Thanks everyone for joining us today. I'm pleased to be joined by Brian Gastman, EVP of Medical Affairs of Iovance. Thanks so much. Thank you for having me. So maybe we'll jump right into the AMTAGVI launch, first approved TIL therapy earlier this year. Maybe if you could start by providing some high-level overview, or thoughts on how the launch has been progressing, what has been going better, what has been more difficult than your prior expectations? Sure. So, I think overall, I think we would all agree in the company, the launch is going great. The demand is very good, and we are seeing what we call ATCs or Authorized Treatment Centers, really going through the motions as we train them to do. Many have had experience before, but in the commercial world, it's new for everybody in some ways. And the adoption of it, and the healthcare providers that make up the actual therapy have all been very helpful, and including their use of our slot management system, which to some is new, and what we've been really taken aback is how much they are willing to work with their schedules to meet the needs of their patients. We launched with 30 Authorized Treatment Centers, and within 90 days, we had 50. I think that's a great leading indicator of the demand, the interest, and the patient need. So I think those are all major positives. From challenges, you know, we knew the history of CAR T-cell therapy before us, that reimbursement is always the first challenge. What I can tell you is that we have seen acceleration of payer approvals, and the system is getting actually easier as time has gone on. Maybe on your, on your last earnings call, there were some metrics put out there, 100+ patients enrolled for treatment, an additional 60+ patients that were actively undergoing screening. Maybe given what you're hearing from physicians and ATCs, how are you thinking about the forward cadence there, maybe month-over-month, quarter-over-quarter, as we progress through the remainder of this year? Sure. So first, it's important to define enrollment. So enrollment really is, they're enrolled into our system because they have gone through a multidisciplinary, usually tumor board or clinic and have decided this is an appropriate patient. And, somewhere between there, the payer side of things in terms of getting, approval, all the way through resection and treatment is what we call enrollment. Those patients now are in various parts of that journey. What I can tell you is that we're seeing month-over-month growth, and I think that's leading to our enthusiasm that there's a high demand. What is, maybe if you could help quantify, what does that, that time frame look like between a patient coming in and being enrolled, or maybe even the screening process? Once they're enrolled, what is the typical timeframe until a patient receives, AMTAGVI? Generally, right now, it's around 8-10 weeks from the beginning to the end of the process. Then there are different parts of that that are static and some that are, you know, we're constantly trying to improve upon. And what level of attrition are you seeing? Whether it's through the screening process, so say if you had 100 patients that were screened, how many actually go through and become enrolled? And then similarly, once they're enrolled, what does that attrition look like between enrollment and then infusion? So it's a little too early now to give data on out of spec, for example, or attrition. I can tell you that the majority of patients that we enroll follow through, but the exact numbers, it's just a little too early to give specifics on. When you think about maybe historical precedents with cell therapies, what is the range of attrition that would be considered acceptable? It's hard to know to compare CAR T to what we're dealing with, because, for example, in the CAR T world, you're using apheresis, which is simply removing blood from a patient, which is pretty standard, and there's much less variability. In the world of cell therapy, these are surgical resections. The surgeon can change and, you know, decision-making on when to treat the patient, which tumor to remove, can be variable as well. So I think it's a little hard to extrapolate CAR T to TIL. All I can tell you is that we will minimize that and we are seeing that because of improvements in patient selection and also just comfortability with using it and integrating it into the algorithms for healthcare providers. I wanted to ask you about.. A couple of weeks back, you were at ASCO. The company hosted a KOL panel, in which the KOLs clearly spoke about a demand and a bolus of patients coming in, whether it was U.S.-based patients, ex-U.S. patients coming in asking for therapy. If you could help us understand maybe the profile of the patients that kind of make up that bolus, where are they in their treatment paradigm and their disease severity? So, you know, the term bolus has been used. It's not a term we like to use because, certainly with the incremental increase in demand, it's hard to call it a bolus. In addition, there was this thought that there would be patients who have been waiting around for this and, might not be the optimal patient, the patient that quickly has been deemed to be a second-line patient and, and moved over. I think that these physicians, especially the ones who were at our KOL event, are relatively seasoned. They're very good at patient selection. They're gonna be judicious about which patients they take on. I think the bottom line is, there's just a lot of demand. These are high-volume centers. They've made a name for themselves as TIL centers of excellence, and they are in good position to make sure that the right patient goes through the system. So it's really not so much a bolus. There's just enough patients out there to choose from to make sure the right patients of that group get the right therapy. Do you have a sense right now, what is the proportion of maybe those initial patients that were considered for treatment? How many actually are eligible when you think about the, the patient characteristics, how severe they are in their disease course, how many could potentially come on to AMTAGVI? Well, we know there's 8,000 deaths a year for melanoma. We also know, though, there are more patients than that, that are, quote, unquote, "second-line patients." Why isn't the number not the same? It's probably beyond the scope of this conversation. That being said, the vast majority of patients who are second line are generally fit enough for our therapy, and the vast majority of those patients have a resectable lesion. And I would even say the majority of those patients have a resectable lesion that can be done by a standard melanoma surgeon. So, I can't give you exact numbers, but I can tell you it is a large proportion, certainly of the 8,000 patients that die a year, plus another group of patients that aren't in those numbers but are second line. And we expect that to actually increase as the sort of the algorithmic change in the field occurs, where people start making choices to stop a therapy and go to TIL earlier than they ever did before. We never saw that in trial. And you get a sense of that in the John Haanen data, it's not our TIL, but it is TIL done in the second line. You saw the overall response rates were higher. You saw the great results that were there. We think we could even do better as we improve upon the patient selection and physician choice, or excuse me, physician decision, happening earlier in the process. Has the inclusion of AMTAGVI in NCCN guidelines started changing the nature of the conversation, the willingness to use AMTAGVI in patients? Just curious how that's been, playing out. Yeah. So the first thing it did is it helped with reimbursement. There's no question that payers, whether they say it openly or not, are dependent on seeing the NCCN guidelines. Having a A A designation as basically a preferred second line was a game changer, and it also helps reduce confusion for those payers. The other aspect I would remind everyone is that the NCCN guidelines are really made for the community physician, not for the, you know, the vaunted academic. And so, I think we haven't even seen the full potential of what the NCCN will do to the community at large, because as it sort of infiltrates those group of doctors who aren't actually giving AMTAGVI, we expect that to have a greater effect as time goes on. In terms of referrals? Absolutely. Remember, they tend to be the frontline therapy-treating physicians. So in the end, in a way, they're the ones making the real decision to switch their patient, even if they're not the one giving the therapy. Remind us the proportion of patients that are seen at a community center. I mean, you said this is predominantly where they are treated, but they are at the community centers and then, if eligible, then being referred to an ATC. Is that? Well, it depends on the hospital system. So some hospital systems, like the one I came from at the Cleveland Clinic, own a number of community hospitals, so a lot of their community referral actually comes from physicians who work for the greater hospital system, even though they tend to not necessarily send their regular patients to what we call the big house. Others are completely dependent on independent hospitals, and then there's everything in between. So, and then the other thing to keep in mind is that some community centers might see very few melanomas from time to time and maybe have a different feeling about how far to treat them, whereas others treat a lot of melanoma in the community. So there's a lot of variability there. Can you speak about the experience that you've been seeing with bridging therapy right now? How many of the patients that are currently maybe in process are undergoing bridging therapy? We don't have hard data on that yet. We do know bridging therapy is being used. It was not allowed to be used on our LN-144 trial. So in some ways, this is new territory. We do have some experiences to draw from, but they're not published. What I could tell you is that we have a strong what we call peer-to-peer process. So we have ex-healthcare providers, myself and others in the company, that really will reach across, you know, the lines and speak to physicians, nurses, whoever needs to talk to us about the patients, helping them optimize. We try to do that proactively, but sometimes it happens reactively. And then what that does is it creates a nice conversation to help the next 10, next 10 patients. But, even the bridging therapy world is changing. Who to give it to, what to give it to them. This is a very complex area, and so, nope, I don't think anybody's completely has it standardized yet, but there are plenty of patients who are also not getting bridging therapy. What has the experience been so far that you've been hearing on the receptivity or the willingness to use IL-2? Obviously, that is part of the regimen with AMTAGVI, but how has that been playing out in the real world here? So having been part of the old IL-2 in the 1990s and the, I don't want to call it new IL-2, because IL-2, given with TIL, has been around for 30 years. The hesitancy really, I think, isn't there because you see that in our 50 ATCs, they're open, they're all willing and actually giving what's only up to six doses of IL-2. Keep in mind, IL-2 toxicity is cumulative. In the old days, you gave 14 doses, and if the patient tolerated, give another 14 doses. We, our label, that only says to give up to six doses. We also know that our internal data that we presented at a congress a couple years ago, was whether you gave 1-6 doses, there was no difference in response. So with all that combined, and in the real-world medicine, taking this over, how many doses they give, which is a physician to doctor decision, who knows? But I can tell you that even up to six doses, we're just not seeing concern. And I've really heard from others that, you know, lymphodepletion is a more important factor than the IL-2. So overall, I would say IL-2 has not been an issue in any of the centers, and we have many more centers that want to come on board, and the IL-2 issue is not an issue. I guess maybe a follow-up there on the IL-2. Mm-hmm. What proportion of patients would you say would not be eligible for AMTAGVI because they're maybe not fit enough to be able to withstand IL-2? Or is that not. I don't think the IL-2 is a rate-limiting step. There are other issues, you know, like, you know, probably a 100-year-old patient is not good for TIL therapy, but that's probably due to many factors. IL-2 would be a small component of that. Maybe I can ask you on your ATCs, as you mentioned, you launched with 30. Mm-hmm. That were onboarded, quickly moved to 50, have now talked about moving to 70 by the end of this year. Maybe speak to the decision to continually expand that number. Is 70 ultimately where you wanna settle out? Is that the right number to meet the demand that you're seeing? So as I said earlier, there is a strong demand. There is also a lot of Authorized Treatment Centers wondering why, why not me? Why don't we have it? And so adding 20 is actually sort of a small number because there's plenty of centers that want it, and we're trying to be very measured and judicious to decide based on multiple factors, including cell therapy history, volume, but probably also geographic location. We can't. It's not fair to other areas of the country that also want it, and patients, especially those kind of areas, are the areas where patients don't like to fly three states away, and they don't have private jets and things like that. So the bottom line is, we're really considering the whole point of this company, which was that used to be this great therapy existed for 30 years, but the patients, very few of them, had to go to the therapy, and now we're trying to bring the therapy to the patients. We undermine ourselves. We only add 20 more centers and don't cover that. So that's really where that is. And then lastly, this is important lesson from CAR T-cell therapy, 40 centers represent 80% of all the CAR T therapy given in the United States. Do we have those first 40 in our first 50 ATCs? Will it take 70 to find them? Maybe it'll take a little bit more. We wanna find the right centers that will be the big concentrators. So I think by keep expanding that net, we may still catch one of those really important centers that, to date, hasn't been part of our portfolio. One of the things that came out at the KOL panel a couple of weeks back was maybe some of the logistical hurdles that these ATCs were seeing in the initial days of the launch. Whether it was scheduling hurdles, working among surgeons to schedule the surgeries. As these ATCs have been onboarded for longer periods of time, are you seeing those hurdles go away? And as additional ones come on board, do you anticipate that they'll still have the same types of hurdles the initial ATCs had, or will there be learnings that they can streamline that process? Yeah. So the answer is, of course, yes. I mean, there's no question with experience and time, centers are getting better at what they're doing. What I think, and I mentioned this earlier, what's been, you know, pleasantly surprising to us is how the hospital systems are sort of bending toward, around what is required to make this happen. So we don't know, you know, if you want a slot, you know, July 13th, well, there may not be a slot July 13th, but there's one July 12th. So we've seen surgeons find ways to make sure they operate the day before, as opposed to calling us up and demanding, "You got to get..." That's a big deal that they're working in partnership with us. I think that's probably the... We are in partnership with the centers that we work with. We're not just drug maker and delivery. We work with them extremely closely from beginning to the end. And then, the other aspect of it is there's plenty of hospital capacity. There's, you know, there are physicians who are literally recasting or starting their careers off under the aegis that the basic, the center of their career will be cell therapy and cell tumor oncology. We never saw that before. So you never had this kind of interest in supporting young physicians, for example, including bringing in healthcare providers to support them, and even physical facilities being built around what these physicians are going to have in terms of their potential growth. So I think these are really big changes, and it's really exciting, the fact that a company like Iovance has sort of helped create a whole new field within medicine. Of your ATCs, how many would you say, or what is the proportion of your ATCs that have patients that are in process? So, you know, that have patients that make up that 160+ that you reported on the last call, and how many of them have actually infused a patient? So, to remind you that our growth is month-over-month, so the numbers are not what they were, but, and they're growing. Secondly, some of those ATCs just came on board like last week or a week or so ago. So it's not like it's. They've already gone through the process. And then, I would say, though, almost every center, if not all centers, are screening patients as we speak. I don't think we're giving out yet that information, and it's a little early because it's almost unfair to some of the ATCs to say they have or they haven't. But I can tell you that, it's, you know, certainly a large proportion of it, and, most importantly, every ATC is telling us about the demand that's out there. Maybe as you know, you referenced here, it's early days. Yeah. It's early to draw extrapolations from some of these early metrics. At what point in the launch do you feel like you will have a good understanding of the cadence such that you'll be able to provide, say, a full year guide? That's a really hard question. And again, I'm sorry I'm punting it a little bit. But if you think about it, we have a certain number of centers in, let's say, the state of Florida, right? So when another center comes on, all of a sudden, there's a rearrangement of where patients are going. And we're, we're not even really getting deep into the community yet. That's gonna. That's coming out as time goes on. We, we purposely didn't want to overwhelm the system and just hit every possible patient all, all at once. And so I think we have to let the centers open up, sort of the chips fall where they may, and then also get to their happy medium, where they're being judicious appropriately and they're at the level where, you know, any pent-up demand has been cleaned up and, you know, sort of the steady state has been hit. I don't know how long that's gonna take. Of course, as soon as we can give that information out, we will. We want to give that information out because we know that confusion can be filled in with misinformation, and we don't want that to happen. Maybe as you think about potential expansion to the frontline setting, you recently had updated data at ASCO. Remind us, the profile that's emerging there and the receptivity from physicians as they've seen, some of that data. So this is a really important point because, the TILVANCE trial, which is the extension of what we presented at ASCO, is at a minimum, is our validation trials to achieve full approval from the FDA. At a maximum, is potentially to rearrange the frontline therapy. It's also to create a sense of, comfortability of bringing a TIL therapy earlier, so that if you have a patient in the front line and you know it's not working, get them over to TIL because some people have actually done in the front line. But what's really important is, is there's a subset of patients, I mean, probably every patient, but definitely, some of the younger patients that don't want to just live a few years. They want to live, well, forever, right? So when you see Steve Rosenberg's data, which we presented as part of the reason we did this in the first place, where he did monotherapy of TIL in the front line, almost 100 patients, to a quarter of which achieved CR. Remember, most ORRs are usually heavy PR and a little bit of CR, and almost 100% of those patients were alive at 10 years. I mean, CRs and for 10 years is what we, is the holy grail of, of cancer therapy. We're modernizing that with adding pembrolizumab. The patients who are coming out to the trial, who, by definition, want TIL, right? If they didn't want TIL, they wouldn't go on the trial. The physicians want TIL, will immediately start off with the most important drug on the market, which is anti-PD-1. And then they will either go to TIL, and continue pembro, or they will just get pembro, and then if they fail, they can cross over. Remember, if they then fail that, there's the myriad of standard of care therapies, all the big ones we talk about. I do think there's a lot of patients out there that know, even with our best drugs, like ipi-nivo, which has a lot of toxicity, half at least of the patients don't do well. And when you fail ipi-nivo, we've seen that with various trials, there's not a lot to really really salvage those patients. So here, when you see such great upfront numbers, it's hard to unsee them. I'll remind the audience that the CR rates around this time that we're reporting, we had an average of 21 months follow-up, were basically single digits for KEYNOTE-006 for pembro and 067 for ipi-nivo and nivo. Why I bring that up is they then got better over time. Our second-line therapies also got better over time. If we're starting at 30% CR, knowing what CR means in that population, as I just told you, and that number deepens, this, this is, this could be a game changer, and certainly not for everybody, but for a certain subset of patients. Lastly, I'll remind you that we have 30 centers already opening this. They're obviously intelligent people. They know the field well, and that those 30 centers have thought that this was the right thing to do for their patients. How did you think about the profile that is emerging in the front line in the context of an evolving landscape, right? Yeah. It's not just ipi-nivo. Now you're seeing some really nice data. Mm-hmm. Including with the LAG-3 antibodies. How do you think about the evolution of the space? So, what I would say is, and this has nothing to do with TIL, and again, I'm here as a representative of Iovance, not as a previous physician a year ago. I would say that the problem we're seeing is little bits of increments in efficacy and a lot of increments in toxicity. The triple therapies with BRAF, MEK, and PD-1 is a great example of it. There's even an FDA approval for that. Excuse me, there's even an FDA approval for that. But who's using it? The toxicity levels are too high. When you have a 90%+ AE 3s and 4s, it's just unacceptable for most patients. Keep in mind, I'm coming from a TIL perspective, which is also a one-time therapy, that does not cause permanent complications like diabetes that we see with checkpoint inhibitors. So whereas, you know, it was great to see that they've looked into it, I don't know how much it's going to be adopted. The amount of toxicity, I think, is going to be too much for a lot of physicians. And lastly, keep in mind that a lot of those checkpoints are being done in the community. They have access to all three of them. People have actually tried these things. Will the community where most of this is done want to take on patients tripling, quadrupling, quintupling therapies? I, you know, that's something you would have to ask them, but my suspicion is not. You've talked about here, IL-2 not being an issue. That hasn't been a hurdle in the second-line setting, where presumably these patients are a little bit more severe in their disease state. Do you believe that to be the case in the frontline setting as well, that it will not be a hurdle? I think it'll be even easier there, to be frank. And again, that goes back to my point that with patient selection, making the decision earlier, you will have this new breed of patients that's somewhere between first line and second line, and there, that may be the sweet spot for AMTAGVI or in the front line. But for now, I would say is that those patients are generally even healthier, have better tumors, I can tell you as a surgeon, to resect, and better tumors yield better product. Quickly, lastly on AMTAGVI, but just remind us on your ex-U.S. regulatory plans, and maybe your continued commitment to pursuing that independently. Obviously, you have the manufacturing capacity, but the infrastructure to be able to support ex-U.S. launch. Yeah, I think we are very well set up for that. Our EMA application is going out very soon, at the end of this quarter. We are committed to MHRA and Canada by the end of the year. What's really cool about our center, so we have two centers, one that we built, which if you look at our corporate deck, and we have a plan to actually build that out all the way out to 10,000 patients a year, which is tremendous. Plus, we have a CMO that we work with, which is like a half a mile apart. But what's really interesting about that location is it's almost equidistant, maybe a little bit between L.A. and London, and our facility is a 6-minute drive from the airport. It's really. Whether, maybe call it Paris or LA, the difference is nominal from our manufacturing standpoint. So it's really set up to really cover Europe and the United States. Yes, there needs to be plans beyond that, but right now we have a long way to go before we'll need to do it, and the way we set it up is built specifically with this forward-thinking, planned out, consideration. Maybe I can ask you about plans to expand into other indications. Do you believe that TIL therapies, I mean, we've seen some really nice data here now in melanoma, some emerging data, whether it's head and neck, cervical, lung cancer. Do you believe the utility of TILs is equal across these different indications? So there are a few reasons why it can't be. The first is the underlying health of patients, the second probably being the therapies that they get before we can even try them out. These hematopoietic depressing therapies that we see in cancers can really injure the immune system significantly. Keep in mind that all therapies, what they do is they basically reactivate the immune system in a way, but they still need the adaptive immune system to come in and finish the fight off, if you will. So the therapeutic lines that others, unlike melanoma, for example, get, can really hinder that. And then the third reason is that what we do is we don't take the tumor, we take the T cells within the tumor. Well, if you have a lot of cold tumors, means there's no T cells in there, there's no. That's our manufacturing fodder. We don't have that, we can't. No one can manufacture. And therein lies the rub because you want what we have, which is this polyclonal. Remember, we don't just want a single type of T cell; we want lots of different TCR-recognizing T cells that can act as a living therapy and adapt to changes that happen in the tumor. If you only focus on one or two or three targets, you might get a response, but then you'll lose it. And I think that's the strength of our therapy, and that's why you see their median durations or responses are not met. When it works, it really lasts for a long time. You talk to Steve Rosenberg. He's got patients who are alive over 30 years. I mean, that's, that's the greatest testament to what we're doing. Maybe in that context, help us, maybe. Yeah. Provide some perspective on your thoughts for, for TILs in non-small cell lung cancer, and when can we expect to see another cut of that data? Sure. So first of all, remember, 15 x more patients die in non-small cell lung cancer than melanoma. It's a huge unmet need. The frontline therapies, which continue to improve and evolve, don't even come close to what we get in melanoma frontline. So there's a large number of second-line patients in the unmet need setting, and we've seen a lot of negative trials come out. You saw them at ESMO and ASCO. They're just not. There's not a lot of competition there, and the benchmark, which is basically docetaxel, which has lots of toxicities, has very poor duration and response. As you may recall, we put out press releases talking about a 26% overall response rate, great durability. Our bigger issue was that they're not melanoma patients. We were put on a quick clinical hold. Literally, we probably broke some kind of record. We submitted our response, and within like hours, we were unholded. I mean, it was that fast. And, the bottom line is that the FDA is in sync with us because we speak to them a lot. They realize what we're doing makes sense, and the unmet need is huge. So I think it is a great look. We should continue to go and pursue that. And then to answer your other question, because of that hold, there has been some delay in reporting interim data. So I don't know when it will be, but we will definitely, as we try to complete this trial by end of next year, we are committed to getting data out there when it's ready. Where do you stand with respect to potency assays? And I guess maybe. Yeah. Obviously, that had been a little bit of a hurdle, as you were bringing AMTAGVI forth. What gives you the confidence that you understand what the FDA is looking for? So in general, cell therapy companies build on cell therapy companies' challenges and mistakes or what have you. We've done the same thing. In addition, we've also learned from our own. So what we experienced a few years ago has been rebaked into the system, and that includes with our discussions with the FDA. We are not starting from scratch in that regard. We have a. The FDA has a strong comfortability with our abilities, what we're telling them. In fact, we had to educate them as much as, as much as it was a bilateral discussion as we went through the whole system. And also, the FDA is familiar with the actual locations that we do all this work. Remember, it went through the rigor of FDA inspection. First time ever, any manufacturing center for this type of therapy ever had that done. So with that in mind, we're starting with a point where we're already speaking the same language as the FDA, and we're trying to constantly stay in harmony, and that includes with, with them, and that includes with our potency matrix. Quickly on the frontline study here, any updates you can share, in non-small cell lung cancer? So we presented that, just like we did for melanoma this year, we presented frontline data at World Lung last year. Had more than double the overall response rate that we saw in our second-line trials. Again, similar story, probably the earlier, the better. And our plan is, we have a general playbook. We have our phase II trials that have been used for setting the stage for FDA approval, which we're doing in second-line lung. And then we are developing or we. Basically, all the components are ready to go for a frontline validation study, much like our TILVANCE. I don't think we've announced exactly when that's gonna start or the details, but a lot of that has already been baked into our system, and then, and it's already been adjudicated with various KOLs, et cetera. Maybe in the last couple of minutes here, you have a number of next-gen approaches to be able to broaden the reach of your TIL therapies. Maybe if you can help provide just an overview of what you're most excited about from that portfolio of next-gen. Sure. So there's 3001, 4001, 5001. I mean, personally, I'm really excited about 5001. Remember, we've seen IL-2, we've seen IL-15. These are gamma chain cytokines, really exciting, but they're very in a similar class. IL-12 is a different class of cytokine. Yes, it has the word cytokine interleukin in it, but it's not the same family. It does something different. And if you look at the preclinical models, IL-12 has great T cell homing effects, which is very specific to it. Other companies were using electroporation with IL-12. There was always an interest in IL-12. The problem is with toxicity. Steve Rosenberg had this great trial where he gave TIL that secreted IL-12, looked amazing on the response side, but very toxic because the secreted IL-12 got into the systemic components of the body, and these patients experienced significant toxicities. How do you have your IL-12? Keep it tethered on the outside of the cell. It forces the IL-12 to be expressed only on the cell, can't get out of the cell, and it stays compacted within the tumor microenvironment, where the T cells we give go to. So I think what's cool about that is that it can generate tumor responses and inflammation that may allow us to really look into other indications that we haven't even detailed yet. So it's not just to make a better melanoma or non-small cell lung product, to be able to get to all kinds of cancer indications in the near future. Maybe one last question here. Sure. Just remind us on your cash runway and the activities that that's designed to support? Sure. So while I'm not on the finance side, we are well positioned to have a runway that goes through 2025. That includes taking into account both TILVANCE and LN-144 trials, plus what we need for our commercial activities.