Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Jounce Therapeutics Q1 2022 earnings conference call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. Later, we will conduct a question-and-answer session, and instructions will follow at that time. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded at the company's request. I will now turn the call over to your host, Eric Laub, with Jounce Therapeutics. Please go ahead. Thank you, operator. This is Eric Laub, Vice President of Investor Relations at Jounce Therapeutics. Good morning, and welcome to the Jounce Therapeutics Q1 2022 financial results conference call. This morning, we issued a press release which outlines the topics that we plan to discuss today. The release is available in the Investors and Media section of our website at www.jouncetx.com. Speaking on today's call will be our CEO and President, Dr. Richard Murray, who will review our pipeline progress and key milestones, followed by our CMO, Dr. Beth Trehu, who will provide an update on our clinical activities. Lastly, our CFO, Kim Drapkin, will review our Q1 financial results. We will then open the call for your questions. Before we begin, I would like to remind everyone that today's discussion will include statements about our future expectations, plans, and prospects that constitute forward-looking statements for the purposes of the safe harbor provisions under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Actual results may differ materially from those indicated by these forward-looking statements as a result of various important factors, including risk factors discussed in our SEC filings. In addition, any forward-looking statements represent our views only as of today, May 5, 2022, and should not be relied upon as representing our views as of any subsequent date. While we may elect to update these forward-looking statements at some point in the future, we specifically disclaim any obligation to do so, even if our views change. With that, I'll now turn the call over to Rich. Thanks, Eric. Good morning, and thank you for joining today. Before I turn to our pipeline and quarterly accomplishments, let me take a moment to recognize the entire Jounce team on their continued commitment to excellence and dedication to improving patients' lives, which they bring to work every day. We were pleased to announce this morning in our press release that we met the initial pre-specified response criteria to continue expansion of two of the INNATE study cohorts to 29 patients. We were encouraged by this progress and continue to execute across all cohorts. Beth will provide more detail on the INNATE study in a few moments. While the use of PD-1 inhibitors continues to grow and expand into earlier lines of therapy, including non-metastatic settings, the size and scope of PD-1 inhibitor-resistant markets continues to grow as there are more patients who are resistant to the therapy than benefit from it. Unfortunately, there are few alternatives for these patients in many tumor settings. We see this resistance as a fundamental scientific and medical problem that stands in the way of the broader and more durable impact IO could have for cancer patients. As scientific evidence continues to point to the myeloid immune cell lineage as being causal to at least some aspects of IO resistance, we undertook a comprehensive target discovery interrogation of the myeloid cells from human tumors. Our discovery work prioritized the LILRB or ILT family of receptors as being key mechanisms that could mediate such immunosuppression leading to IO resistance. These mechanisms could occur in certain patients independent of any T-cell-focused immunosuppression, such as PD-1 or CTLA4. There are five LILRB inhibitory receptors and six LILRA activating receptors. From this work, we prioritize LILRB2 or ILT4 as our lead, LILRB4 or ILT3, now in IND-enabling studies, and LILRB1, or ILT2, in discovery. Each of these programs has common as well as unique features of biology and the mechanisms by which they may lead to therapeutic benefit. Our highest priority program, JTX-8064, blocks the function of LILRB2 on tumor-associated macrophages and other myeloid cells. It aims to convert immunosuppressive activities of these cells to an immune-active state. First, by inhibiting ligand binding to LILRB2, the immunosuppressive macrophages can be reprogrammed, which we believe favors an immune response in the tumor. Second, we believe the mechanism also allows for more effective antigen presentation leading to T-cell activation, thus creating a bridge between the innate and adaptive immune systems. This is something T-cell checkpoint inhibitors cannot do alone, and the preclinical data tells us it may result in the potential to reverse PD-1 inhibitor resistance. We're extremely pleased with the progress of the INNATE study as we try to bring benefit to the patients that historically have not benefited from or become resistant to PD-1 inhibitors. I'll now turn to SELECT, our randomized Phase II proof-of-concept trial of vopratelimab, or vopratelimab, in combination with our PD-1 inhibitor, pimivalimab, in non-small cell lung cancer. We've completed the TISvopra biomarker screening and expect to complete enrollment this month, as we reiterate our guidance of expecting to share full clinical trial data at a medical meeting in the second half of this year. Our next potential clinical program, JTX-1484, is an anti-LILRB4 or ILT3 program currently in IND-enabling studies. LILRB4 is expressed on immune-suppressive myeloid cells in the tumor microenvironment, with both overlapping and distinct cell types in biology compared to LILRB2. We look forward to advancing this program to the clinic. Led by the LILRB family, as well as additional myeloid target mechanisms, our discovery teams are actively building rationally designed bispecific antibodies, where our goal is to identify development candidates that have activity superior to that of the combinations of individual antibodies. We're excited for what lies ahead at Jounce as we work toward our key data readouts this year. Our strong financial position enables our continued growth and execution beyond the proof-of-concept inflection points of INNATE and SELECT, while continuing our robust novel discovery efforts, identifying and progressing new mechanisms to benefit cancer patients, particularly in the settings where patients have few therapeutic options. With that, I'll turn the call over to Beth to discuss our clinical pipeline and science in more detail. Thanks, Rich. We are making great progress on our two proof-of-concept studies, and I'm very pleased to be able to provide some updates on both studies for you this morning. Let's start with the INNATE trial of JTX-8064, our LILRB2 inhibitor. Last year, we completed the phase I dose escalation for both monotherapy and combination with PIMI, selected 700 milligrams as the recommended phase II dose, and initiated the phase II expansion cohorts for both monotherapy and combination treatment in seven different indications. Enrollment is going very well, and as Rich mentioned, we are delighted to report that two combination cohorts have met the response criteria to expand to 29 patients and are actively enrolling. For competitive reasons, we are not disclosing which indications have expanded at this time. Both JTX-8064 alone and in combination with PIMI continue to be well-tolerated. As a reminder, each of the expansion cohorts is assigned two-stage design. For the combination cohorts, the first stage consists of 10 patients per cohort. Each cohort must meet pre-specified criteria based on radiographic response before resuming enrollment of the additional 19 patients for a total of 29 per combination cohort. Our goal is to demonstrate proof of concept in the full set of 29 patients, which requires that the response rate of JTX-8064 in combination with a PD-1 inhibitor is greater than what would be expected with a PD-1 inhibitor alone. The response rates for PD-1 inhibitor monotherapy are different for each INNATE indication and are all quite low, generally in the single digits. This reflects the high unmet need in patients who have failed a PD-1 inhibitor therapy or have tumor types where PD-1 inhibitors alone have minimal impact. True to our focus on the interrogation of the tumor microenvironment, the tumor types being investigated in INNATE were chosen because they are expected to have a high percentage of immunosuppressive macrophages, have a high unmet need, and provide opportunities across three major groups of patients. As we have previously stated, we are studying three distinct patient populations across the seven indications in the INNATE study. PD-1 inhibitor-naive patients who have tumors for which there are approved PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors, PD-L1 inhibitor-naive patients who have tumors for which there are no PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors approved, and patients who have failed a PD-1 inhibitor therapy and whose tumors are PD-1 inhibitor resistant. We have included all three groups of patients in our expansion cohorts to determine the best opportunities for JTX-8064 to make a difference for patients with cancer. An important aspect of the trial is evaluation of the correlation of pharmacodynamic and predictive biomarkers with efficacy, which will be done later this year. We are very pleased with the pace of enrollment in INNATE, and we expect to present data on all 31 phase I dose escalation patients, 9 of whom were in combination, and at least 60 phase II patients from INNATE at a medical meeting in the second half of 2022. This data will include complete phase I monotherapy and combination dose escalation data, including the respective safety, PK, PD, biomarker, and preliminary efficacy data. Phase II data will include safety, preliminary efficacy based on at least 2 response assessments per patient, pharmacodynamics, and potential predictive biomarker correlation with efficacy. We believe that this predictive biomarker analysis will be useful in interpretation of the clinical data later this year. There is a growing body of evidence that biomarkers expressed by immunosuppressive macrophages are a negative prognostic factor in many cancers, regardless of treatment, and that high levels of LILRB2 relative to interferon gamma are a negative predictor of response to PD-1 inhibitors. If we observe an association of improved clinical outcomes with biomarkers typically linked to worse outcomes, particularly in the combination cohorts, we will have greater confidence in the contribution of JTX-8064 to clinical efficacy. Now on to our other phase 2 program, vopratelimab and the SELECT trial, a randomized phase 2 proof of concept trial of vopra, our ICOS agonist. SELECT had a target enrollment of 75 patients to achieve 60 evaluable patients. We stopped patient screening when we met our goal of 60 evaluable patients and expect to complete enrollment in the next few weeks. Therefore, we are on track to present the complete study data in the second half of 2022 at a medical meeting. In SELECT, studying two doses of vopra in combination with pimi, compared to pimi alone in biomarker selected patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer who are PD-1 inhibitor naive and have progressed on a platinum-based chemotherapy regimen. This trial seeks to address two important questions. One, will vopra plus a PD-1 inhibitor in biomarker selected patients result in greater activity than a PD-1 inhibitor alone? Two, which dose of vopra should we choose for further development? The predictive biomarker selection of patients utilizes TISvopra, an RNA-based 18-gene signature that includes genes relevant to both PD-1 and ICOS biology. Only patients with a value above the biomarker threshold are enrolled, and the trial is designed to show the statistical superiority of Vopra plus our PD-1 inhibitor PIMI versus PIMI alone. The primary endpoint is the mean change from baseline in tumor size averaged over 9 and 18 weeks. The secondary endpoints are overall response rate, progression-free survival, overall survival, and duration of response, which represent all of the standard regulatory endpoints. We will assess the data and determine next steps by analyzing both the primary and the more familiar secondary endpoints. The doses we are exploring, 0.1 mg per kg and 0.03 mg per kg, were selected based on differentiated patterns of pulsatile target engagement demonstrated in prior studies and based on a hypothesis that the sustained target engagement required for antagonist antibodies is not ideal for an agonist molecule like Vopra. We expect to choose a dose for further clinical development of Vopra based on the results of SELECT, and a positive result in SELECT may lead to biomarker-directed development in multiple potential tumor types. Lastly, I'd like to discuss our SELECT study patients in Ukraine. Thanks to the incredible efforts of our team and the inspirational fortitude of the Ukrainian patients and study site personnel, I am very happy to report that all of the ongoing Ukrainian patients are continuing to receive study treatments and assessments. Every site in Ukraine has enough study drug to last through the end of this year, and some patients have moved to study sites in other countries. Our thoughts are with the patients, their families, and those who provide their care as they continue to navigate this tragic situation. We will continue to monitor the situation very closely. In conclusion, I would like to take a moment to thank our valued investigators and most importantly, the patients who put their trust in our medicines to make a difference in their lives. I would also like to thank our team at Jounce and their dedication to advancing these critical programs. We look forward to reporting on our continued progress this year. I will now turn the call over to Kim. Thank you, Beth. As we reported in this morning's press release, cash equivalents and investments as of March 31, 2022 were $186.4 million, compared to $220.2 million as of December 31, 2021. The decrease was due to cash burn from operating expenses incurred during the period. Turning to the P&L, no revenue was recognized during the Q1 of 2022, compared to $1.5 million of revenue recognized during the Q1 of 2 021. The 2021 revenue was comprised solely of non-cash revenue related to the performance of research and transition services under the Gilead license agreement. During the Q1 of 2022, we incurred $30.1 million in research and development expenses, compared to $20.5 million for the same period in 2021. The increase in R&D expenses was due to increased manufacturing activities performed and increased clinical and regulatory expenses for INNATE and increased payroll and stock-based compensation expense. General and administrative expenses were $7.3 million for the first quarter of 2022 compared to $7.6 million for the same period in 2021. The decrease in G&A expenses was primarily a result of decreased external consulting and stock-based compensation expense. Net loss for the Q1 of 2022 was $37.4 million, resulting in a basic and diluted net loss per share of $0.72, as compared to a net loss of $26.5 million for the same period in 2021, resulting in a basic and diluted net loss per share of $0.58. The increase in net loss is attributable to increased operating expenses incurred during the Q1 of 2022. Based on our current operating and development plans, we are reiterating our gross cash burn guidance for the full year 2022 to be approximately $115 million-$130 million. Given the strength of our balance sheet, we continue to expect our existing cash equivalents and investments to be sufficient to fund our operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements through the third quarter of 2023. I'll now hand it back to Rich for some final words. Thanks, Kim. The combination of our clinical execution, innovative science, and financial resources puts us in a strong position to move beyond our next set of inflection points. We're extremely pleased to be able to update you on the progress we've made in the INNATE and SELECT trials, keeping us on track to report data later this year. We are working hard to build an IO pipeline which looks to address the growing unmet need faced by cancer patients. We're privileged to be working on this mission together with such a talented group of individuals at Jounce, and fortunate to have such dedicated collaborators and clinical investigators. This is an exciting time at Jounce, and we look forward to updating you on programs as the year progresses. With that, we'd now like to open the call to your questions. Operator? Thank you. As a reminder, to ask a question, please press Star-One on your telephone keypad. To withdraw the question, press the Pound or Hash key. Again, that is Star-One to get in the queue. First question comes from Boris Peaker with Cowen. Please go ahead. Good morning and congratulations on the progress. Can you guys hear me? Yes. Thanks, Boris. Yeah. Thanks, Boris. Fantastic. My first question on JTX-8064. I guess for the 5 combo cohorts in INNATE that we haven't received an update on, how close are they to enrolling and follow up on the initial 10 patients? Just trying to gauge the timeline of when other cohorts may be expanded. Hi, Boris. Thanks for the question. This is Beth. Yeah, some cohorts are still enrolling, and some cohorts have completed enrollment, and we're still waiting for data. I think, you know, our plan is on every earnings call, we'll give you an update on how the study's going. I am really excited about the fact that even at this point in time, we're gonna have data on over 60 phase 2 patients later this year. Got it. Just to follow up on JTX-8064, based on its mechanisms of action, I'm curious if you're assessing the HLA of the enrolled patients, and can different HLA have a material impact on activity? Also, I guess, do you have kind of any kind of preclinical assessment of finding different human HLAs for the drug? Sure. HLA molecules, particularly the ones that are ligands for LILRB2, will be included. We presented data at a poster, I think in 2020, showing some of the work from our human histoculture data showing that some of the HLA molecules, you know, could potentially be predictive biomarkers. Those are things that we're looking at. Those are probably lower priority than things like LILRB2, CD163, things that we've talked about as clearly negative prognostic factors for cancer or for prediction of response to PD-1 inhibitors that we think could be, you know, promising predictive biomarkers for JTX-8064. Great. Thank you very much for taking my questions. You're welcome. Thank you. Your next question comes from Steven Seedhouse with Raymond James. Please go ahead. Hey, good morning. Thanks for taking the question and, nice to hear about the progress specifically, in INNATE, but also across the board. I just wanted to ask, if you could sort of rehash, how you determined what the actual, response rate criteria were in each, of the cohorts. If you could reference. I mean, you have some tables in your, presentation slides, your corporate deck. It sort of lists historical PD or PD-L1 response rates in the different tumor types. Is that, Should we look at that as like a sort of a benchmark or a general guide for how you determine the response rates, or is that a bit off base? Yeah. Thanks, Steve. That's a great question. Yeah, so I would say the response rates that we've shared in our corporate deck, which are, you know, these are drawn from small studies. I would say the strongest one of them is the 19% response rate for pembrolizumab in frontline PD-L1 positive head and neck cancer, right? That's in the product label. That's the data on which pembrolizumab was approved. The others are numbers that we've gotten from small studies that as closely as possible match the eligibility criteria for the patients in our study. They're generally below 10%. Our goal ultimately is to demonstrate proof of concept in the full 29 patient cohorts. That will have to show that our combination looks like it's producing better efficacy than you would see with a PD-1 inhibitor alone based on those benchmarks. Very helpful. Thanks. The other two questions I just want to ask is, one, is there anything you can say about the monotherapy data that's accrued? Just if you're seeing any encouraging signals there. And also, I think you mentioned that you'd be updating every earnings call the progress of the trial. I just wanted to confirm, like, if you were to meet the response rate criteria in a cohort at some point between now and the next earnings call, that wouldn't be something that you would update us on until earnings. Thanks for taking the questions. Sure. I think, you know, we're not reporting on any individual cohort at this time. As we've said, actually, I'm really proud of the fact that we enrolled the first patient in January 2021 in phase one, and we're gonna have clinical data on over 60 phase two patients in the second half of this year. Monotherapy patients will be included in that data, and, you know, we'll be reporting at that time. Right now, our intention is to update on the progress of the study quarterly at our earnings calls. Great. Thanks so much. Your next question comes from Ted Tenthoff with Piper Sandler. Please go ahead. Great. Thank you very much and excited to hear about the progress with INNATE-2. Since everyone's been asking about that, I'll ask about some of the other LILRB programs. When it comes to sort of the profile that you see emerging here, is this something where, you know, potentially multiple LILRB2s, sorry, LILRBs might be used together, or do they have different profiles such that they may have different applications? Thanks so much for explaining. Hey, Ted, this is Dmitri Wiederschain, CSO. Thanks for the question. You know, we're clearly excited about building a pipeline of highly potent and specific antibodies that block the function of LILRB2, LILRB4, and LILRB1. These are the most well-studied LILRB family members with clearly demonstrated inhibitory function in immune cells. You know, I think the function of different LILRB family members may be distinct in different cancer contexts, and this is what we are studying, and this is how we're approaching our clinical development using this translational angle. I mean, I think there may be some redundancy among LILRBs, but we also see clear evidence of non-overlapping activities. I think having the pipeline of these three highly potent and specific blockers of LILRB family members gives us an opportunity for rapid combination in the clinic. Finally, what I would say is that, you know, one of the core pillars of our strategy in discovery right now at Jounce is building bispecific molecules that would combine different specificities and would allow for more complete coverage of LILRB family members. That's a really exciting new development for us. Yeah, absolutely. Thanks for the question. Awesome. Thank you for sharing that with me. Your next question comes from Cory Kasimov with JP Morgan. Please go ahead. Hey, good morning, guys. Thanks for taking the questions. Two of them for you, both regarding INNATE. You know, as you think about the data update later this year, you know, how do you think about success given that you're gonna have a variety of different arms and indications with both monotherapy and combination data? Is this about, you know, finding one or two lead indications or more about the breadth of activity across them? As a follow-up, how important is monotherapy activity in your view when evaluating a cancer compound, even when it's primarily designed to be used in combination? Sure. Thanks, Corey. For your first question, I think the answer is possibly both, right? We obviously will, you know, be looking for signals that enable us to move forward as quickly as possible on a registration path in one or more indications. But also when we're looking at data across the indications, that's where, this year we actually, I think, we'll have enough data to really be starting to evaluate those biomarkers. In smaller patient sets, which is, you know, what we're still having this year, that's where I think that fact that some of the biomarkers that we're studying are known to be negative prognostic factors. If we see a correlation between response and some of these biomarkers, that's, you know, that's kind of the holy grail, right? Because you can take something that really predicts the worst outcomes, and you can turn it into something that predicts better outcomes for patients. I think that's gonna be really powerful, and as I've said before, I think that's one of the strengths of the studies, that we have a whole panel of predictive biomarkers. Now, they may be more needed in some cancers than others. That's some of the data we'll be starting to get later this year. We are planning sort of internally, we have clinical development plans with registration paths mapped out for every cohort in the study. You know, as the data matures, we'll start prioritizing which ones we're focusing on for further development. Then your second question, remind me. Sorry. I just. Yeah. Just the importance of monotherapy activity for. Yeah. the cancer product. Yeah. Sure. I guess I would turn to examples from things like LAG-3, you know, which is doing great and showing benefit on top of PD-1 inhibitors in PD-1 inhibitor naive patients. We feel clearly immunotherapy is going the path of cancer therapy since the beginning in terms of combination. Whether or not a drug has to show monotherapy activity, I think is a question. What's important is that you design your study in a way that you're able to demonstrate that your drug is actually adding to the PD-1 inhibitor if it's in combination. That's what we've tried to do in the PD-1 experienced cohorts in SELECT, where we're requiring their most recent prior therapy to be a PD-1 inhibitor. People who have just progressed on a PD-1 inhibitor are now coming onto the combination therapy. Giving those benchmarks to show, you know, what you would expect from a PD-1 inhibitor alone. Most of the indications we're studying, you wouldn't expect much from a PD-1 inhibitor. Okay. Thank you, Beth. That's helpful. You're welcome. Your next question comes from David Dai with SMBC. Please go ahead. Hi. Thanks for taking my questions. For JTX-8064, especially on the two expanded indications, could you comment on whether you have performed any biomarker analysis to support the expansion to enroll the additional 29 patients each? No, no biomarker analysis is involved in that decision. That's based purely on responses, clinical responses. We'll be doing the biomarker analyses later this year and reporting them when we report on the full body of data. Got it. That's helpful. For JTX-1484, you decide to move forward with the ILT3 target, whereas other companies have been pursuing ILT2 as the lead target. Could you just help us understand the rationale prioritizing ILT3 versus ILT2 based on your preclinical data? What are the advantages of targeting ILT3 pathway? Yeah. Thanks for the question, David. This is Dmitri Wiederschain again. As you know, we have advanced JTX-1484, our potent and specific LILRB4 blocker, into IND enabling studies. We continue to be excited about this program. ILT3 is expressed on distinct subsets of immunosuppressive myeloid cells in the tumor microenvironment. As you probably know, we also have a discovery program on ILT2 or LILRB1, which is also progressing quite well, and we hope to bring it to development candidate stage in the near future. There are clearly non-overlapping biology among ILT3 and ILT2. For example, ILT2, in addition to myeloid cells, is also expressed on a subset of natural killer cells as well as CD8 T cells. Really brings an exciting new angle to LILRB activity. We're actually equally excited about all of our monospecific potent blockers of LILRB family members, LILRB2 in the clinic already, LILRB4 not far behind, and LILRB1 advancing quite well through discovery. Thanks for the question. Thank you so much, Dmitri and Beth. Your next question comes from Arthur He with H.C. Wainwright. Please go ahead. Hey, good morning, everyone. This is Arthur He with H.C. Wainwright, and congratulations on the progress this quarter. I just want to follow up on the response criteria for the JTX-8064 program. Besides the overall response rate, do you guys also look at the PFS, or you purely focus on the ORR to make the decision to moving forward? Great. Thanks for the question. For the expansion from 10 patients to 29 patients, that's based solely on response. When we look at the data from all 29 patients, we'll be looking at the totality of data, including response rate, biomarkers, PFS, OS, all of that to help guide further development. The initial expansion is just based on response. Got it. I'm just curious, regarding those two cohorts you decide to move forward, what's the highest dose level has been tested for patients? Did you guys test any dose level beyond 700 milligrams? Yes, we did. In dose escalation, we went as high as 1200 milligrams. But I will remind everyone, we first saw complete target engagement throughout the entire three-week dosing cycle at 300 milligrams every three weeks. We chose a dose of 700 milligrams for our recommended phase two dose. Because we wanted to really optimize target engagement both in the peripheral blood and also in the tumor, and the excellent safety profile and safety of, you know, at 1200 milligrams was our highest intended dose, and it was well-tolerated. We were very fortunate to be able to choose a dose that really optimizes our target engagement. That's the dose that is used for all of the phase two patients. Got it. Thanks very much. Thank you for taking my question. You're welcome. Thank you. Our last question is from Nick Abbott with Wells Fargo. Please go ahead. Oh, good morning, and thanks for taking my questions. First off, Beth, thank you for updating us on those poor patients in Ukraine. It's bad enough having cancer, let alone having cancer while there's a war going on. My first question is for INNATE. Can I just confirm that no cohorts have not met the go criteria? Do you expect or are you seeing pseudo-progression? And if so, how are you advising the investigators? Yes, you're correct. All of the cohorts are either continuing to enroll up to the 10 patients or have completed and are waiting for data to make the decision about expansion. In terms of pseudo progression, all of our investigators are quite experienced with IO therapy. We do allow continued treatment beyond progression in the study, but we don't have any particular guidance regarding pseudo progression for the investigators. We just follow RECIST for our response criteria, and we do allow treatment beyond progression if patients are doing well clinically. Okay. Thank you. You know, just in terms of this, the go, no go here for the 10 patients, do they have to be a RECIST response if you see just really outstanding, you know, long-term stable disease that would also be unexpected? Is that something that could allow you to move ahead, or would that sort of be something that you look at perhaps later on? Yeah, it's for the expansion. It requires a response, a true response. Okay, great. Last one. For SELECT, do you have data on TISvopra? I'm sure you do. It's been a long time. The program has been going for a long time. Data on TISvopra, chemo-naive versus experienced patients that would give you confidence you could move from this second line setting to a front line setting. I mean, the data that we've collected is clearly in the studies that, you know, that we're doing. There is data across the literature on TIS that leads us to believe that, yes, we could certainly take this into a frontline setting or potentially into other tumor types. Great. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Okay. Thanks for the questions. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. This concludes our Q&A and program for today. Thank you for participating, and you may now disconnect.