Good day and thank you for standing by. Welcome to the Merus Investor Call. Thank you, and I would like to hand the conference over to our first speaker for today, Kathleen Farren. Kathleen, please go ahead, ma'am. Good evening, everyone, and thank you for joining the Merus Investor Call to discuss our recently presented clinical data on zenocutuzumab, or ZENO, in NRG1 fusion cancers. The slides we are presenting today are also available on the Investors and Media page of our website, www.merus.nl. Before we get started on the call, we will also be making certain forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These may include statements about our future expectations and plans and events and circumstances that have not yet occurred. Including, but not limited to, projections about Merus' operating activities for 2021 and beyond, clinical and regulatory anticipated events or milestones, the treatment potential of our Biclonics candidates, including ZENO for NRG1 fusion cancers, and the development plans for our compounds and for our collaborations. These forward-looking statements are based on the management's current beliefs, expectations, and assumptions and are subject to significant risks and uncertainties, including those disclosed in Merus' 10-K and subsequent reports and other filings made with the SEC by Merus, which are available online at sec.gov. Investors are cautioned not to place undue reliance on such forward-looking statements. Such forward-looking statements speak only as of today's date. Merus disclaims any obligation to update information containing such forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future results, or otherwise. The agenda for today's call is described on slide three. We will begin with welcome and introductions, followed by a brief mention of Merus' platform and pipeline, and then a discussion of the new clinical data on ZENO in NRG1 fusion cancers. We will then provide a brief summary followed by a question-and-answer period. On the call with me, as described on slide four, are Dr. Bill Lundberg, President and CEO, Dr. Andrew Joe, our Chief Medical Officer, and Dr. Hui Liu, our Chief Business Officer and Head of U.S. I'd like to turn it over to Dr. Bill Lundberg. Thank you, Kathleen. Good evening, everyone. I'm pleased to be able to provide a brief overview of our company, our asset ZENO, and NRG1 fusion cancers. As shown on slide five, we are an oncology-focused company developing multispecific antibody therapies. These are bispecific and trispecific cancer therapeutic candidates based on the human IgG format. We have a strong clinical pipeline with multiple clinical candidates, including zenocutuzumab, or ZENO, in patients with neuregulin-1, or NRG1, gene fusion cancers that we will discuss today. Our pipeline includes four clinical-stage assets with multiple near-term clinical updates and strong cash position, which we expect, based on our current plans, will fund the company's operations at least into the second half of 2024. We have leading multispecific antibody platforms based on the common light chain format that permits broad, high throughput Biclonics and Triclonics discovery and development that I'll speak about briefly on the next slide. Our strategic collaborations and license agreements help leverage the strength of Merus and unlock our platform value. Shown here on slide six is our platform technology. We are a biotechnology company developing therapeutic candidates for patients with cancer, bispecific and trispecific antibodies based on the concepts of a common light chain. The important advantage of the Merus technology is that all our antibodies have the same or common light chain, and we discover these through our patented transgenic platform. A second proprietary invention is to use a charge-based pairing approach, shown in the cartoon as a plus or minus on the lower portion or constant region of a heavy chain. This drives the formation of the preferred bispecific antibody structure, such that we can produce our bispecific antibody essentially purely from a single producer cell line. Consequently, these Merus technologies enable us to undertake large-scale screening of up to thousands of full-length Biclonics and Triclonics antibodies to identify those with the best properties and characteristics in multiple orthogonal assays. The human IgG format allows for ease of manufacturing and all the standard Fc domain engineering. In patients, these have been observed to have low immunogenicity risk, predictable in vivo behavior, and durable, consistent half-life. These are truly attractive molecules supported by Merus' strong IP portfolio. Shown on slide seven is our pipeline of clinical-stage assets and key collaborations. Today, we will be discussing ZENO in NRG1 fusion cancers. Turning now to slide eight. NRG1 fusions are clinically actionable targets that drive cancer growth in lung, pancreatic, and other cancers. NRG1 fusions are rearrangements of the neuregulin-1 gene, which is also called heregulin, or NRG1. It is a naturally occurring ligand for the HER3 receptor and plays important roles in cell growth and development. NRG1 fusions typically occur in the absence of other cancer driver mutations. The way this works is that binding of NRG1 or the NRG1 fusion to the HER3 receptor, as shown in the cartoon, initiates a signaling cascade leading to the activation of the PI3 /Akt pathway, cell proliferation, and survival signals. Numerous NRG1 fusion partners have been identified. Importantly, NRG1 fusion cancers have now been reported in several different studies to have a poor prognosis. They have adverse prognostic features, lower response rates to standard therapy, and shorter overall survival as compared to cancers that do not have the NRG1 fusion cancer driver. As shown on slide nine, ZENO is a common light-chain bispecific antibody that first binds to or docks onto the much more abundant HER2 protein so that it is in high local concentration on the cell surface to bind to the HER3 protein and block its interaction with NRG1 or the NRG1 fusion, as shown in the cartoon on the left. It also blocks formation of the HER2/HER3 dimers and subsequent cell growth signaling, as shown on the right. In addition, ZENO induces enhanced antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity, or ADCC. Preclinically, we have demonstrated ZENO is extremely potent, blocking cell growth in an NRG1 ligand-driven assay at concentrations as low as one-tenth of nanomolar, as shown in the blue curve. This is at least two orders of magnitude more potent than, or far more potent than antibodies directed only at the HER3 protein, including the older antibodies LJM716, AMG-888, and MM-121, now called seribantumab. Consequently, this low potency may require exceptionally high multiple gram antibody dosing in the clinic on an every-week schedule, which may be challenging for patients with cancer. I will now turn the call over to Dr. Andrew Joe, who will present the clinical update starting on slide 10. Okay, great. Thank you, Bill. I'm delighted to provide a clinical update of our ZENO program in NRG1 fusion cancers. These data were first presented this past Friday by Dr. Alison Schram from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center on behalf of the investigators as part of the virtual ASCO 2021 meeting. Can we go to the next slide? Slide 11 shows our ZENO clinical program, which consists of a phase I/II global open-label clinical trial, which we call the eNRGy trial, and an early access program, or EAP. Patients with NRG1 fusion cancer are enrolled in three distinct cohorts: those with pancreatic cancer or PDAC, pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, non-small cell lung cancer or NSCLC, and a basket of other tumor types. The inclusion criteria include locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic solid tumors harboring an NRG1 gene fusion and previous treatment or inability to receive standard therapy. Patients are treated at the recommended phase II dose of 750 milligrams every two weeks until disease progression, and tumor assessments are performed every eight weeks. Patients are also followed for survival after completing treatment. In the lower left box on this slide, we can see that the primary endpoint is overall response rate by investigator assessment according to RECIST 1.1, and these are the results that will be presented. The primary analysis population is comprised of those patients with the opportunity to have had at least one post-baseline tumor assessment. In the lower right box, we see the data cut-off date for this presentation was April 13, 2021, at which time 61 patients were enrolled. The primary announced population consisted of 47 patients, and the 14 patients that were excluded are described in the slide. Note that two of the 47 patients entered the study with non-measurable disease, therefore 45 patients were evaluable for response using RECIST 1.1. Let's go to the next slide. Slide 12 shows the demographics, prior treatment, and disposition of the patients on study. The median age across cohorts was 56, and all but one patient presented with metastatic disease. The patients were heavily pretreated and have median lines of prior systemic therapy were two. Eight patients previously received the multikinase inhibitor, afatinib. There were a total of 16 different NRG1 fusion partners, the most common of which are shown in the table. 40% of the evaluable patients were still on treatment at the data cut-off date. Let's go to the next slide 13. Slide 13 shows the efficacy of ZENO in NRG1 positive pancreatic cancer. The overall response rate by investigator assessment was 42%, and five of the 12 patients achieved a confirmed Partial Response, PR. The left panel shows the pancreatic cancer waterfall plot, and the bars depict the best percent change in target lesions. Most patients with pancreatic cancer demonstrated some degree of tumor shrinkage. The open circles note patients who are continuing on ZENO as of the data cut-off date. The panel on the right demonstrates that all patients with a baseline elevation of CA 19-9, which is a common tumor marker that's used to follow patients, demonstrated a rapid and significant greater than 50% reduction during treatment. Let's go to the next slide. Slide 14 shows the efficacy of ZENO across all NRG1 cancers, and the waterfall again depicts the best percent change in target lesion from baseline. 13 of the 45 patients in the total cohort achieved a confirmed PR in the ORR cancers across tumor types was 29%. As noted in the footnote, one additional PR was confirmed in a non-small cell lung cancer patient after the data cut-off date. An inclusion of this patient would result in an overall confirmed PR rate of 31% across tumors and 29% in non-small cell lung cancer. Thus, ZENO anti-tumor activity is consistent across pancreatic cancer, non-small cell lung cancer, and the total population. The waterfall plot provides color-coding by histology, PRs were also confirmed in patients with breast cancer and cholangiocarcinoma. Therefore, we're demonstrating that ZENO can induce PRs across four different tumor types of NRG1 cancer, including pancreas, lung, breast, and cholangiocarcinoma. Notably, the waterfall also shows that the majority of patients, 76%, experienced some degree of tumor reduction across multiple cancer types. Let's go to the next slide. Slide 15 shows the swim plot demonstrating time to response and duration of exposure. The upper panel shows pancreatic cancer patients, the middle are the lung cancer patients, and the lower are patients from the basket. The responses are noted in bold coloring, and these were the responses we saw in the two prior waterfall plots. The one patient whose PR was confirmed after the data cut-off date is again shown by an asterisk to the left of the plot in the middle panel. Solid circles denote when responses occurred, thus demonstrating an early time to response in the majority of patients who achieved PR at the first tumor assessment. Finally, arrows note the 40% of patients who are continuing ZENO therapy, and so the durability of responses will continue to mature. Let's go to the next slide. Slide 16 shows that ZENO continues to be well-tolerated and to have a favorable safety profile. The safety analysis is based on data from across the program and consists of 157 patients who received ZENO monotherapy at the recommended phase II dose as of January 2021. The majority of adverse events were of mild or moderate severity, Grade 1 or 2, which we believe is more favorable than the safety profile of standard cytotoxic chemotherapy. There were minimal or no severe hematologic, gastrointestinal, skin, and clinical cardiac toxicities that can be seen with other HER or EGFR family member-targeting drugs. There was also a very low rate of infusion reactions, 7%. Let's go to the next slide. Slide 17, to summarize this data release, we believe that ZENO has the potential to be the first and best-in-class for this new clinically actionable target, NRG1 positive, in multiple cancer types. ZENO can address an important unmet medical need, as there are no approved therapies that specifically target NRG1 fusions. Our pancreatic cancer population has a poor prognosis in this setting, and as recently reported, it appears that NRG1 positive lung cancer also has poor prognostic features, including low response rates to standard therapy. We've shown promising efficacy and safety in multiple cancer types and consistency across pancreatic cancer, lung cancer, and in the overall cohort. We've also shown, again, tumor reduction in the majority of patients. We believe that these meaningful efficacy and safety data, as well as our program design, may support multiple paths to registration. Let's go to the next slide. Slide 18 provides an update on the progress we've made and continue to make in our program of ZENO in NRG1-positive cancer. On the left panel, we are continuing to accelerate enrollment with more than 70 patients enrolled as of today, which is 60 more patients than we described in our previous data release. We continue to expand clinical trial sites and currently have more than 40 clinical trial sites open globally across North America, Asia, Europe, and the Middle East. We are also leveraging the Just-in-Time program, which can activate new clinical trial sites as new patients are identified. Our efforts for screening enrollment are supported by our comprehensive program to increase awareness and access through more than 10 collaborations with national screening programs, diagnostic companies, and academic institutions. I'll turn the call back now to our CEO, Bill Lundberg. Thank you, Andrew. On the following slide, I am delighted to share with the team today our progress towards potential registration of zenocutuzumab and how we are delivering on the opportunity for ZENO in NRG1 fusion cancers. We believe this is a potential new treatment option, potentially both first in class and best in class for patients with NRG1 fusion cancers. We have achieved a number of regulatory milestones, including FDA orphan designation for pancreatic cancer and Fast Track designation for metastatic NRG1 fusion cancers that have progressed on standard of care. The eNRGy study is designed with the intention to have the potential to support registration of ZENO. We will also be providing additional clinical and regulatory program updates by the first half of 2022, which will include updated enrollment, efficacy, durability, and safety data, and regulatory strategy and path to registration. This concludes our formal presentation. I will now turn the call back over to the operator to facilitate the question-and-answer session. Thank you. As a reminder, to ask a question, you will need to press star one on your phone's keypad. Again, that's star one on your phone's keypad. We will pause for just a moment to compile the queue roster. We have our first question, comes from the line of Maury Raycroft from Jefferies. Your line is now open. Hi, everyone. Congrats on the update. Thanks for taking my questions. First question is just to see if you can clarify on your latest thoughts for registration paths. I also wanted to check to see if you're planning on meeting with FDA before the first half of 2022 update. Thanks, Maury. Obviously, these are two questions that are right at the top of your list. Let me turn this question over to Andrew to address both the registration strategy and how we think about interacting with regulatory authorities. Thanks, Bill. Thanks for your questions. We believe the meaningful efficacy and safety data demonstrated during this data release may support multiple potential paths to registration. Importantly, the overall consistency of response is encouraging and could support the tumor-agnostic approach. Our strategy is to seek regulatory approval as fast as possible, and we will plan to engage with health authorities, including the FDA. Got it. For the 70 patients that you have enrolled, can you talk a little bit more about the tumor types? Can you break them out by numbers in particular tumor types? It seems like data is stronger in certain tumor types than others as it currently stands in this cut. Do you plan on focusing on particular other tumor types to strengthen the tumor-agnostic potential? Yeah, I'll make a general comment, and then Andrew can comment as well. The best sense of how the tumor types are enrolling in the trial really are the numbers from the presentation of Dr. Schram on Friday. Incremental additional patients don't change those proportions in a meaningful way. We believe it's critical to continue to enroll and continue to accumulate the data that supports the efficacy and safety of zenocutuzumab in this setting. Andrew, do you want to give a little bit of color about our aggressive approach to enrollment? Yeah, sure. The number of different types of tumors that we enroll can lead us either to a tumor-agnostic or tumor-specific registration. Right? The trial design currently may support a path to either. So far, we've demonstrated activity in lung, pancreas, breast, and colon. The FDA and other health authorities will be particularly interested to see if consistency of activity can be demonstrated in multiple tumor types. Got it. Last question from me, just wanted to see if you're seeing any trends or relationships between the fusion type and response and duration of response or maybe lack thereof. I guess, are you seeing any relationships there? How should we think about durability in the first half 2022 update? Let me tackle the forward-looking question around the first half 2022 update, and then Andrew can comment on fusion types. We will be providing, again, the data that we have, and we hope to have substantially more durability. We have more than 70 patients enrolled at this point. We'll continue to enroll aggressively throughout this year and beyond, and we'll provide the data that we have at the next data update, so we can share that with you and everyone else. Andrew, do you want to comment on how we're thinking about fusion types? Sure. As in the presentation, we've identified and enrolled patients with 16 different NRG1 fusion partners. We have demonstrated activity in several of these. We haven't really broken them down by fusion partners. I think the numbers are probably too small, but it's something that we could evaluate in the future. Got it. Thank you for taking my questions and thanks for congrats again. Thanks, Maury. Thank you. Your next question comes from the line of [audio distortion] from [audio distortion]. Your line is now open. Hi. Thank you very much for taking the questions. I had one question on the dose. Do you believe that you could raise the dose given the favorable safety that you've seen? Or are you confident and comfortable that this is the dose that you plan on going with for marketing authorization? Two comments there. Can see if Andrew has further discussion. In the safety part of the development of zenocutuzumab, a higher dose was tested and shown to be tolerated and acceptable. Our extensive pharmacometric modeling and studies have shown that 750 milligrams now every two weeks essentially fully blocks the target, which is HER3 binding or blocking the interaction of HER3 with neuregulin-1 or NRG1 fusions, essentially completely throughout the dosing cycle. We are comfortable with the dose based on all the data we have, and we believe it's supported by the significant response rates we're seeing in the clinic. Was there a second part to the question, or am I missing something? No, that's thank you. That's helpful. I just had one technical question. I was just curious, the pancreatic cancer patients that had the deepest response, it looked like minus 80% or something, I'm just wondering why they came off the study. We haven't talked in detail about particular patients and individual phenotypes other than the anecdotes and the case reports that Dr. Schram presented both in 2019 and 2021. We'd be beyond the bounds of that conversation to go into individual patient detail at this point. Okay. When are we going to get the next update on this data set? We'll provide a substantial update in the first half of 2022, and that update will include data on efficacy, response rates, durability, and how we're thinking about the program on a go-forward basis in terms of regulatory strategy and path to registration. Got it. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Next in line is Matt Phillips from [audio distortion]. Your line is now open. Hi, guys. Thanks for taking my question. I appreciate you want to be careful about what you say on regulatory interactions and next steps at this point, given competition in the space. One of those competitors just filed an S-1 that said after Type C meeting, they plan to run a 55-patient cohort for registration. I guess, can you comment on the size of that trial? They obviously have a couple other cohorts to support that, but if you think that is an appropriate number of patients in a, I guess, decent follow-up and diverse tumor types. Andrew, would you like to comment on how we're thinking about numbers and where we are with the more than 70 patients enrolled? Right. I guess as we mentioned, the design and the efficacy data that we have, they could potentially support multiple paths to registration, including pancreas, lung, and tumor agnostic. There are precedents for sample size based on both rare oncology subtypes as well as tumor agnostic indications. Obviously, this is an important question that we'll have to sort out with the regulators when we plan to meet with them. Thanks, Andrew. One quick follow-up. You guys hinted at that recent global registry data from Drilon et al. that was published showing pretty poor outcomes for NRG1 fusion lung cancer patients across the various standard of care. Is that a data set that you think helps with regulatory discussions as you get to that point? There are three different publications that speak to the difficulty of NRG1 fusion cancers, and particularly lung cancer, and how difficult the population that is compared to the non-NRG1 fusion cancers. In addition, pancreatic cancer following initial therapy, it's just a very, very difficult disease as well. We believe that the totality of the growing evidence strongly supports the notion that this is an increasingly difficult patient population to treat with standard therapies. I think it underscores the opportunity for a well-tolerated medicine with substantial efficacy in this setting. This sort of information really characterizes the unmet need, and the unmet need will certainly have an impact on discussions with the FDA and other health authorities. Thanks. Actually, if I may. It seems like you've enrolled maybe another 20 patients since earlier this year based on the abstract cutoff date. I guess, have you seen enrollment trends start to accelerate as your web of clinical trial sites and various recruitment efforts is increasing? Andrew, would you like to comment on enrollment? Yeah. We've definitely been pleased on enrollment recently. Like I said, we've had 60 patients since our initial previous data release at the Triple meeting. We think this is related to the multiple collaborations we've established, including those with the national country programs as well as several companion diagnostic companies. We expect that the enrollment will continue to increase as a result of this data release. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Your next question comes from the line of Etzer Darout from Guggenheim Securities. Your line is now open. Great. Thanks for the update today, and thanks for taking the question. Just a couple for me. The first, we had a few tumor agnostic approvals by the FDA and just wondered if you had a sense whether or not there's a minimum number of tumors that need to respond for a potential tumor-agnostic filing. I have a second question. Sure. Let me provide some color there, and then Andrew can speak to this as well. Obviously, aligning with the regulatory authorities on the details of regulatory filing is critical in expedited clinical development programs like this one. We're fortunate to have on our management team, as you know, the significant experience of Dr. Andrew Joe, who was previously position leading the tumor-agnostic approach for KEYTRUDA in MSI-high cancers that led to the very first accelerated approval for the tumor-agnostic indication. We believe that this is a critical perspective to provide color on how the FDA might think of this. We are sensitive to not talking about details of any specific content here because of the competitive dynamic in this space, as I think we can imagine. We are working hard to get a good read on exactly that question. Andrew, would you like to provide- Yeah. We're getting more information now. There are an increasing number now of drugs that are getting tumor-agnostic approvals. In most health authorities, they won't specify a minimal tumor number for a tumor-agnostic approval. Sample size, efficacy, consistency across tumors, these are all related to unmet need and rarity of tumor. We believe that the current program will support this type of approach. Got it. Thank you. The second question, I guess probably may not have much here, but I was very curious about the additional patient from the swimmer plot in lung that had an unconfirmed response. I wondered if you could add any incremental color to that patient and what the fate of that patient was, if you have that information. I thought it was interesting because it was incremental to the data set presented here at ASCO. Sure, I'll just take this one quickly. When patients are evaluated for Partial Response under the criteria of RECIST, the standard criteria of clinical trials, they need to first have a baseline scan and then get treated and show tumor shrinkage. It can't just be a one-off. That tumor shrinkage on a scan has to be repeated to show continued tumor shrinkage on a subsequent scan. That patient just happened to enroll and get dosed with timing such that their initial scan happened prior to the data cut, but the data cut happened before they had a chance to get their second scan. In their subsequent scan, that also showed persistence of the Partial Response. While formally it isn't counted in the April data cut, it is important for us to note and to share this patient is a confirmed Partial Response and does count under RECIST 1.1 criteria in the overall response rate. Does that help explain it? If you look at the service plot, there's another patient it seems that has an unconfirmed response. I was just more interested in that patient, if you could see what I'm referring to. The fourth line from the top there, as opposed to. Unconfirmed, that data confirmed. That would be the eighth patient who is not counted in this Partial Response because the patient had one scan showing the Partial Response followed by prolonged stable disease. Got it. Thank you. Thank you. Your next question comes from the line of Brian Abrahams for RBC Capital Markets. Your line is now open. Hi there. Thanks so much for taking my questions and congrats on the data. I guess my first question would be, can you talk about the differences in response rates for patients in the early access program versus those on the eNRGy trial, also any differences in response rates for those with prior afatinib exposure versus afatinib? Andrew, you want to speak to the eNRGy trial in opinion afatinib question? Yeah, sure. I think the table shows that there are, I think, eight patients who had prior afatinib, one pancreatic cancer, seven lung cancer patients. We did note two of the lung cancer patients did develop a PR. I think the numbers are probably too small to compare afatinib treated with afatinib naive, we are seeing responses close to afatinib. It's worth noting here that the one patient who had initial Partial Response on initial scan followed by prolonged stable disease was a third out of those seven lung cancer patients. It does appear to be activity of ZENO, similar activity of ZENO in patients following afatinib treatment. The early access program patients are really a small fraction of the overall patient population. We just thought it didn't make sense to try to break out in small numbers out of the overall patient population. Got it. That makes sense. In terms of safety, it seems like the safety continues to look quite clean. I was wondering if you could maybe speak either quantitatively or even qualitatively about the continued safety profile. We noticed the safety cutoff was a few months earlier than the efficacy cutoff and included all patients, including those who've been on less frequent dosing. Can you make any comments on the latest safety cutoff or what the safety looked like with a cutoff similar to efficacy when more patients would have been on the every 2-week dose for longer periods? Sure. Andrew, do you want to talk about the different dates of cutoff for safety versus efficacy in the different data sets for the submitting data? Yeah, sure. As you said, the safety cutoff was January 2021. That includes 157 patients across the entire ZENO program. The efficacy cutoff was in April. We haven't repeated the safety analysis at the later cutoff, but we certainly will in the near future as we prepare to talk to health authorities and also for the update that we plan for next year. It's worth noting that the safety profile is from all of the data we have on ZENO monotherapy at the recommended phase II dose. It's not simply the subset of patients with NRG1 fusion cancers. To date, we continue to see a consistent safety profile, which is reflected on slide 16 in the deck. Got it. One more quick one if I could squeeze it in. You talk a lot about the emerging data on the natural history of lung cancer patients with NRG1 fusions. How much do we know about the natural history of NRG1 fusion patients with pancreatic cancer? I know that's not a tumor type that's usually genotyped quite as frequently, but is there any sort of emerging data you can speak to, or do you believe that the lung data is likely applicable to pancreatic and other tumor types? Thanks. Well, we believe that the mechanism of tumor genesis, the mechanism of cancer cell growth across these different tumor types is similar, right? It's an NRG1 fusion-driven cancer signal that signals through this pathway and vigorously drives cancer growth. It'd be reasonable to speculate or think that these cancer types might be somewhat similar. Just in the overall patient population of pancreatic cancer, it's a tough disease, right? I believe the speakers on the presentation on Friday made the point that the responses to standard therapy frontline and second line were substantially inferior to the response rates that we've seen with the ZENO in the pancreatic cancer subset. It's just a very difficult disease, both with frontline therapy and especially after a patient's progressed on initial therapy with pancreatic cancer. Makes sense. Thanks so much. Thank you. To ask a question, you will need to press star one on your phone's keypad. That's star, then the number one on your phone's keypad. If you want to ask a question, please press star one on your phone's keypad. No further questions at this time. I'll turn the call over back to our speakers. Thank you so much for joining our call, and I hope you all have a good evening. Thank you. This concludes today's conference call. You may now disconnect.