Dave Lennon: Yes, sure. So Joe, it’s hard for us to tell exactly what patients end up where. What we saw is that the orders coming through — this is an IV product, and therefore, we don’t get physician level data, but we get institutional level data and what we saw was a correlation between reductions in commercial business at some of our largest accounts that often were highly correlated with our PRECISION sites, with some of our largest enrolling PRECISION sites. At a patient level, we don’t know exactly how that plays out, but we would anticipate that maybe a few of those patients were spontaneous use like non-PEComa patients, that were being treated commercially and that physicians took the opportunity instead of enrolling those patients in a commercial — on a commercial basis may have enrolled them into the clinical trial.
So it’s not PEComa patients into clinical trial because that’s obviously an exclusion criteria in this case. And remember that we’re talking about swings of 10 patients that create the gap that we saw in Q1 or last 10 patients or less that create the gap that we saw in Q1. And so it takes very few sets of decisions actually to swing the business that way. And so now with Precision fully enrolled, et cetera, the only option for patients that are looking for that last line opportunity in an — in a non-promoted indication would be to go back to that commercial business.
Joseph Catanzaro: Okay. Got it. That’s helpful. Maybe just two quick clinical questions. I know you guys have said this would be your expectations, but wondering if you could confirm that within PRECISION1, the sort of baseline features for the full population aligns with the first 40 patients, meaning heavily pretreated, diverse set of tumor types. And then for the G12C decision to terminate that, was that based on any data that had emerged out of that trial? Thanks.
Dave Lennon: Sure. So the — on the baseline population, we — from what we can see, it’s consistent with what we’ve seen before. But obviously, we haven’t fully evaluated the data to that, and that will only come when we do the interim analysis on the fully cleaned and completed data set. The — and on the Mirati decision, that decision had nothing to do with efficacy or safety that we saw in that trial. And in fact, we have very little data from that trial so far. And it’s more — it’s very much a financial and strategic decision to focus on the endometrial program as well as the NET program, we’re really excited about the potential for nab-sirolimus in those indications. Thanks, Joe. Any other questions?
Operator: Thank you. One moment for our –
Dave Lennon: Thanks, Joe. We’ll go on to the next question — next.
Operator: Our next question comes from Tara Bancroft with TD Cowen. Please go ahead.
Tara Bancroft: Hi. Good morning. So just want to follow up on the last question that Joe asked. So how much difference in cost savings can we expect now over the next year or two now that you’re ending this agreement?
Dave Lennon: Sure. Scott, do you want to comment on outlook for spending?
Scott Giacobello: Yes. Tara, thanks for the question. Yes, we haven’t shared that information, specific information on the individual program. There will be savings, but we haven’t shared that information.
Tara Bancroft: Okay. Thanks.
Dave Lennon: Thanks, Tara. Anything else?
Tara Bancroft: No, I’m good. Thank you very much.
Dave Lennon: Okay. Operator, we can move to any other questions.
Operator: Our next question comes from Ahu Demir with Ladenburg. Please go ahead.
Ahu Demir: Good morning. Thank you for taking my questions. Two from us. First one, a follow-up to Roger’s question. Could you provide more guidance on the EEC program? What are the benchmarks? And what would success look like in this interim analysis for this setting?
Dave Lennon: Super. Thanks for the question, Ahu. Loretta, would you like to comment on that?
Loretta Itri: Sure. Good morning.
Ahu Demir: Good morning, Loretta.
Loretta Itri: Hi. How are you, Ahu? So the — so this is a — it’s a Simon’s 2-stage design. And the first cohort is 10 patients, and we’re pretty far along in accruing those folks. And the second portion will be an additional 19 patients for a total of 29 patients in the study. It’s designed to show on the basis of overall response. We’re looking for a response rate that exceeds 20%. And our expectation, of course, is that it may be higher, but that would be — that would give you the kind of guidance I think you’re looking for.
Ahu Demir: That sounds great. Yes, thanks for that, Loretta. My second question is regarding the Mirati collaboration. Based on our scientific understanding, there’s a strong rationale between albumin uptake also, therefore, nab-sirolimus uptake in RAS-mutated cancers. So curious, if you will be obtaining the clinical data and do you plan to pursue this setting in the future? Any RAS-mutated cancers and any aspect on that side?
Dave Lennon: I think, Ahu, we’ll see how the data comes in on the patients that were enrolled in the trial and make that decision at a later point in time. Right now, we have no plans to expand into that area.
Ahu Demir: Got it. Okay. Thanks for taking my questions.
Dave Lennon: Super. Thank you. Operator, any other questions?
Operator: I’m showing no further questions at this time. I’d like to turn it back to Dave for closing remarks.
