Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc (JAZZ) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Great. Thank you very much for joining us today. My name is Mohit Bansal. I'm one of the biopharma analysts here at Wells Fargo, and I'm very happy to have you all on for this event. And we are happy to have Jazz management team with us. So we are joined by Phil Johnson, the CFO of the company. We are joined by Rob Iannone. Sorry, if I mispronounced it.

[indiscernible]

So Rob is the head of R&D of the company. And we have Abizer Gaslightwala with us. He's the Head of Oncology Business Unit at Jazz. Thank you very much for joining us.

Yes. Well, thanks for inviting and hosting us, Mohit. It's great to be here at the conference and meeting with investors, Pleased to have a chance discuss Jazz with you today. As we discuss our business, I remind you to please consult our SEC filings for a full listing of the risk factors that can affect our business. We will potentially refer to guidance today. If so, that's the guidance we had provided on our second quarter earnings call recently. And then we'll [indiscernible] non-GAAP measures for full reconciliation to GAAP, please consult the Q2 earnings materials. I think that takes care of the disclaimers. Just a brief summary of where our business is. We had a very strong second quarter, record revenues of over $1 billion, 15% growth from our key growth drivers combined, Xywav, Epidiolex and Rylaze. That was a little over 10% growth in our oncology business. We did on this most recent earnings call state that we're no longer going to provide the specific financial metrics associated with Vision 2025. But we reiterated that the core principles that underlie Vision 2025 continue to be our priorities: driving a diversified and growing revenue base; continuing to advance our pipeline to create value for shareholders and impact more patients over time, including bolstering those growth prospects through corporate development; and then driving operational excellence to ensure that we have sustainable growth for the future. Maybe real quick on the R&D side. We've got Rob here, who will take you through some of the highlights that are very interested and excited about some of the upcoming readouts that we have. Of note, I'd highlight the first-line, gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma readout, zanidatamab that we expect in the second quarter of next year. With that, maybe turn it over to Rob for a few highlights on R&D.

Yes. Thank you, Phil. And I'll focus on some of the near-term catalysts and happy to take questions later. Let me start with zanidatamab, which I believe is a derisked asset, best-in-class HER2 monoclonal antibody. It's a bispecific, biparatopic antibody with a unique mechanism of action. Starting with biliary tract cancer. Those are the first data we saw shortly after we did the deal. We saw the data, it was best of ASCO that year. And we updated the data this past ASCO. Really unprecedented results in second-line biliary tract cancer with a response rate that's over 40%, duration of response that was extended at the update to 14.9 months, and the first time we showed overall that the overall survival data were mature enough to show and the intention to treat population 15.5 months and in the IHC3+, which was the great majority of patients, 18.1 months. When you look at those data, I think it really does demonstrate zani as a best-in-class molecule. If you compare that to prior data with HERCEPTIN and PERJETA as a combination, those results are more like 23%, 24% response rate and the duration of response much short around 10 months. So we really do think that along with other information that's been published on the mechanism, it's really best-in-class. We do have a PDUFA date this year for second line BTC. That's November 29. And we have submitted in Europe as well. Moving on to other parts of the program. As Phil mentioned, the next big readout would be frontline gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma. Again, the data flow there have been really impressive since the time that we closed 2 separate studies demonstrating -- 2 separate single-arm cohorts demonstrating strong efficacy, superior through cross-study comparisons to any of the comparators in the frontline. One of those studies was with zanidatamab in chemotherapy, the other was with zani, atezolizumab, a PD-1 inhibitor and chemotherapy. Those -- that trial is projected based on -- it's an events-driven trial, so based on our current projections, 2Q of next year. We're also really pleased to have gotten into breast cancer, launching a Phase III trial in breast cancer patients who have progressed or intolerant to ENHERTU. And I think with those 3 programs, we have a really meaningful chance for return on investment there, but with many other opportunities as well. I would -- in terms of other late-stage catalysts, I would highlight what we've said by the end of the year, we expect the frontline data in Zepzelca. And to remind you, that's frontline small cell lung cancer where Zepzelca is an add-on to the standard of care, randomized way, comparing it to no additional therapy. And we feel that has a lot of promise and can serve as a confirmatory trial and, I think, really further establish Zepzelca is a key treatment for small cell lung cancer. Maybe I'll stop there. There are other important things in our pipeline, but I'll pause there because I know some of the questions, Mohit, maybe after that.

So I have like 15 questions on zani. So let's just start with zani first, right? And then probably we'll get [indiscernible] and the results. So I think you talked about breast cancer. And I mean, I really kind of understand that ENHERTU is going to be a big product in breast cancer. So -- and you are going after your strategy is to go after ENHERTU there. So can you talk a little bit about what you have seen so far in the clinical trial settings where -- which gives you confidence that it could work in that particular setting? And your strategy seems to be going after and ENHERTU. So just talk a little bit about that.

Yes. So we've published and -- for anyone who hasn't seen our R&D Day, it was recorded, March 19 from last year. It really steps -- there's a record of all those data that I'll reference and steps through it nicely with KOLs who are speaking to it, especially on the breast cancer opportunity we have. But the data we've seen are frontline HER2-positive breast cancer, late-line HER2-positive breast cancer. HER2-positive breast cancer that co-expresses estrogen receptor and was treated with a chemo-free regimen. All these data have been published as recently at San Antonio 2023. And what you see is really strong data. no matter where it was evaluated in frontline compared to what you'd expect with HERCEPTIN, PERJETA. Importantly, in patients who progressed on frontline therapy with HERCEPTIN, PERJETA and who progressed on other therapies like ADCs, TDM-1, T-DXd, we see strong activity. And that really is the premise for the trial that we have initiated. What we heard right away when we did this in licensing from KOLs in the breast cancer community, many of whom I've worked with in my prior career, was that now that in ENHERTU has established itself in second line and is moving to front line, there's going to be a major gap in what to treat patients with once they progress or if they can't get ENHERTU. And the reason is there are no data to demonstrate to any of the other HER2 therapies would be effective a patient progresses on ENHERTU, in particularly the frontline therapy, which is HERCEPTIN, PERJETA and chemo and taxane, There's, in particular, questions about that because, of course, ENHERTU is a HERCEPTIN-based ADC. So they're effectively already getting HERCEPTIN in front line. As you know, that frontline trial includes an arm where they get the combination of PERJETA. So patients might have essentially already gotten the frontline regimen in addition to the chemo payload in ENHERTU. So there's a real gap there. And given our data and strength despite prior HER2 treatments, there is a strong desire to establish zanidatamab in that setting. And that's exactly what we're doing. The trial will be likely recruiting patients who are third line plus. But if ENHERTU were to be approved in that front line, we then think the trial will accrue patients who are even second line and certainly in clinical practice, once we have a data set that we think will be very strong in that space. We'll have the only data that demonstrates activity after ENHERTU and we think it could get used even in the second-line space. And remember, this trial design is essentially docs bring a patient in, they choose the appropriate chemotherapy for them, and they randomized zanidatamab versus [ HERCEPTIN ], which the patients have already progressed. So we think it's a high probability of success.

Got it. And then theoretically, patients who have hadn't ENHERTU before, HERCEPTIN should not be very effective on those questions because they already had that?

Certainly, we think we are even, in the naive setting, more effective than HERCEPTIN or even HERCEPTIN and PERJETA, and I could speak to the mechanism in detail you'd like, but certainly in patients who've already progressed on HERCEPTIN and related drugs.

Got it.

I don't mean to take over your job, but I think it will be helpful to you at some point either now or later get to having Rob talk a little bit about why we think this particular molecule with [ configured ] is showing a unique mechanism of action that could be very different than just the free combination of the 2 components. We can get there at some point if not now, that would be great. That'd be helpful.

Yes, lets' talk about it now.

Yes, that's great. I think that's important. Again, I referenced that R&D Day that we did. There's also a publication in Nature of communications that really steps through it carefully. And there are 3 things that are differentiated. One is the receptor clustering and internalization that makes it the most effective blockade of the HER2 oncogenic driver. The way it does that is the antibody binds to 2 different epitopes of the HERCEPTIN receptor. And because of the geometry, they're closely approximated on those antibodies. They necessarily -- each antibody has to bind 2 different receptors, and the Nature comms paper shows this intense receptor clustering. When the receptors cluster, they get internalized and they no longer provide a growth signal to the cell. So that's the main differentiator. For anyone who asked, why not just give HERCEPTIN and PERJETA, that's the reason. The second thing is because it does hit ECB 2 is one of those domains, it blocks heterodimerization with HER3. So HER3 cannot homodimerize. HER3 cannot act by binding to another HER3. It has to bind to HER2. And so it blocks that heterodimerization. So it actually is a HER3 blocker as well. And then lastly, it has much more potent immune effector function. It has inactive Fc fragment, which other antibodies do. But in that Nature comms paper, it shows that very strong ADCC. But importantly, it's the only antibody that a therapeutic dose that shows complement fixation and CDC. So those 3 mechanisms are what differentiate it. And then if you look in the clinical data, I referenced the BTC comparison, but you could step through all of the clinical data. The 2 cohorts in GEA, for example, we published at ASCO GI, and it will be updated at ESMO in just a few weeks, zani plus chemo showing response rates that are like top 70% compared to maybe what you'd expect at 60% duration of response over 20 months compared to like under 10 months is what you'd expect with HERCEPTIN. And PFS that was over 12 months, again we'll update this at ESMO, versus what would be expected in about 8 months. And then if you look at the atezolizumab combination, which was a separate cohort published last year at ESMO, all of those things are incrementally better. And so look at the BTC data, if you look at the GEA data and then you look at patients who are actually refractory to other HER2 therapies and you see activity that's commensurate with naive patients. And so we think it's a differentiated mechanism and in the clinic, it's behaving.

Got it. So this is very fascinating actually. So -- and then like I want to get Abizer as well in this mix. So when you talk to experts and like again, Rob talked about unmet need here. I mean, what do you hear when you talk to -- when you go into oncology field?

Sure. Yes. So I think as we talk to our customers, both in the academic and the community oncology setting, 2 different kind of main customers. We hear a lot of enthusiasm, obviously, for HER2 directed agent. HER2 is one of the most potent oncogenic drivers. Having HER2-directed therapies is important. We're in the second and third generation. We think we have a best-in-class HER2 therapy. So when we actually talk about the data, both either with academics or community oncologists, they're pretty excited. I mean, they see the profile, they see the data. Biliary tract is not a common disease, but when they see it, it's pretty bad in terms of his prognosis, in particular, HER2-positive biliary tract. And the fact that we have this data that looks unprecedented, they see the potential of this being different than other HER2 therapies they're very familiar with. They also see the benefit of its ease of use and its safety tolerability. So I think what's really interesting around this molecule is not only has a compelling efficacy profile from the data we've seen in biliary tract from some of the preliminary data in gastroesophageal breast cancer, but in particular, can a drug be used easily? Can it be incorporated into treatment paradigms? And particularly in the community oncology setting more so than even academic, where the majority of cancer patients are treated in the U.S., that's really important. Because if they can't bring patients in and dose them quickly and move them out of the clinic, they have to manage a lot of adverse events and side effects, that makes a product much more difficult to use. And in that respect, that's where they see the zani potential as having kind of hitting 2 great areas: one, on efficacy; but two, on the safety tolerability, what I call the usability of a product for patients and for health care providers. So we think we have a pretty unique profile on all those attributes were saying. And that's the excitement we hear from our customers when we talked to them at this stage.

Got it. That's super helpful. So look, one last question on this. So with the BTC approval, do you think there is room for some kind of NCCN guideline that allows for GEA before approval as well? Like is a possibility there?

Rob, do you want to maybe come...

As you know, NCCN will list options and give them a level of categorical level of evidence. And so as I mentioned, we've already published in GEA frontline. So we certainly will provide those data. Once we have the randomized data, of course, and we expect that to be positive, once we have the randomized data, then that gives you a different level of evidence to carry more weight and treatment decisions. So yes, we'll publish as soon as possible and provide those data to NCCN wherever possible, starting with the first approval BTC.

Got it. And then, I mean, your data are not that far either, right? Second quarter '25, you'll start to -- you'll have data for GEA?

Yes. And I'll just remind folks that it is an events-driven trial. We provided an update based on the snapshot that we had now, and we said it's not a bad thing that events are coming in more slowly. And so we'll refresh that. But right now, our best estimate is to 2Q '25.

Got it. So I mean, just talk to us in terms of like what is the bar for success there? And then there are questions around like how should we think about like baseline PD-L1 status and then how the...

Maybe I'll start with the second one. So HER2 -- PD-L1 is not a biomarker for HER2. And so we don't expect PD-L1 negative or PD-L1 positive to respond differently to zanidatamab. We expect that it will be the best-in-class HER2 agent regardless of PD-L1 status. Whether patients additionally benefit from a PD-1 does depend on the PD-L1 status. At the moment, that's been defined as anything greater than 0%. But we know that's probably not the optimized. What we do know is that the agency said, like, if you're a 0%, you have a detriment. You should not get a PD-1 inhibitor. As we do our trial and we are collecting these data. I think we'll better define which patients truly benefit from a PD-1. And I suspect that, that's going to be a little bit higher than not 0. And therefore, a greater proportion of patients will be in the category of not necessarily benefiting from of PD-1. And therefore, we expect zani and chemotherapy to be the standard of care. We think atezolizumab is a best-in-class PD-1 inhibitor. The data that I referenced as well last year demonstrate that. And for those patients who would benefit from a PD-1, we do have an experimental arm in that trial, which will evaluate zanidatamab zani and chemotherapy. Where is the bar? So in the PD-L1 negatives or once again, say, the patients who would not benefit from PD-L1, the standard of care remains HERCEPTIN and chemotherapy. And from the ToGa trial, the median PFS was about 8 months there. The next reference you could use is KEYNOTE-811 where there was an improvement of about less than 2 months in the KEYTRUDA arm on PFS in any case.

Got it. This is helpful. And then maybe from the commercial side, I mean, can you talk a little bit about the overlap, the work you can do with your existing oncology franchise which could help you launch zani eventually?

Yes, sure. We think -- we're really excited about this. So when we launched Zepzelca about 4 years ago, we built a solid tumor footprint team. Jazz historically had been in the hematological side malignancies and now with Zepzelca, and it's a great launch trajectory we've been on. We have a really robust solid tumor team footprint, not only on the sales side, but we think about MSLs, medical scientific exchange, we think about our kind of contracting access reimbursement model. We've been able to build a lot of capabilities with our solid tumor footprint with Zepzelca. What we're going to do is we're going to leverage that to the full extent and apply that to the zanidatamab's launch. So we're really excited because we see a fair amount of overlap. As I said, again, in particular for the community oncologists, often they treat many solid tumors. So there's a high overlap there. All these kind of capabilities and competencies that we built on Zepzelca for solid tumor will apply in zanidatamab as we think about biliary tract, as we think about gastroesophageal, and even potentially breast. We're in the places where solid tumors are treated. We're going to leverage that. It's highly synergistic. And so our kind of scale and capabilities we leverage right out of the gate.

That's awesome. So Phil, can I ask you a tough question. It has been 2 quarters for you.

Sure.

No, I mean -- so I think what I want to ask is that how has been your experience so far, I mean, in the last few quarters? And then obviously, there was a decision made to take away the '25 guidance. But what I really want to ask is that you have this oncology side and you have this -- the legacy business, which -- or legacy pipeline as well. So how do you balance that? Because you have a lot of opportunity in the oncology side as well. So how you are thinking about the margins and the thought process around expenses and all that?

Yes. So in terms of where we're looking to invest, certainly, we're looking to make sure that we're making the right investments to drive really outstanding commercial performance with our existing marketed products, and we've continued to refine that to invest in those opportunities that provide the most growth. Secondly then, looking within the pipeline that we have now to make sure we're making the right investments to maximize the value from those assets, obviously zanidatamab is a hugely important asset in that regard. Then lastly, looking for opportunities. I know we've not announced anything of note probably since the zani in licensing. That can be very active looking at how we can enhance our future growth prospects, enhance the robustness of our pipeline and our ability to positively impact more and more patients over time, generate more revenue and more cash flow. I would say the emphasis is primarily on looking to make those growth investments, not necessarily looking to maximize near-term margin. One of the reasons we had also talked about the Vision 2025 was becoming a bit problematic in some of the conversations we're having with investors, because we were getting from investors who are interested in seeing this company's stock price view worth more than it currently is, will we make the right investments in the future growth of the company? Or will we truncate those investments to try to drive outsized performance and margin than a specific year? We're clearly interested in driving a very healthy margin in our business but we're not looking to maximize margin in 2025 to the detriment of our long-term growth prospects and ability to create value.

That completely makes sense. I mean, the follow-up to that is that you have -- you're in kind of 3 different areas. You have a narcolepsy franchise, you have a kind of neuro franchise with epilepsy and all and then you have an oncology franchise. So one, when you're thinking about new assets, are you going to be in your wheelhouse, so to speak, versus expanding beyond that? And then how do you enhance leverage in these 3 areas where you are in?

Yes. So certainly, the majority of the focus for our internal efforts as well as our external efforts looking to bring innovation in are in the areas where we have significant expertise. So in sleep and seizures, in oncology now, not just [indiscernible], but also in solid tumors as well. We do selectively look at other potential opportunities where the science is really strong. We can see there's a great opportunity to significantly improve upon standard of care to have better outcomes for patients. sort of that economical kind of call point that we're very used to and have significant capabilities in delivering on. I will say it's not a high focus for us, but like the company was not in the seizure space when we went ahead and made an acquisition that got us that. So I would say it's not out of the realm of possibility that we could see something on the scientific side that we think could really be an anchor for us moving forward and build out a business and something else. But majority of our efforts are focused on sort of the bread and butter, where we know, the markets know, the patients know the physicians well.

Got it. And then, I mean, if I think about, I mean, types of business development opportunities that are out there, I mean, value is created sometimes when you can actually add to R&D rather than actually buy revenues. That's what you're doing with zani as well. So I mean, what is your thought process on -- in terms of like when you look at the asset, what Jazz needs right now. Like when you think about asset to need, I mean, what do you think?

Yes. I have a history in this industry, but at a different sized entity that probably had a greater ability and just track record and history of taking very early-stage clinical risk. We've been moving in that direction here at Jazz over time. I think that's appropriate for us to do, have bets that are maybe some that are more derisked where we have really strong confidence in the mechanism of action, like you have with zanidatamab as well as taking some other maybe higher-risk, but higher-reward benefits bets as well with earlier-stage licensing, like you all have done recently on the oncology side in particular. So we'll look across the spectrum of stages of development. I do think our objectively biggest strengths are in that development regulatory commercialization space. We're continuing to build and we have good capabilities to continue to build those earlier and earlier stage capabilities. I would expect as part of the business development activities, acquisition is where many of the investors focus. We'll continue to look at licensing as well. Zanidatamab is going to prove to be a very capital-efficient, very profitable deal for Jazz. So we'll look at both licensing as well as acquisition, not just on equity.

Got it. This makes sense. So we got to 26 minutes without talking about narcolepsy. So next year, the target is to do it without talking about that. But let's just -- this year, let's just talk about that. So you did talk about narcolepsy in the sense on the earnings call that it is kind of -- the growth will probably come from IH. Can you talk a little bit more about how you see the market now? And then I think people do -- investors do -- because your guidance also was until 2025 when it was there. People do worry about '26 and beyond that, I mean, how this business is going to shape up or going to be -- what is the outlook there. So how do you think about next few years? And then qualitatively, how should we think about this?

I mean, we'll start at the highest level, we're really pleased with the continued strong performance of Xywav. We had 13% growth in the second quarter, added 275 patients net in the quarter. When you begin to break it down between narcolepsy and IH, clearly, narcolepsy is a much more mature market. There's less growth overall there. And there's been additional competition there both of authorized generics as well as with the branded fixed-dose product as well. So as you intimated, we do see the greatest opportunity for growth and significant opportunity for growth in idiopathic hypersomnia. We had 3,300 patients. We estimate they were getting Xywav for that indication at the end of the second quarter. We've been adding roughly in the last 1.5 years, I'd say, 200 to 350 patients net each quarter. So I think the educational efforts we're doing with physicians to help them understand how to best identify patients, understand the role of Xywav and helping with sleep inertia in these patients, making sure they understand that well can increase their confidence over time in prescribing Xywav for IH. We've also been investing both on the commercial side with additional reps in the field to expand the number of physicians that we're calling on. And importantly, both in narcolepsy and in idiopathic hypersomnia, having a field nurse educator program that helps patients are coming on to therapy in that early phase of titration where they're most likely to have questions about their therapy and if they don't have a good experience, to discontinue to make sure that we convert as many as possible of the patients that are getting prescribed and starting Xywav into long-term. Xywav users that are getting to benefit from the product. So really good initial experiences we're seeing there as well.

Got it. And you had a court win as well against the competitor there, especially for IH. So can you talk about the significance of that? Because it seems like they're still learning the trial, but basically, you can block them from launching in IH at this point, right? I mean, is that what it means?

Yes, I probably spend a ton of time on this. There's quite a bit of litigation that's ongoing in this space. So in this particular case, the most recent ruling, as you pointed out, allows the company to continue with ongoing clinical trials for their product in IH but does preclude them from seeking an approval or marketing for that indication. As you would expect, they've appealed that ruling and this will play out over the coming years. But we're very pleased with the positioning that we have, the kind of reception that we're seeing with many patients and many physicians prioritizing long-term health and appreciating the benefits of a low sodium product in Xywav, and feel very good about our opportunity to continue to have a very strong franchise.

Got it. Super helpful. One question I wanted to ask you, ask about the commercial side of it, but Zepzelca and Rylaze. So how do you think about these franchisees in near to medium term? And what is the significance -- like how significant do you think Zepzelca plus Tecentriq trial could be for investors to understand?

Yes, sure. Let me start with Zepzelca first. We launched this about 4 years ago. I'm really excited about this has been a highly accretive transaction kind of speaks to where Jazz has done really well in the past and continues to do well from a BD perspective. We've just achieved $1 billion in cumulative sales since the launch of the product. We were the first agent launch in second line small cell lung cancer in over 20 years, and we got the approval. It's accelerated approval. We're the #1 agent in second line small cell lung cancer for new patient starts. We continue to build on that and we continue to see great utilization of the product. And so we feel really good about the space. We did $81 million in sales in Q2, and that was 15% growth year-on-year. So feel like we're really in a good place with Zepzelca and seeing some pretty strong trend growth in particular this year. We think we've just been able to get out to customers in probably a unique way that we haven't been able to during the pandemic. This product was launched in the middle of the pandemic at a tight. So I think we've had great customer engagement. We've had some revised messaging that's been working really well and that kind of highlights the clinical attributes of the product, and we're seeing that continued strong trend rate this year. What makes us even more excited is to build on that for the front line. So we see the [ IMForte ] trial, which is a combination study done with atezolizumab in the frontline and the maintenance setting. We've said that, that will read out, we think, by the end of this year, hopefully. And if that's positive, we would like to get approval for that combination use. So we just think it's an opportunity to take a great profile we've seen in the second line and expand on that to get even a bigger benefit for patients in the front line. If we can get patients to get a longer response rate before they relapse, hopefully, we can just actually change the standard of care in a very meaningful way for patients. For us, that actually looks like a longer course of therapy, duration of therapy in the frontline. That trial is set up where we would actually see longer duration of use. If successful, we see more patients. So you think about you're at a higher point of entry, you see a greater patient base. You also see longer duration of use. So we think it's going to be potentially another big catalyst opportunity for Zepzelca as we continue to see second line utilization as well. So really excited about where Zepzelca is and where we think we're going to go in the future. I think if -- pending this positive trial readout within IMForte, hopefully, we'll get that data pretty soon and see where we go from there. In terms of Rylaze, it's been a tremendous product. We launched it over 3 years ago. We have quickly exceeded all expectations of the non-e coli asparaginase market, that peaked when Erwinaze was there. It was about a $200 million peak. Obviously, last year, we did about almost $400 million in sales. We continue to grow the product this year in the first half of the year. We're up on volume about 11%, net sales up 12% when you take the first half of this year compared to last year, having $100 million quarters. So we feel really good about this opportunity, in particularly in the pediatric setting, we have really high utilization rates in the pediatric ALL space. So asparaginase is a backbone therapy standard of care. Rylaze is a de facto non-e coli asparaginase that's used in all treatment protocols as adopted by physicians. Where we think the opportunity still is, which will take a little longer to unlock in the adolescent young adult market. There, asparaginase-based regimens are not as viably used as in the pediatric segment due to a variety of just clinical treatment guidelines and protocols that have been in place for some time. We are working to change that, and that's going to be through education of why asparaginase-based therapies give adolescents and young adults the best outcomes just like pediatrics. That will take time to change that mindset. And asparaginase and Rylaze is a big part of that. So if we can continue to educate these physicians and change the treatment practice protocols, we think there's more potential opportunity in that market, just going to take a little longer to unlock that.

Got it. That makes sense. So maybe in the last minute, I think this is the last question for you, Phil. Fast forward 1 year, September 2025. You are here. I hope you are here. And I'm asking you, like what would you -- what -- at that point, what would make you look back at the year and say it was a good year?

Yes. So a number of things. But first and foremost, I think the first-line GEA read up for zanidatamab. We have high conviction. There are a number of investors on The Street also, I think, who have high conviction in the potential of this asset. There are a number as well who've expressed that they're really looking for the robustness of this data readout to gain greater conviction for both GEA as well as the future potential in breast cancer. So certainly, we'd love to be talking about the robustness of that data as well. And I think continued momentum in our base business and our growth drivers with strong commercial execution. And then I would expect September of next year to have something to report out in terms of moves that we have made to leverage the very strong financial position we're in to add to our pipeline and future growth prospects through corporate development.

Awesome. On that high note, thank you very much.

Appreciate the time. Thank you very much. Thanks for coming to join us.