Adaptive Biotechnologies Corporation (ADPT) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Hi. My name is Yuko Oku, and I'm on the life science tools and diagnostics team here at Morgan Stanley. For important disclosures, please see Morgan Stanley research disclosure website at www.morganstanley.com/researchdisclosures. If you have any questions, please reach out to your Morgan Stanley sales rep. It's my pleasure to host Adaptive Biotechnologies. And speaking on behalf of the company, we have Co-Founder and CEO, Chad Robins; and CFO, Kyle Piskel. Thank you for joining us today.

So to set the stage, can you talk about the goals you set for the company entering 2025 and the key accomplishments that you're most proud of year-to-date?

Sure. First, Yuko, thank you for having us again at the Morgan Stanley conference. It's a pleasure to be back. Yes, we set out this year with some ambitious goals of getting to EBITDA profitability of implementing Flatiron EMR integration. And also, we're super excited about that. And the third on the cost side was getting NovaSeq X implemented and switched over from the NextSeq. And I'm happy to say we're 8 months into the year, and we've already accomplished all those goals ahead of schedule. If you ask me, I think what I'm most proud about, I think, is getting to EBITDA profitability is quite an achievement, especially in our industry, as you know. So we're really excited about that and the future looks bright.

So maybe to start with MRD, would you provide an update on market penetration for MM, ALL, DLBCL, MCL and CLL?

Sure. Yes, in that order, I'll try -- I'll just do it by -- in multiple myeloma is our largest indication, we're 12% penetrated into the market. ALL, because MRD has been used historically is our largest area of penetration, which is about 28% penetration. In MCL, we're at about 7% penetrated. CLL is about 5% and then DLBCL is about 3%.

Okay. Great, with that background. All right. So 60% of heme malignancy treated in the community setting and penetration in this setting is clearly an important driver of continuous clonoSEQ growth. With ordering with health care physicians now at 3,700, where does the community penetration stand today? And what efforts do you have underway to increase this penetration? And what does the slope of the curve look like over the next couple of years?

Yes. Of those 3,700 health care providers, about 1,500 are in the community, but we're still very kind of a low penetration in the community. Although I should point out it's the fastest growing. We had 10% quarter-over-quarter volume growth last quarter, but 16% quarter-over-quarter growth in the community setting. So we're growing faster in the community than our overall, although all segments of the business continue to be growing as well. But I will point out, it is a multipronged strategy for growing the community business. First, which I mentioned already, is EMR integration. The workflow is incredibly important to the community oncologists. You have to make it very easy to order the test. And so being integrated as they pull up their [indiscernible] is incredibly important. The second initiative is blood-based testing. In the community setting, they're not doing bone marrow for the most part. So really increasing kind of blood-based testing is a huge initiative for us. The third, which is kind of an overlay on everything is data generation. And it's not only data generation, but this goes to simplifying the message. Remember, as a community oncologist that they're not steep in kind of data and publishing, they want to know specifically at what point in the patient care continuum do I treat the patient, why and how. So increasing dosage, taking a patient off therapy based on data is incredibly important. The fourth initiative is a partnership with NeoGenomics. That will go -- we're piloting 4 accounts. Think about that as a '26 and '27 driver of kind of volumes, but the testing is going well. But we're being very methodical about how we're rolling that out. So it's really kind of all of these things together that are coming together. I'll point out one other kind of tactical thing that we're doing, which is about 2 years ago, we split the sales force into key account managers that focus on the academic medical center and then dedicated hematology specialists that focus on the community. And then on top of that, we've overlaid this national strategic account, this kind of small group that focused on the large network practices. So it's kind of all of these things together that kind of make us confident in really high volume growth kind of moving forward.

Right. And then one of the other drivers of volume would be increasing the frequency of testing. Average frequency of testing at the start of the year was about 2.5. Could you parse out the frequency between different indications, multiple myeloma, ALL, et cetera? And what are the factors that drive differences in frequency of testing between these cancer types?

Yes. No, it's a really good question and one that we're focused on as we look at blood-based testing, and I'll get to that in a minute. But just to answer the question first is right now, in ALL, which is our area of most frequent testing, you're at 3.5 to 4 tests per patient. In multi myeloma, it's more in the 2 to 2.5 tests per year per patient. As you look to kind of CLL, which is more of an indolent disease, you're looking at more of a kind of a 1 test per year per patient. And then in some of the newer disease states like mantle cell lymphoma, DLBCL, it's just early data, but it's more kind of on the 1 test per year per patient. And then in terms of kind of increasing frequency of the test per year, a couple of things I'll point out. One is the move to blood-based testing. As you get to a less invasive test where patients come in and you can take a blood draw and get a test, that will increase the number of tests per year. The second thing is -- and this is not really well known yet, but I'm going to give some data into the Flatiron EMR, OncoEMR integration, we built in as the default, a serial testing option so that you can choose 3, 6, 9, 12 months or every time a patient comes in or you can default and opt out and say, I want to do it on an as medically necessary basis on my own choice. What we're seeing from the early returns is that 80% of the community oncologists are clicking on a serial testing option. So really excited about that and increasing the frequency of testing. And then I go back to data. We have got multiple data studies we can talk about -- touch on now, but it's really about showing the clinical utility of being able to test throughout different points in the patient care to say exactly how you would treat a patient. And those studies are really increasing the frequency of test for patients.

Great. And then you touched on blood-based testing being an important driver of frequency of testing, too. Now that blood-based testing is about 44% of your MRD testing volume, up from 40% in second quarter of '24. Over what time frame do you see this replacing most of your bone marrow biopsy within your clinical volumes?

Yes. So it's never going to get to 100% of your testing volume because for a couple of different reasons. One, in the academic medical centers, they do bone marrow. That's part of kind of how their standard of care. And the second reason is depending on the disease, for example, in multi myeloma, the disease burden is greater in the bone marrow than it is in the blood. So there's always going to be kind of a room for marrow-based testing. And if you look at it, really, there's no difference in the assay sensitivity or specificity in the blood versus the marrow. It's just the disease concentration is actually higher in the marrow. So we're working on different R&D initiatives, including applying our ctDNA assay in addition to our cellular assay to blood-based testing in addition to looking at a couple of other things to kind of increase the NPV or the negative predictive value of the test in the blood. So a lot of different work. Now contrast that with DLBCL and CLL, which are only done in the blood. So overall, as you have an increase in those indications as a total -- your total test mix, you're going to get along with more testing that's done in the community setting in blood, you're going to get a higher percentage of your tests that will be done overall in the blood, but you're never going to get to kind of 100% because of the aforementioned reasons.

Great. And when I listen to conferences and KOL presentations, there appears to be a consensus that 10 to the minus 5 isn't sensitive enough given that it's highly dependent on quality of the biopsy. Acknowledging that clonoSEQ sensitivity can go as low as 10 to the minus 6 and maybe even to minus 7 in some cases, what are other competitors such as those in multiparameter flow that can go down to these levels? And what does their adoption look like versus clonoSEQ?

Yes. Just a little bit about the landscape to answer that question. Multiparameter flow is potentially a competitor more in Europe than it is in the United States. In the United States, clonoSEQ has really taken on as the de facto standard for next-gen testing. But one of the things to point out from a practical matter is you need 20 to 30x the amount of material to get to 10 to the 6 in flow. And we really need only 2 mls of blood in the -- 2 mls in the blood and 1 mL in marrow to be able to get to 10 to the 6. So you're just -- we're just not seeing that competition of multiparameter flow in the United States. And we haven't really -- we're on kind of the early stages of international anyway. But what you'll see, I believe, when we go over there and do the head-to-head is it's just really not -- it's not going to be a fair fight.

Got it. And then you also had several NCCN guideline updates year-to-date, including strengthening recommendation for baseline clonoSEQ -- clonotype idea diagnosis of multiple myeloma patients. Can you help us contextualize what the recommendation means for your multiple myeloma volumes? And perhaps more importantly, are there any read-throughs from this guideline update into other indications?

Okay. So first of all, the guideline up there was awesome, right? Like it's super exciting to see the recommendation to take an ID prototype. This helps us for the long-term health of our business. We actually coined this term MRD enable every patient. We did this a couple of years ago. And this is ultimately what this guideline inclusion or recommendation does for us. It says and make sure that you can do the MRD test. Practically, it's a very low percentage of our patients, only a couple of percent where we're not able to retrieve the ID sample. But what it does, if you look at -- it's sometimes a 30- to 60-day -- we have a team that does pathology retrieval services. And it's really -- it's just a challenge going out and getting that sample to bring in. So what this does and just from a business standpoint in terms of, a, time to cash, right? You're getting that -- you're getting 2 samples upfront because you're getting the ID and MRD sample potentially kind of right upfront. But third, some of those kind of pathology retrieval services that are -- some of that overhead, you can really look at how to optimize that overhead. So -- but net-net, in terms of the long-term health of the business, particularly in the community, particularly as you move to blood, it's extremely important to ID every sample. And in addition to kind of the data that's coming out and our messaging and the peer-to-peer education where your academic KOLs are going out to the community and saying, "Hey, make sure even if you referring to an academic medical center for a transplant, we need that ID sample." So these things kind of -- again, I keep talking about this layering effect, but all these things are working in conjunction to ensure kind of this volume trajectory well into the future.

You also announced CMS reimbursement for surveillance in mantle cell lymphoma, which increased clonoSEQ testing opportunity for patients. Although MCL is a relatively smaller indication, how does it open up the opportunity to establish reimbursement for surveillance in your other heme indications? And are there any particular heme malignancies where surveillance doesn't make sense due to lack of availability of treatment options?

So I'll say this. One is absolutely opens up the opportunity. But in the near term, I think we're going to have to go one by one because that's how the reimbursement paradigm and the MolDX program right now is structured that you're going to have to show data on an indication-by-indication basis. You're going to do -- the next one up is probably CLL, an indolent disease. There are patients that are off treatment. So basically, what you need is a disease setting where patients are off treatment and they can be surveilled to be able to catch the disease earlier from a molecular test like clonoSEQ before you can catch it on a scan, right? And so then get a patient on the right treatment earlier to kind of intervene on their disease course. So multi myeloma, although our largest indication, it will probably go CLL, DLBCL, then multi myeloma. Why is that? It's not that we're not super focused on multi myeloma, but there's not a lot of off treatment because historically, that being said, one of the trials that we're doing in terms of the MASTER study is showing that for 2 successive MRD-negative tests, you can take a patient off of therapy. We're then going to go design a trial with those patients that are off therapy to see if we can intervene and get them earlier. But you need to wait for that outcomes data, so it would be longer. Now one other point to make on this is my goal -- and again, I'm not promising anything, but my goal would be to say, hey, if we get a couple of these, can we then get to kind of a pan disease recurrence monitoring kind of paradigm where you don't have to go one by one. And I say we've had some really productive discussions with the MolDX program, but I think it's going to take some time to get there, but that's kind of the long-term goal of kind of what we're trying to achieve.

And then on EMR integration, as of last quarter, you had Epic integration at 40 sites or live in 113 community accounts via OncoEMR. Looking at the remainder of the year, how should we think about number of EMR integrated sites to be added before year-end? And should we think of a similar number of sites added last quarter, i.e., 13 Epic sites to come online 3Q and 4Q? Or do you see it accelerating from here in second half?

Actually, probably the -- I mean, we continue to have a huge focus on EMR integrations, both in the academic medical center setting and in the community setting. I think last quarter was a pretty big quarter because we had a significant backlog. That said, our pipeline is extremely robust. We've done several since then, and we will continue to kind of focus on EMR integrations kind of moving forward. Notably, we had our first EMR integrations in a Cerner integrated account -- just over the past 2 weeks, Cerner integrated account and an ELLKAY integrated account. So those are interesting to us. But it's not necessarily the number of accounts. It's also the quality of account. I mean we're focused on our large accounts. And what we're excited about is 4 of our top 10 largest accounts have been EMR integrated thus far, and we've got some kind of more on the docket as well. And of those accounts and just a little bit of data, the 3 months post integration have seen a 25% incremental growth from the 3 months prior to integration. So that's -- those are new integration for our top accounts. And overall, now we have a cohort that's kind of a year long -- a year since being integrated. And 12 months post integration on all accounts, kind of large accounts, small accounts across the board, we're seeing double the growth rate. So we're seeing an 84% growth rate versus a 46% growth rate on non-EMR integrated accounts on a year-over-year basis. So kind of really -- I mean, if you look at -- again, people ask me some of the things we're excited about. That to me, in looking at those numbers is pretty encouraging.

Great. And are you seeing difference between the volume uplift you see in the larger accounts versus the smaller accounts?

So I gave you some of those -- I think it's some of the accounts on the larger accounts have been newer implementations. So the only data that I want to -- I can share that's really meaningful is that so far, they've come out of the gate strong. In general, you would expect the overall nominal growth rate to be higher in the smaller accounts. So we're not -- I wouldn't expect kind of an 86% growth rate year-over-year on something like an MD Anderson just because of EMR integration because some of those smaller accounts hadn't been kind of power users of the test to date. So I wouldn't -- that being said, I mean, I think both on large accounts and small accounts, we're encouraged by the growth that EMR integration is providing.

Right. That makes sense. And then you touched on this earlier, but has the new serial monitoring feature on the EMR help to drive more consistent ordering patterns?

So all I can share so far is that 80% of -- in the community oncology setting of clinicians are clicking on the serial monitoring ordering. That being said, it's only been integrated for 2 months. So we haven't seen those tests yet arrive. But again, when you're talking about, hey, we're -- in 2025, we're talking about 35% growth. And obviously, we're not giving '26 numbers yet. But if you're talking about, okay, how do you -- the question is, how do you maintain even off a larger base, really strong growth numbers, that's one of the things that I think is quite encouraging.

Okay. And then you recently launched Phase I of the Neo collaboration, a collaboration that should help expand your presence in the community setting. Tell us why the goals in the first phase of the -- tell us the goals in the first phase of the collaboration and what experience you hope to gain ahead of the broader launch in early '26?

Yes. So it's been relatively recent. We're piloting with 4 different sites. And I want to be cautious on this in the sense that we are going slowly. We've had a lab-to-lab partnership in the past. It's hard to get these things right. So we are -- the first -- the goals of the first phase are to make sure that the pipes are connected, that the sample is going in the right place and that the field force is educated with the right messaging, right? That is like simply, can we properly get samples from an order from a COMPASS test on the ID workup from Neo into the house, into Adaptive process and return of test results in the right format. So if you look at a 3-year partnership, what I would kind of caution is we have put in really no incremental volume in 2025. It's really year 2 and year 3, which is 2026 and '27 that we're looking at kind of incremental volumes from this partnership.

Great. And then I think one of the underappreciated aspects of Adaptive is the recent progress you made in generating clinical utility data for clonoSEQ. Would you elaborate on how the clinical utility trials such as MASTER and MIDAS trials have helped to facilitate penetration of clonoSEQ in the market as well as open up the opportunity to increase the number of tests per patient. What are some key trials that we should be watching for in the near term as well?

Yes. So I'll touch again, MASTER trial, it says that if you are 2 successive MRD-negative tests that you can take a patient off of maintenance therapy with no difference in overall survival -- overall progression-free survival. So that's been a very, very important test. And just practically, what that means is if a patient is on a drug like REVLIMID and they're continually taking it, there -- this drug has some pretty significant side effects and patients really are looking for reasons or they're looking for evidence and a rationale for how they can go on a treatment holiday. And now a clinician has a tangible tool to say, "Hey, let's try it because you're MRD negative, go on a treatment holiday and then we'll continue to monitor that, okay? So that's MASTER. In terms of MIDAS, MIDAS is a 796-patient trial that is looking at the impact of MRD status to transplant. And what essentially -- I don't want to go into detail, but what essentially it shows if you're MRD negative, that you're not going to benefit from a transplant. And that data is incredibly compelling because there's been a debate about kind of what are the true benefits of transplant. That's -- by the way, that is in the myeloma setting, but we also have really good data in the CLL setting as well and mantle cell setting about transplant. So this is really kind of across the board that says, why go through the pretty invasive procedure of getting a transplant if you -- there's no disease burden from a 1 in 1 million 10 to the 6 molecular level. You should maybe wait at least at the very least to get a transplant. So that, again, goes to also the frequency of testing and to test and say, okay, are you still MRD negative? Are you still MRD negative? So let's not transplant the patient. We've got some really nice data coming up in ALL. We also have some good data coming up in blood-based testing in myeloma. The abstracts haven't been announced yet for ASH, but ASH is really our big conference where we kind of do get our data rollout. So keep your eyes filled for that.

Right. And then you've also been seeing pretty significant momentum in your biopharma business as well. So ODAC, given ODAC's support to incorporate MRD as a primary endpoint for accelerated approval of new therapies in multiple myeloma and a favorable CHMP opinion further solidifying that view, have most of studies now converted MRD as a secondary endpoint -- have converted MRD as a secondary endpoint into a primary endpoint?

Okay. So first, yes, super excited about the 12 to 0 vote on the ODAC decision last May. And then recently about 6 weeks ago, the CHMP decision in Europe. So this global kind of recognition of multi myeloma as a primary endpoint bodes extremely well for the importance of the assay in kind of global pharma trials. So let's just kind of set the stage for that, of which we have about 175 trials, 65 of which are in multi myeloma. Of those 65, 12 of which are primary endpoints, 3 of which have converted from secondary to primary and the rest of those, which is about 52, if I'm doing the math right, are secondary. And we're looking at some of them to convert from secondary to primary. And as new multi myeloma drugs kind of roll on, we're looking at incorporating them as primary endpoints. And then the second kind of point of that is that impact into other indications on our pharma business has been real. It's been tangible, meaning at some point, we're hoping for other disease states such as CLL that clonoSEQ has a -- I shouldn't say clonoSEQ because the FDA actually does it as NGS-based MRD testing, of which we're the only approved one, will be the primary endpoint. So we will be designated as a primary endpoint. So we're starting to really see kind of that impact on pharma companies that are starting to do more trials, bank more samples, use clonoSEQ more. And then the final point I'll make there is there's an amazing halo effect that we've always talked about these businesses between the clinical business and the pharma business being synergistic. But this is one where I can just tell you, it's incredibly tangible because we had clinicians who we've been trying to call on for many years that we couldn't get into their offices. And now the phone is ringing and saying, "Oh, I saw that your primary endpoint -- because remember, this is the first new primary endpoint in cancer in over 10 years. I saw that your primary endpoint, can we -- we're ready to talk about MRD. So that's been another kind of driver of volumes in the clinical setting.

Great. And then one of the things you called out in the past is the idea of converting a contract based on regulatory milestones, one based on higher ASP per sample to improve predictability of your revenue stream. Have you been able to discuss that with your pharma customers as they incorporate MRD as an endpoint in their trials or tweak their trial design? If so, what is your sense for their willingness to do that?

Yes, yes. It's a good question. I mean the answer is yes. We started to have this conversation. We've been successful on a couple of cases. Remember, some of these are multiyear contracts with kind of MASTER services agreements and each trial is a scope of work under that. So that MASTER service agreement has to kind of come up because the reality is like if you look at the purchasing department of pharma, they're already pretty busy. And if they don't have to do something, they're just probably not going to do something. So when those contracts come up is when we've started to have those conversations. We've been successful a couple of times. And the reality is pharma doesn't love -- the reason pharma doesn't want these milestones is they come to the FDA gets approval and they're like, okay, it's $5 million, and they're like, well, who's paying that? And they're all looking at each other, trying to figure out what budget it's going to come out of, et cetera. So they'd rather move it to -- and obviously, I think we'd rather -- I know you guys and the investors in the audience would much rather be a kind of more predictable recurring revenue stream. That being said, I want to caution that this is -- well, 2 things. This isn't going to flip overnight. It's going to take some time to do so. And the other thing I'll say, yes, is unpredictable and challenging as milestones can be to guide to and to model, et cetera. They also come at 100% margin. So they're not like -- they're not all bad.

Shifting to Immune Medicine. You recently announced a termination agreement with Genentech. While it's not surprising given strategic shifts at many pharma companies with the evolving regulatory landscape, it does remove some upside opportunities that could have materialized in an event of a successful cell therapy approval. Can you comment on what you might be able to do now that you have the rights back for some of those assets, including the TCR antigen prediction model? And beyond the Genentech partnerships, how can you monetize the asset now that it's returned to you?

Yes. So first of all, I'd say, overall, I think this increases our upside and not removes it, particularly because I would doubt that I know that the analysts and most of our investors didn't have this anywhere in their models anyway. But what it does is it releases us from exclusivity. So we have the technology back for cellular therapy in cancer. But I would say the larger opportunity is beyond that. I mean we have -- we've been building this digital TCR antigen map over the course of many different years that we're looking to monetize in a variety of different areas. One is in different drug discovery opportunities and ultimately looking for our next S-curve in terms of T cell-based diagnostics. I mean we've built this muscle and kind of machinery around reimbursement, regulatory kind of sales force expertise, EMR integrations. And ultimately, we've generated some amazing data. It's really the next frontier of immunology data. If you look at, again, kind of AlphaFold and the ability to essentially model kind of protein folding, the next big frontier is protein-protein interaction, which is the TCR antigen or peptide MHC kind of interaction with the T cell receptor. And we've been generating this data. Frankly, we generated it for personalized cell therapy as one of the applications for the Genentech deal, but there are many different applications of this technology. And again, I think the data underlying kind of what we've built is incredibly valuable, and we're just now looking at monetization opportunities and have some good discussions. Again, this is one that I think that is important that we ring-fence the burn around this opportunity and protect really the MRD profitability. But we've been very clear about characterizing this as a low-cost call option and one that kind of we reiterate has really a high-value opportunity behind it that we're just looking to figure out the best way to monetize.

And I do want to touch on financials.

We want to...

You set a goal for clonoSEQ ASP to reach $1,300 in 2025, and you've already achieved over $1,290 in 2Q, which pretty much sets a clear path to that goal. Could you outline the drivers of upside to ASP from here? And what are the unknowns that keep you from getting too optimistic from raising that $1,300 ASP target for the year? And looking beyond 2025, what are the drivers of ASP growth from even there?

Yes. I think as it relates to the $1,300 target and the upside there, I think right now, we want to be prudent with our expectations regarding that. We have a number of contracts that go effective into the second half of the year at a higher rate. But we want to see evidence that those payers are paying at that rate. We're enforcing those payments and starting to pull that through. So I think that's just the prudence in the guide. What gives us confidence kind of in the exit value and ultimately getting to that $1,700 plus ASP target over time is the ability that we've had to continually execute in recontracting with existing payers up towards that gap fill rate of around $2,007 per test. We started the process. We've enabled a number of payers over the last 6 months. We have a number of going live in the second half. And then continuing to stack on to that is Medicaid penetration and coverage in that area, which will continue to grow over the course of the next 2 to 3 years.

And then you also begun to roll out NovaSeq X, which should equate to a 5% to 8% improvement in gross margins. How should we be thinking about cadence of that improvement in the second half?

Yes. I think the best way to think about it in the second half is this quarter, we're going through the implementation. We are only getting 2 months of benefit from it. And then in the fourth quarter, you'll see the majority of that impact. But effectively, literal interpretation of that 5 to 8 percentage point improvement over the next 12 months is probably the right way to model it.

Right. And then you continue to manage your expenses and even reduced your full year total company cash burn guidance while still driving 25% plus top line growth. But what are the most important growth drivers to execute successfully over the next couple of quarters in your view to achieve that cash flow breakeven in first half '26?

Yes. I think taking a step back, a number of things we've put in place. 2 to 3 years ago, we expanded the field team. About 24 months ago, we started the implementation around coordinating our laboratory operation logistics, including the NovaSeq X implementation. We've got a number of those initiatives behind us. We're gaining more leverage through the business in terms of volume. I think that's the most important driver here. And then just continued execution without having to kind of grow incrementally, which we have a number of the infrastructure in place. We need to make some targeted investments to continue to improve some efficiencies, but those aren't going to be outsized investments. And so I think at the end of the day, volume growth is the most important leverage we're going to gain and ASP initiatives in the coming 12 months.

Great. And then in the last minute here, just to wrap up, what are you most excited about heading into 2026?

I'm excited about a lot of things. First and foremost, I'm excited that the team is executing and firing on all cylinders. But particularly, I'm really encouraged by what we're seeing in terms of the Flatiron OncoEMR integration. Again, the early returns that I'm seeing bode well for volume growth kind of moving forward. I'm excited about the Neo partnership. I think that it's going to be interesting to see how that rolls on and continue to be excited about the kind of clinical utility data. Like if you think about it, and just to put this in perspective, right, you've got all these companies in MRD solid tumor that are now starting to talk about prognostic data. clonoSEQ has been prognostic since 2011, 2012, but what we're really seeing is clinical utility data that's demonstrating specifically how a doctor can treat a patient. So kind of that uptake, particularly that uptake in the community, it's what's going to drive the future growth of the business. And then finally, I touched on it before, but I think we're building this incredibly powerful data set in immunology, and we're looking to kind of exploit that and look for kind of the next kind of revenue monetization opportunities. And I think, again, overall, we have -- if you look at the average tenure of our executive team now, it's like 8 years in place. Everyone is working extremely well together and pretty -- I would say, very excited about the business and our trajectory moving forward.

Great. Well, thank you very much.

Thank you, Yuko. Appreciate it.