Adaptimmune Therapeutics plc (ADAPY) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Good morning, everyone. Thank you for joining. My name is Michael Klem. I'm a member of JPMorgan's health care investment banking team. It's my pleasure to introduce Adrian Rawcliffe and Elliot Norry, the CEO and CMO of Adaptimmune. Quick housekeeping note. If you would like to submit a question, there's a button, ask a question feature underneath the presentation. Without further ado, I'll turn it over to you, Adrian, to kick us off. Thanks.

Thanks, Michael. people ask me what makes Adaptimmune different? Why are you built in the way that you are? Why do you do the things the way that you do them? And the answer is that Adaptimmune is different because cell therapy is different. Cell therapy is personal. When a person with cancer decides to be treated with our autologous SPEAR T-cells they give a part of themselves to us, they entrust us with their white blood cells. A part of that patient, a part of that person comes into our facility. It comes into the building where I usually work. And that patient trusts that we will transform those cells, transform them into what, or to us, we transform them into engineered SPEAR T-cells. The cutting-edge of genetic engineering applied to human health. But to them, well, to them, we transform them into hope. This is why I have no qualms as a CEO about my manufacturing team feeling connected to the patient. They know what is at stake. They literally hold the patient's cells in their hands. And it's why when COVID hit, the #1 priority for us as a company was to keep the cell manufacturing operations safe so that we can continue to treat people with cancer. And it's why our clinical and CMC team work every day through COVID, through the holidays to make, release and ship patient cells so that people with cancer on a Zoom call, with their families over the holidays, could look forward to receiving their cells in January with hope. And think that maybe because of these cells that they entrusted to us, this won't be the last Zoom call they have with their family. Adaptimmune is different because cell therapy is different. The requirements of discovering, developing and delivering cell therapies to patients, they define who we are as a company. They define everything that we do. And they will define all of the value that we create. If we go to Slide 2, it should be obvious from what I've just said that I'm going to make forward-looking statements, and this disclaimer describes them. Moving to Slide 3. We know that to create true value for patients and for the company, we need to bring products to market that transform the lives of those patients. And this is the only thing that has ever created long-term value in this business. And frankly, it's the only thing that ever should. Today, I'm going to tell you how we're going to get there, with milestones starting in 2021 and along the way with cell therapies in the clinic and on the market, treating an increasing number of patients. And I'll describe the unique capabilities that we have built to enable us to achieve those goals. On to Slide 4. For those of you who might not know us as well as others, our original technology over on the left at the bottom is based around the ability to engineer high affinity T-cell receptors. These are the receptors that T-cells normally use to identify what to attack. And we engineer them so they can recognize cancer targets. So the T-cells can see the cancer. In the past 5 years since the IPO, we have built a self therapy company to discover, develop and deliver these cell therapies based on this technology and is a company not built just to house a technology or a pipeline, but products in a business. We went from having 1 TCR T-cell in the clinic a few years ago, NY-ESO, which is now in the hands of GSK, to having 3 wholly-owned assets in several clinical trials across multiple solid tumor types. And it's these treatments that I'm going to be talking about today. And now at the beginning of 2021, I can say this, next year, we will launch our first commercial product in the United States. It will be the first engineered TCR T-cell therapy on the market. And in line to be the first or the second T-cell therapy for solid tumors period. And that will be for synovial sarcoma, but as well as synovial sarcoma, we've shown responses in 5 additional solid tumor types. And as a business, we've built a robust clinical pipeline including multiple cell therapy modalities, next-generation approaches and an advanced allogeneic off-the-shelf platform. Moving to Slide 5. This is our Two Two Five Two plan. The core value drivers for the next 5 years of the company. As I've said, true value in our business comes entirely from benefiting patients. Our ambition is to have 2 marketed SPEAR T-cell products, targeting MAGE-A4 on the market by 2025. Starting with our planned launch for patients with synovial sarcoma in the U.S. next year and followed by second BLA for patients with esophageal cancers. With a Phase II trial, which we intend to be registrational, initiating in the first half of this year. To continue building our commercial presence by 2025, we plan to file 2 additional BLAs over this time period. Now these will come either from additional indications from MAGE-A4 targeting therapies. We're particularly focused on lung, bladder, head and neck and gastroesophageal cancers. And also from our program targeting AFP in liver cancer. Long term, we're looking for cell therapies to be both curative and mainstream. Curative means long-term therapeutic benefit with ultimately patients not dying from their cancer, and mainstream means available to large numbers of people globally. Now obviously, this is not a short-term goal. But our research pipeline is focused on products that have the potential to meaningfully move us towards these goals in the autologous and in allogenic or off the shelf setting. By 2025, we'll move into the clinic, 5 additional autologous products that increase the depth and durability of responses and expand the patient populations that we can reach. And we'll also put our first 2 allogeneic products into the clinic. The first targeting MAGE-A4 and the second in partnership with Astellas targeting mesothelin. Now the foundation of all of this is our fully integrated cell therapy company. We have our own in-house sell and vector manufacturing process development, translational sciences, clinical, commercial teams, all of those have been specifically designed and are dedicated to the needs of being a cell therapy company. They enable us to innovate and improve the pace of cell therapy. And I cannot emphasize this enough. This is a feature, not a bug. This is something we've worked hard to build and I believe there's a growing understanding actually in the industry that this integrated set of capabilities specific to cell therapy is a whole mark of success for companies in our space. Moving to Slide 6. Our pipeline consists of T-cell therapies against 2 targets: MAGE-A4 and AFP. MAGE-A4 is present in a broad range of solid tumors. Including some sarcomas, lung, bladder, head and neck, ovarian and gastroesophageal patients and others. AFP is present on liver cancer, and in fact, can be a diagnostic marker of liver cancer. On the right-hand side of this slide on the top is our first registrational Phase II trial SPEARHEAD-1, which despite the pandemic, we completed enrollment for last year in around 12 months. This will support registration and commercialization of our first-generation product, ADP-A2M4 in the U.S., in synovial sarcoma next year. By the middle of this year, we would have started a Phase II trial SURPASS 2 with our second-generation programs targeting MAGE-A4, ADP-A2M4 CD8 in esophageal cancers, including esophagogastric junction cancer. We're starting this trial based on responses from the Phase I SURPASS trial you see here, which continues to recruit patients with gastroesophageal, head and neck, lung and bladder cancers. And we are enrolling and treating patients in all of our early phase trials, with each of our 3 wholly-owned therapies to identify further indications where we can drive for registration. Moving to Slide 7 and some data. These data are from our first-generation ADP-A2M4 Phase I trial in the cohort of 16 patients with synovial sarcoma, and this was presented at CTOS last year. As you can see from the waterfall plot on the left, almost all of the patients have received some benefit from this treatment. And in almost half of those patients, this translated into formal resist clinical responses with an overall response rate of 44%, which I just want to point out is so considerably better than available commercial therapies. We're also very encouraged, the list in some of the responses, we see extended durability. With the 2 patients on the right shown still in response at around 80 weeks. The synovial sarcoma community is incredibly excited about these data and regulatory designations such as RMAT in the U.S. and PRIME designation in the EU will help us on our path to approval next year. Moving to Slide 8. Sarcoma is a perfectly sized opportunity as our first commercial product. And as a therapy has the potential to transform the standard of care for patients who have few other options. But MAGE-A4 goes much further than sarcoma. We believe we're the first company to properly clinically validate MAGE-A4 as a target, and we believe it's a very significant cancer target. Beyond sarcoma, the opportunity for MAGE-A4 targeted products is substantial. With almost 100,000 patients in the EU and U.S. dying each year because of MAGE-A4 expressing cancers. And after taking account of the fact that our clinical products target MAGE-A4 in the context of a particular tissue HLA type, in this case, HLA-A2. The 40,000 patients that die each year that are HLA-A2 and whose tumor have significant MAGE-A4 expression is a substantial opportunity. And I'll touch later on in what we're doing to go beyond HLA-A2 and address the needs of larger numbers of patients. But it's worth pointing out that MAGE-A4 can really only be targeted with a T-cell receptor. You can't get a bit with an antibody or a small molecule. So we are in the lead against this newly validated, very significant cancer target, with the first indication on the market next year, and it's a very small set of companies that can be in this race. Moving to Slide 9. This shows the reason we have to believe that our treatments can be effective across the range of cancers expressing MAGE-A4. Beyond sarcoma, we've seen responses with our SPEAR T-cells targeting MAGE-A4 in esophagogastric junction, head and neck and lung cancers, and there have been meaningful tumor reductions in several other indications as well, showing activity. On the left-hand side of this slide, you see results from the treatment with the highest dose of our first generation agent targeting MAGE-A4, ADP-A2M4 in patients with a range of different solid tumors, not sarcoma. Of 13 patients, some saw tumor reductions, and we had partial responses in patients with the lung and head and neck cancer. But on the right-hand side, you see the data from our second-generation program targeting MAGE-A4 for dose escalation cohorts of 6 patients where we showed 5 of the 6 patients had tumor reductions, and 2 of the 6 had confirmed responses. Now 3 of the patients in this dose cohort had esophageal or esophagogastric junction cancers and all 3 showed tumor reductions, which included 1 confirmed response. And this is what's led to the Phase II trial SURPASS 2 in esophageal cancers that we will initiate by mid-year this year. On to Slide 10. To round out our clinical pipeline, here's the data from our SPEAR T-cells targeting AFP for people with liver cancer. We've reported a single response but it was a complete response that lasted for almost 9 months in a patient with advanced liver cancer, which was very encouraging, and we continue to enroll in this trial in the expansion cohort and treat patients and will determine this year how to proceed with development of this asset. It's worth pointing out, liver cancer represents a sizable market opportunity as well in the EU and the U.S., approximately 15,000 patients have the right HLA type and tumors expressing AFP. Moving to Slide 11. If you look at the last 2 pillars of the 5-year, that core value drivers, this is the deep pipeline, which will deliver value beyond current therapies in the clinic, enabling us to treat more patients and achieve more meaningful and durable responses. And this, of course, drives us towards those therapies that are both curative and mainstream. And I want to highlight just a few items. Firstly, the next-generation approach is at the top of this slide for both MAGE-A4 and AFP are designed to increase the depth and durability of those responses. Secondly, the programs targeting broader HLA coverage for both MAGE-A4 and AFP, together with new cell therapies, such as the next-gen TIL candidate we're working on with CCIT. They're designed to increase the number of patients that can receive our therapies. And last but not least, the off-the-shelf or the allogeneic platform derived from stem cells, where we've shown we can generate functional T-cells from those stem cells that kill cancer targets in vitro. This is obviously an important opportunity to move cell therapy to a more mainstream position. On to Slide 12. We're well funded into 2023, and equipped to deliver on these ambitions with $400 million on the balance sheet at the last reporting date. We've also guided the market that we're going to move away from reporting out on very small numbers of patients. And towards more meaningful data sets that actually drive development and commercialization decisions. I also want to make the obvious caveat before I go through these, that all of these are subject to acceptance of the relevant congresses that we talk about. This year, our first planned update will be on the SPEARHEAD-1 trial at ASCO in June. We intend to report out initial data from this registration directed trial. Later, we'll finish the year with more SPEARHEAD-1 data at CTOS, where we can present longer duration of follow-up with these patients. This in total, will form the basis for our BLA and ultimately, marketing authorization for people with synovial sarcoma next year. In addition to starting the surpassed 2 trial, with the second-generation ADP-A2M4, a Phase II study for people with esophageal cancers. We plan to present data from the ongoing Phase I SURPASS trial across the multiple tumor types that we are recruiting again at ESMO. Just to remind you, this is focused on patients with lung, bladder, head and neck and gastroesophageal cancers. And I'll just note one more, which is the plan to present data from our liver cancer program with ADP-A2AFP at ILCA in September. On to Slide 13. We have ambitious plans for Adaptimmune to really put the TCR into the cancer revolution. Those plans are supported by an increasing body of evidence. Showing efficacy of our products across a range of tumor types. The responses across patients with 6 different solid tumor indications confirm the potential of our products to give hope to people with cancer. Our objective is transformational, not incremental, but our autologous cell therapy products currently in the clinic and with the preclinical autologous and allogeneic candidates across new HLAS, new targets and new modalities. So with this deep clinical and preclinical pipeline, our first commercial product next year, and our strong integrated capabilities from research to commercial. Adaptimmune is designing, developing and delivering cell therapies for people with cancer. And we believe 2021 will be an exciting year for us and, of course, for them. And with that, I'll hand it back to Michael for questions.

All right. Thank you, Adrian. At this time, if anyone has any questions, you can submit them through the ask a question feature underneath the presentation, but I prepared a couple of questions to kind of kick us off here. Maybe in spirit of us all going virtual this year. Can you touch on COVID impacts? And maybe what we think the impact might be on our trials and ability to deliver on data and time lines there.

So I think I like to ask Elliot to comment on that.

Well, thank you. the impact of COVID on our trials, I think, will be ongoing to some degree. I hope it's minimal, and I think that one thing we've learned is that it's really hard to completely predict this. But in the early part of last year, so March, April, May of 2020, the impact on trials was really significant. A lot of the clinical trial sites really had to slow way down in their recruitment and treatment of patients in cancer trials, particularly cell therapy trials. So we like all of the other cell therapy companies, saw a pretty profound impact on our ability to recruit patients and enroll them. That being said, through that period, we were able to enroll and continue to dose some patients. And I think the fact that we've been able to enroll the SPEARHEAD-1 trial really to its completion through 2020 is a tribute to the team that worked so diligently on that. Looking forward, I think everybody is anxious with the sort of increase in number of cases and increasing pressure on hospital systems. But I do think it's different this time around. I think that by and large, our health care workers are going to have been vaccinated. We all know a little bit more about how to negotiate through the challenges, how to deliver our products, how to safely treat patients and test them. And I think that the intensive care unit capabilities of treatment centers has probably increased. So I think that there will continue to be some impact if we're being realistic. I think as we move through the first half of 2020, as more and more people are vaccinated, and we start to see the number of cases decline that we will be in increasingly better shape. But with an ability to execute, I believe, sort of through this time.

Yes, great. That was incredibly helpful. Maybe number two, why are you continuing to enroll patients with GE cancers when you already have a Phase II?

So I'll continue. If that's okay with you, Ad. First of all, I think that the Phase II trial is planned to initiate and begin enrolling patients toward the middle of this year. So there's still quite a bit of time between now and then. We learn a lot from each and every patient that we treat. From a translational standpoint, tolerability standpoint. And while we see a clear signal to proceed in Phase II, there's still quite a bit of experience that we can benefit from in the Phase I setting to better understand how to effectively treat this set of diseases with cell therapy. So we certainly don't want to cut those patients off to our treatment. But once we do launch a Phase II trial, the preference will be to put the patients in the Phase II trial.

Yes, that makes sense. And -- do you mind giving a little guidance? Or I guess, how many patients can we expect to be reported at ESMO for SURPASS?

Maybe I'll take that one. So we're recruiting in the expansion cohort of that study. We haven't disclosed patient numbers for SURPASS, but we've narrowed down the focus areas to lung, bladder, gastroesophageal and head and neck cancers from the sort of 9-tumor basket that we are recruiting in the dose escalation. And we anticipate being able to recruit throughout the first part of this year in the expansion cohort, and we'll present the patients that we have. The objective of this is to try to get to a decision point in those indications and to understand where further indications could be embarked on in a registration-directed fashion.

Yes, perfect. And maybe just to get your thoughts on commercialization plans. Are you currently undertaking prep for sarcoma? Will this be useful kind of when looking at other indications as well?

Yes. So the short answer is yes. We are less than 2 years out from our first commercial launch. So obviously, we're deep in planning, and for cell therapy, I just look, obviously, for an autologous cell therapy, that also includes investing in the vein-to-vein infrastructure that you need to have in place to be able to support a commercial launch. The sort of patient services and the site services capabilities that you need. And we also have the opportunity to be able to look at how others have done this with their cell therapies in the context of the 2 previous launches. And so we can take advantage of that as well. But yes, we're deep in planning for how we get to that commercial point and then beyond. And in terms of the relatability of that to a broader set of indications. Obviously, there are some elements of that, that are bread and butter capabilities for a cell therapy company looking to commercialize any sort of product and are scalable to those other indications. And then there are other pieces of this that will be specific to sarcoma, which is a particular indication with a particular set of treatment patterns, a particular patient journey, et cetera.

Yes. Great. Maybe kind of a related question, how would you kind of think about value when it comes to sarcoma?

So I'm going to -- I think about value in a number of ways. It's obviously not the largest indication in the world, and we've put out patient numbers there that we can target. At the same time, the therapy itself is transformational for the patients that can receive it. So it's very significant. And I said in my opening comments that I genuinely believe when this is on the market for those patients who are eligible for this, this will represent a complete change in how those patients are treated in the second-line metastatic setting. So I think the opportunity is significant. And I sort of think it's perfectly sized for a company like us. And I want to -- one of the things that we've got to do as a company is we've got to build the commercial infrastructure that we talked about. And I think this is a very good opportunity for us to do that with an indication that it's clear we can buy off. And we can be very successful with this. And then on to the last point I'll make on the value is, I think the value to the individual patients incalculable for this. So I think we're going to do this, we're going to put it on the market. It's our first indication, but it won't be our last indication for major .

No, that's perfect. And I have a couple more, but definitely encourage the audience to submit some questions here. So you talked a lot about integration. Would you say that the spend is worth it?

So I talk a lot about integration. I don't think the spend is worth. I don't think you can do cell therapy without actually having these capabilities together. And I think short term, you can create almost anything. If all we were interested in was creating a sexy technology, then actually, no, you probably don't need a bunch of the stuff that we're doing, but that's not where we're interested in. We're interested in accessing the true value creation point in this industry, which is when actual patients receive benefit from a product in a commercial setting and to do that, that's in cell therapy. You absolutely have to put together the infrastructure. And I -- the analogy that I use, I keep coming back to this. And I'm sure at some point, it will be proven to be incorrect. But at the moment, it is playing out very similarly to the biopharm revolution that happened over a period of 10 to 15 years. As biopharms went from scientific academic projects and maybe the odd patient benefiting to blockbuster mainstream leading pillars of therapy in particular areas, particularly immune-mediated diseases. And that took companies, biopharmaceutical companies at the time, investing in the capabilities needed to bring those products to market. And I remember the discussions at the time about the amounts of investment that these companies were putting into manufacturing plants at that point in time. You couldn't get a biopharm process development person but love your money for about 5 years. It's an incredibly hot and interesting market. But because they make those investments, they were successful because they recognized that to actually commercialize, deliver these products, by which we mean sort of develop that actually makes the things and commercialize them, you absolutely need these capabilities. The other area that I'd say you also need them as Elliot referred to, with gastroesophageal patients, why we're recruiting in the , but we learn so much from those patients. Every single patient represents an opportunity to understand what our sales are doing and then to feed that back into the research environment. That's another example of just how the integration really helps us make decisions about what to progress and do that as fast as humanly possible.

Yes. So we've got another one here for you. Do you see better persistence with the next-gen compared to first generation?

I can take that. And Ad, you can chime in as well. I think it's early to say. I mean, I think we're seeing good persistence with the second generation product. And we certainly saw good persistence at lower cell doses as compared to the first generation product. But I think it's going to take more patients. I mean you can see from the information that Ad presented that there's just a lot more data to date with the first generation as compared to the second. So I think we'll be able to more fully characterize first versus second generation, not just from persistence standpoint, but several other parameters with some more time. But I certainly think that it's at least equivalent, and we're seeing very acceptable persistence even at lower doses. So it's encouraging.

Perfect. No that was incredibly helpful. I mean maybe pivoting over to kind of competition, thinking about the allogenic space, you're not alone with Allogene or Fate. Are there any other companies out there that are trying to develop this platform? And how do you think you compare to both of those?

Maybe I'll touch on that. And then let Elliot, if you have comments on that as well. I think the first distinction I would make would be between donor-derived and stem cell-derived approaches. And clearly, we're in the iPSC stem cell derived approach. And there's a whole lot of reasons, some of which Joe Brewer, SVP of Allogeneic Research went into it at our Investor Day, and that's available online. If anybody would like to look at that, but it's largely around the consistency of the product and the ability to engineer multiple generations of products. So that differentiates, certainly from the late-stage work of companies like Allogene, although it's worthwhile for Allogene also looking at other opportunities offshore. With respect to the iPSC, there are a number of companies out there that are, broadly speaking, in a similar space, and I think I would characterize space ahead in the NK space. And there also -- there's sort of an NK cell phenotype we can get out from iPSCS, that probably comes earlier than the T-cell phenotype. And so I think Fate's a bit ahead in that setting. But I think we are -- we have a very competitive platform as it relates to all of those companies for deriving a TCR based T-cell, which is obviously our value work. And that was the reason why we spent all the investment over the last 5 years to do that. And so I think there, we feel we're sort of in the lead in terms of getting to a TCR based approach, and we believe we'll have the first of those products in the clinic, as I referred to, the first 2 products over the type horizon in this strategic plan. One of them is our MAGE-A4 program. So we have a good autologous benchmark to be able to compare that to. And the second one is one of our HLA independent TCR. So it's a TCR but it target a cell surface protein, and it targets mesophyll, and that's in partnership with Astellas.

That was incredibly helpful. I mean, maybe kind of digging a little bit more into the MAGE-A4. I heard some other companies targeting that -- are you concerned about competition there? And why do you think it's a good target?

So I think it's a good target because it's expressed on cancer cells, so it's not expressed on normal tissue. And we -- you can get at it with a TCR, which happens to be what we do. And so it's an excellent target from our perspective. It's also on a broad range of tumors. It's one of the most broadly expressed of the family of cancers test that we have . In terms of the competition, I think it's absolutely fantastic for years and years, we were crushing away at MAGE-A4, or moving this through the preclinical and then into the clinic. And it was like, I never heard anybody else doing that and would be like, well, actually, nobody is really very close, and they'll be like, well, that seems a bit risky if you're the only one doing it. Now we're not the only one doing it, everyone's like, oh right, that's great. There must be lots and lots of competition. And true there is. But we are in the lead. We'll have our first product in the market. There will be stuff coming behind. There's a number of programs with competitors that are behind us that are coming forward. I do think we'll be sort of competing in due course with products. But I also do think that the desire to talk about competition as it relates to technologies is a feature of the early nascency of the overall field because after a while, people ship that discussion around competition. They start doing what we're doing at the moment, talking about MAGE-A4 as a target. So you ship from technologies, to targets, and people stop competition around targets. So I think that represents a shift in the discussions as we're now able to talk about targets in solid tumors with T-cells in the same way that we can in with CD19 and BCMA so we talk about targets. And then ultimately, we'll talk about products. And we'll talk about products from a clinical perspective, and then we'll talk about products, obviously, from a commercial perspective. But I'm actually encouraged by the shift on competition derived based on technology, it's a competition based on target because I think it's on this trajectory to actually get us to where we need to be, which is competition based on products for the benefit of patients and patients are the only people who would benefit from that.

Yes, I definitely agree with you there. So maybe this is a great forum to kind of ask you that, but you've got a large preclinical pipeline. Curious, what are you most excited about? What opportunities?

In the preclinical pipeline. So I'm happy to go and then I'd loved to hear Elliot's thoughts on this. So I'm excited about different pieces of this. I think for the promise to be real for patients on a global basis, we have to get to other HLA types . So I'm pleased that we are prosecuting. Having established a signal with MAGE-A4, we're now prosecuting other HLA types because that will broaden very much the patient populations that are eligible for our therapy. And I think that's key to making cell therapy adopt -- to be adopted mainstream. The second piece I'm personally very excited about is the HLA independent TCRs further back. HLA independent TCRs, this is using our depth of expertise in TCR engineering to be able to engineer a TCR-T to attack something that doesn't normally attack the cell surface protein. And we've been successful identifying these against a number of targets. And the lead program, as I said, is in mesothelin. And I think that's a really significant opportunity to expand the targets that can be addressed by T-cell receptor therapies. And also, it removes the requirement of HLA because all of the -- because it's a cell surface protein, not an HLA [peptide construct]. So that's exciting. And then the third piece for me is just the allogeneic platform for me is fantastic. It's amazing to watch this science that has evolved and actually be able to see that we can create T-cells that can kill cancer cells from pluripotent stem cells using this process and then actually watch that happen. And the opportunity there to take a cellular therapy with all the benefits the cellular therapy brings, but make it truly off-the-shelf is very exciting. And also speaks to how we make this therapy mainstream. So those are the 3 things that I'm most excited about. Elliot?

I mean, obviously, we're going to be excited about the same things. So I share Adrian's view on that. I think it really boils down to sort of what's going to make our treatments more available and what's going to make our treatments better. So more available means a broader range of patients and approaches and better means deeper, more durable moving towards cures. So I share all of the areas that Adrian mentioned about sort of being excited. I'll also add to that the CCIT TIL collaboration, where it provides us with the opportunity to use our gene modifying technology and apply it to TIL technology, where you're no longer looking at single target, but multi-targeted approach. So being able to marry our technology with TIL's type treatment I think is -- we're just getting started with that, but I think it has incredible potential.

Perfect. So I think we're actually coming up here on time. We've got about, I think, 30 seconds left. I Just wanted to thank you both for the time, Adrian and Elliot, this is incredibly engaging and a great discussion. So -- and thank you, everyone, for logging in and joining us today. So I think we can conclude the presentation. Thank you, guys.

Thanks, Michael. Thanks, everyone.

Thank you very much.