Zymeworks Inc. (ZYME) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Good morning, everyone and thank you for joining us for the fireside chat with Zymework's Chairman and CEO, Ken Galbraith. My name is Frank Tang. And before we get started, I'd like to read a quick disclaimer. For important disclosures, please see the Morgan Stanley research disclosure website at www.morganstanley.com/researchdisclosures. If you have any questions, please reach out to your Morgan Stanley sales representative. So Ken, good to see you again.

Good to see you.

And given the upcoming zani PDUFA date in November, maybe if you could start off by giving us an overview of your key focus areas and opportunities as it relates to zani and then maybe an overview of the pipeline platform as well.

Yes, absolutely. And great to be -- good to be back at work, good to be back at school. Biotech seems like it's back this week. So thanks for the chance to give an update on the fireside chat. We made a really important decision back in 2022 with zanidatamab to bring in Jazz as a partner along with BeiGene and not commercialize ourselves on the basis that Jazz and BeiGene would be able to support the product in a broader way than we have the capital or resources to do at that time. And I think fast forward 2 years, I couldn't be more pleased with how that's worked out for zanidatamab and for our partners, Jazz and BeiGene and for ourselves. So we find ourselves now with our lead programs, zanidatamab right in front of the first FDA action for the first indication in second-line biliary tract cancer with amazing data that we presented at ASCO, including around the -- first data around median overall survival of that population, which is pretty amazing. And so we're looking forward to, hopefully, a positive FDA action before the PDUFA date in November 29. Beyond that, we're on the cusp of top line data readout from our study HERIZON-GEA-01 study, looking at HER2-positive GEA patients in a first-line setting with zanidatamab plus chemo with or without BeiGene's PD-1, tislel. And so that's really exciting, that will read out estimated around the second quarter of next year. It's an event-driven trial. So it's a little difficult to estimate exactly, but we'll be looking to -- look at that top line data. Jazz has also just invested in a start of another Phase III trial, the EMPOWHER trial in metastatic breast cancer, which is another great opportunity for zanidatamab. And beyond that, still evaluating other opportunities where zani may have a place in HER2-targeted therapy. So really pleased with the progress we've made with zanidatamab and getting it closer to market, potentially broader applications and patient populations, setting it further and more broadly than maybe we could. I'm really excited that that's the product that we discovered, engineered, developed a long way, getting the first FDA approval of a drug in your own company is really exciting. And also with the structure of our deals with Jazz and BeiGene, it's obviously a really important part of our financial strategy because of the financial impact of the progression of that drug towards the market in terms of our milestones and royalties from Jazz and BeiGene. That's pretty great progress for the last 2 years. In the meantime, we took our capital and time and attention away from zani to allow Jazz and BeiGene to do that work. And we look to develop our wholly owned portfolio of a balance of next-generation ADCs and T cell engagers focused mainly in gynecological, thoracic and digestive system cancers. And we're right in the middle of 5 INDs in 24 months. We've got 2 cleared, 3 [indiscernible] coming. So I think the development of that wholly-owned portfolio has actually been a little bit ahead of schedule. Really happy with the quality of the work we're doing from translating these molecules from preclinical to clinical and right in front of starting to then understand early clinical data around the ADCs and T cell engagers that we've decided to engineer and move forward. So I couldn't be more pleased with the progress we've made over the course of the last year since I was sitting here with you.

Yes. Congratulations on all the progress. Maybe if you could remind me of the financials around the Jazz and BeiGene partnerships for zani. And then what these potential approvals and regulatory progress can mean for Zymeworks?

Yes. Well, we had upfront proceeds of around $375 million from Jazz back in 2022, and that was obviously important financing for us to move forward with a wholly owned portfolio of 5 assets, moved into the clinic, two of which are in the clinic now and 3 to come. That was a really important strategy for us to fund that portfolio. We're still entitled to $525 million in development milestones based upon approval of zani in different indications in different markets. That's an important part of our financing strategy. We have a royalty of between 10% and 20% depending on annual sales. And we have almost $900 million in commercial milestones based on hitting certain annual targets. So on the regulatory progress and then on the commercial side, we have a pretty strong financial interest in zani being successful beyond the fact we're really proud of being able to develop the only bispecific antibody in the HER2 targeted space, which I think has the potential to help a pretty big population who are not currently served by approved medicines, and that's why we do this. So really excited about that. BeiGene is an earlier deal. We still have some additional approval milestones and a very similar royalty in BeiGene's territory in Asia Pacific, which excludes Japan. So happy that we were able to do a partner transaction that let us bring on partners to move forward, maybe in a broader, more accelerated way than we can do ourselves, but still kept a strong financial interest in the success of that. So hopefully, we can find a way for future partnerships and collaborations to work as well with partners on other programs.

Great. Yes. [indiscernible] well. Given that you have -- we were just talking about the 5 new INDs following zani, how do you approach selecting these targets of interest?

Yes. We have our own methodology for doing this. At the core of it, is really starting with where the unmet need is. So if you look at our current focus in gynecological cancer, thoracic and GI, which includes pancreatic cancer and HCC, I mean those are really the areas that have currently the lowest 5-year overall survival rate if we look at U.S. data. And so that really is where the patient need is and our thought was, with these multifunctional therapeutics that we're able to develop like zani, which are very innovative and create some different mechanism of action in a way that we can't do with a traditional small molecule or antibody or even traditional bispecific. That's really where we want to apply our platform. So that's the starting point for us is looking at those unmet needs, then we identify a target or in some cases, pairs of targets of interest for us. we tend to look for very strong expression profiles in selecting targets. So if you look at the targets for the 5x5 in those therapeutic areas, you'll see that there is very well understood biology, but more importantly, we believe for targeted therapy to be effective. There have to be some relationship between response and expression profile of that target. So when you look at our choices of folate receptor alpha or mesothelin or GPC3 or NaPi2b, very strong expression profile. And this gives us some sense of whether it's an ADC or T cell engager, that's important for us. There's other targets that people are working on the same areas that just don't line up scientifically with the way we think about it, even though there are products being developed and be successful there. And then finally, we have this ability to be flexible about the product modality. So we can look at an ADC format. We can look at a T cell engager format. We can do different combinations of those things. We can do a bistatic ADC, we can look at dual payloads, we can look at more novel payloads. On the T cell engager, we can do our 2+1 format like we do with mesothelin, or we can go to where we're going next in our TriTCE and incorporating the CD28 costimulatory factory, other CD3, a more traditional bispecific and other forms of multi-siting antibodies even beyond that. So -- but everything starts from really trying to define the unmet patient need. And those tend to be some of the more complex cancers that just haven't been solved yet. And hopefully, some of the innovation we make around our complex biologics or multifunctional therapeutics can really do what [indiscernible] did, which is created a novel mechanism with a bispecific antibody that no one's developed before. In certain tumor types in the HER2 targeted space, it can create clinical benefit that wasn't created by more traditional antibodies or even ADCs.

Yes. I mean you were talking about the different kind of applications and modalities that you guys are doing, but how do you -- can you talk a little bit about trispecific, that's the thing you guys are able to do, but can you talk about the rationale for potentially using a trispecific and then kind of describe maybe perhaps if the formulation is a little bit more complex. And then how do you choose whether or not when to use the trispecific?

Yes. So I mean we've been working in bispecific T cell engagers for a long time. And I think we're -- like others, it's a really interesting product modality, just been limited by tolerability issues on one hand, with the nature of the mechanism and also just finding the right target. So trying to find a way to make the T cell process more efficient in engagement and also establish more durability of the process. So that's really what a lot of companies, including ourselves, have been trying to focus on. Our approach was to really try and design a number of mechanisms into one single biologic structure. I mean that's really the basis of our approach as opposed to combinations. So in this case, what we decided is that if there was a way to provide some co-stimulation to that process with CD3, just to really push it along a little bit, that's what we would look to do. So our way was to think about incorporating that in the same molecule, which makes a bispecific, a trispecific. So that's the basis of the work that we've done recently and published at ACR around both Claudin18.2 and DLL3 as targets. And clearly, the benchmark for us there is trying to understand, can we really improve efficacy and do it in a way that does not encroach upon tolerability for a patient and potentially even make it more combinable by improving tolerability. So I think if you look at some of the work that we benchmarked against more traditional bispecifics and Claudin18.2 or DLL3 in developments, you'll see from the publications of our preclinical data. You do see a different -- you do see a more efficient recruitment of T cells and you do find more durability. And fortunately, with the CD3 construct we use in that biologic structure, we're able to improve tolerability in a similar way that others have done with looking at the affinity of CD3. So for us, it's about trying to find that right structure that can accomplish something that really is a true improvement or innovation upon a more traditional bispecific modality. And I think with the data we've produced so far preclinically, certainly establish that. And now it's important for us to move one of those into clinical studies and understand from a clinical perspective in a study whether we can really prove that in humans. And so that's what we're looking at doing.

That's exciting. Next, maybe we'll talk a little bit about the mesothelin CD3. Why mesothelin? And I think if you could talk a little bit about the tumor types and problems as well, I think it would be helpful and then also describe maybe your Phase I trial plan.

Yes. So mesothelin has been a target of interest for a long time. Now very broadly expressed in a range of tumor types. All of those are on strategy for us, whether it's in gynecological cancer, whether it's in lung cancer or even in GI. There's just been a really hard target to drug. I think there's been a number of ADCs moved into the clinic against mesothelin. We just can't find tolerability with an ADC format from what we've seen to date. I think our approach is to find a solution for dealing with this issue of -- there is low expression in normal tissue mesothelin compared to tumor. How do you find a way to target the T cell engagement process where you want it, which is generally again focused on tumor, which is more high to medium expression. So that's really been the issue is trying to find that narrow window between special normal tissue and in tumor. So our approach was to, again, use our trispecific structure but design a 2-plus 1 molecule. So in this case, two of the arms are mesothelin. So there's 2 binding sites on mesothelin on the tumor to be able to activate CD3 and engage T cells in the process that we want. And so by doing that, we're able to only get engagement where we would like it. So we've seen to, in our preclinical data, avoid that in low expression in normal tissue and get a gauge in tumor where things are higher or medium. Mesothelin also has an issue of shedding. So there is soluble mesothelin. Soluble mesothelin has one binding site. So with our 2+1 format, you tend not to have this issue that has caused some problems with having soluble mesothelin. And the other important thing is geometry is extremely important. So it's not just using 2 mesothelin arms and the CD3, the geometry of placement of the structure is extremely important. One of our great skills for Azymetric from the time the company started, was the ability to screen different geometries of biologic structures that are more complicated. And so we've used that to screen many, many different structures of configurations of that ZW171. And one particular configuration seems to get stronger activity and seems to have some reduced tolerability. So it just gives us a sense that, that one is really accomplishing what we set out to do with our hypothesis. So we'd love that 2 plus 1 format. Others have done that. We've seen clinical data where we seem to be able to make improvements against other targets. If we can do this from mesothelin, it's an extremely broad target of interest, strong expression profile across multiple tumor types. And so you have the opportunity to potentially help a pretty sizable patient population. And so move that into the clinic right now. So we'll be looking at our early Phase I data just to confirm the tolerability profile. We've seen in our preclinical data. We have a very high starting dose for that -- for a T cell engager because the tolerability profile preclinically was so good. So it won't take us long to get into what should be an active range with that program in Phase I studies. And so we'll be looking to confirm first that the tolerability for a T cell engager is better than what you might have seen with a bispecific and then we'll confirm there's 2 plus 1 mechanism, we have 2 binding for mesothelin, gets you the better activity and the T cell engagement where you want it and avoid that in normal tissue. And so we should be able to see that conclusively in Phase I, and then we'll decide where to take it.

I mean you mentioned the 2 plus 1, 1 plus 1 and even also 2 plus 2. How does -- maybe if you could talk a little bit about how you end up selecting 2 plus 1 versus the other formats? Do you go into it having a view beforehand? Or is it kind of a data-driven outcome?

It's all data-driven. I mean we're able to -- because of the Azymetric platform we have, we're able to screen multiple geometries of complex biological structures very quickly. And then you just let the data decide for you for a particular target and a particular structure, what looks like the best geometry. In this case, this 2 plus 1 structure seems to be optimum for mesothelin a target. If you look at some of our work around bispecific ADCs, which we published at AACR, you can see in many of those cases, that 2 plus 2 format is, we think, is really optimal. We're thinking about how to get broader target coverage through a bispecific approach with an ADC. But one of the benefits is we can screen so many different configurations and structures very quickly in a way that's just the basis of the company. And I think we do that as well as any more larger company with more resources. So it really is one of the secrets of our protein engineering design.

Maybe could you also share some of the preclinical studies and insights from 171.

Yes. So I think we published -- we have been publishing and did publish some recent data at AACR, right before the IND was filed. And what you see there is in multiple tumor types, at least in our preclinical models. We seem to be able to get a very directed T cell engagement on tumor and not on -- in normal tissue. We don't call it conditional activation or some what others might use. But really, we're just trying to make sure we have -- that T cell engagement process is very directed where we'd like it. And that's certainly confirmed across multiple tumor types in our preclinical profile. I think we also, with our unique and novel CD3 antibody, which is being tested the first time in the ZW171's structure, we did see a much better tolerability profile in our preclinical models, which was one of the basis of us getting a really much higher starting dose than maybe traditionally has been seen with T cell engagers, which FDA agreed with our methodology for doing that. So I think we're really encouraged by what we see preclinically. Obviously, it's important to translate those findings in human clinical studies. And that's the basis of the Phase I. But if you look at mesothelin and other approaches that have been tried and failed are currently under development, that's very promising preclinical data to support a clinical program. So we're really excited to prosecute that clinical program as quickly as we can.

Great. Maybe we should shift gear a little bit and talk a little bit about ADCs. For those who are not aware, maybe if you can walk us through your approach to designing ADCs and how it might be different from the other competitors out there?

Yes. So we've been -- we started life as a protein engineering company, but we became also an ADC company with capabilities about 10 years ago. We acquired a small ADC company, but really integrated that into our research group. So it just gave us the flexibility of having different product modalities to pick against different targets. I think if you look at our early ADC work, it was very traditional, looking at really what was leading edge at that time. I think when we started to look at clinical data around a more novel approach with the DXd portfolio that was created originally by Daiichi saying, we stopped and tried to look at that data to understand if there was a better approach in ADCs. And we certainly took a completely different philosophical approach to how to design optimum ADCs using all the components and how they work together. And that's really the construct of what you'll see if you look at ZW191, which is in the clinic now or for the receptor [indiscernible] ADC and you'll see next year with the next 2 agents coming to clinic; our ZW220, we're starting NaPi2b ADC and ZW251 was our GPC3 ADC. All of those have a very similar philosophy, but a few unique attributes. I think on the payload side, we certainly admitted the [indiscernible] analogs are really the payload of today and really the preferred approach. So we did change the payloads. We took a very similar position as others have done to really get a proprietary payload that was really the best payload in ADC construct rather than trying to repurpose another drug like exatecan. And I think that was a really important approach. And we definitely took the approach of reducing the potency of that payload on the basis that a more modest payload had some benefits. And so that might have been a little counterintuitive at that time, but really certainly has been confirmed by clinical data, where we've seen others take the same approach. So it's a proprietary payload. It's a modest potency. We definitely have design and stability approach in our linker. So we think that is preferable from an efficacy and tolerability aspect. And then what we really tried to make innovation was on the antibody side because we're protein engineers at heart. So if you look at the innovation on an antibody that might be appropriate to make an ADC more effective. So we certainly focused on characteristics beyond binding to really look at antibodies, which have very strong internalizing and tumor penetration properties. And we published this at least for a folate receptor alpha ADC at AACR earlier this year, where we really believe internalization and tumor penetration is a very important factor for efficient payload delivery. And that's really what you're trying to do with an ADC. So really invest with the innovation on the antibody side, so if you look at the data on our antibody, on ZW191 and compare it to others that are approved or on the market, targeting folate receptor alpha, there's not another antibody that internalizes or penetrate tumors as well as that one in our 3D tumor steroid models that we really have belief in. So that just gives us the thought that if we can deliver that more effectively using the antibody engineering aspect and optimization, that really could improve efficacy of an ADC. It's not just about payload linker. And we really think that's one area for ADCs where additional innovation might provide benefit. So if you look at the antibodies on all 3 of those ADCs I mentioned that are in the clinic or going to the clinic, very strong on the antibody optimization to improve the properties of an ADC to really improve payload delivery without really giving up tolerability issues. So I think it's a really important piece for us. And maybe there was too much focus on payload linker technology innovation and people forgot the antibody is a really important element. And so we've really focused our attention there. If you look at the unique epitope that we're using for folate receptor alpha binding on ZW191, that seems to also get you binding across tumor types and across expression levels. And we've seen that the data we published at AACR earlier this year as well. So we're really excited about the construct we have with all 3 of those ADCs. It's our own little portfolio with our payload 519, folate receptor alpha is the first one, but very similar philosophy. So I think if we've made good decisions around payload linker strategy and antibody optimization, we might find our own little portfolio of very efficient next-generation ADCs that work in a very different way than others have been developing.

How do you -- so obviously, you just talked a lot about 191 and 220 and others. How do these fit into your broader oncology portfolio? How do you think about what the ADC kind of product candidates as a group fit into the strategy?

Yes. I mean, they're right on target for therapeutic strategy. So if you look at folate receptor alpha, a very broad patient population with that target of interest right across the areas that we're focused in. So both in gynecological ovarian and endometrial, non-small cell lung cancer, even in GI, which would be interesting. And NaPi2b is same thing on NaPi2b, very important target of interest for ovarian, non-small cell lung cancer and GI. GPC3 ADC, ZW251 is really a more specific opportunity looking at HCC. And so we're really excited about the potential of the ADCs to be brought into that regimen. And so I think it's right in sync with our therapeutic strategy and really gives us the ability across a broad patient population to prove whether the design of our ADCs can really be confirmed in human clinical studies and really be -- we've done some unique and differentiated things in our design and the question you need to find a way to ensure those manifest themselves in differences in clinical response, you can't see. It's what we saw with zani. The only bispecific antibody that was created. The way that was engineered gets you a different mechanism in the HER2-targeted space, and that gets you a different clinical response than a combination of other agents or ADCs or other antibodies, which have been developed. So that's what it's all about, finding what you're doing t hat's unique and differentiated, even in a space like HER2 or folate receptor where there's multiple developers of new medicines and then making sure that those unique and differentiated pieces of what you've engineered in that structure, can be shown to give you a different clinical response that might be accomplished with something else. And that's really the confirmation we're looking for on our approach in ADCs.

So I guess, given that there's been some setbacks with competitors in the NaPi2b space, if you could talk about how 220 would be differentiated one and how you've overcome -- you would overcome those setbacks?

Yes, I think if you look at our ADC approach alone, and I think people are starting to understand this now, the more presentations we've made. So we did some presentation at AACR around the tolerability profile of ZW191 folate receptor of ADC. And I think we'll have a chance later this year to do the same thing for ZW220 or NaPi ADC and also for ZW251 or GPC ADC. And I think what people are struck by when they look at this presentation is just the strong tolerability profile. So if you look at ZW191, for instance, in our preclinical data that support our IND in nonhuman primates, you're up to a tolerability profile of 60 milligrams per kilogram, I mean that for an ADC, that's outstanding, extremely -- what we were trying to accomplish. If you look at HER2, when it was developed, again, that was around a 30 milligram per kilogram tolerability profile. Nothing has been seen out here. You look at ZW220 in a DAR format, which is what we're moving forward with, you're talking about a tolerability profile that's at 90 milligrams per kilogram. And in DAR 4 format in GPC3 ADC, which will also do DAR 4 talk about 120 milligrams per kilogram. That gives you at least preclinically the sense. So there's a pretty wide therapeutic window and that's 3 different targets, 3 different ADC constructs but same philosophy. And so that gives you the sense that you should be able to get to what we think is an effective dose. And we're firm believers that protein dose matters in an ADC construct. So for things like antigen sync and other rationales, I think if you're going to have effective payload delivery, you have to be able to get to a specific dose of protein. So we're firm believers that, that does correlate with response. If we look at the tolerability profile that we've talked about preclinically and we'll do more of it this year. It's pretty outstanding. Like it does stand out from other ADC constructs that are being developed. And it was specifically the reason why we picked 519; for its potency, it's drug properties. It really confirmed the linker strategy that we took, and it's certainly confirmed why antibody optimization might be as important to tolerability as it is to efficient payload delivery. So that data is pretty interesting. We obviously need to go in the clinical studies, which is ZW191 and understand the AE profile in our Phase I studies. But we're at a really good starting point and really some preclinical confirmation of the philosophy we took.

Great. So we've talked a lot about this first wave of [indiscernible] after zani, and there's plenty more to do. So we're kind of looking into the future. Do you see opportunities to further develop the platform kind of in terms of payload, bispecifics, ADCs given your historical focus?

Yes. I think if you look at the last 2 years for us, we've been very focused on this 5x5 strategy, and I think it was important for us to show we can be productive from an R&D perspective and moving 5 new medicines into INDs over 24 months. It's pretty productive. At the same time, though, and I know the market hasn't paid attention and maybe because we haven't talked a lot about it, but we've really developed a much stronger preclinical portfolio behind those 5 initial agents, more novel targets, more diverse product modalities -- more product modalities and even wider therapeutic categories. So most of our work has been in solid tumors to date, but we do have opportunities to move programs forward in both hem/onc where we think there's some really interesting opportunities for multifunctional therapeutics and also an autoimmune inflammatory disease, where we think there's also some interesting things to do with our multifunctional approach and looking at broader target coverage. So I think what you're going to find, and we'll do an R&D day later this year, I think what you'll find is we'll kind of redefine a little bit of our R&D approach. And I think you folks will be surprised at the strength of the preclinical portfolio behind those first 5 initial candidates. And again, the struggle for us is just to understand how broad do you want your portfolio, how much capital you're deploying, how much capital you are deploying on your own, how much capital you deploying with partners, which allows you to get that breadth, how much more diverse we want to be in product modality, what that brings to us and diverse in therapeutic categories. But if you look forward 2 years and think about our R&D portfolio with at least clinical data being available in these first 5 candidates, what's behind that is pretty exciting. And we just need to understand how we prosecute that in Zymeworks in a very -- in a way with very great scientific discipline and rigor and financial discipline and continue to focus on really unique and differentiated approaches that we can take that hopefully turn into unique clinical responses because the mechanisms are unique and in the patient populations that we have of interest, even inside solid tumors that we define, but even more broadly as we go forward. So I think we've been using our time wisely in the preclinical portfolio, not having to talk a lot about it, but we will start to do that in the fourth quarter this year at R&D and start to get people a sense of what's next beyond the 5x5 strategy that we've talked so much about the last 2 years.

Great. We'll look forward to learning more at the R&D Day. I guess finally, my last question is turning more to the financials a bit. If you can give us a brief overview of the cash position and what key milestones you expect to achieve with the current runway?

Yes. So we -- it was very important for us in 2022 to get a good financial base for the company. So by the end of 2022, we started with $500 million in capital and that just gave us the thought that we could develop these 5 molecules into the clinic on our own, keep them wholly owned unencumbered and move them forward and adequately fund them. And that's what we have been doing. At our last quarter, we still had just under $400 million. So I think we've been doing a really good job of moving forward pretty aggressively with the portfolio, with good scientific discipline of what we choose to move forward and the quality of the work behind that, but also with the financial discipline to make sure we keep that strong base underneath us so that we can pursue opportunities aggressively as they show up in the portfolio in early clinical data as well as continue to invest and accelerate in the preclinical portfolio that I mentioned a little earlier. So I think we've done a good job of that, obviously, in front of us, we've got additional milestones and royalties hopefully coming up from zanidatamab, and that's pretty important from cash. Those are also obviously a pretty valuable milestone and royalty streams that others like to monetize from time to time. So obviously, that's some capital we could access if we need to. And obviously, being in antibody drug conjugates and T-cell engagers with some pretty innovative molecules, gives us some pretty good optionality on how we think about the future of partnerships and collaborations, what we keep ourselves to continue to invest in longer term, how we bring in partners to maybe help us accelerate and also share capital and financial risk around programs. So there's lots of optionality for us. So our cash runway is forecast to go into the second half of 2027, including the impact of the stock repurchase program that we're doing now. But I think when we think about our business, we have such a nice financial base and we have such confidence in the financial side of the business. We don't usually spend as much time thinking about it as maybe other biotechs has. It's a bit of a luxury, but it's really what we need to do. Put ourselves in a financial position, we're going to let the company grow as the opportunities present themselves and not be constricted on the financial side and do it in a way that pursues an optimal capital structure with a reasonable amount of dilution for investors. And I think if you look at our track record over the past 3 years, I think we've done that very well. So we've had a nice balance of partnership cash flows, things coming in from our earlier licensing deals and equity has been pretty modest over the last 3 years to reach it. But I think we'll put ourselves in a financial position to let this company grow at the rate of the scientific quality and the clinical data that we get and I think that growth trajectory is going to be pretty exciting. So we'll make sure that we keep that strong financial base underneath it.

Great. Well, that's all the questions I have for you. And thank you so much for your time today.

That's great. I appreciate being here, and I look forward to being back next year in the same seat and report some great progress.

Absolutely. Thank you.