Hello, and welcome to the Merus Investor Call. All lines have been placed on mute to prevent any background noise. After the speaker's remarks, there will be a question-and-answer session. If you would like to ask a question during this time, simply press star one on your telephone keypad. If you would like to withdraw your question, again, press star one. For the sake of time, we ask that you limit yourself to one question. I'll now turn the conference over to Kathleen Farren, Merus Investor Relations and Corporate Communications. Please go ahead. Good morning. Thank you for joining our call. The slides we are presenting are also available on our website at www.merus.nl. On this call, we will also make 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's clinical development for 2023 and beyond, and the timing for plans and for meeting clinical and regulatory anticipated milestones related to petosemtamab, 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's filings with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, including its Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30th, 2023, which we filed with the SEC on August 7, 2023. Merus does not undertake any obligation to update any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise, unless required to do so by law. Leading us through the agenda will be Dr. Bill Lundberg, Chief Executive Officer, Dr. Andrew Joe, Chief Medical Officer, and Dr. Cecile Geuijen, Chief Scientific Officer. Bill? Merus is an oncology-focused company with four clinical assets of our own and multiple other clinical assets we have developed with our collaborators and licensees. Of our own, three have already shown encouraging clinical data. The age of bispecific antibodies is here. There are now almost ten approved therapies and many more in middle and late-stage clinical development, providing validation for the notion that two targets can be better than one for better specificity, targetability, and reduced off-target toxicity. At Merus, we've been innovators in this field for over a decade, with our proprietary Multiclonics technology platforms that allow us to make bispecific and trispecific antibodies like monoclonal antibodies. A single cell produces essentially a single multispecific antibody. This allows us to leverage the decades of experience with monoclonal antibody discovery and development, including high-throughput screens, manufacturability, large-scale production, global availability of contract manufacturing of monoclonal antibodies. As fully human IgG1 molecules, our molecules generally have predictable in vivo behavior, low immunogenicity, and consistent half-life, and can have all the Fc domain engineering, like ADCC enhancement or self-silencing for T-cell engagers, among other modifications. This is a powerful technology platform, and while it doesn't guarantee success in the clinic, we believe it gives us a better chance of being successful. As one example, we're excited to share with you today the remarkable data for zenocutuzumab, or Zeno, in NRG1-positive cancer, published today as abstracts for presentation at ESMO 2023. On this call today, I'll give you a quick update on the MCLA-129 program. Then Dr. Andrew Joe will walk you through the compelling updated data for Zeno, our potential first and best-in-class bispecific antibody in NRG1-positive cancer, and provide further information on our regulatory progress. We will next discuss petosemtamab, our potential first and best-in-class EGFR and LGR5 bispecific, which interim clinical data has thus far demonstrated substantially higher overall response rate than other anti-EGFR agents in second-line head and neck cancer. Dr. Cecile Geuijen will provide additional preclinical data to help you better understand this remarkable molecule. Petosemtamab is our lead asset, with interim data demonstrating efficacy that has been observed to be far better than the comparable standard of care in second-line head and neck cancer, and has the potential to benefit thousands of patients in need, and with an almost $5 billion global opportunity in both frontline and previously treated head and neck cancer alone. Importantly, this asset, petosemtamab, demands management, prioritization, and attention. We are encouraged to report that among the initial patients dosed in the frontline combination of petosemtamab with pembrolizumab, the safety profile has been observed to be generally favorable, with no dose-limiting toxicities reported to date. Dr. Joe will review the petosemtamab clinical data presented earlier this year and other informative data in previously treated recurrent or metastatic head and neck cancer that supports our phase III randomized trial design, and we will end with a Q&A session. We have recently announced that MCLA-129 abstracts have been accepted for presentation at ESMO Asia in December. These include data on three cohorts of patients, frontline and previously treated non-small cell lung cancer, treated with MCLA-129 in combination with osimertinib, as well as head and neck cancer, treated with MCLA-129 monotherapy. We are also announcing the discontinuation of a fourth cohort, non-small cell lung cancer, with EGFR exon 20 mutation, due to the competition in this niche market. MCLA-129 is a compelling molecule in its own right, sharing the same target combination as amivantamab and with its own distinct features and attributes. We continue to take a data-focused approach and to explore potential opportunities for development and differentiation, so MCLA-129 can be successful in the rapidly evolving landscape of lung cancer treatment. At the same time, with petosemtamab's extraordinary interim data we presented at AACR, an opportunity in head and neck cancer and potentially beyond. We need to be very thoughtful about how we deploy our resources across our entire pipeline to maximize our ability to potentially help patients and maximize the opportunity for Merus. This is a great situation for Merus. Dr. Joe will take you through the data on zenocutuzumab, or Zeno, in `NRG1-positive cancer, that was included in the abstracts accepted for presentation at ESMO and that we shared earlier in a press release. These data will be updated at ESMO by Dr. Alison Schram from the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, the principal investigator of the eNRGy trial. Andrew? Earlier, we announced the publication of 2 abstracts to be presented at ESMO later this month. These presentations demonstrate the efficacy of Zeno in both NRG1-positive non-small cell lung cancer and NRG1-positive pancreatic cancer in the eNRGy trial and early access program. A key message from these interim data is: Zeno continues to show remarkably consistent efficacy over time, with robust and durable responses in these difficult-to-treat indications. I'm going to present the data described in the abstracts, which will be updated in the presentations next week at ESMO. As of the February 1st, 2023 data cutoff date, 85 patients with NRG1-positive lung cancer were enrolled, 65 of whom had received treatment as of August 1st, 2022, allowing for the opportunity for ≥6 months of follow-up. One patient had non-measurable disease, and the efficacy of Zeno was assessed in 64 patients. The overall response rate was 34% for investigator assessment, and 78% of patients had target lesion reduction. The median duration of response was 12.9 months, and responses were ongoing in 11 of 22 patients, 50%. In the pancreatic cancer cohort, 38 patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma were enrolled as of February 1, 2023, and 27 patients with measurable disease were treated as of August 1, 2022, allowing for ≥6 months of follow-up. The overall response rate per investigator assessment was 44% and included 1 complete response. 81% of patients had target lesion reduction, and 84% of patients had CA 19-9 decline of ≥50% from baseline. The median DOR was 9.1 months, and responses were ongoing in 4 of 12 patients, or 33%. Therefore, Zeno induced remarkably durable responses in both NRG1-positive lung cancer and NRG1-positive pancreatic cancer. Zeno was well-tolerated, with an extremely low rate of grade 3 or higher adverse events compared to other standard agents used in this treatment setting. Earlier this year, we were excited to announce that Zeno received breakthrough therapy designations in NRG1-positive lung cancer and NRG1-positive pancreatic cancer. These are significant achievements for Zeno, and importantly, BTD may allow more intensive FDA guidance and collaboration in developing Zeno in both indications. We recently met with the FDA in the context of our two BTDs, and based on these productive and collaborative discussions, we believe we will have sufficient data for both NRG1-positive lung cancer and NRG1-positive pancreatic cancer programs in the first half of 2024 to support biologics license application submissions. I'd like to now turn your attention to petosemtamab, our EGFR x LGR5 bispecific, which we are developing for patients with advanced head and neck cancer. We believe this may provide an opportunity to truly improve the lives of a very large group of patients with significant unmet need. Dr. Geuijen will review preclinical data to explain the bispecific's design and mechanisms of action. These unique attributes may help explain why we believe petosemtamab has the potential to be more effective and have a more favorable safety profile than other EGFR inhibitors. Petosemtamab is a high-affinity bispecific antibody targeting EGFR and LGR5. While EGFR is a well-known target in oncology, LGR5 is relatively novel. Petosemtamab is currently the only drug in clinical development targeting LGR5, which is a cancer antigen associated with metastasis and resistance. Of note, petosemtamab binds to LGR5, but does not interfere with ligand binding to LGR5, which may promote a better safety profile. There are three potential mechanisms of action of petosemtamab. First, petosemtamab binds to EGFR domain three and blocks EGF ligand from binding to EGFR, preventing activation and downstream signaling. Second, petosemtamab also degrades EGFR via a unique mechanism while binding both EGFR and LGR5 on the tumor cell. LGR5 is a dynamic receptor and associated with E3 ubiquitin ligases. Simultaneous binding of EGFR and LGR5 results in EGFR getting dragged from the cell surface. This process leads to degradation of EGFR. In fact, our in vitro experiments have shown the antibody hijacks the LGR5 E3 ligase system for degradation of EGFR. Third, petosemtamab binds very efficiently to the Fc gamma receptor. It is expressed on cells of the innate immune system. Petosemtamab binds to professional phagocytes like macrophages and neutrophils. The Fc part of petosemtamab is ADCC enhanced, which is designed to mediate a more efficient interaction with NK cells, regardless of the Fc gamma receptor IIIA genotype of the patient. We have shown that phagocytosis and activation of NK cells can be mediated when the antibody is bound to either EGFR, LGR5, or EGFR x LGR5 double-expressing cells. The picture in the right part of the slide shows the degradation of EGFR by petosemtamab, which is one of the unique features of the antibody. In the top picture, EGFR is internalized and degraded. In the bottom western blot gel, EGFR disappears entirely from the cell treated with petosemtamab as compared to the control treatments. Our preclinical work demonstrates petosemtamab's multiple mechanism of action in these systems, disrupting EGFR signaling, degrading EGFR, and effectively calling the innate immune system to action. It is always exciting to see the preclinical work align with the clinical. With that in mind, Dr. Zhou is going to provide a quick review data from Dr. Cohen's oral presentation from AACR back in April of this year, and provide further information on our petosemtamab program. At AACR, Dr. Cohen presented interim data from the phase I/II expansion cohort investigating petosemtamab in patients with advanced head and neck cancer, who were treated previously with or intolerant to anti-PD-1 therapy and platinum-based chemotherapy. The recommended phase II dose of 1,500 milligrams every 2 weeks was selected during dose escalation, during which no dose-limiting toxicities were reported and no maximum tolerated dose was reached. As described in the AACR presentation, all patients received petosemtamab at 1,500 milligrams every 2 weeks in 28-day cycles, and tumor assessments were conducted every 8 weeks. The primary endpoint was overall response rate by investigator assessment using RECIST 1.1 criteria, and the efficacy evaluation population was comprised of patients who received two or more cycles of treatment and at least 1 post-baseline tumor assessment, or discontinued early due to disease progression or death. As of the February 1st, 2023 data cutoff date, 49 patients had been enrolled, of whom 43 were evaluable for efficacy. Six patients were not evaluable for efficacy due to five withdrawing due to infusion-related reactions prior to being assessed, and one patient due to an exclusion criterion deviation. Of note, we continued to optimize the way in which we administer petosemtamab to improve the profile of infusion-related reactions. The population was fairly typical of advanced head and neck cancer, the majority male, 78%, with a median age of 63 years. The distribution of primary tumor sites was also fairly typical, with tumors more commonly originating in the oropharynx, oral cavity, and larynx. The median EGFR H-score by immunohistochemistry was 170 and included a range of expression levels. Note, this was an all-comer population, and EGFR, p16, or other biomarker was not used for selection. The median number of lines of prior systemic therapy was two, with the majority of patients, 96%, receiving prior immunotherapy, largely pembrolizumab, and 94% prior chemotherapy, which was mainly platinum-based. The waterfall plot shows the anti-tumor activity of petosemtamab in target lesions. The confirmed overall response rate was 37.2%, and 12 patients with stable disease, partial response, and complete response were still on therapy as of the data cutoff date. Of note, this ORR is high for this disease setting. These responses were durable, and the median duration of response was 6.0 months at the data cutoff date, with 10 of 16, 63%, ongoing. As a quick reminder, petosemtamab was well tolerated in this patient population, and its safety profile was manageable. Safety was assessed in 80 patients across all cohorts treated with petosemtamab at the recommended phase II dose.... Infusion-related reactions were the most common toxicity and accounted for treatment discontinuations in 6 out of 80 patients. Virtually all occurred on day one of cycle one, and each patient who was rechallenged after experiencing IRR was able to continue on study. The frequency and severity of IRRs were markedly reduced after cycle one, day one, and as I mentioned earlier, we've continued to optimize the way in which we administer petosemtamab to improve the profile of infusion-related reactions. Skin and gastrointestinal toxicities were mostly mild to moderate in severity. In conclusion, the interim data presented at AACR demonstrated the high and durable efficacy of petosemtamab in previously treated head and neck cancer, and its well-tolerated and manageable safety profile. These support our continued development of petosemtamab, both as monotherapy in previously treated head and neck cancer and in combination with pembrolizumab as frontline therapy of head and neck cancer. Based on these results and our discussion with the FDA at an end-of-phase meeting, we continue to be very excited by this molecule. Yesterday, ESMO released an abstract on the INTERLINK-1 trial, in which the control arm provided contemporary data on cetuximab monotherapy in the setting of head and neck cancer that had been previously treated with chemotherapy and a PD-1 agent. We have been speaking with many key opinion leaders who have shared their similar, although anecdotal, experiences with cetuximab post-IO, and therefore we're not surprised by these results. It was nice to see this validation in a prospective trial, providing evidence of petosemtamab's higher efficacy in the post-IO setting. Based on our clinical results to date and now these new data on cetuximab, we continue to believe that our drug, petosemtamab, is a much more active agent than cetuximab and other EGFR inhibitors. Moreover, we believe these new data from the control arm of the INTERLINK-1 trial confirm the design of our randomized phase III trial of petosemtamab monotherapy in patients with previously treated, recurrent, or metastatic head and neck cancer. We plan to initiate this global trial in mid-2024. We continue to enroll patients with previously treated head and neck cancer who will receive petosemtamab, 1,100 mg or 1,500 mg, to confirm a feasible dose for potential registration trials. Merus plans to share the clinical data from this cohort in 2024. We also continue to enroll patients with previously untreated, advanced PD-L1 positive head and neck cancer, who will receive 1,500 mg of petosemtamab in combination with pembrolizumab. Initial safety data from this single-arm cohort may support the initiation of a first-line randomized registration trial with this combination. Merus plans to report initial interim safety and efficacy data from this cohort in the first half of 2024. Thank you, Dr. Joe. The next several quarters are very important for Merus. We are heads down and focused on executing and achieving all of our upcoming milestones. For petosemtamab in second-line head and neck cancer, we plan to finish our dose evaluation work in the first half of next year and initiate the registration trial by mid-2024. Merus plans to share the clinical data from this cohort next year. In the front-line setting, we plan to provide initial data on the combination with pembrolizumab in the first half of 2024. We're simultaneously preparing for a potential front-line registration trial and anticipate such a trial could be initiated, conditioned on the safety profile being confirmed. For Zeno, in NRG1-positive cancer, we will provide updated data from the eNRGy trial at ESMO later this week. We believe we will have sufficient data for both NRG1-positive lung cancer and NRG1-positive pancreatic cancer in the first half of 2024 to support biologics license application submissions. For Zeno, in combination with androgen deprivation therapy in castration-resistant prostate cancer, or CRPC, we plan to provide initial data on a cohort of patients later this year. For MCLA-129, we expect to share initial data in three expansion cohorts at ESMO Asia later this year and expect to provide a clinical development strategy update. At Merus, we're proud of the progress we're making, all of this based on our innovative and promising Biclonics technology platform on which our company was founded. We're also excited for our near-term opportunities to advance multiple clinical programs towards potential BLA registration and to create meaningful value near term for patients and for the company. Specifically, with petosemtamab, we believe we have an opportunity to significantly improve the lives of patients with both previously treated as well as newly diagnosed head and neck cancer. This is both a compelling clinical opportunity for patients and a meaningful market opportunity, one that raises the bar here at Merus to execute and deliver on these promising opportunities. Thank you for your attention. I will now turn the call back over to the operator for questions. Thank you. If you have a question, please press Star one on your telephone keypad. If you wish to remove yourself from the queue, simply press Star one again. One moment, please, for your first question, and we ask that you please limit yourself to one question for time. Your first question comes from the line of Tara Bancroft of TD Cowen. Your line is open. Hi, team. Good morning. It's great to see that safety so far is good for the frontline petosemtamab combo, but I'm curious to see how you are defining what good safety is. You know, is your benchmark for that based on the FDA guidance and what they want to see in order to open a frontline trial? If so, what could the timing be for the initiation of that trial? Thanks. Good morning, Tara, and thanks for the question. This is Bill. So the way we look at safety is really based on the number of other datasets we have for EGFR inhibitor antibodies and Keytruda, where the safety profile of the safety of each of those individual molecules is non-overlapping, and the safety profile of the combination has really been quite favorable. That provides us multiple independent datasets and benchmarks on which to really assess and evaluate safety of our combination. And that's the context in which we look at this, and we're really encouraged by the safety to date with no dose-limiting toxicities. So it really is an encouraging dataset so far. Thank you. Your next question comes from line of Maury Raycroft of Jefferies. Your line is open. Hi, good morning, and congrats on the progress, and thanks for taking my question. I was going to ask about frontline Pido plus pembro as well. Can you talk about how many patients you've dosed so far? And for the AstraZeneca INTERLINK-1 abstract at ESMO, can you help contextualize how you view specifics in the data, including the overall response rate, PFS and OS data they reported? And talk a little bit more, if possible, about the design, size and powering for the second-line plus phase III at this point, and anything additional on timelines for that, if you could. Thanks, Maury. I'll try to provide as much of this content as I can. So in terms of the frontline trial, we've been enrolling aggressively, as you know, since the second quarter. We don't typically give specific enrollment numbers on interim periods, but I can tell you that we have guided, and we maintain guidance that we'll read out the data in this cohort in the first half of next year to give you a sense that we're encouraged by the progress there. In the context of the second line trial, we're really encouraged to have our understanding of the control arm of our planned second/third line trial, confirmed by the data from the control arm of the INTERLINK study. The response rate for cetuximab in this setting really mirrors the response rate that was observed in the second line setting for the combination of cetuximab monalizumab. And in terms of specific trial details, we've been working hard on these details. We just got confirmation of the data from INTERLINK, you know, midnight European time. So, we're working hard to incorporate that into our finalization of trial details, but it's an important component in terms of size and duration. Thank you. Your next question comes from line of Yigal Nochomovitz of Citi. Your line is- Hi. Hi, Bill and team. Thanks for taking my question. Excuse me. On INTERLINK, can you just comment... I thought the original design, for your second line was to do investigator option of chemo or cetuximab. Is that changing, or is, is that still the case? And then with the new data that they just presented, I believe it was 24% ORR in HPV-unrelated, 19% across all patients. Previously, the cetuximab had shown a lower ORR, so do you need to make any adjustments to your powering? Obviously, you have a very wide cushion still, but just wondering if you need to adjust the powering at all, given the updated data cut for, for INTERLINK. Thanks. Thank you for clarifying that, Yigal. Yes, let me be clear. Our second, third line head and neck cancer trial design remains as our experimental arm, petosemtamab, compared to an investigator's choice of either cetuximab or single agent chemotherapy. So that is unchanged. You're absolutely right about that. And in terms of powering, you know, we've had a good sense of what the data to date have said regarding cetuximab, particularly the prior phase II trial of cetuximab that suggested around a 20% response rate. We've obviously been iterating around potential trial designs, given a range of different efficacy possibilities for the cetuximab component, which is a third or less of the total population in the control arm, typically. That's certainly the way it's been in the two prior trials, CheckMate 141 and KEYNOTE-040. This really affirms the direction that we've been heading and now allows us to incorporate these critical data points with some confidence as we now move to finalize our clinical trial design for the second- and third-line registration trial for petosemtamab. Thank you. Your next question comes from line of Charles Zhu of Guggenheim Securities. Your line is open. Hey, good morning, everyone. Thank you for taking our question, and congratulations on all the progress. I'd like to ask one regarding MCLA-129, if you don't mind. Obviously, lots of moving parts there, but, how are you thinking about, you know, the potential, your, your datasets at ESMO Asia's potential, to show any, you know, signs of differentiation relative to what amivantamab has already shown from the Chrysalis studies in similar, cohorts? And, also similar to that, I may have missed it, but, did you make a mention of how you're thinking about the MET exon 14 cohort? Thank you. ... Good morning, Charles. We, in terms of MCLA-129, we've described the five cohorts in the expansion part of the study, and that our presentations really are for those cohorts where we have sufficient data to be able to share them in a meaningful way. We did indicate that EGFR mutant, exon 20 mutant EGFR was a niche market with multiple competitive molecules, and based on where we've gotten to date, we've made the decision to discontinue that cohort. We've also described in an earlier press release, with the release of the titles and reiterated in the press release this morning, that the cohorts that we are reporting out at ESMO Asia are non-small cell lung cancer combination with Tagrisso in the front line and in the second line plus, and the head and neck cancer cohort, which is the predominant portion of a basket cohort. We've also indicated that there is a large amount of data over the next two months from the entire lung cancer landscape, as well as our own internal data, which we need to fully evaluate to be able to comment intelligently about our thinking about 129. It's a little premature to try to game theory at this point. Regarding MET exon 14 skipping mutation, we are not presenting those clinical data at ESMO Asia, and that is because we did not have sufficient enrollment and clinical follow-up at the cutoff date for the abstract submission and conference presentation. We're continuing to enroll MET exon 14, and enrollment has been accelerating for the cohort, but we just didn't believe we had enough data at the time of submission for the abstract to be informative. Thank you. Your next question comes from line of Ami Fadia of Needham and Company. Your line is open. Hi, good morning. Thanks for taking my question. Perhaps, going back to Zeno. With this additional clarity from the FDA, how does that influence your conversations with potential partners, to partner this asset for commercialization down the line? Thank you. Good morning, Ami. For zenocutuzumab in NRG1-positive lung cancer and pancreatic cancer, we are excited about the updated data we're sharing, and we continue to be really encouraged by the fact that the data remain consistent over time, which is a really encouraging characteristic of these data. We believe we have really compelling clinical data in both lung and pancreatic cancer. Based on our very clear discussions with the FDA, we believe we'll have sufficient data in the first half of next year for both lung cancer and pancreatic cancer to support regulatory filings. Now, as you know, we've been also clear about the notion that obtaining a commercialization partnership agreement will be an essential step in bringing Zeno to patients with NRG1-positive cancer, if approved. So in this context, having continued progress with the clinical data and continuing to see consistency in the strong results that we have... are reporting out at ESMO, and the recent discussions with the FDA, both through, both two breakthrough therapy designations and our discussions, we believe this really does provide significant tailwind, significant support. And we expect the pace of discussions to continue to accelerate as we move closer and closer to potential BLA filing. Thank you. Your next question comes from line of Brad Canino of Stifel. Your line is open. Hey, good morning. Maybe you can remind us of your strategy with regard to handling HPV status in the petosemtamab second- and third-line trial, and comment on if this is reaffirmed or not by the results of INTERLINK-1, particularly as we look at the subgroups having that small difference in ORR, but really no difference in OS. Thank you. Thank you, Brad. That's exactly right. When we last talked about this, we had shared that we're working hard on the clinical data around the potential impact of tumors that are HPV positive versus those that are negative, and whether the results, the efficacy results change depending on that distinction. And as we continue to analyze it, the INTERLINK data with cetuximab is very important. I think what we see in the clinical data from the cetuximab arm is that there's a clear impact or an apparent impact of HPV status on response rate of 24% response rate in the HPV-unrelated population, with a 19% response rate in the full analysis set. Whereas there doesn't seem to be an impact on either progression-free survival or overall survival. Those are really important considerations as we think about whether our registration trial and potential frontline registration trial as well, needs to consider or take into account or accommodate a change based on whether tumors are HPV positive versus negative. We don't have a final answer for you this morning, but this is obviously a really helpful data set for us to have further clarity in this direction. Thank you. Your next question comes from the line of Lucas Shumway of BMO Capital Markets. Your line is open. Hi, this is Luke. I'm calling in for Esther. Thanks for taking my question. Just one on Zeno. Are you guys still considering pursuing a tumor-agnostic approval? And if so, have you and the FDA come to an agreement on what you would need to demonstrate for that? Thank you, Lucas. As you remember, we had originally contemplated a tissue-agnostic approach for our clinical development program for Zeno and had earlier discussions with the FDA about a year ago, where the FDA gave us very clear feedback that our data set, particularly in tumor types beyond lung and pancreas, was not yet sufficient. They encouraged us to focus initially on lung and pancreas. So that's where the major focus of our efforts have been. We're still continuing to actively enroll the eNRGy trial. We still have the early access program available. We're still enrolling all the patients that we can find, and so we're continuing to accumulate that data set. The way that we've talked about a potential tissue-agnostic follow-on or supplemental application is that, you know, we'll really focus on lung and pancreas now, and we'll see how our enrollment is. You know, we consider a potential tissue-agnostic subsequent application, depending on the clinical data, if the clinical data supports it. Thank you. And your last question comes from the line of Andrew Berens of Leerink Partners. Your line is open. Hi. Thanks, and congrats on the progress. I appreciate you giving us some color on the role of LGR5 and petosemtamab's activity. I was wondering, do you guys have any data on LGR5 expression and how it correlated with responses? How is LGR5 measured, and is that something you think will be part of the decision process for practitioners? Good morning, Andrew. The LGR5 question is important, and just to frame this, and then Dr. Geuijen, our Chief Scientific Officer, can provide color as well. Just to frame this, our bispecific is a bispecific between EGFR and LGR5 on the other arm, and I've said in the past, it's just very difficult to measure. While there are publications that describe immunohistochemistry detecting protein, that's been something that's been difficult for us to try to reproduce. It's most easily measured by RNA, but it's often challenging to measure and understand the relationship between RNA and protein. But in terms of LGR5, let me give Dr. Geuijen the opportunity to comment as well. Oh, well, thank you very much for this question. Good morning. Last week, I was at a conference where one of the keynote speakers was giving a presentation on how biased we are as scientists. If you're biased, the chance to discover differentiating therapies is low, since you always will travel the same route. And the philosophy of Merus from the start has to be, has been to screen our bispecific antibodies in an unbiased way in cell-based functional assays. In those assays, we cast the net wide and typically screen 500-1,000 bispecific antibodies to increase the chance of discovering unique antibodies. And for this program, we used cell-based assays that were as close to the patient as possible by using organoids. And the beauty of organoids is that from the same patient, you can generate tumor and healthy organoids. Within one system, we can test both the efficacy and toxicity of an antibody. In a screen, we screen a large library of our bispecific antibodies that was targeting different Wnt signaling pathways and also the RTK targets. It just happened that the bispecific antibody that showed the most potent inhibition of tumor growth without touching the healthy cells, was an antibody targeting both EGFR and LGR5. This antibody binds outside of the region where the ligand binds to LGR5, and as a result, doesn't interfere with the normal Wnt signaling pathway. Due to the fact that it binds LGR5, it has a unique phenomenon of degradation of EGFR, which results in reduced tumor growth. So it's an area we're continuing to study and to try to get specifically at your question, in greater detail. It's an area of active research for us. Thank you. We have one last question from Matt Phipps of William Blair. Your line is open. Yes. Thank you for taking my questions. I joined late, sorry if I missed it. But in the front line, I mean, obviously, we know, the Erbitux plus Keytruda has generated around 45% response rate in some HNSCC. Do you consider that to be generally the bar for petosemtamab plus Keytruda or anything else you're kinda looking for from the efficacy side of that combo data? And then maybe you can just remind us on, what you're looking for in the prostate cancer Zeno update coming up soon. Sure. So in the frontline setting, we're actively in frontline setting for head and neck cancer for petosemtamab, we're actively enrolling a cohort of patients with previously untreated, head and neck cancer or, you know, the frontline treatment of head and neck cancer with a combination of Keytruda and our drug, petosemtamab. And, the therapy that the patients can currently receive in this setting is typically Keytruda alone or Keytruda plus chemotherapy. From a clinical development standpoint, from a benchmark of improving therapies that the patients can get that are approved and also demonstrate strong efficacy in randomized controlled clinical trials, that really is the clinical development benchmark. I think people are also curious to see how we would compare against cetuximab or essentially any antibody therapy approach that is basically cetuximab. But I think from a clinical development standpoint, a lower bar, a minimum bar is really understanding how we might be better than what patients are currently receiving, which is Keytruda alone. The second question you asked has to do with zenocutuzumab, which in addition to us moving forward in a BLA-directed way with NRG1 fusion cancers, we do have a small cohort asking a clinical question in men with prostate cancer. Now, this is not NRG1 fusion prostate cancer. This is all comers with prostate cancer. Because there's some really good preclinical evidence that suggests that this Zeno pathway, Zeno targeted pathway of NRG1 interacting with HER3, may play a role in tumors in patients that start to become resistant to the standard anti-androgen therapy. This is a small cohort of patients because we're testing a It's a preclinically derived hypothesis we're testing clinically, and we'll really be able to see a signal, I hope, if it's real, in a small cohort of patients. We've guided to reading this out in the second half of this year or later this year. So thanks for asking about, about castration-resistant prostate cancer. Appreciate that. Thank you. There are no further questions at this time. I'll now turn the call back to Dr. Bill Lundberg for closing remarks. Thank you, operator, and thank you all for listening and attending the call. At Merus, we're proud of the progress we're making, all of this based on our innovative and promising Biclonics technology platform on which our company was founded. Our motto is "Closing in on cancer," and we take this responsibility very seriously. We're grateful for your time and attention today and hope to see you in Madrid at ESMO. This concludes the conference call.