Medivir AB (publ) (MVIR) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Welcome to the Medivir Q3 2022 Report. [Operator Instructions] I'll now hand you over to the CEO, Jens Lindberg. Please begin.

Thank you, and welcome, everyone, to our Q3 call. You can -- operator, please proceed to Slide #2. Joined in the room with me is Magnus Christensen, our CFO, who will go through the financial numbers towards the end of the call; and Fredrik Öberg, our Chief Scientific Officer, who will walk us through some of the elements of the program today. So with that, I think we can move to Slide 3. Important information. Of course, I'm not going to go through it in detail. You'll find the presentation on our website, so please access it there for further information. And with that said, we can move to Slide 5, please. So highlights during the last quarter. We're going to divide up the presentation in 2 parts as we usually do. We're going to focus our efforts on our lead asset, fostrox, but also touch a bit on our overall portfolio development. So with focus on fostrox for primary liver cancer, a couple of elements. Last quarterly report, we talked about a sort of slow initial recruitment for the fostrox study primarily in Europe. We have launched a number of initiatives to pick up the recruitment speed, and we're happy to announce that sort of those efforts that we launched, they have continued to yield results, and we're now seeing a very nice progress with regards to patient recruitment in the study in the dose escalation cohorts. We will, of course, continue our efforts to increase recruitment speed. We want to drive the study as fast as we possibly can. In a dose escalation phase, there is -- clearly, we need to clear a cohort before we can move to the next one, but we are also preparing for the dose expansion cohorts. So we're looking to add additional sites and investigators, primarily in Korea, so that when we open those expansion we can recruit those patients as quickly as possible. As mentioned previously, we continue our preparations to open an IND in the U.S. next year and that those efforts are progressing according to plan. We, of course, want to share some data sort of along the way, and that has -- that we generate across compounds. The SITC conference, which takes place in Boston next week, we will share some further data with regards to fostrox in combination with anti-PD-1 showing increased efficacy in a nonclinical tumor model. Outside of fostrox, a couple of elements. Our compound birinapant, which is in combination dose escalation combination with IGM-8444, that continues to enroll patients. It is now in the fourth cohort with no DLTs to date. So we look forward to hearing more about the outcome of that study as we move towards close -- end of this year and 2023. And this is -- birinapant is the compound that we out-licensed to IGM previously. We also, in the last quarterly report, talked about briefly the MBLI program, which was licensed by INFEX Therapeutics. They are on track to open sort of go into clinic either end of this year or in the beginning of or beginning of 2023. They have also recently announced that sort of the program, which is named MET-X, has been granted patent status in the U.S. in the last quarter. So also a nice step forward. We can move to Slide 6, please. So next slide, just sort of pipeline overview. As you have seen before, -- and as always, fostroxacitabine bralpamide, or fostrox as we call it, is our lead asset, and that's also where we will spend most of our time from a presentation perspective today. So with that, we can move 2 slides forward, and we can move to Slide 8, please. So just a summary for those of you who are perhaps less informed or less aware of the program, we believe that we have a unique and first-in-class potential treatment for primary liver cancer. There's kind of 3 core elements in terms of the value of the compound. There is clearly a significant unmet need and therefore sort of a sizable commercial potential in primary liver cancer, where the compound is targeted. We believe, and we will touch a bit more on that, as always, that we have a unique mechanism of action that selectively targets cancer in the liver and then bypasses resistance mechanism. So we're bringing something different to the treatment arsenal in primary liver cancer versus what exists on the market today or what is in late-stage development. That unique mechanism of action also brings a strong potential of our attractive combinations, which is extra important in the world of liver cancer today, looking at how this -- the treatment is developing. So with that, let's go to Slide 9. As mentioned in the last quarterly report, we talked about the initiatives that we had launched to accelerate study recruitment across our sites, and the study is ongoing in Korea, U.K. and Spain. We had amended the protocol. And the key change was we allowed the inclusion of patients in the third line segment as well, patients who were sort of fit enough from a liver perspective but were third-line patients. And that we have seen sort of provide some additional boost to the study recruitment. We're working to add additional investigators and sites, as mentioned, primarily in Korea. And we are -- have also sort of stepped up our presence and our engagement, our activity with the trial sites to generate as much sort of engagement and enthusiasm for the study as possible. And to take an example of that, we can move to the next slide, please. We have just come back from a trip to Korea where we visited the different study sites that are participating in our study. And a couple of notes to make is that sort of, clearly, the current treatment paradigm is well aligned with sort of the recruitment of patients to the fostrox study, i.e., both arms, whether it's combination with LENVIMA or combination with KEYTRUDA is attractive to both patients and investigators. So clearly, that's important from a study recruitment perspective, but it's also important from a longer-term strategy perspective. Second line, which we are targeting as a first step, has the highest unmet need. It is the area where the investigators clearly articulate that they are looking for improved treatment options, and they are looking for improved treatment options above and beyond the monotherapies that are there today. And HCC is also an area of priority that's clear in Korea and also in the other Asian countries due to the high unmet need and the high incidence. So having sites and recruiting patients in Korea, in an Asian population, is important both from a patient recruitment perspective, but perhaps even more so for a longer-term strategy perspective, where Asian markets will be important as we move forward. One other element, and we can move to Slide 11, please, we also mentioned in the last quarterly report that MSD and Eisai had just announced that there was a negative outcome of the LEAP-002 study, i.e., study combined, where KEYTRUDA and LENVIMA was combined in first-line liver cancer. It was just announced that we didn't know -- we haven't seen all the data. That data was further presented in detail at the ESMO conference in Paris in September. And a couple of notes to make, and we -- that we were able to go through the data in a bit more detail, and we've also been able to engage with physicians, clinicians, KOLs, to understand how do they interpret the data and how will this impact the treatment paradigm going forward. And there are a couple of elements that stand out. One, this negative outcome does cement the combination of TECENTRIQ plus Avastin as the first-line option. So that will now be the standard of care in the coming few years. And it does highlight the need for other alternative combinations with alternative modes of action if we are looking to improve on what we see either in this first-line setting or, for that matter, in the second-line setting. The second part is that they presented at ESMO from the study outlined a better-than-anticipated efficacy of LENVIMA as monotherapy. And that doesn't mean that LENVIMA will compete with TECENTRIQ + Avastin in first line, but what it does do is that it kind of highlights or cement or strengthens the position of LENVIMA as the preferred option in the second-line setting, i.e., LENVIMA as a monotherapy. Meaning then the study that we are running, the fostrox study with either pembro arm or LENVIMA arm, is well aligned with how the treatment paradigm is evolving and finding a treatment option of sort of, for example, evaluating fostrox in combination with LENVIMA in that second-line setting to see if we can improve on the LENVIMA monotherapy becomes an important opportunity going forward and something that the KOLs and clinicians are looking forward to. So with that, all in all, it does highlight the need for alternative treatment options that bring something different to the treatment arsenal, and this is where we truly believe that fostrox fits perfectly with its unique profile in HCC. And Fredrik will talk a bit more about that in detail. So operator, you can move to Slide 12, please. And Fredrik?

Thank you. So clearly, as Jens has outlined, there's a big medical need for something new, a new therapy within the HCC space. And we believe that fostrox does provide such a new modality. So what is fostrox? It is a chemotherapy nucleotide, so there's a good proven track record of active tumor activity for these kind of molecules. They do get incorporated in replicating cancer cells, create DNA damage, they create cell death. But there are some drawbacks, of course, with systemic side effects. So how have we decided to solve these issues? We've done that on the back of experience that we had in treating hepatitis C, so delivering a drug by a prodrug to deliver. It's the same approach that is used in Sovaldi, for instance, in hepatitis C., but it does have a unique prodrug tail. This prodrug tail enables a lot of really positive characteristics to the molecule. One of the important things is that it becomes orally available, you can dose the molecule orally and you will, by that, achieve a much higher exposure in the liver and at the same time minimizing systemic exposure, which is what we want for the chemotherapy. So that is why we think that this molecule bring something new to the therapeutic space in HCC and also provide a very attractive combination partner for other modalities. So if we move to Slide #13, please. The monotherapy study that we have done is really showing us the proof of concept that we were looking for. So we're really excited about the fact that biopsies from patients did show a very nice induction of DNA damage in tumor cells, whereas normal surrounding adjacent liver tissue were seem to be untouched. So we did not see any DNA damage, which is illustrated in the right-hand graph here. So not only did we measure delivery of fostrox to the liver, but we also saw this selective tumor effect that we were looking for. So -- of course, this is all well and good. But in cancer therapy, it's clear that you would need combinations to counter resistance and to increase efficacy. So if we move to the next slide, #14, we can see the 2 different classes of drugs that are dominant in the HCC field. But those 2 are not only the most used classes of drugs. There's also a very good scientific rationale and preclinical evidence to combine these with fostrox. So on the left-hand side this is checkpoint inhibitors, primarily PD-1 or PD-L1 antibodies that stimulate the immune system. So combinations with fostrox allows them an increased presentation of tumor antigens because of the induction of DNA damage and cell death. And as Jens pointed out, there will be a presentation of a post wrap at SITC in a week around these preclinical data. The other type of therapy is inhibiting angiogenesis or blocking blood supply to the tumor, in most cases, by tyrosine kinase inhibitors. And also in this case, there is a very good rationale for combining fostrox with the TKIs and also preclinical data to support this. As inhibition of blood supply to the tumor increases hypoxia, lack of oxygen, it also increases enzymes that metabolize fostrox, so it will allow for a higher level of active metabolite in the tumor. And this has been shown preclinically. So we think that the combination will also be more effective than the 2 compounds as single agents. So if we move to the next slide then, #15. This is an overview. And we believe that we're in the right space with our program right now. So we have passed through the monotherapy part, Phase Ia and Phase Ib. This was a bit broader patient population with liver metastases, cholangiocarcinoma, et cetera. But we're now narrowing it down to hepatocellular carcinoma in this combination phase. And as you see illustrated here, we are currently running 2 arms, 1 in combination with LENVIMA and 1 in combination with KEYTRUDA. And we're in the dose escalation cohorts right now. The aim of these are to establish a recommended Phase II dose for the combinations. The patient population here is HCC. We're including both second- and third-line patients. So advanced inoperable HCC in -- who have failed 2 or 3 lines of prior therapy. And we include also here, of course, the TECENTRIQ + Avastin patients who have failed on that treatment. Currently, these studies are ongoing in sites -- 14 sites in the U.K., Spain and in South Korea. And on the basis of the data from this is dose escalation, the decision of a correct dose and expansion. We will decide which one of these arms perform best in terms of efficacy, safety, et cetera, but also taking into account the environment, the landscape of treatment of HCC. So if we move to the next slide, this is an illustration of the treatment schedule for HCC. And as you see there, we're in the advanced stage HCC patient space. And we're initially focusing on second and third line, but of course, looking to expand that in time, but these are 2 areas where there's a great unmet medical need and we think that fostrox could make a difference. It's also notable that the space, advanced HCC space, there will be a lot of patients there who have been experienced or have been treated with immune therapies. And this is likely to increase as these therapies are moving into the intermediate stage. So there is likely to be an increased number of patients in this advanced stage who have prior immunotherapy experience but will need something different because they have failed on this therapy. And as Jens said, the first-line systemic therapy right now seems to be very well established as being TECENTRIQ + Avastin, whereas in the second line, now more and more, LENVIMA is the preferred option, but not the only option. And these lines, the second and third, are not the initial focus for our combination studies. And with that, I will turn the word over to Magnus to describe some financials.

Thank you, Fredrik. Operator, please move to Slide #18. We can see the financial summary of the quarter 3 and year-to-date for this year, which I will briefly comment on. And all numbers are in million SEK. As you can see, the turnover for quarter 3 amounts to SEK 1.1 million and all related to royalty from Xerclear and it's higher than last year. Year-to-date, the figure is SEK 2.1 million, which is lower compared to last year and largely includes the upfront payment for the [indiscernible] IGM related to birinapant. If you go down, you can see other external expenses, SEK 11.1 million, which is higher compared to last year, both in the quarter and in year-to-date and relates almost to higher clinical costs for the ongoing fostrox combination study. Personnel cost has been more or less in line with last year for the quarter. And the operating loss for quarter 3 is SEK 14.6 million and it's higher compared to last year and, as I mentioned, is almost due to high clinical costs and both in the quarter and year-to-date. And the cash flow from the operating activities in the quarter amounts to almost SEK 20 million, which is in line with our current plan. And in the end of the quarter, the cash position was SEK 142 million. And according to our current plan and current assumption, we will have a positive cash balance at the end of the year 2023. And with that, I will hand over to Jens.

So to summarize things, we can move to Slide 19 before we open up for any questions. So what we've tried to convey today is sort of a continued momentum across the portfolio, clearly with a focus on our key strategic priority, i.e., fostrox in the development for liver cancer. And as we mentioned, sort of all sites are active and the initiatives that we launched in the last quarter to speed up patient recruitment has yielded results, and we will continue to drive for even sort of faster uptick. And an additional comment is that what we see now is we actually have patients in line waiting to enter the study. The limitation at this stage is the dose escalation phase. That means that we can only include 3 patients per cohort, then we have to wait before we clear the cohort and we start including patients again. So there's always a potential time limitation in the dose escalation cohort. But the good news clearly is that, when we are able to -- when we get to the point of establishing the recommended Phase II dose and we can open up the dose expansion cohort, we do -- it's quite positive to see the attractiveness of the study and the number of patients that are waiting in line wanting to enter the study. So that we are looking forward, and that should allow us to recruit the dose expansion phase with quite high speed. In addition to continuing to drive the study as we prepare for Phase IIb, opening up an IND in the U.S. will be important. And we've said that the plan is to open it up in 2023, meaning we have sort of clearly started the work and the preparations to open that in 2023 is sort of progressing according to plan. And as mentioned, from a strategic point of view, the development we have seen in the field, so as an example lately of the negative outcome of the LEAP-002 study, we can clearly see that it confirms the need for alternative treatment options, alternative treatment options with different mechanisms of action in order to improve on current treatment paradigm. And this is where we do believe that fostrox has a unique position to fit into this. And then outside of the fostrox program, as mentioned, we continue to see IGM sort of progressing the combination of IGM-8444 and birinapant and now dosing patients in the fourth dose escalation cohort. And as we mentioned, INFEX Therapeutics has gained patented status of the MBLI or MET-X program in the U.S. So we are looking forward to the end of 2022 and 2023, and we will continue to drive the program forward. And with that, I think we can stop there and we can open it up, operator, for questions.

[Operator Instructions] And our first question comes from the line of Joe Pantginis of H.C. Wainwright.

A lot of blocking and tackling going on. So when you look at the current enrollment efforts, I appreciate all the color you gave on the efforts that you've been doing to increase enrollment. So I want to focus on geographic targeting and potential geographic differences. So obviously, the IND in the U.S. should represent a good inflection point. But I was curious how you might look to further focus on the Asian population where liver cancer obviously has a higher incidence and prevalence. And around that question, is there anything that you can clarify or point to with regard to treatment differences in Korea and the rest of Asia?

So if we -- on the last topic, there's always going to be sort of some differences. With regards to sort of the overall treatment differences, then I would say no. It's very clear that TECENTRIQ + Avastin is the #1 option. And I would say that 90% of patients in that first-line setting will receive TECENTRIQ + Avastin. When they come out of that sort of treatment option, it seems like that there is a -- that LENVIMA is establishing itself as sort of the preferred option, reason for -- for a good chunk of the patients, but we can also see that there are patients where they would prefer instead where the option of them having -- when we look at our study, pembro plus fostrox is also an attractive option for some patients, depending on what response they have seen in that first-line setting. But it seems like sort of there's a logic to changing the mechanism of action in that second-line setting for patients and moving to a TKI monotherapy where LENVIMA is the preferred. The one thing that changes whether LENVIMA is used or sorafenib is usually a reimbursement topic. There are some countries in the world where LENVIMA isn't reimbursed in second line and there might be a challenge to using it, and then sort of the alternative would then be sorafenib. But I think that there's a general sense that the one they would like to use is LENVIMA. That seems to be relatively clear across markets. I think from our...

If I could just interject there with -- sorry, sorry, if I could just interject with regard to the reimbursement, I was going to bring that point up so I'm very glad that you did. How you feel that can impact the penetration potential of fostrox especially if you're not getting something like a checkpoint reimbursed?

I mean it's a bit early to speculate on it in the sense that sort of what will the world look like from a reimbursement perspective sort of at the time of approval for fostrox. I think that one thing we are seeing is that the PD-1s are moving towards sort of loss of exclusivity. You will start to see that sort of with the TKIs as well. So I think that the reimbursement world, the pricing world could look quite different when we enter the market in a few years' time versus what it is today. So I think that it's a right or wrong, it's not an area of concern, I would say, at this stage. I think that the one thing that we do see is that it can play in our favor to some extent or be difficult depending on what is today when it comes to recruiting patients. In Korea, specifically, they do have some challenging sourcing LENVIMA in that sort of second-line space. And LENVIMA in the second-line space is a preferred option, clearly then LENVIMA as part of the study together with a compound like fostrox, becomes -- it adds to the attractiveness of the study and it supports the recruitment speed of the study. So it plays a bit in our favor today with regards to pricing reimbursement challenges sort of 3, 4 when we get to market, I would be cautious to speculate on. And if I then come back to the -- if I come back to the question regarding Asia. This is one of the reasons why it was so important to have the Asian patients in the Korean sites part of the development program in this Phase I study. What we have said all along is that we see ourselves taking the compound and combinations forward towards sort of regulatory approvals, et cetera, in the Western markets, in Europe, in U.S. orphan drug. Asia being different, both in terms of markets being different and in terms of sort of the incidence, et cetera, we've -- and that we've communicated, we do see ourselves partnering up to drive this forward as we move towards the sort of move into the Phase IIb, Phase III pivotal space. So that is part of the plan, not to do it alone in Asia. Whereas in the Western market, we do see ourselves sort of able to drive it forward ourselves.

Our next question comes from the line of Richard Ramanius of Redeye.

I'll continue on the same track. Can you comment on the first line, established first-line treatment in Asia is and in Korea in particular?

Yes, first line treatment in Korea is sort of -- that's very similar to all the other countries. There is actually -- when we see -- sometimes -- my experience is that you can see clinical differences and you can sometimes see a bit of reimbursement differences. But when it comes to the primary liver cancer space in that first line, it seems to be very aligned across markets, whether we talk to the Korean physicians, whether we talk to our other investigators in Spain and U.K. or, for that matter, when we've engaged with KOLs in the U.S. They all say the same. TECENTRIQ + Avastin has been established as the standard of care. 9 out of 10 patients will get it. The risk of bleeding is not as prevalent as may have been thought before. So sort of basically a majority of patients will get TECENTRIQ + Avastin. And the anticipation is actually also when -- for example, the AstraZeneca durvalumab, tremelimumab compound is approved. It will not change all that much. It seems like TECENTRIQ + Avastin will be, for the foreseeable future, let's say, in the next 2 -- 2, 3 years will be the treatment of choice in first line.

Okay. And concerning the LEAP-002 trial, one of your conclusion was that -- using LENVIMA in the second line, which makes sense, but what do you think about pembrolizumab perhaps the reasonable third line then after LENVIMA.

Yes, I think there will be a logical conclusion to that data set. So -- I mean, it was quite clear that the 2 -- I mean, there's always interpretations of data, but the 2 key interpretations was really that, okay, well, while the combo data looks good, it's still a negative study. So the impact is TECENTRIQ + Avastin is cemented in first line and the KEYTRUDA and LENVIMA combo will be difficult to take forward. But two, it was that element of the LENVIMA monotherapy. So it does look quite good. So therefore, sort of positively surprised. And therefore, it seems quite logical to use it sort of then if you come out of TECENTRIQ + Avastin even then considering that -- I mean they do a first-line study where LENVIMA showed good. It wasn't the second-line patient population. And that's the, to go back to the pricing discussion, where we see the potential reimbursement challenges for LENVIMA in second line is based on the fact that their studies are in first line and not all reimbursement agencies will be liberal to allow them the second-line reimbursement. But from a clinical viewpoint, it seems relatively clear that it strengthens physicians' belief that LENVIMA is the best TKI and is a good treatment often for patients coming out of TECENTRIQ + Avastin. But as I mentioned earlier, and now I've become a bit long-winded, we do see in the -- I mean, sort of in the fostrox study, we do see that there is also attractiveness of using pembro plus fostrox in the second-line space. And this is also with patients coming out of TECENTRIQ + Avastin. So there are sort of -- there can be different patient -- kind of patient types where they would see the one perhaps more attractive than the other, plus also the fact that not everyone will receive TECENTRIQ + Avastin in the first line. Some will maybe get LENVIMA in first line as well and then need in second line is different. So there's room for both, but perhaps slightly preferential on LENVIMA in that mono second-line option clinically today.

Yes. Because in other cancer types, you might diagnose people based on the PDL content in the tumor. So perhaps could you do something similar in liver cancer?

Yes, could be, but I think we haven't seen -- I don't know if Fredrik wants to comment on it, but there hasn't been a lot of traction on moving in that direction.

No, I mean, you're right. This has been one marker, tumor mutational burden has been another, and there's been gene expression profiles that have been suggested, but we haven't really seen any clinical impact in the HCC space yet for selecting patients. But I'm sure that the companies with the PD-1 checkpoint inhibitors are working hard to come up with such biomarkers.

But if I -- and maybe I'm taking this a bit too far now, but Fredrik alluded to it earlier or alluded to it, he was sort of quite clear that -- when we -- we now go through the dose escalation and dose expansion, then there comes a time when we -- sort of there needs to be a decision on which combination do we think we should take forward into a Phase IIb sort of regulatory phase. And then the data in and of itself will be important, but we will also need to sort of evaluate what's most suitable from a clinical perspective, from a treatment paradigm perspective. And this, we will continue to follow. And things can look different in a year's time. But I think, today, then it would be fair to say that perhaps the most logical combination to explore first would be the LENVIMA-fostrox combination if we were moving into -- or when moving into the second line space. Considering what sort of the current treatment paradigm looks like and the feedback we get from physicians. Whereas sort of a combination with the PD-1 would perhaps be, from a fostrox perspective, would perhaps be more interesting to explore, not from a PD-1 combination, but from a triple combination potentially sort of moving into a first-line space. So when we get to that point. We need to sort of evaluate both the data, but also kind of what's strategically sound and where do we go with what combinations is best for second line and is there an option to possibly sort of start moving towards first line as well. Because clearly, the earlier you treat, the better, the better opportunity to improve clinical benefit for patients. Now, I hand over -- now I gave a lot of detail.

So interesting to hear, continue with my last question about Xerclear, so far, you've only reported revenue of SEK 2.5 million and net turnover, which I suppose is mainly from Xerclear, is that the figure we could expect in the coming years? Because it's lower compared with earlier years.

It's Magnus here. Thank you for the question. Yes, the trend is going down as the patent has run out of life, and we have the agreement that we have today is a certain number of years with each country when the product is doing market entry. So it will go downhill, I would say, in the trend, that's been very clear the last couple of years, the trend's going down. So that's correct.

Our next question comes from the line of Klas Palin of Erik Penser Bank.

My first question would then be, as your recruitment rate is picking up, do you expect to finalize the dose escalation and the dose expansion phase this year or early next year? Is it possible to give some indication on that, perhaps?

I think it's -- what we've said previously and we've said all along, our ambition is to establish a recommended Phase II dose this year. And clearly, with the speed we have seen sort of that has allowed us to keep that ambition. There is -- and that's why I mentioned that the -- at the moment, we could include many more patients much faster practically than we are able to in the sense that we -- now that we're in the dose escalation cohort there is a maximum of 3. And then we need to wait and see before we're able to open up the next cohort. There is a risk of screen failures and then sort of reject. So is it possible to give the exact date? No. Are we keeping our ambition? We always keep our ambition with regards to doing it as fast as possible. And this year, can I guarantee that it happens on this side of the new year? That I can't do. I mean it depends on something...

Yes, that's what I was looking for, either just to understand the pace and that you're sort of in line. And then just a question for Magnus, I guess, given the slower recruitment rate during the summer and so on, how much has that affected the cost side in quarter 3?

Thank you, Klas, for the question. For quarter 3, it hasn't affected the bonus because the pace of recruitment has been better now. But of course, as we mentioned before, in quarter 2, the recruitment pace was a bit slower than we plan to. But the pace is, as Jens said, I mean we have patients now queuing up for getting the slots. So we are very positive that the pace will continue to be very good. But when we do the assessment of how long the cash position -- how long we had the money, will, of course, depend on -- well, I made a number of assumptions, how many patients we need in the cohort, how long the patients treated in the -- both in the Phase Ib cohorts and in expansion phase and so on. But we are certain we will have money according to current plans to end of 2023, which is very positive for us. So I think 12 months from this stage.

[Operator Instructions] And there are no further questions at this time. Please go ahead, speakers.

Thank you. And then please move to Slide 21, and then we can conclude the call by just calling out that, in terms of upcoming activities, we mentioned previously today, we do look forward to presenting additional combo data, the nonclinical combination data at the SITC Conference in Boston, next week. And then upcoming investor conferences. We're presenting at the Redeye Life Science Day on November 24, Erik Penser Healthcare Day in December 1 and then also Redeye's Fight Cancer day in 2023 in the near-term perspective or before next quarterly report. So with that, thank you all for dialing in and listening to our presentation. Thank you all for your questions, and have a good rest of the day.

This now concludes our conference call. Thank you all for attending. Participants, you may disconnect your lines.