Cullinan Therapeutics, Inc. (CGEM) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Good morning, thank you for standing by, and welcome to the Cullinan Therapeutics zipalertinib REZILIENT 3 results conference call. As a reminder, this call is being recorded. A slide deck that you may find helpful while listening to this call is available on the Events section of Cullinan's Investor Relations website at investor.contherapeutics.com. It is now my pleasure to turn the call over to Nick Smith, Head of Investor Relations at Cullinan Therapeutics.

Hello, everyone, and thank you for joining us on today's call to discuss the results of zipalertinib plus chemotherapy from the Phase III REZILIENT 3 trial in first-line EGFR exon 20 insertion mutation non-small cell lung cancer. My name is Nick Smith, and I'm the Head of Investor Relations at Cullinan Therapeutics. Before we begin, I would like to remind you of the safe harbor provisions outlined on Slide #2. During today's presentation, management will be making certain forward-looking statements, which are based on current information assumptions and expectations that are subject to change and involve risks and uncertainties, which may cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in such forward-looking statements. These risks are fully described in the company's filings made with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including our annual report on Form 10-K. You are cautioned to not place any undue reliance on these forward-looking statements. In addition, this call contains time-sensitive information accurate only as of the date of the live broadcast, September 14, 2026. Cullinan undertakes no obligation to revise or update any forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances after the date of this call. As shown on Slide 3, joining me on the call today are Nadim Ahmed, Colony's Chief Executive Officer; and Dr. Jeff Jones, Chief Medical Officer. It is my pleasure to now turn the call over to Cullinan CEO, Nadim Ahmed. Nadim?

Thank you, Nick, and welcome, everyone, to our call today. to discuss the remarkable and potentially practice-changing results for zipalertinib in combination of chemotherapy from the Phase III REZILIENT 3 trial in first-line EGFR exon 20 insertion mutation non-small cell lung acid. Today, we're very much looking forward to providing you with an overview of the results and also our perspective, of the exon 20 commercial opportunity, where we firmly believe zipalertinib combination therapy will become a first-line standard of care treatment. These results were showcased last night as a late-breaking oral presentation during the presidential symposium at the World Conference on Lung Cancer in Seoul, South Korea. The fact that the study was selected for this plan recession is a clear testament to the significance of these results. I will also point out that the presidential symposium is focused on featuring notable advances in lung cancer research and treatment with the potential to change clinical practice. And so before I ask up to Jeff Jones, our Chief Medical Officer, to dive into the REZILIENT 3 results, I would like to take a moment to emphasize key elements of the compelling profile of zipalertinib for patients with exon 20 non-small cell lung cancer. Zipalertinib, which we're co-developing with Tie-oncology is an oral EGFR inhibitor with unique design characteristics that enable a potentially best-in-class efficacy and safety profile. It was just a few weeks ago when we first announced that the REZILIENT 3 trial met its primary endpoint of median progression-free survival early at a planned interim analysis. This is the first and only study in first line exon 20 non-small cell lung cancer to achieve its primary endpoint at the interim analysis. The 6-month improvement in median PFS demonstrated by zipalertinib combination therapy is the best PFS result observed to date in the frontline setting. And in fact, the first treatment that has shown a median PFS longer than 12 months in this patient population. In addition, Phase II studies have already demonstrated the differentiated and broad clinical profile of zipalertinib across multiple patient subsets. Zipalertinib monotherapy has demonstrated clinically meaningful results in relapsed patients, in patients with brain metastases and patients harboring uncommon mutations. And with our comprehensive clinical development program, we have the opportunity to establish zipalertinib as a future standard of care across multiple EGFR and non-small cell lung cancer indications. Firstly, in the second-line setting, our NDA for treatment of relapsed exon 20 non-small cell lung cancer based on the results of the Phase II REZILIENT 1 trial is under active review by the U.S. FDA. The results of the Phase III REZILIENT II trial, the subject of today's presentation, enable potential indication expansion into the frontline setting. Our parallel REZILIENT 2 Phase II study is enrolling a cohort of patients with uncommon mutations in the metastatic disease setting where we showed promising response rates already. And finally, Taiho has the Phase III REZILIENT 4 trial, an ongoing adjuvant study in patients with exon 20 and uncommon mutations, and we look forward to sharing these data in the future. And with that, let me turn it over to Jeff to dig into the zipalertinib REZILIENT 3 pivotal results. Jeff?

Thank you, Nadim. As Nadim said, we are excited to share results from the randomized Phase III portion of the REZILIENT 3 study. To begin, let's review the study design. REZILIENT 3 is a Phase III clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of zipalertinib in combination with chemotherapy in adult patients with previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer harboring EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations. Patients were randomized 1:1 to 1 of 2 treatment arms. In the investigational arm, patients were treated with oral zipalertinib 100 milligrams twice daily in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy. In the control arm, patients received only platinum-based chemotherapy. As of the May 2026 data cutoff, the study enrolled 279 patients, of which 140 were treated with zipalertinib plus chemotherapy and 139 were treated with chemotherapy alone. The primary endpoint for the study was progression-free survival as assessed by blinded independent central review for RECIST criteria. While the primary analysis was expected after 162 progression-free survival events, a preplanned interim analysis was to be conducted after 122 progression-free survival events. Of the 140 patients randomized to zipalertinib plus chemotherapy, an impressive 62% of patients were still receiving treatment as of the data cutoff. Slide 7 summarizes key attributes of the enrolled patient population. While EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations occur with higher frequency in Asian populations, Nearly 60% of patients were enrolled in centers outside of Asia, primarily in the U.S. and Europe. More than half, nearly 60% of all enrolled patients had an ECOG performance status of one. but most notably, approximately 31% of patients enrolled had a history of brain metastases, a rate far higher than the previous Papuan and LUKON28 studies and a rate more representative of real-world patient populations. As noted previously, the primary endpoint of this Phase III trial was progression-free survival depicted by treatment group on Slide #8. Zipalertinib chemotherapy delivered a remarkable statistically significant a 50% reduction in the risk of disease progression or death. Zipalertinib plus chemotherapy demonstrated an unprecedented median progression-free survival of 14.5 months compared to a median of 8.5 months for chemotherapy alone, statistically significance and more importantly, clinically meaningful difference of 6 months. Extending beyond the previous ceiling of less than 12 months the progression-free survival of 14.5 months and an absolute benefit of 6 months over chemotherapy alone is truly without precedent and underscores the potentially practice-changing strength of these data. Other efficacy variables are summarized on Slide #9. Zipalertinib plus chemotherapy demonstrated a 65% overall response rate comparable to the results previously reported for the Papillon and Wukong 28 regimens employing amivantamab in sunvozertinib, respectively. What stands out, however, is the durability of response and clinical benefit. Zipalertinib plus chemotherapy demonstrated a median duration of response of 14.2 months again, unprecedented in this patient population. Turning now to Slide #10. While the results were still maturing at the May 2026 data cutoff, initial overall survival outcomes are promising. While not yet statistically significant, the hazard ratio of 0.72 favoring zipalertinib plus chemotherapy is very encouraging. The management of CNS metastases in patients with non-small cell lung cancer remains a critical unmet need. So the subgroup analysis of patients with CNS metastases depicted on Slide #11 and is very important. Survival outcomes in this patient group were favorably impacted by treatment with zipalertinib plus chemotherapy. Patients with CNS metastases experienced a notable improvement in progression-free survival when treated with the combination regimen, a PFS hazard ratio of 0.38. Now moving on to Slide #12. While patients who receive zipalertinib plus chemotherapy did experience a higher incidence of adverse events and treatment discontinuations, dose reductions and supportive care may favorably impact patient management. Importantly, higher-grade adverse events were most frequent during the first 4 cycles of platinum combination chemotherapy, particularly hematologic adverse events and higher-grade hematologic adverse events were notably less frequent and less severe thereafter. Adverse events occurring in more than 25% of patients are detailed on Slide #13. In general, the safety profile of zipalertinib plus chemotherapy was consistent with the safety profile of the individual agents and consistent with the previously reported zipalertinib monotherapy data. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events in this study were low-grade EGFR-related dermatologic toxicities and chemotherapy-related cytopenias. While direct cross-trial comparisons cannot be made, treatment with zipalertinib plus chemotherapy demonstrated a differentiated profile with regard to Grade 3 or higher diarrhea and rash. Both adverse events are well known on target toxicities associated with EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors. The overall incidence of rash in diarrhea was also lower. Now to summarize. For patients with EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations, these data represent some of the best results yet reported in the first-line setting. The combination of zipalertinib and platinum-based chemotherapy reduced the risk of disease progression or death by 50% and delivered a statistically significant and clinically meaningful 6-month median PFS improvement as first-line treatment for patients with EGFR exon 20 insertion mutation non-small cell lung cancer. While the survival data are not yet mature and the observation is not yet statistically significant, at the interim analysis, there was already a favorable trend toward improved overall survival among patients with zipalertinib plus chemotherapy. Importantly, the observed safety profile of the zipalertinib combination regimen was manageable and largely consistent with the safety profile of the individual components of the regimen. Lastly, the independent data monitoring committee recommended unblinding the study. and crossover to zipalertinib monotherapy will be allowed. Continued follow-up is ongoing to further characterize the overall survival benefit and other exploratory end points. Now I'll turn the call back over to Nadim, who will highlight how zipalertinib fits into the exon 20 treatment landscape and the commercial opportunity in that population.

Thank you, Jeff. Despite the data sets from the PAPILLON and RCom 28 studies, there is still a persistent unmet need for patients with exon 20 non-small cell in cancer. The RESILIENT 3 study results for zipalertinib combination therapy clearly demonstrate the regimen's potential to be a best-in-class treatment for patients with first-line exon 20 non-small cell lung cancer. Zipalertinib combination therapy demonstrated a median duration of response of 14.2 months and median PFS of 14.5 months. While direct comparisons across studies can't be made, the 6-month difference in median PFS is an unprecedented result relative to the results observed to date in the frontline Exon 20, where previously a 3 to 4.5 month median PFS benefit has been observed for monotherapy and combination therapy, respectively. These data also support a combination approach over monotherapy treatment with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor for improved clinical outcomes in the frontline setting. REZILIENT 3 also enrolled the highest percentage of patients with brain metastases as compared to other first-line trials in this patient population. The results of zipalertnib combination therapy in this specific patient population with difficult-to-treat disease are also very encouraging given the unmet need and growing population of patients with brain metastases. We also previously shared the promising results of zipalertinib monotherapy in patients with relapsed exon 20 non-small cell lung cancer from the REZILIENT 3 study, where, again, there was a higher proportion of patients enrolled with brain metastases. The progression-free survival results in the relapse setting are also encouraging, indicating that both responding patients and those with stable disease derived clinical benefit from zipalertinib treatment. Relative to amivantimab plus chemotherapy as well as sunrazertnib monotherapy, we're also encouraged by the safety profile of zipalertinib combination therapy. Overall, zipalutnib combination therapy demonstrated a differentiated safety profile for adverse events associated with EGFR inhibition, including skin toxicity and diarrhea, which supports the proposed mechanism of action being more selective for mutant versus wild-type EGFR. The observed safety profile taken together with the unprecedented efficacy results discussed today and robust clinical activity across different segments of patients with non-small cell lung cancer, provides a clear opportunity for plain to become a new standard of care across multiple disease settings, which has always been our focus for the program. On Slide 18, looking at the potential opportunity for zipalertinib in the U.S., approximately 16% of non-small cell lung cancer cases, harbor EGFR mutations, with insertions of exon 20 accounting for 12% of these mutations. This results in a relatively conservative annual U.S. incidence of approximately 3,000 first-line patients and 1,500 second-line patients and importantly, represents an important $1 billion-plus total addressable market opportunity. With the clinical data delivered by zipalertinib regimen in the frontline and relapse settings, we would expect significant uptake and large market share across patient segments. With our partner, Taiho, we also have future opportunity for continued revenue expansion by generating important data in our ongoing REZILIENT 2 and REZILIENT 4 studies. -- where Taiho is exploring zipalertinib in uncommon EGFR mutations in the metastatic setting and as an adjuvant therapy in both exon 20 and uncommon EGFR mutations. In addition to the previously received upfront payment of $275 million, zipalertinib offers Cullinan a very attractive, strategic and economic opportunity as a potential source of non-dilutive capital and our collaboration with Taiho offers a very cost-effective commercialization approach to unlock the near-term billion dollar plus Exon 20 total addressable market opportunity. Recall that with our partner, Taiho, we have a co-development and co-commercialization agreement in which Cullinan retains a 50-50 development cost share and a 50-50 commercial profit share in the U.S. Importantly, in addition to the profit share, Cullinan is also eligible to receive a total of $130 million in additional near-term payments for U.S. regulatory approvals of zipalertinib in second-line and frontline exon 20 non-small cell lung cancer. Importantly, our partner, Taiho, is leading the commercialization activities, and Taiho already has 3 commercially approved products with an established and efficient infrastructure for the commercialization of zipalertinib. To conclude, on Slide 20, the compelling and potentially practice-changing results from the REZILIENT 3 study, established zipalertinib combination therapy as a highly competitive regimen with the potential to become a new standard of care in the frontline setting for patients with exon 20 non-small cell lung cancer. Importantly, these data also support combination therapy as the optimal approach in the frontline setting compared to single-agent tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatment. By demonstrating the best observed medium PFS, the best observed median duration of response, significant clinical activity in patients with brain metastases, at interim analysis, an early positive overall survival trend has already been observed and manageable rates of eGFR associated adverse events. From a regulatory perspective, in April 2026, we announced our NDA in relapsed exon 20 non-small cell lung cancer was accepted for review by the U.S. FDA. And our next step together with Taiho will be to discuss these first-line results with the FDA. Lastly, as we approach these important regulatory approvals, our collaboration with Taiho offers significant near-term non-dilutive capital, which also allows continued investment in our promising T cell engager pipeline across immunology and oncology. Thank you for your attention, and I'll now turn the call over to the operator to take your questions.

[Operator Instructions]. Our first question comes from the line of Brad Canino with Guggenheim Securities.

Congratulations on the great data this weekend. Two questions for me. One is just as you speak to physicians with these data, what are you hearing about potential market share in your practices for this regimen versus the monotherapy or amivantamab. And then second, anything that you saw in the study around rates of AEs around the heme tox and management of it that was different across regions. There was a pretty big difference in the hazard ratio in the forest plot for the different regions. And I'm wondering if that was a cause of that or if that's just something that happened in the numbers.

Thanks, Brett. I'll take the first half of your first question, and then I'll pass it over to Jeff for the rest of question 1 and 2 since he is on the ground in Seoul. So I think from an uptake perspective, something we're heard very consistently for us. For example, in the combination therapy setting with the PAPILLON study and amivantimab is that the -- the EGFR-related toxicity, especially related to skin toxicity is quite difficult to manage. And so we have seen in the front lines telling even post the PAPILLON results that some physicians have still opted for platinum-based chemotherapy in the face of some of these adverse events. And we've been told that physicians have been waiting for our results. So I think certainly from a EGFR associated toxicity, I think we have a very strong profile, and we would expect large market share in that frontline setting. The second thing I think that's important to note as well is that between both the PAPILLON study and now our study, it's clear that the combination therapy approach is going to be more optimal than a TKI monotherapy approach, just based on the progression-free survival alone across both of those studies, certainly compared to Sandestin data to date and the fact that we're starting to see an OS benefit as well, which were shared in that same symposium with combination therapy approaches. So I think our view is from a positioning perspective, especially in a disease like exon 20 non-small cell lung cancer, which has particularly poor prognosis that most patients are going to opt and positions for combination therapy and then within that combination therapy, I think we do believe we have a potential best-in-class profile. But let me turn it over to Jeff to address both what he's hearing on the ground from physicians as well as your question around regional AE rates. Jeff?

Yes. So I would just underscore that in almost all situations in oncology, patients do best when you lead with your best efficacy. So I think far and away, achievement of a 14.5-month progression-free survival in the ZIP plus chemo arm cannot be discounted in any way. It's remarkable -- it's the first time that a randomized study is demonstrated progression-free survival in excess of a year. every way you cut it across all relevant subpopulations, patients are benefiting. And I think that's the overwhelming impression that people walk away from these data. Now in terms of the adverse event distribution, there are a number of factors that could explain some of the adverse events, one particularly hematologic adverse events as well as management of adverse events. So Taiho are continuing to look at the data to understand regional variation in AE management the issue that you raised, Brad, which could potentially explain some of the observations, some of the hematologic toxicity could be different depending on the platinum agent used with carboplatinum being much more likely to induce higher grade cytopenias. So a lot of that analysis is yet to come since what was presented here at World Lung was based on top line data from the interim analysis. So still a lot of data to mine to better understand the pattern of adverse events and their management.

Yes. And I would just add to what Jeff says before moving on, Brad is, look, any way you look at the PFS capline curves, we see the separation very early and it stays consistent. So even in the face of any additional AEs or any sort of discontinuation the benefit accrued to patients is very early and very persistent. And as Jeff says, we haven't seen a median PFS of longer than 12 months in this setting previously. So obviously, we're very encouraged by the results.

Our next question comes from the line of Matthew Phipps with William Blair.

Congrats on the very strong data here. wondering if you saw any difference in activity between your loop versus far loop mutations that was brought up by a [indiscernible] any question. And then can you remind us maybe how many patients would present with brain mets at diagnosis in your expectations, given the very strong results there.

Yes. Maybe the last part of your question, I'll take it and I'll pass it over to Jeff, Matt. I mean, qualitatively at least, Matt, I would say that patients do tend to accrue brain mets over time through lines of therapy. So you do tend to see it grow between the frontline setting as you go through and the relapse in just based on the biology of this disease. But let me pass it over to Jeff now.

Yes. So Matt, while that was brought up by the discussion, I would emphasize that right now and with the discussion, no 1 is making treatment decisions based on near loop, fire loop, helical like location of the mutation in exon 20. The data is insufficient from any study to guide practice in that respect. -- in the REZILIENT 3 study, that data is being collected, but has not yet been analyzed. So it is something that we will ultimately be able to answer, but can't today.

Yes. And then just to close out the Braymont question, Matt, I think this is 1 where now consistently across both the frontline and the relapsed setting, our studies have accrued more patients with brain mets relatively speaking, in both of those settings. And we clearly saw a very encouraging response rates and bring it in the relapse setting, active brain mets I'm talking about now. And in the front line selling, we're obviously pleased with the subgroup analysis showing the robust PFS in the brain met population, which we haven't seen with other molecules in this setting. Thanks for your question.

Our next question comes from the line of Andrew Berens with Leerink.

Congrats on the data and I appreciate you guys doing the event. Yes, another one for me on the brain mets. Just can we get some additional color on the activity you're seeing? And I did notice that there was an imbalance in the brain mets patients in the arms of the trial. Any reason for that? And do you think that there's any implications given that the upper boundary does approach one, although it is below 1.

Thanks, Andy. Jeff, do you want to take that question?

Yes. So any imbalance in the arms is simply a artifact of randomization. So there's no other reason for it than that. But what we know from the RES 2 study. This is a Phase II study where Taiho is very carefully characterizing the intracranial response rate of zipalertinib is that the drug has about intracranial response rate in patients with active brain metastases, including from patients with leptomeningeal disease, the hardest-to-treat subset of patients with CNS metastases. So the drug does have documented demonstrable evidence of intracranial activity. And I think in this study, as the discussion pointed out, not only was it that patients could have previously treated brain metastases Patients in this study could have untreated brain metastases, some of which were up to 2 centimeters in size. So not only is there a higher frequency of patients with brain metastases. These are not the same patients with brain metastases in the Wukong or Papillion comparator trials. So I think that makes the outcomes here all the more remarkable in that patient population.

Can I just clarify to the -- and the reason that previously treated versus non-previously treated is important, I think it's because some patients come into the trial after getting radiation and there could be a delay in the actual activity that you see shrinking the tumors? Is that why it's such an important?

Well, I mean it's because those patients will have had actual treatment for brain metastases, yes. So their brain metastases are more likely to be under control than a patient with a larger brain metastasis or one who hasn't had it's less a delay in -- I'm not sure if you're meaning a delay in starting systemic therapy or you're saying that it could potentially delay progression in the CNS from having prior treatment?

Yes. No, I just have heard from some KOLs that sometimes patients come into the trial, they might have gotten radiation therapy a few weeks before the trial long before that some of the shrinkage then is seen from the prior therapy and it's in a long while.

Yes. But in this instance, we're not assessing the patients, I mean, the outcome is progression-free survival. So we're not assessing shrinkage of the patient's tumor because of prior radiation or any other prior therapy. I mean this is where patients up and fail in the CNS. But I think this is a really robust outcome in those patients.

Andy. And just to clarify on the question of imbalance, the brain met in both arms was around 31%. So they were very similar. Thanks, Andy.

Our next question comes from the line of Alex Thomson with Stifel.

My congrats on the data maybe 2 from us. I guess on the sort of progression of the data and the maturation of the data over time. Can you speak a little bit to how you would expect discontinuation rates to evolve over time from here? And then secondly, can you talk a little bit about the nuts and bolts of sort of the profit sharing here and how you plan to recognize revenue?

Yes. I'll take the second 1 first, Alex, can pass the first 1 back to Jeff. So Taiho will book the sales. And we've taken the 50% of the net profit. So that's fairly straightforward from that perspective. Jeff, do you want to take the other question about what we expect to see with discontinuation rates over time, given most patients have now been treated.

Yes. So as Dr. Tim pointed out in the presentation, the higher-grade adverse events were largely confined to the first 4 cycles of treatment when patients were receiving savolitinib in combination with platinum chemotherapy and the higher-grade adverse events and particular hematologic adverse events really fell off dramatically in the subsequent 4 months and beyond. So I expect, as we saw with ZIP monotherapy in the relapsed refractory setting, that the drug is well tolerated for longer-term administration when it's not being given in combination with platinum. In terms of what we continue to look for We'll, of course, continue to look for the adverse event profile over time. But I would also reemphasize the really positive trend in overall survival that was already emerging at only 30% information for overall survival. Again, not yet statistically significance but an early separation in the curves that is very encouraging given the magnitude of the progression-free survival outcome.

Our next question comes from the line of Samantha Semenkow with Citi.

Congratulations on this data as well from me. Just another 1 on the brain mets. I'm wondering how we should think about adoption in terms of how physicians are assessing whether the patient has brain mets or not at the start of treatment. How much emphasis do physicians tend to put on these subgroup analyses for driving treatment decisions? And then just from the commercial opportunity perspective for zipalertinib, how should we think about time to profitability for the collaboration for Cullinan?

SP1 Thanks, Sam, for your question. So I'll take the second 1 first and then Jeff can take your first question around bringing that on the importance of treatment decisions upfront in the face of brain. So from a commercial perspective, I think, look, we're very, very pleased with the results. I think painting the broader picture of how do we think ultimately patients with frontline exon 20 will be treated. I think 2 things I'll point out. It's become very clear between both the Papillion and RESILIENT 3 results that you get the best efficacy results when you use combination therapy over TKN monotherapy, if you compare the results relative to what we've seen at least so far, we've Sunvozertinib. And as Jeff said earlier, in oncology, the approach is use your best treatments first. So we see the vast majority of patients receiving combination therapy upfront. There may be a group that are contrary indicator for chemotherapy or that are frail that they may be candidates for monotherapy. We expect that to be a minority of patients. I'm also going to address your first question by one about in some ways from a commercial perspective at least. I think the fact that we now see clear activity in patients with brain met in both the frontline and the second-line setting and that we have studies that have over enrolled patients with brain mets. I think that's a very strong commercial position. So when clinicians are going to choose between combination therapies, I think they're going to look at the fact that we've had the longest reported today, we've broken that ceiling of media Pro 12 months, as Jeff said earlier, and the fact that we have very robust activity in patient brain mets. I think our view is that within the combination patient segments, which will be the majority of patients, that the first choice will be zipalertinib plus chemotherapy, in other words, zipalertinib combination therapy regimen. But let me hand it over to Jeff now to address the break question.

Yes. I think, Sam, it's an important question since for EGFR patients in general, exon 20, perhaps more so, more than 50% of them will ultimately have CNS metastases. So it is literally a important and growing problem as survival continues to improve for this group being able to address CNS disease is an important consideration in improving outcomes for the group as a whole. So I think it's a very important consideration in selecting therapy. Again, patients with most cancers do best when you lead with your best therapy. And I think that's just one of the characteristics that really make the data that we presented yesterday morning quite compelling.

Our next question comes from the line of Phil Naito with TD Cowen.