Unidentified Analyst: Hi. This is Paul on for Michael. Thanks for taking our questions. I have a follow-up on the PRAME. Just on the competitive landscape given that there was some updated data this morning from Immatics with plans to move forward in melanoma and some signals in ovarian and uterine. What is your view on the clinical landscape so far for PRAME? And what’s your confidence in potentially being able to address cancer types beyond those listed like lung and breast cancer with the enhanced sensitivity TCR? That’s my first question. Second one is just quickly on lete-cel. Can you help put that interim data from IGNYTE-ESO in context with what you’ve shown with afami-cel and any view on how that might translate over to a survival benefit? Thank you.
Adrian Rawcliffe: Certainly. So maybe I’ll just touch on the PRAME with the competitive landscape. I think we’re quite delighted to see the data out from Immatics’ PRAME program today. I think that really is a very strong validation, if anywhere needed, of the opportunity for TCR-based therapies in the solid tumor space, particularly those targeting cancer testes antigens like PRAME, like MAGE-A4, like NY-ESO. And I think this is just further validation that the future or at least a significant part of the future of cell therapy in solid tumor lies through these approaches. So we’re very, very happy about that. And really in the cell therapy space there are only really two significantly advanced PRAME programs with specific engineered TCRs. And I think therefore there’s a lot of opportunity for product development in that space to leverage what we believe from our perspective will be a best-in-class program.
And I just point out that you compare the competition there to the competition against almost any other cell therapy target. I would refer you to CD19 and BCMA by a way of example. And the space is wide open and these are clearly the two leading programs in that space. With respect to lete-cel and the data, I think I’m going to take that comment and just in a short summarized fashion say the data at the moment looks to be quite comparable to the data with a afami-cel, although obviously it’s in a larger, broader population because it includes MRCLS. But a 40% response rate and a decent but slightly immature durability I think is consistent with what we’ve seen with the afami-cel. And so we look forward to getting that program back considering it, and I’ll update everybody in the New Year about our plans for that.
Unidentified Analyst: Thanks very much.
Adrian Rawcliffe: Thanks Paul.
Operator: Thank you. Following question is from Jonathan Chang from Leerink Partners. Please go ahead.
Dylan Drakes: Hi guys, thanks for taking my question. This is Dylan Drakes on for Jonathan Chang. It seems you had a bit of a step up in R&D expense this quarter. I was wondering how we should think about spend going forward with the afami-cel going to commercial stage, the TCR² assets being discontinued and the PRAME program entering the clinic.
Adrian Rawcliffe: So Gavin, our CFO, do you want to take that question?
Gavin Wood: Yes. So the step up this quarter in R&D was down to two reasons. One was full first quarter of TCR² R&D expenses included, and secondly is a reduction in the R&D tax credit due to a change in the tax regime here in the UK, which means the offsetting tax credits declining. That legislation is actually under review. In terms of going forward clearly we’ve got afami-cel commercial launch, we’ve got the great data we’ve just seen on lete-cel and we’ll be updating all our development plans early in the New Year.
Dylan Drakes: Great. Thanks so much. If I can just ask one follow-up. How are you guys currently thinking about your second gen versus your first gen product candidates? And do you plan on utilizing the CD8 co-receptor transduction with your ADP-600 candidate as well.
