Good evening, everyone. Thank you for joining our call during this very busy ASCO weekend to discuss zenocutuzumab, or Zeno, and the data presented earlier today on NRG1 fusion cancer. The slide presentation we are presenting tonight is also available on our website at www.merus.nl. On this 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, including about finances, intellectual property, projections about Merus' clinical development for 2022 and beyond, and the timing for meeting clinical and regulatory anticipated milestones for zenocutuzumab and our other Biclonics candidates. Each forward-looking statement is subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results and events to differ materially from those projected in that statement. A more complete description of these and other material risks can be found in Merus' filings with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, including its Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2022, which we filed with the SEC on May 9. Merus does not undertake any obligation to update any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise. Leading us through the agenda on slide 3 will be Dr. Bill Lundberg, CEO, Dr. Andrew Joe, Chief Medical Officer, Ms. Shannon Campbell, Chief Commercial Officer, and Dr. Hui Liu, Chief Business Officer. Good evening everyone. A year ago at ASCO, we reported interim clinical data where Zeno led to encouraging safety and efficacy in previously treated NRG1 fusion cancer. Earlier today, Dr. Alison Schram of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, the lead investigator, presented data on 110 patients. In this updated analysis, Zeno continues to demonstrate improved overall efficacy for NRG1 fusion cancer with a very favorable safety profile. Zeno is based on our novel and highly innovative multi-specific antibody technology, resulting in candidate medicines that lead to meaningful clinical responses in patients. We're making progress towards our goal of our first drug approval with our potential first and best-in-class drug Zeno for NRG1 fusion cancer. Together with our additional clinical programs, Merus is delivering on a promise of closing in on cancer. Merus is an oncology-focused company developing multi-specific antibody therapies, as on slide 5. We have a robust clinical pipeline with 4 molecules in the clinic, and we own global rights to 3 of them. For MCLA-129, Merus holds worldwide rights outside of China, and we've licensed our partner Betta exclusive rights in China. We have leading bispecific and multispecific antibody platforms with Biclonics and Triclonics, and a strong cash position, which we expect to fund our operations beyond 2024 to take us through numerous value creation opportunities and multiple strategic collaborations to unlock platform value. Merus Biclonics and Triclonics, our bispecific and trispecific antibody platforms, use our proprietary technologies of a common light chain and charge-based pairing shown in the cartoon on slide 6. This greatly facilitates the discovery, development, and production of multispecific antibodies. We make them like standard monoclonal antibodies, essentially from single cells. With this approach, we can leverage decades of experience with monoclonal antibodies, including truly large-scale screening, to select what we believe to be the best candidate out of thousands of candidate molecules. They are all fully human IgG antibodies with all the good qualities that come with working with monoclonals. This is covered by a robust IP portfolio. We have 4 clinical stage candidates in our pipeline as shown on slide 7. In addition to Zeno, petosemtamab, or MCLA-158, is a bispecific between the well-established cancer antigen EGFR and LGR5, a cancer stem cell target in the WNT pathway. We shared early encouraging interim clinical data on petosemtamab in head and neck cancer at the AACR-NCI-EORTC triple meeting conference last year, and we intend to provide an update at a medical conference in the H2 of this year. MCLA-145 is a bispecific T-cell engager that binds CD137, or 4-1BB, on activated T-cells and brings them to tumors expressing the PD-L1 antigen. We shared early clinical data on this program at the ESMO IO conference last year, and MCLA-129 is a bispecific between EGFR and c-Met in a phase 1/2 trial that started in the Q2 of last year. We believe targeting these 2 cancer antigens with both full ADCC enhancement and the capacity to block signaling may address significant unmet need and a large market opportunity. We intend to provide an update on MCLA-129 at a medical conference in the H2 of this year. Our chief medical officer, Dr. Andrew Joe, will now describe the clinical results to date for Zeno. Andrew? Thanks, Bill. Earlier today, Dr. Alison Schram from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center presented an updated analysis of the Zeno program in NRG1 fusion cancer, as shown in slide 8, which is enrolling patients across the U.S., Europe, and Asia. Neuregulin-1, or NRG1, is a cellular growth factor that binds to HER3, as shown in slide 9. In NRG1 fusion cancer, the NRG1 fusion protein leads to a continuous go signal for growth and drives cancer development. NRG1 fusions have been identified in many different tumor types, including pancreatic and non-small cell lung cancer, and reports have shown an association with poor prognosis, including low responses to cancer therapy and shorter survival in lung cancer. In the lab, Merus scientists have shown that Zeno has antitumor activity in multiple different NRG1 fusion tumor types, regardless of tumor histology, as shown in slide 10. By targeting both HER2 and HER3, we believe Zeno's Dock & Block activity may be better than targeting either receptor alone. Zeno has been shown to be more than 100-fold more potent than anti-HER3 monoclonal antibodies in several in vitro assays. The FDA has recognized the potential importance of our program in NRG1 fusion cancer by granting a Fast Track designation. We are investigating the clinical activity of Zeno in patients with multiple types of NRG1 fusion cancer, as described in slide 11, including pancreatic cancer, non-small cell lung cancer, and other solid tumors. We also opened an early access program, or EAP, to offer Zeno therapy to those eligible patients who are unable to participate in the eNRGy trial. In today's updated analysis, 110 patients were enrolled as of the April data cut update, of whom 83 were included in the primary analysis population. The program has enrolled patients with multiple tumor types, and patients tended to be on the younger side of a previously treated advanced cancer population with a median age of 59, as shown on slide 12. The vast majority, 87% of patients, were enrolled in the eNRGy trial, and only a small minority of patients participated in the EAP. All except 1 patient presented with metastatic disease, and 79 of the 83 patients in the primary analysis population had measurable disease. Therefore, efficacy was determined in 79 patients. Enrolled patients were extensively pretreated with a median of 2 prior lines of systemic therapy, as shown on slide 13. NRG1 fusions were identified with 26 different fusion partners. The waterfall plot on slide 14 illustrates Zeno's broad range of antitumor activity, notably in NRG1 fusion pancreatic, lung, breast, and cholangiocarcinoma. The overall response rate in the total population was 34%, and efficacy was consistent in the pancreatic and lung cancer types. Furthermore, tumor shrinkage was demonstrated in 70% of all patients. Of note, NRG1 fusion non-small cell lung cancer may be particularly refractory to standard chemotherapy and immunotherapy, with response rates reported to be in the 15%-20% and lower range. Thus, Zeno has shown clinically meaningful activity across this difficult-to-treat cancer population. The swimmer plot on slide 15 demonstrates that the time to tumor response was quick, and responses were generally observed at the time of the first CT or MRI imaging at 8 weeks. Durable responses were observed across tumor types, and the median duration of treatment was 6.3 months. Zeno responses have now been shown to be durable, with the median duration of response greater than 9 months, as shown in slide 16. In addition, more than a quarter of patients continue to respond for 1 year or longer. The pharmacokinetics of Zeno on slide 17 demonstrated greater than 95% receptor occupancy for both HER3 and HER2 throughout the dosing interval, even after the first dose. Therefore, with our patient-friendly every 2-week dosing schedule, Zeno provides essentially full receptor coverage. Zeno has a very favorable safety profile, as shown on slide 18. Across all patients treated with Zeno monotherapy, the vast majority of adverse events were only mild or moderate in severity, and there was a very low rate of grade 3 or higher adverse events. Side effects have generally been manageable and less than 1% of patients discontinued due to adverse events. We believe this safe and tolerable profile will facilitate the development of Zeno combinations with other anticancer therapies, which is something we are interested in pursuing. Slide 19 summarizes the results of the ASCO 2022 presentation, in which we have demonstrated the clinically meaningful and consistent efficacy of Zeno in multiple types of NRG1 fusion cancer, the very favorable and well-tolerated safety profile, and therefore the potential of Zeno to be a new NRG1 specific and tumor-agnostic standard of care for patients with NRG1 fusion cancer. We're excited by the progress we're making. I'll now hand the discussion over to our Chief Commercial Officer, Shannon Campbell. As a potential first and best-in-class treatment for patients whose cancers harbor NRG1 fusions, I'm thrilled to share perspective as we prepare for the commercialization of Zeno. Importantly, we've heard from investigators and oncologists more broadly that Zeno's profile is impactful. The efficacy is seen as clinically meaningful, with a strong safety profile and a convenient dosing schedule for patients. We have a strategic assessment of our go-to-market approach underway, taking into consideration the important success factors for Zeno. Educating on the role of NRG1 as an oncogenic driver, optimizing the testing environment for patient identification, and minimizing barriers to accessing Zeno for providers and patients upon potential approval. These needs will drive our choices. Options we have under consideration include partnership scenarios as well as efficient, digitally enabled go-it-alone models. We are actively working on the best approach now and look forward to sharing updates over the next several quarters as we move towards our goal of a BLA filing and approval. Bill? We're excited to share with you our progress to date with Zeno in NRG1 fusion cancer. NRG1 fusion is a new clinically actionable target. Zeno is a potential first and best-in-class medicine for patients with NRG1 fusion cancer. It continues to show strong efficacy and safety in larger numbers of patients and across multiple tumor types, including 34% response overall and 35% and 42% in lung and pancreatic cancer, respectively, with tumor shrinkage across more than 15 different NRG1 fusion partners. Zeno has a patient-friendly dosing regimen once every 2 weeks. It has received both Orphan Drug Designation for pancreatic cancer and has received Fast Track Designation for NRG1 fusion cancer. Based on the feedback received from the FDA that we shared last year, we believe the eNRGy trial design and enrollment has the potential to support a BLA submission for previously treated NRG1 fusion cancer. We believe we may have sufficient patients enrolled with sufficient follow-up by the middle of this year to form the basis of such a filing. Merus is actively developing our commercial strategy for Zeno, with plans to serve patients with NRG1 fusion cancer. We expect to provide an update on our regulatory and commercial strategy progress in the H2 of this year. Finally, given the favorable safety profile of Zeno, we may potentially pursue earlier lines of therapy in NRG1 fusion cancer and potentially in additional indications. Zeno was created through our own in-house novel and highly innovative multispecific antibody technology, resulting in candidate medicines that are leading to potentially meaningful clinical responses in patients. For Merus, Zeno is only the beginning. We are making progress towards our goal of our first drug approval with our potential first and best-in-class drug, Zeno. Together with our multiple additional clinical programs, Merus is delivering on our promise of closing in on cancer. Thank you again for your time and attention. Operator, we can now open the call up for questions. Thank you, sir. As a reminder, to ask a question, you would need to press star 1 on your telephone. To withdraw your question, please press the pound key. Please stand by while we compile the Q&A roster. I show our first question comes from the line of Charles Zhu from Guggenheim. Please go ahead. Hey, good evening, guys, and thanks for taking the question. Maybe just 1 first. The discussant had mentioned, you know, the potential importance of RNA sequencing in patient identification. Could you perhaps quickly provide some more details around, you know, how these patients could be identified through the various biomarker, you know, identification strategies and how you see that landscape now as well as evolving over time? Thank you. Thank you, Charles. I can provide a perspective on patient identification now, and perhaps Shannon can provide some color in the context of commercialization. What we've provided to date, or what Dr. Schram spoke to today, was the way patients were identified for enrollment in the clinical trial, which represented a diversity of approaches, both primarily DNA and RNA testing. What we know from the eNRGy registry that Professor Drilon. Got it. Excellent. Thanks again for taking the question and congrats on the ASCO data update. Thanks, Charles. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Maury Raycroft from Jefferies. Please go ahead. Hi. Congrats on the update, and thank you for taking my questions. First question I wanted to ask about for the FDA analysis for the data, how would the 4 patients from the 83 patients be factored in? I guess, would those patients be considered non-responders? Thanks for your question, Maury. Let me provide context for the question. What was presented today was that as of the April data cutoff date, 110 patients have been enrolled and treated, and of those, 83 patients met the criteria for the primary analysis population, the pre-specified criteria, and had 6 months of follow-up. They represented the data that we wanted to analyze. Now, of those, there were 4 patients, and the 4 that you refer to Maury, who had disease that could be identified but could not be measured. I don't recall the exact clinical context, but for example, a patient with pleural effusion where you know there are cancer cells in the pleural effusion of the patient, but you can't measure whether it gets bigger or smaller. The same with bone mets. Although we identify those in the population, we have no way of measuring whether the patient's tumor gets larger or smaller. That's how we view it, and how we believe it would be viewed in a regulatory context. Got it. That makes sense. Also, can you talk more about why you chose a 6-month follow-up criteria? Was that also agreed with FDA? When could we expect to see the data for the full 110 patients? In terms of the context with the FDA, as you know, as we've talked about before, we have met with the FDA. We've aligned on approach for a tumor-agnostic regulatory path for zenocutuzumab. We haven't shared the quantitative details there, so I don't wanna speak in too much detail. However, I will say that this approach for having a 6-month evaluation allows us to have a true measure of what the duration of response is. It doesn't require a more sophisticated Kaplan-Meier type of analysis, but you see among all patients who were treated as of early October are analyzed in terms of response and in terms of duration of response and duration of treatment. It allows us a very clear assessment of those metrics. Got it. That's helpful. Will you guys do another data update or another disclosure before you file for approval? We will be having an assessment of the dataset. We have shared that we believe that we'll have full enrollment and clinical follow-up by the middle of this year to potentially support a BLA filing. We haven't disclosed how or where we might share that dataset publicly, but one can imagine that it would be relatively similar to the dataset that we provide already, in terms of the context of number of patients and efficacy and safety data. Got it. Okay. Thank you very much for taking my questions. Congrats again. Thanks. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Matt Phipps from William Blair. Please go ahead. Good evening. Thanks for taking my questions, and congrats. It's always nice to see data get better after a year of additional patients. You know, first, 1 question is there are only 3 responses outside of pancreatic and lung. Is that enough for a tumor-agnostic label? I know you had a positive kind of initial conversation with the FDA last year, and I'm guessing that's probably something you just have to go ask them in the pre-filing meeting. Thanks, Matt. Let me provide some initial framing of this, and Andrew can speak to the clinical and regulatory context. We've designed the initial phase 1/2 eNRGy trial in this context, and we have met with the FDA, as you alluded to, and aligned around a tumor-agnostic approach. To date, we've enrolled 9 different tumor types with NRG1 fusion cancers. Perhaps, Andrew, you can provide some context in the tumor-agnostic application. Okay, great. Thanks, Bill. The FDA will be interested in 2 things for a tumor-agnostic approval. One is rationale for the biology that targeting NRG1 cancer makes sense biologically. The second would be consistent efficacy across different tumor types. We've discussed our approach with the FDA with respect to total sample size and consistent efficacy. The FDA will make a decision on number of tumor types based on things like our efficacy, consistency, and also unmet need. Great. Thanks. You know, I guess maybe a question for Shannon, but also Bill. I know you're starting to form the commercialization plans around here. You know, I know there's, you're looking at options, so probably not too much you can say, but is this a large enough indication to really form a full commercial company? Or do you want to, you know, have someone help you, but kind of get your foot in the door to becoming a commercial organization ahead of, you know, then some larger pipeline products coming out later? Yeah, we do view this as a really important opportunity for Zeno for patients with NRG1 fusion cancers, and commercialization is a really important step for our company. At the same time, you know, we recognize that an initial commercialization and the fixed cost and infrastructure is a consideration in terms of the investment that's required. Shannon can provide some color on where we are in terms of thinking through that process. Yeah. We have a strategic assessment underway as we speak that really is taking into consideration what we think about as far as the important success factors for Zeno. We've got work to be done around educating the important role that NRG1 has in terms of oncogenic driver. We do need to optimize the testing environment to ensure patient identification, and as well, minimizing any barriers to access for either providers or patients upon our potential approval. These needs, as we think about our model, are really foundational to drive our choices. Right now, we've got various partnership scenarios under consideration, as well as a very efficient digitally enabled go-it-alone model. We're actively working on the commercial strategy now, and we look forward to sharing an update on our commercial strategy in the H2 of the year. Perhaps Hui Liu, our Chief Business Officer, can provide additional color as well. Thanks, Bill. Shannon and I are working hand-in-hand, looking at real possibilities in terms of what options we have on the partnering side and really looking at all the available options to us to find the optimal solution for Zeno and for Merus as a company. Thanks. If I could stick in 1 more. I know we're really focusing on Zeno on this call, but at ASCO, there was some data with amivantamab and METex14 on 14 patients that I think looks interesting and suggests maybe MCLA-129 has opportunities beyond, I think, what most are looking at the exon 20 EGFR. Wondering if you guys saw that, any comments, and then I guess maybe how the dose escalation is going in MCLA-129, but I assume just on track for initial data later this year. Yeah, just to frame this out, I'm sure virtually everyone on the call followed that pivot, but just to be clear, for MCLA-129, our bispecific antibody that targets c-Met and EGFR, it's in clinical development in an initial phase 1/2 trial that we started in the Q2 of last year. It is similar to J&J's Rybrevant or amivantamab, which has today or earlier in ASCO, I think Friday, put up really interesting clinical data for c-Met exon 14 mutant lung cancer. We are really interested in the potential of this molecule in several large market opportunities within lung cancer. The clinical trial continues apace. We're really looking forward to providing an update on this molecule at a medical conference later this year. Great. Thanks, and congrats again on the Zeno update. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Tazeen Ahmad from BMO Capital Markets. Please go ahead. Great. Thanks for taking the question, and congrats on the data set presented here. Maybe 1 question for me on just generally, you know, we all sort of recognize, you know, NRG1 fusion's low incidence rate. Maybe if you could just speak to what you've learned and what you're potentially doing to maybe sort of enrich that population, you know, any sort of specific, you know, tumor subtypes, biomarker subtype that you're looking to sort of as you're kind of progressing through this trial to maybe sort of enrich that population of NRG1 fusion protein patients. Thanks, Tazeen Ahmad. The data to date really suggests several thousand patients per year in the U.S. is the incidence of NRG1 fusion cancers. You know, at the same time, we've been encouraged by the enrollment of our clinical trial in this context, and really have been able to enroll at a pace. Shannon alluded earlier in the Q&A session to the more than 10 key relationships we have with molecular testing companies, patient advocacy groups, consortia, which has really helped move this forward, and particularly within lung and pancreatic cancer. Perhaps, Shannon, you can provide some additional color on this as well. Absolutely. When we think about NRG1-positive cancer sort of across the solid tumors, that number is generally less than 1%. It's very much more often seen both in pancreatic cancer as well as non-small cell lung cancer. From an enrichment perspective, especially if you think about invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma. It also occurs exclusively in K-RAS wild-type cancers, which is a patient population that's being increasingly identified with the development of many of the drugs that are targeting the RAS mutations in solid tumors. We feel like having the focus not only on patients in lung and pancreatic cancer, but in particular in RAS wild-type cancers, that should substantially facilitate screening as well as identification of patients with NRG1 cancers. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Aisha, next question comes from the line of Yigal Nochomovitz from Citi. Please go ahead. Hi, team. This is Aisha Mubarik on for Yigal. Thanks for taking my question, and congrats on the data. I guess will your patient identification strategy differ between the tumor types given the 3 different technologies utilized for screening for NRG1 fusions? I'm just curious about whether you'll need to utilize different molecular testing strategies depending on the tumor type. We were also wondering if there's a possibility for true companion diagnostic maybe down the road. Thanks. That's actually an interesting question. The best data we have suggests that RNA-based testing is more sensitive for the detection of NRG1 fusions. The challenge here is that NRG1 is a really big gene, about a megabase long, and DNA-based testing just isn't as sensitive for gene fusions that occur in the 90% of the gene, this intronic region. The best information we have is that RNA-based testing will be the right approach across tumor types. You know, maybe a little bit early to say that conclusively, and I think it's an interesting question of whether or not in some tumor types there may be particular molecular approaches that may be favoured. With respect to companion diagnostic, this is an important question as well. We believe that a companion diagnostic is an important component of the Zeno development approval and commercialization ultimately to identify patients with cancers harboring the NRG1 fusion. Okay, great. Thank you for all the color. Thank you. Aisha, next question comes from the line of Stefan Gnaedinger from Vontobel. Please go ahead. Hi. Good evening, team, and thank you for taking my question. Congrats on the compelling data set. Just 1 question from my side. Can you maybe expand on which molecular genetic assays include testing for NRG1 fusion mutations now, and how common it is to use these tests on newly diagnosed solid tumor patients in the real-world setting? Can you then maybe also go into depth specifically for non-small cell lung cancer and pancreatic cancer? Sure, Stefan. Thanks for your question. I'd rather not get into the position of endorsing particular company's tests for fear of omitting a company and getting 1 mad at me. I will say that of the 4 or 5 main molecular testing companies used on the you know academic oncology setting and community oncology setting, the vast majority of them do include RNA sequencing-based testing for NRG1 fusions. We think that that's a really encouraging development. We do view the molecular testing landscape as having many small players and regional players as well as a number of pathology labs doing their own testing for their own hospital. There is some work to be done in making sure that all of these tests appropriately include NRG1 fusion cancer testing for this landscape. Perhaps Shannon can provide some additional color here as well. Yeah. Just elaborating on your question specific to some of the testing rates that we can see in lung cancer as well as pancreatic cancer to date. The environment is fairly fragmented right now, but at least from many of the our data sources that we see, testing rates for some of the newer fusions are approaching 50%-60% in the context of non-small cell lung cancer. That's an environment that is heavily tested today. Given where pancreatic cancer is, that's lower at this point in time with current rates in sort of the 30% range. Certainly some continued work and education to do as important new therapies potentially come into the marketplace in the pancreatic setting. I will provide just 1 piece of additional color, which is that our view is that molecular testing is becoming much more increasingly common as, you know, year by year in both lung and pancreatic cancer, the 2 areas where NRG1 fusions are most commonly identified. Particularly with continued innovation, not only with NRG1 fusion cancers, but across all of the molecularly targeted or personalized cancer medicine approaches, we see, you know, the increasing use of molecular testing in these 2 particular diseases. Especially in the context of patients whose tumors may be identified as RAS wild type, we see a natural progression into evaluating whether or not these tumors have NRG1 fusions as a way to increase the patient identification for patients who potentially have NRG1 fusion cancers. Great, guys. Thank you very much. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Ami Fadia from Needham. Please go ahead. Hey, guys. Ami here on for Ami. Congratulations on the data again. I have a question about the potential that you see beyond PDAC and non-small cell lung cancer. Obviously, the majority of the data that you're showing now is for these 2 cancer types. Where do you see opportunities beyond these 2? Well, we heard a fair amount of excitement at the presentation today around the safety profile for zenocutuzumab in this setting, and that really lets us think more broadly about the potential applicability of Zeno, both in earlier lines of therapy, potentially and potentially in combination. While it's too early to talk about specifics, we're really encouraged by this, both in earlier lines of potential therapy and combination therapy in NRG1 fusion cancers, but also potentially outside of or beyond NRG1 fusion cancers, as was alluded to at the presentation. You know, we hope to be speaking about this in more detail in the future. Thank you. Thank you. I'm showing no further questions in the queue. This concludes our Q&A session. I'd like to turn the call back over to Dr. Bill Lundberg for closing remarks. Thank you. We're excited to share with you our progress to date with Zeno in NRG1 fusion cancer. I'm particularly excited with the presentation of Dr. Schram earlier today. We appreciate each of you taking the time out from a very busy ASCO schedule for all of you. Thank you for your continued interest and support. We look forward to further discussions. Thank you. This concludes today's conference call. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.