Thank you for standing by, and welcome to the Iovance Biotherapeutics update call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. After the speaker presentation, there will be a question and answer session. To ask a question during the session, you will need to press star one on your telephone. Please be advised that today's conference may be recorded. Should you require any further assistance, please press star zero. I would now like to hand the conference over to your host, Sara Pellegrino. Please go ahead. Thank you. Good afternoon. Thank you for joining our conference call to discuss the initial clinical data for our TIL cell therapy, LN-145, in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer, or NSCLC. For today's agenda, our Interim President and CEO, Fred Vogt, will do a brief introduction. Dr. Friedrich Graf Finckenstein, our Chief Medical Officer, and Dr. Madan Jagasia, our Senior Vice President, Medical Affairs, will then highlight the clinical data, and we will hold a question and answer session. Before we start, I would like to remind everyone that statements made during this conference call will include forward-looking statements regarding Iovance's clinical results, goals, business focus, business plans, clinical trials, 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, and we undertake no obligation to publicly update any forward-looking statement. With that, I will turn the call over to Fred. Thank you, Sara, and good afternoon, everyone. I'm pleased to host today's call to review what we believe are very exciting initial clinical data for TIL therapy in non-small cell lung cancer, which is the first clinical data for Iovance in this indication and represents the fourth solid tumor indication where our TIL platform has demonstrated significant potential to address unmet medical need for cancer patients. We're releasing this data right now because we're excited about the potential for TIL in lung cancer, and we recently did a data cut that gives us confidence in our development strategy for LN-145 and multiple cohorts in the basket study IOV-COM-202, as well as in our registration supportive study, IOV-LUN-202. With $610 million in cash on the balance sheet as of March 31st, this data release is not related to any imminent financing plans, and we are well capitalized to develop our pipeline and prepare for commercialization. With that, turning back to the data, I'm pleased to introduce Friedrich and Madan. Thank you, Fred. Today, I will review clinical data for our TIL therapy, LN-145, in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer, or NSCLC, who enrolled in cohort 3B of the ongoing basket study, IOV-COM-202. Cohort 3B enrolled patients that have progressed on prior immune checkpoint inhibitor or ICI therapy, including patients with oncogene-driven tumors who received prior tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy. While we are saving more detailed baseline demographics for a future medical meeting, it is worth noting that 24 of the 28 patients, or 85.7%, including all the responders, had received two or more prior lines of systemic therapies. If they had an oncogene driver mutation, they had also received at least one targeted therapy. There is a significant unmet need to increase overall response rate, or ORR, and prolong survival in this difficult-to-treat non-small cell lung cancer population. We were very pleased to see an ORR of 21.4%, including one confirmed complete response and five confirmed partial responses and 64.3% disease control rate. Historically, ORRs of approximately 20% were reported with ICI as second-line therapy in ICI-naïve patients who progressed on frontline chemotherapy. We are pleased to see a comparable ORR in sicker patients in cohort 3B who have all received prior anti-PD-1 therapy. In addition, median duration of response had not been reached at 8.2 months of median study follow-up. In terms of safety, the safety profile was consistent with treatment-emergent adverse events that were consistent with underlying disease and known adverse event profiles for non-myeloablative lymphodepletion chemotherapy and interleukin-2. Turning to the next slide, we show the waterfall plot for all 24 evaluable patients as of a very recent data cut on June 24. Patient two had a complete response, or CR, based on a negative FDG PET scan by investigator. This patient had two target lesions going into treatment. One target lesion had 100% resolution. Another target lesion was small and remained identifiable on post-treatment CT scans. Following multiple negative PET scans several months apart with prolonged follow-up and lack of subsequent therapy, this patient has met criteria for a confirmed complete metabolic response and thus also CR in accordance with RECIST 1.1 criteria. The five patients in blue showing partial responses had at least a 30% reduction in target tumor burden in at least two assessments and thus are confirmed partial responders per RECIST 1.1. We have 12 patients with stable disease and six with progressive disease as best overall response. Today, we are focused on characterizing the responders, as shown on the next slide. The swimmer plot shows time to response for our six confirmed responders. As shown on the left, we had two responders with PD-L1 negative status and four responders with PD-L1 positive status. This distribution of PD-L1 status is reflective of the non-small cell lung cancer population, in which about a third of patients are PD-L1 negative and challenging to address with current standard of care immunotherapy. We are happy to see responses with TIL, regardless of PD-L1 status, which is consistent with what we have seen in other solid tumor indications as well. Overall, we are very pleased to see that these data confirm what we saw as promising results from the H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center at AACR last year and gives us further confidence in advancing Iovance TIL in non-small cell lung cancer. A lot of people are asking for the context of our results in the Basket study to the Moffitt data, so we'll ask Madan to present a brief summary of the Moffitt study. Madan? Thank you, Friedrich. I would like to highlight the proof of concept for TIL therapy in non-small cell lung cancer patients who are naive to anti-PD-1 and which gave us confidence in moving ahead with our own Iovance TIL lung cancer program. This study was a single-center academic study with a very different patient population and study design. It's not a real comparison, but a proof of concept. Moffitt enrolled patients much earlier in their disease course as compared to Cohort 3B, as they had received only zero to one prior systemic therapy, and all patients were naive to anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 therapy. The tumor samples were resected and harvested using a tumor banking model, which has many disadvantages, including lack of commercial viability and the TIL repertoire in the tumor microenvironment at harvest may differ from the TIL repertoire in the patient at the time of progression. All patients began with nivolumab treatment, and patients who subsequently progressed on nivolumab received a combination regimen of TIL followed by IL-2, and then subsequent continuous treatment with single-agent nivolumab. Among the 12 evaluable patients, the ORR was 25%, including two complete responses and one partial response for RECIST 1.1. Again, this is a good proof-of-concept study in the anti-PD-1 naive patients with a combination regimen, and we are exploring combination regimens in our Basket study in two additional cohorts. Cohort 3A is investigating TIL in combination with pembrolizumab. In addition, our Cohort 3C, which we recently opened at the beginning of 2021, is evaluating TIL plus ipi/nivo. The next slide, our registration supporting study, IOV-LUN-202, which dosed the first patient recently, we are investigating LN-145 in recurrent or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer patients without driver mutations who previously received a single line of approved systemic therapy with a checkpoint inhibitor and chemotherapy. Within this patient population with significant unmet need, we will look at four different cohorts. Cohort one will include patients whose tumors at baseline at the time of diagnosis did not express PD-L1 with a TPS score of less than 1%. Cohort two will have tumors that express PD-L1 with a TPS score greater than 1%. Cohort three patients also will have TPS scores less than 1%, in which we will grow TIL from core biopsies to infuse back to the patient. Finally, cohort four will offer retreatment for patients who progress in cohorts one to three. The cohorts in LUN-202 study are distinct from the two cohorts in our ongoing IOV-COM-202 Basket study and patient populations that they enrolled. The primary efficacy endpoint will be objective response rate or ORR, assessed by independent review committee or IRC. With that, I will hand it over to Fred to discuss the milestones. Thank you, Madan. Thank you, Friedrich, for your updates. I'll just briefly touch on some of our milestones in non-small cell lung quickly, and then we'll move to questions. Two milestones that we've achieved recently, obviously, Cohort 3B, which we reported on today, is a big milestone for us, and we fully enrolled that cohort. We've also just announced today that the first patient has been dosed in the registration supporting study IOV-LUN-202. Two upcoming milestones of importance in NSCLC for us are additional Cohort 3B data at a medical meeting, hopefully in the second half of this year, and activation of additional sites and enrollment in IOV-LUN-202, as well as the other cohorts that we've got open. As you heard, we have seven total cohorts open of lung studies counting the retreatment cohort, LUN-202. I'd now like to hand over to the operator to begin the Q&A session. Thank you. As a reminder, to ask a question, you will need to press star one on your touchtone telephone. Again, that's star one on your touchtone telephone to ask a question. To withdraw your question, press the pound key. Please stand by while we compile the Q&A roster. Our first question comes from the line of Michael Yee of Jefferies. Your line is open. Hey, guys. Congrats on this data, thanks for hosting the call. Two questions. One was your thoughts about the LUN-202 study in the context of comments around the potential pivotal nature of that or registrational nature. Can you just comment on how you think about what the bar is or why you think that could be pivotal as other companies, I think, generally are trying to run randomized studies? Maybe just comment on the context of LUN-202 in the context of this data presented today. Then one detailed question is just can you comment on the severity of these patients or prognostic factors such as LDH, et cetera? Maybe just comment about that. Thank you. Michael, thanks. Frederich, would you be able to take those questions? Sure, happy to. Thank you for the question. As Madan described, the LUN-202 study is a study that will generate response rate data that our IRC reviewed in two cohorts separated by PD-1 status, PD-L1 negative or PD-L1 positive, which gives us some flexibility in exploring and determining the activity and the benefit risk separately. Also these are similar to pool the data and look at this together in a larger sample set. The bar that we're looking at really is the currently available therapy for these patients, which is as it was in the initial approvals of checkpoint inhibitors in second-line monotherapy chemotherapy. docetaxel is probably the best bar here with response rate below 10% and short durability of responses. We believe that single-arm data may be a potential route for a registration strategy, given the fact that this is a novel therapy. The TIL regimen is a one-time therapy. We are, as you all know, administering this only one time with no maintenance therapy, obviously depending on the degree of benefit and difference in response rates over docetaxel. Got it. The question about prognostic factors, really what we are planning on doing, and since this involves kind of a summary of the larger context here, is this is data in detail that we would be presenting at a future upcoming medical conference. Got it. Thank you, guys, and congrats on the data. Thank you. Thank you. Our next question comes from Mark Breidenbach of Oppenheimer. Your line is open. Hey, this is [Madan] for Mark. Just wanted to touch on the topic of biopsy banking. I think as you mentioned, the Moffitt trial was banking the biopsies before PD-1 exposure, whereas you're biopsying right before TIL infusion, so post PD-1. Do you think we have enough data now to really determine that banking biopsies is not the optimal way to go? I can answer that initially, [Madan], but then I'll ask Madan and Friedrich to chime in if they have any additional thoughts on this. Right now, there's preclinical data out there that suggests that the tumor microenvironment and TIL repertoire changes when you administer checkpoints, right? That's the key aspect of that. The banking model is also, you have to remember, is not really commercially viable from our perspective, at least today, because of the fact that you have to find a way to somehow reimburse and pay for banking treatment ahead of some other line of therapy long before you ever had TIL therapy. Again, I'd like to just reemphasize those two points as being pretty critical. While it's great in an IST-type setting, an investigator response trial setting or in academia, you know, MD Anderson does this as well, it's difficult to see that in a commercial landscape. Madan, Friedrich, do you want to add anything to that from the scientific side? This is Madan. Yeah, I echo Fred's comments over there. I think this is not feasible in the commercial setting. If you look at the other tumor types where Iovance has experience, we have successfully harvested a tumor specimen grown TILs after prior PD-1 exposure. Biologically, it is possible that the TIL repertoire that the patient had at initial therapy and at subsequent progression is significantly different. We feel that harvesting the TILs at the time most proximal to the administration TIL biologically makes more sense. That makes sense. Thanks. I have a follow-up on LUN-202, if you don't mind. Can you just jog our memory if you're going to be excluding patients with oncogenic drivers, so mutations like EGFR, RET, MET? Maybe given the strong data that we've seen today, maybe just explain what would be the rationale behind excluding those patients. Thanks. I assume you mean from LUN-202, right? Correct. Yeah. Friedrich, do you want to explain the enrollment criteria? Yeah, absolutely. What we're going for here really is patients who have received a single line of prior systemic therapy for non-small cell lung cancer with chemo and ICI combination, that is usually standard of care that is not used in patients with driver mutations, because there's an understanding that the addition of checkpoint inhibitor in that population would not necessarily generate benefit in these patients. In order to, number one, keep the cohort homogeneous, which is important if you're making a statement or if you're trying to generate the data sets supporting potential registrational efforts. Also in order to reflect standard of care, we're excluding these in alignment with label for the use of checkpoint inhibitors in first-line non-small cell lung cancer. Got it. Thanks for the update, guys. Congrats. Sure. Thanks. Thank you. Our next question comes from Mara Goldstein of Mizuho. Your line is open. Great. Thanks so much for taking the question. Just a clarification on the data set, a question on the overall study. The patients in the data that you released had at least two lines of therapy. How many had more than two lines of therapy, if you don't mind me asking, if you know the answer to that? The second question I just had is that the LUN-202 study will include individuals who've had disease progression on prior checkpoint plus chemo. Is that described as checkpoint plus chemo or checkpoint follow, like a sequential treatment as opposed to combination? Do you think that will matter? Yeah. Why don't I take the first one, and Friedrich, you can take the second one. Sure. Mara, we're trying to save some of this stuff for a scientific conference later, and our intention is to present more detail on the prior lines of therapy at that conference. We've disclosed what we have and that what you've seen already today is that [24.8], including all the responders, have received at least two, if not more, prior lines of therapy, all but eight to just prior PD-1, PD-L1, and all responders to prior chemo. Other than that, we're still analyzing. We still have to look at that for future medical conference. Friedrich, do you want to talk a little bit more about sequential versus the same time for CPI plus chemo? Is that what you want to attend to? Sure. Absolutely. Everybody go on mute please. Yeah. Thanks, Fred. We're requiring the checkpoint inhibitor and the chemotherapy to have been given as a combination therapy as part of a single line of prior therapy. The rationale for doing that is, number one, that's really how the majority of patients is receiving this therapy now, and second, what we are trying to accomplish is to keep the number of prior therapies, at the time on systemic therapy for metastatic disease, somewhat shorter because we believe that patients in earlier settings with less pretreatment, less time on pretreatment, may fare better on cell therapy. Okay. Thanks. Sure. Thank you. Our next question comes from Peter Lawson of Barclays. Your question, please. Hi. Thanks for taking the questions. Thanks for the update today. Just as we think about the next update, will we get further data, more data, or just more detail around the existing patients that we've seen? Hi, Peter. Do you mean the medical conference where we would potentially present the additional data on COM-202 or more generally? On the 3B. Yeah. What we've seen today. On 3B, yeah. If that conference, the timing permits, it's possible we could put more data in there. It depends on when we cut the data, the timing for the conference, and everything else. That one, all I can say there is stay tuned, and we'll see what happens. Good. That's where we get lines of therapy and spider plots, et cetera. Yeah. Well, our intention is to submit additional, to have a full package for a medical conference later this year. Typically, we'd have that kind of thing in that sort of presentation. Okay. Thank you. You had, for the patient that was a CR, would that have been a CR under RECIST? I guess why wasn't that 100% reduction when you look at the waterfall chart? Friedrich, do you want to take on the PET question there? Yeah. Happy to. Why you're not seeing a reduction to 100% on the waterfall is because there was a remaining mass on the CT scan. That stayed remaining for a while, which triggered the PI to look at whether that mass actually representing tumor or potentially scar or fibrous tissue, which is sometimes what you see with immunotherapy. Okay. The way to do that is to do an FDG PET scan. You're looking at whether that is actually high metabolic activity with high glucose uptake that would indicate presence of tumor cells in this. This particular mass did not enrich, did not uptake labeled glucose, indicating that it's likely not tumor. In a situation like that, the RECIST 1.1 criteria, that data and that information to support a CR assessment as part of that, because really it's an assessment as non-tumor. Got you. You still measure something on the CT scan, and that's what you're seeing on the waterfall plot. Got you. Thank you. Then I guess on the other side of things, you had a couple of patients with pretty deep PRs. What kept them away from being called CRs? Yeah. What you're seeing on the labels on the waterfall plot are really confirmed response assessments. All the PRs and all the CRs that you're seeing there are confirmed assessments, which requires confirmation in at least two subsequent assessments or CT scans or FDG PET scans in the case of the CR patients. These are patients where an initial response was not confirmed by subsequent CT scans. You're seeing the best single time points, and then the color code is giving information on the BOR assessment, which requires confirmation. Got you. Were these on PET scans showing activity, so there was residual tumor there? In a situation like that, there's really no good clinical reason to do a PET scan. The PET scan is really something that is done by a PI in the right clinical context, which oftentimes is when you have a tumor that over a number of assessments doesn't change in size. Great. Thank you so much. Thanks for the detail. Sure. Thank you. Our next question comes from Asthika Goonewardene of Truist Securities. Your question, please. Hi, guys. Thanks for taking my questions. Maybe one to Friedrich. I'm going to ask you a baseline question, but I'll ask it qualitatively, so hopefully you can give us some indication, Friedrich. Did you have any patients with primary progressive disease or best response of progressive disease to prior PD-1? If so, did any of them have a PR? I have a follow-up. Thanks, Asthika. This is a good example for the type of data that we really want to show as part of the description of the entire population as part of a future medical conference. Okay. Maybe, Friedrich, could you tell us anything about the patient that had the initial response and then progressed? Was that maybe a new lesion, or did the actual target lesion grow? I believe this was a new lesion. Got it. Excellent. Thanks, guys, for taking my questions. Sure. Thank you. Our next question comes from Boris Peaker of Cowen. Please go ahead. Boris, your line is open. Please make sure your line is mute. I'll put Rob on. Yes, we'll go to the next question that comes from Madhu Kumar of Goldman Sachs. Your line is open. Hey, guys. This is Rob on for Madhu. I was just going to ask a question. Do you envision using LN-145 as a monotherapy immediately after PD-1 or PD-1 plus platinum chemo regimens, or after these regimens plus taxane chemo? No, we're focused right now on monotherapies, and that's what we're looking at in the LU-UNCL122 study, for example, cohorts one, two, and three. That's what we're talking about today with respect to cohort 3B. Okay, thanks. That's something you could explore. That's not something we're currently working on with these studies. Okay, thanks. Were there any unconfirmed responses among the remaining 28 patients? No, the dataset here is fully RECIST, so everything's confirmed. Okay, thanks. I think that's the correct response. Yeah. We're only reporting confirmed PRs, so. Okay, thanks. One last one. Do you think between the Moffitt EGFR responder plus your data, you could support the use of LN-145 monotherapy in the post-TKI setting in RTK mutant non-small-cell lung cancer? Certainly, it's promising. It's an example of the power of TIL therapy. I think it needs to be further explored. It's something that we're certainly very interested in. You can see the focus of LUN-202 right now is on patients without actionable driver mutations. Friedrich or Madan, do you want to add anything to that? I would agree with that, Fred. Go ahead, Friedrich. Yeah, I think I can share that we have studies that are enrolling patients who have failed TKI therapy and then go into TIL-containing regimens as part of our ongoing non-small cell lung cancer study. We are interested in exploring and generating data in that setting. Right, in COM-202 TIL. That's correct. Okay. It's arm 3A. Okay, thanks for taking my questions. Thank you. Our next question comes from Ben Burnett of Stifel. Please go ahead. Hey, thank you very much. I just wanted to ask a clarifying question about, I think this is something that's come up, but on the waterfall plot, two patients, looks like they had a reduction in tumor size beyond that 30% threshold needed to codify a PR. Is the reason they're not codified as a PR and codified as stable disease because they were unconfirmed, and they only have one scan? Friedrich, do you want to take that one? Yeah, that's correct. RECIST is reporting patients with an initial response at a single assessment that is not confirmed in follow-up assessments as stable disease. That's what they're using, that's the convention they're following. A subsequent follow-up scan showed not a response, and that's why they're deemed stable disease, not because there just hasn't yet been a follow-up scan. That's correct. Yes. Got it. Okay. I just want to ask the other question is, how did the number of IL-2 doses used here compare to, let's say, melanoma, for example? I think that's. Are you asking? Yeah, why don't you take it, but just bear in mind- Yeah. That some of this might be on our future medical conference presentation. Exactly. That would have been my answer. If you want to ask, the paradigm is the same, if that helps you at all. Okay. We're still using high IL-2, 600,000 IU. Same approach. Okay. Maybe just one last question. Are you still enrolling patients in this cohort? In 3B? In 3B. Yeah. I mentioned on one of the milestones, 3B is fully enrolled. Got it. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. Our next question comes from Reni Benjamin of JMP Securities. Your question, please. Hey, good afternoon, guys. Congrats on the data. Thanks for taking the questions. As I think about PR to CR conversions or even SD to PR conversions from prior studies like melanoma and cervical, is there any reason a non-small cell lung cancer indication might not behave in a similar way? Should we be anticipating or thinking about the potential for other conversions to take place given the follow-up? Friedrich or Madan, maybe it's worth just reviewing some of the other experience we've had in other therapy, other indications, and then try to provide some color there. Sure. Go ahead. I think the question is about previous data that we reported where you saw conversions from stable disease to PR or from initial PR to then a later CR. I think you see examples for that happening in this study as well. On slide 5, which is the ceruloplasmin part, patient 17 developed a PR at an assessment about five to six months in. That patient would've been stable disease at the assessments prior to that. There you have an example for a stable disease to PR conversion. Patient two had an initial PR and then converted to a CR. I think you'll see similar things happening here. Obviously, more follow-up will give us a better idea of what's happening in the patients that are currently ongoing with a PR. Got it. From the safety profile, I know that it's supposed to be similar to other studies, the background here is different, right? Different chemo regimens and the like. Is there anything different at all from the safety perspective that's worth noting, did it pretty much all the typical grade one, two, threes that we've seen before occur here as well? Friedrich, Well, let me preface it by saying, obviously, a lot of this will be in the future medical conference presentation, so just bear that in mind. Friedrich, please feel free to comment. Yeah, at a high level, again, keep in mind, the TIL regimen consists of the non-myeloablative lymphodepleting chemotherapy, the TIL administration, and the post-TIL interleukin-2. How we are usually looking at the safety profile and what we would be presenting, similar to how we have presented this in the previous presentations, is look at the common treatment emergent adverse events, and then basically go from top down, right? Then we'll be able to compare kind of side by side what makes the cut into the more common groups. I think that's the type of data that we would be presenting. That is the basis for what we've said in other settings as well. This one is really the consistency of those adverse events with either the chemotherapy or IL-2 therapy. Got it. Just one, I guess two real quick ones from me. Fred, can you remind us, I think you mentioned this in the prepared remarks, but what triggered the reporting of the data now versus, let's say, closer to an abstract being accepted at a medical conference? Then also the reporting of the cadence of data. You set an update for phase III-B, right? This is fully enrolled. What's happening with phase III-A? Sure. Remember, our intention is to present this at a medical conference. What we tried to do here, in the spirit of communicating with the investment community, is get data out when we could. We've been, on a lot of the calls we've held recently and hosted, we've heard the feedback, and we want to make sure we're getting data out as soon as we possibly can. What we did here was recognizing the fact that it's a long time till some of the major medical conferences. We tried to get some data out as quick as we could, and we want it to be meaningful data, so we tried to provide some extra data here, which is hopefully useful to everyone. That doesn't stop us from having presentations at meetings, and we intend to do that. With respect to 3A is one of the cohorts that's active in COM-202, obviously. We've mentioned it several times today. I can't commit to any dates on that except to say stay tuned on that. We will try to get data out as soon as we can, just like we did with 3B. Great. Thank you, guys. Thank you. Our next question comes from Nick Abbott of Wells Fargo. Please go ahead. Good afternoon. Thanks for taking my questions. Other than the six patients in the swimmer plot, are there any other patients still being followed on the protocol? If so, how many? Why were four patients' efficacy ineligible? I have a follow-up. Thanks. Friedrich, why don't you answer those, please? Sure. On the patients in follow-up, again, that's a question related to the entire larger population, so we'll give updates and summarize that at the upcoming medical conference. Typical reasons for patients being non-evaluable is if they are not on study long enough in order to make the first tumor assessment. Okay. I guess, if I think back to the head and neck data, there was a 38% response rate, but duration was considered suboptimal. Why do you consider these data in lung encouraging given such a limited follow-up? What additional response duration should we expect at the time of data presentation? Thank you. Fred, are you able to answer that one? Yeah. I think really what interests me in this data set and why we think it's worth showing and why we also think there's value in sharing this with the scientific community as an additional driver for enrollment in our programs is the response rate. Seeing a response rate above 20% in this population, which is similar to what we've seen with the first checkpoint inhibitor studies post-platinum doublet chemotherapy when Pembro and Nivo were approved in second or second and third-line setting, that's encouraging. Particularly since these patients are more heavily pretreated than those patients because they have also seen prior checkpoint inhibitors. I think just the response rate is worth updating the community on. Obviously, following the durability of these responses will be important. The response rate itself merits attention and sharing. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Our next question comes from Joe Catanzaro of Piper Sandler. Please go ahead. Hi, this is Jan on for Joe. Could you talk to us about what's the intent to treat number of patients and the data cut for this analysis? Friedrich, could you take that one, please? The data cut for this, let's start with that one, for this presentation is very recent. It's 24th of June, just last week. We are considering sharing information around the entire population as part of our upcoming presentation. Just as context, I think we've shared in the past the success rates across indications in our entire portfolio being above 90% in regards to manufacturing. Okay, great. Could you also just talk to us a little more about the decision to close enrollment? Friedrich, do you want to handle that? It reached their predefined size. Friedrich, go ahead please, comment on that if you want. Yeah, no, I think that's exactly it. You predefine, you accept some over-enrollment, obviously, and these types of signal-generating studies like this one, you have some flexibility there. You get it to a point of where something is decision enabling and gets you the confidence that you need to then build on that. In this case, for non-small cell lung cancer, we've described the Lung 202 study. That really is the study that is the next step, building on the data from this study as well as on the data from our collaborators at the Moffitt, which Madan described. Really, we have taken it to the next step in now bringing this therapy to a more homogeneously and better-defined population with less prior therapy and better comparability with benchmarks. Great. Thank you. Sure. Thank you. At this time, I'd like to turn the call back over to Fred Vogt for any closing remarks. Thank you, operator. With that, we'll close today's call. I'd just like to thank all the teams at Iovance, all the patients and their families, everybody who participated in the study, all the investigators for their help with Cohort 3B. I thank all of you for your attention. Have a nice afternoon. This concludes today's conference call. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.