrating durable responses in our cohort 2 for one-time treatment with lifileucel. We initiated a dialogue with FDA and learned that we need to continue refining the information from our potency assays. We continue our work to refine existing assays as well as to develop new assays in pursuit of our Biologics License Application, or BLA, which is our top priority for 2021. In additional indications, we completed enrollment in two cohorts for lifileucel in advanced cervical cancer. We reported the initial clinical data for TIL in combination with pembrolizumab in head and neck cancer. We activated sites for our registration-directed study of LN-145 in non-small cell lung cancer. We believe that the growing body of TIL clinical data across multiple late-stage cancers, coupled with combination of TIL and checkpoint inhibitors in earlier stages of disease, validate the significance and broad potential for TIL. We also continue to execute toward all manufacturing and pre-commercial activities in furthering our commitment to address the critical needs of cancer patients. I am very confident in the strength of our employees to deliver on this mission. We have an impressive 76% of our nearly 250 employees who have at least a year of cell therapy experience. On the call today, I would like to spend a few minutes highlighting the lead indications. I will let Friedrich highlight our recent clinical study updates. I will begin with our first pivotal program, lifileucel in advanced melanoma. Metastatic melanoma is a common skin cancer, accounting for approximately 96,000 patients diagnosed and 7,000 deaths each year in the U.S. alone. We are focused on metastatic melanoma patients that have exhausted their most commonly used available care options and need alternative therapies. In early January 2021, we provided a corporate update that median duration of response still has not been reached at 28.1 months of median study follow-up for cohort 2 from our C-144-01 clinical study. We, as well as KOLs, continue to be very enthusiastic about the durability of response following one-time treatment with lifileucel. For the post -anti-PD-1 patient population similar to cohort two, chemotherapy is only currently available option and offering a 4% to 10% response rate and an overall survival of only 7 to 8 months. We intend to present the long-term follow-up data from cohort two at an upcoming medical conference. As previously mentioned, reaching agreement with FDA on the potency assay is a top priority for Iovance. Following a type B meeting with the U.S. FDA during the fourth quarter of last year, we've reached agreement on the duration of clinical data follow-up for our pivotal cohort four to support the BLA. We did not reach an agreement with the agency on the potency assays to define TIL and continue our work to refine existing potency assays while developing new assays. While the length of time until BLA submission depends on future dialogue with the agency, we continue staying prepared for a BLA submission in 2021. We plan to provide updates when available. Our second pivotal program is investigating LN-145, now also known as lifileucel, in the C-145-04 study to support a BLA submission in metastatic cervical cancer. Enrollment in both cohorts 1 and 2 of this study have been completed. Patients in our pivotal cohort 1 are post-chemotherapy, whereas cohort 2 includes post -anti-PD-1 patients. We believe that inclusion of both cohorts in the BLA may strengthen the potential label and reflect the expected upcoming treatment landscape in cervical cancer. The resolution of the potency assay for lifileucel in melanoma is a key step toward our BLA submission plan in the cervical cancer indication. As a reminder, the FDA has previously granted both breakthrough therapy and fast track designations for lifileucel in cervical cancer. Turning to our manufacturing facility, Iovance Cell Therapy Center, or iCTC, the construction of clean rooms was completed in late 2020. Process equipment are now in place in the available clean rooms, and activities in support of clinical manufacturing are expected to initiate in the coming months. Commercial manufacturing remains on track for 2022, with capacity to meet the demand for up to thousands of patients. Iovance has transformed TIL manufacturing from a lengthy academic process to a shorter, scalable, centralized GMP process, yielding a cryopreserved product. Our Gen 2 process is 22 days. To date, more than 400 patients have received Iovance TIL, with a continuing success rate above 90%. We have also built and continue to augment our intellectual property, which is covered by more than 20 granted or allowed U.S. and international patents for compositions and methods of treatment in a broad range of cancers leading to the Gen 2 manufacturing process. Our Iovance IP portfolio includes patent applications and granted patents directed toward Gen 3 manufacturing, selected TIL products, stable and transient genetic TIL modifications, cryopreservation, and combination of TIL with checkpoint inhibitors. Turning to our commercial launch preparation, the Iovance team is currently focused on KOL engagement, site activation and training, TIL education and awareness, patient access, and other readiness activities. Our priority is to ensure launch success while taking a gated approach to commercial readiness expenses and headcount prior to BLA submission. Our medical affairs team works with a network of treating healthcare professionals, or HCPs, and patient advocacy groups to ensure that the information about TIL is available to interested organizations. A core commercial team continues to partner with the leading U.S. cancer centers to build their TIL service line capabilities, and we intend to scale our training and onboarding upon BLA submission. Our market access team continues to meet with the private payers and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, to ensure patients have appropriate and timely access to lifileucel. We believe that CMS and payers recognize our net need and clinical value of lifileucel, as well as the potential benefits for patients with metastatic melanoma. We are also pleased with the development and progress of our IovanceCares program. Our goal is to deliver a best-in-class cell ordering and patient support system that assists the patients at every step of the process. I will now pass the call to Friedrich to outline our clinical study updates, including the enrollment status, as well as introduction of new cohorts and treatment regimens into our existing studies. Friedrich? Thank you, Maria. I am pleased to highlight today that we are currently recruiting patients for four clinical studies. Our drug development strategy focuses on cancer populations with high unmet needs, with substantial opportunity for TIL to make a meaningful impact. Our C-145-04 clinical study in advanced cervical cancer has completed and closed enrollment in the first 2 cohorts, while we continue to recruit a third cohort of anti-PD-1 naive patients to receive TIL plus pembrolizumab. Recruitment also remains underway in our IOV-COM-202 study in solid tumors. The IOV-LUN-202 study in second-line non-small cell lung cancer and the IOV-CLL-01 study in CLL/SLL. As we move ahead with TIL alone and in combination with approved treatments in different indications in various stages of cancer, the COVID-19 pandemic may impact the pace of enrollment, particularly across cohorts with earlier line patients, which may improve as COVID-19 abates. On last quarter's call, I focused on the activation of our IOV-LUN-202 clinical study. Today, I will highlight our current data and strategy in head and neck cancer, as well as the recent updates and inclusion of new cohorts in the IOV-COM-202 basket study. Head and neck cancer remains an important indication for Iovance, and we are particularly encouraged by the initial clinical data for our TIL therapy, LN-145, in combination with pembrolizumab, that was presented at the Society for the Immunotherapy of Cancer, or SITC, annual meeting in November of 2020. We are also excited about the potential for TIL in combination with pembrolizumab in other solid tumors. The SITC poster highlighted nine patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, or HNSCC, from cohort 2A in the IOV-COM-202 basket study. This patient has not previously received treatment, but check parameters but may have received prior chemotherapy. Following LN-145 in combination with pembrolizumab, overall response rate, or ORR, was 44%, and median duration of response had not been reached at 8.6 months of median study follow-up. While these are small patient numbers, we find the results to be very promising. ORR with checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy in checkpoint -naive head and neck cancer patients ranges from 15% to 18% in the literature. We look forward to gathering additional data to present at an upcoming conference in the future. Cohort 2A has now been expanded to include up to 19 patients. Regarding our C-145-03 clinical study of LN-145 alone in head and neck cancer, we achieved target enrollment and closed the study to enrollment. Before I hand the call to Jean-Marc, I would like to highlight additional updates in our IOV-COM-202 basket study, which now includes seven total cohorts across melanoma, head and neck, and non-small cell lung cancers. As Maria mentioned, we are very excited about the potential for TIL to offer an option for many different patient populations in multiple indications. In this basket study, early -line patients in each indication received TIL plus pembrolizumab. Second-line non-small cell lung cancer patients received TIL plus ipilimumab, nivolumab, and later line cancer patients with melanoma and non-small cell lung cancer received TIL alone. Recent updates include the addition of a new melanoma cohort, a new lung cancer cohort, and, as mentioned previously, the expansion of the head and neck cancer cohort. Our newly added cohort 1C will investigate LN-144, manufactured with our 16-day third generation, or Gen 3 process, in metastatic melanoma patients who have received one or more prior systemic therapies. Cohort 2a in head and neck cancer, which is evaluating LN-145 in combination with pembrolizumab, was expanded to include up to 19 head and neck cancer patients who are naive to immune checkpoint inhibitors. Our new cohort, 3C, will provide an alternative option to standard chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer, offering TIL plus ipilimumab, nivolumab in non-small cell lung cancer patients who have received one prior systemic therapy. The three non-small cell lung cancer cohorts in this basket study, together with the second blind patient population in our IOV-LUN-202 registration supporting study, allow us to cast a broad net to address the unmet needs in non-small cell lung cancer. I will now hand the call over to Jean-Marc to discuss our fourth quarter and full year 2020 financial results. Thank you, Friedrich. My comments will reflect the high-level financial results from the fourth quarter and full year 2020. Additional details can be found in this afternoon's press release, as well as in our annual report on Form 10-K filed with SEC. I will begin with our cash position. As of December 31st, 2020, Iovance held $635 million in cash equivalents, short -term investments, and restricted cash, compared to $312.5 million on December 31st, 2019. This current cash position delivered on our commitment to end last year with at least $630 million in cash. Our current cash positions include net proceeds of $567 million from a June 2020 common stock public offering. Our financial strength is expected to be sufficient into 2023 to deliver on our pipeline programs. Moving to the income statement. Our net loss for the fourth quarter ended December 31st, 2020, was $68.4 million, or $0.47 per share, compared to a net loss of $63.6 million, or $0.50 per share, for the fourth quarter ended December 31st, 2019. Net loss for the 12 months ended December 31st, 2020, was $259.6 million, or $1.88 per share, compared to a net loss of $197.6 million, or $1.59 per share, for the 12 months ended December 31st, 2019. Research and development expenses were $52.4 million for the fourth quarter ended December 31st, 2020, a decrease of $1.8 million compared to $54.2 million for the fourth quarter ended December 31st, 2019. Research and development expenses were $201.7 million for the full year ended December 31st, 2020, an increase of $35.7 million compared to $166 million for the full year ended December 31st, 2019. The decrease in research and development expenses in the fourth quarter of 2020 over the prior year period was primarily attributable to a decrease in manufacturing and clinical cost following the completion of enrollment in the pivotal cohorts for melanoma and cervical cancer. The increase in research and development expenses in the full year of 2020 over the prior full year period was primarily attributable to higher clinical costs, licensing fees, and growth of the internal research and development team. General and administrative expenses were $16.1 million for the fourth quarter of 2020, an increase of $5.2 million compared to $10.9 million for the fourth quarter of 2019. General and administrative expenses were $60.2 million for the 12 months ended December 31, 2020, an increase of $19.3 million compared to $40.9 million for the 12 months ended December 31, 2019. The increases in general and administrative expenses in the fourth quarter and full year 2020 compared to the prior -year periods were primarily attributable to growth of the internal general and administrative team and higher stock-based compensation expenses. As of December 31st, 2020, there were approximately 146.9 million common shares outstanding. Looking ahead, we are open to opportunities to top off our cash balance while being mindful of dilution. As such, we have put an at-the-market, or ATM, facility in place to raise up to $350 million. The ATM, much like a shelf, is a good housekeeping measure that may allow us to be opportunistic in adding to our already strong balance sheet. I will now hand the call back to the operator to kick off the Q&A session. Thank you. As a reminder, ladies and gentlemen, if you have a question, simply press star one on your telephone. To withdraw your question, simply press the pound key or hash key. One moment while we compile the Q&A roster. Our first question is from Mark Breidenbach with Oppenheimer. Your question, please. Hey, thanks for taking the question, and congrats on the progress this quarter. Maria, I was hoping you could clarify whether or not the first patient has been treated in the IOV-LUN-202 study, and can you offer any thoughts as to when we might see lung cohort data from the basket trial? Hi, Mark. Good afternoon. Thank you for the questions. We have not started patient dosing in LUN202, although we do have a few sites that are activated. We have not committed to a data flow timeframe for our lung data. If you recall, there's only two cohorts in our program that actually have patients in them. One is cohort 3A, and one is cohort 3B in the COM202 study. We have highlighted in cohort 3A; we have had challenges in patient enrollment. In cohort 3B, we are hoping to have additional patients with longer follow-up to be able to present the data. We have not committed to a timeframe for data flow. Okay, thanks. That's helpful. Just turning to the cervical program, obviously there might be more focus on cohort 2 given the evolving standard of care in frontline cervical cancer. Can you give us a sense for what you see as a meaningful efficacy bar that you'd need to clear for checkpoint -experienced patients in cervical? If we can expect to see data from the second cohort of this trial. Sure. Currently, the way we have designed the protocol for cohort 2, we have these patients as post -PD-1, and expectedly they would have received chemotherapy as a prior line, because that's just available care for them. If you think about a third-line therapy, the best we are aware of, and there is no data that I'm aware of, and I'll defer to Friedrich in just a minute, that is for post -PD-1 patients. I believe for chemo and third line, the bar is around 3% response rate, Mark. In terms of cohort 2 data itself, we have blinded ourselves the same way as we have with our pivotal cohorts, such as cohort 1 in cervical, and we have not read out that cohort since we have talked to FDA. Friedrich, I don't know if you want to add anything on the expected response rate for cohort 2 patients or similar patients. Thanks, Maria. No, that's correct. There is numbers for third-line treatment. The 3% is about right, and that is interestingly true across a number of different therapies, all of them being chemotherapy. It's all ranging in the about 3% range. Okay, super helpful. Thanks for taking the questions, and congrats again. Thanks, Mark. Our next question comes from Peter Lawson with Barclays. Your question, please. Hey, thanks for taking my questions. Maria, just on the FDA and the potency assay, what are the next steps, and are they in any way kind of asking for a more defined product? Hi, Peter. Thank you for your question. From the time we met with the agency, which was back in early October of 2020, we have submitted a couple of packages to the agency. We have not received additional comments or questions from FDA, so we haven't received specific requests in any way. We continue with our validation work with additional assays, and we expect to be providing that information to the agency in the coming weeks or months. We don't have anything new from the agency, and no additional questions have arrived. Okay. Thank you. Then just with the Gen 3 manufacturing, does that in any way kind of generate a more defined product? Just kind of a question around that, as well as how many T-cell clones are there in most of your products? Really good topic. Our Gen 3 is expected to be released under the same type of criteria as Gen 2. From a clonotype diversity perspective, we don't expect it to be different than our Gen 2. In terms of how many across those clonotypes there are, we have released our repertoire data from our melanoma program and cervical program. As an average, what we see is around somewhere between 10,000 to 17,000 clonotypes per patient product. Okay. Thank you. Our next question is from Biren Amin with Jefferies. Your line is open. Yeah. Hi, guys. Thanks for taking my questions. On the cervical study, across both cohort 1 and 2, Maria, can you just talk about the lower bound on the 95% confidence interval that you need to exceed for regulatory purposes? Thank you for the question, Biren, good afternoon. We haven't changed our statistical plans in any way; we are still going with the existing plans that we had before. We haven't changed anything. The only thing that we are basically communicating to investors is there is a possibility of using cohort 2 in addition to cohort 1. We stand ready should that be a need from the agency. We are wondering whether that might be an ask, because the landscape is expected to change with the potential chemoimmunotherapy becoming frontline therapy. We haven't changed our statistical plan in any way. The statistical plan was based on cohort 1. Is cohort 2, then I'm sure you've made some assumptions that you need to exceed a certain level of efficacy for cohort 2 as well, and given the patient population's PD-1 experience, there's probably differences in terms of what your assumptions are between cohort 1 and 2. Is that accurate? I can't speak to the data. As I noted, we are blinded to both cohort 1 and cohort 2 data, so it's hard for me to tell you what we are seeing. I can tell you, and I've commented on this before, when we read out the 27 patients before we had met with the agency and blinded ourselves, we did have patients that had prior checkpoint therapy, and we had responders in that group. That was on the slides that we presented at ASCO. Aside from that, we are not planning on changing our statistical approach in any way. We just are making sure that we are ready should the agency request cohort 2 to be added into the BLA. That's all we are saying. Okay. Then maybe just one question on cohort 3C in the Basket study where you're combining with Ipi-Nivo. What's the rationale with this combination? This is a Simon two-stage design, so is there a thought that you could develop this into a pivotal cohort if you're seeing encouraging data? Just to make sure we are on the same page, Biren, are you asking about the COM 202 program or still the cervical program? The COM 202, sorry. COM 202, the Basket study, the combination with Ipi/Nivo in lung. Sure. Why don't I ask Friedrich to comment on this? Sure. I think one thing to mention here is the population in this cohort is non-overlapping with the IOV-LUN-202. I think that is one rationale here, is that we are broadening and covering additional populations across the non-small cell lung cancer patient population. The further rationale for Ipi/Nivo is that with this regimen, we're exploring priming of the tumor and T cell infiltration by administering Ipi/Nivo prior to resection. This is different from how we are doing this in IOV-LUN-202, for example. Here the dosing is a single dose of ipi and nivo prior to resection, and then after resection, we are continuing nivos comparable to how we are doing this in the pembro combination studies. This is exploring a priming approach; that's the additional rationale for this. Great. Thank you. Our next question comes from Reni Benjamin with JMP Securities. Your question, please. Hey, good afternoon, guys. Thanks for taking the questions, and congrats on the progress. Maria, I'd like to maybe get a sense of the timing of the potential filings. I think before, at least, I was thinking about both melanoma and cervical going in very close to each other. It seems to me, just kind of based on how things could unfold, that melanoma could be a 2021 type of filing, and cervical, kind of based on the work that needs to be done, might be more 2022. Am I thinking about that correctly, or is there another way to think about it? Hi, Reni. Good afternoon. I don't know if I can necessarily deduct that. I think it really depends on the resolution of the potency assay matter with FDA. Given that we have completed enrollment into the cervical program, both cohorts 1 and 2, and cohort 1 was completed, if you recall, around third quarter 2020, we think we have sufficient amount of follow-up, possibly just for cohort 1. If they ask for cohort 2, of course we need additional follow-up. I don't think I can rule out submission of potential BLAs for both indications in 2021. Got it. Okay. I notice, of course, and it makes sense, the combination studies with checkpoints. Is there any other work that's being done to evaluate other combinations outside of checkpoints in these indications? Yeah, that's a great question. We've actually thought about a number of different alternative combinations and different settings and lines.Typically, we are looking to see where we can take the TIL product into earlier lines. Looking at Steve Rosenberg's data in PD-1 naive patients, this is highly encouraging. It showed us that if TIL is an earlier line of therapy, there may be additional responders and additional CRs that one can have. The initial thinking wasn't necessarily going into combination, but going into an earlier line. Now, once we decide we are going to earlier line, typically a regulatory path is to offer the patient available care in addition to TIL. Since in most of the diseases we are in, available care and frontline happen to be checkpoint inhibitors, we are in combination with checkpoint inhibitors. I do want to remind, there has been data published in combining TIL plus other agents. TKIs come to mind; BRAF combinations have been published, and that data appears to have been possibly additive, although many of these studies are not statistically significant in terms of the number of patients, but there appears to be additivity there. Got it. I guess one final one from me. In the melanoma study, you continue to not reach the median duration. Do you have any sort of sense as to what the patients who are progressing, kind of what they're moving on to? Have any of them ever been retreated with TILs? Yes, we do collect that information as part of our database in certain cohorts. We also do have a retreatment cohort; you might recall it's called Cohort 3 in our melanoma program. They do have the opportunity to get retreated should they choose to do that. Yes. Okay. We haven't seen it. I totally forgot about Cohort 3. We haven't seen any data from those patients, or is there any sort of an update that we have from that cohort? Yeah. We haven't presented data from that cohort. Typically, we want to have a sufficient number of patients before we can present data and long enough follow-up. Yes, that cohort three allows for retreatment of patients that may be coming from cohorts one, two, and four. Excellent. Thank you very much. Thanks for taking the question. Of course. Thank you, Reni. Our next question comes from Mara Goldstein with Mizuho. Please go ahead. Hey, great. Thanks for taking my question. I think this kind of dovetails on the last question about earlier lines of therapy, but in the non-small cell lung cancer study, the inclusion criteria really just specify that patients have a single line of systemic therapy that includes checkpoint and chemo. I'm just curious, is that your anticipation that you will essentially be a second-line, or are you taking patients who've had more than one prior line of therapy? Mara, in the COM 202 study where chemoimmunotherapy is defined as prior line, we are asking patients to be second line. Does that answer your question? Okay. Yeah. No, I appreciate that. Thank you. Sure. Thank you. All right, our last question comes from Nick Abbott with Wells Fargo. Your question, please. Good afternoon. Thank you for taking my questions. First one, Maria, can I just confirm that the next sort of submission to FDA on the potency assay would occur in this quarter? You said the next few weeks; I'm not sure if that you mean this quarter. Hi, Nick. Good afternoon. Yes, we have said that we are on track with completion of the validation work to provide the data to agency. I have always said in the upcoming weeks to months, so that's not an incorrect statement. We are still on target with our own internal activities. Okay. You mentioned that you've been validating the assay. By that, can we conclude that you've tested all of the melanoma cohorts for products with that assay? I guess where I'm going in with this is, what would be the timeline between an agreement with FDA on the potency assay and the filing? Just to kind of clarify, the validation that we are talking about does not apply to our front runner assay. That assay had been validated a few years ago, and that data was provided to the agency, and the clinical samples were in fact released based on that assay. That work was completed. When we are talking about validation of additional assays, these are subsequent assays that we are talking to the agency. To answer the second question, if that's what your question is, yes, one would have to run the clinical samples with the validated assay and provide that to the agency. Depending on how many samples are asked, this is something that takes a few months to do. It shouldn't be a rate-limiting step for submission from the way we are thinking about it. Just to be clear, you have run those clinical samples, or you'd wait until you get agreement with FDA that the assay is sufficient? I don't know if I can disclose the details. There are ways of doing both at the same time. Not every single sample needs to be run in advance of getting some degree of agreement, but some samples can be run, and we do run them just to test the range of an assay. Okay. I'm sorry to belabor the point, but if we go ahead and we file in the next few weeks, and the FDA agrees some weeks after that, it's still possible you could file the BLA before the middle of the year? Without going into too much detail, because you're right, it depends on what exactly they request or how clear they provide feedback on. I do want to remind, we still need to read our data by IRC. The clinical data still need to be read out by IRC. We have been waiting to make sure that the agency's comfortable with our approach and then read the clinical data by IRC. Okay. It's intriguing that you might be able to combine the cervical data cohort 1 with not just cohort 2, but melanoma potentially. Am I right in assuming that only cohort 1, the breakthrough therapy designation for LN-145 in cervical, applies only to cohort 1. How do you combine a submission that has breakthrough therapy and part of it doesn't? Really great question. Breakthrough therapy generally is a designation. It doesn't dictate your label. There's not a direct correlation of whatever it is you receive; breakthrough therapy has to be exactly your label. All it says is that the agency recognizes that this particular therapy for this patient population is unmet need, and they're willing to work with the sponsor to expedite the development program. Okay, fair enough. I'll leave it at that. Thank you Sure. Thank you. There's no further questions. I would like to return the call back to Maria Fardis for her final remarks. Thank you again for joining the Iovance fourth quarter and full year 2020 results conference call. Please feel free to reach out to our IR team if you wish to follow up. Have a great rest of the day. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for participating in today's program. You may now disconnect.