Jo Brewer: Yes. We are planning multiple next-gen approaches with the PRAME candidate with ADP-600, and we do think that those next gen approaches will be part of broadening the franchise out to multiple tumor types. It may not be that CD8 is optimal in all of them, although that will certainly be one of the ones that we’re using. But we’re using some other approaches as well, so one particularly to tackle longevity to hopefully increase the duration of response. But also we’re looking at a switch receptor as well, thinking that maybe in different contexts you will actually have greater success with different candidates.
Dylan Drakes: Great. Thanks so much. I appreciate that.
Operator: Thank you. Our following question is from Yanan Zhu from Wells Fargo Securities. Please go ahead.
Yanan Zhu: Great. Thanks for taking our questions. First, a question about MAGE-A4. So you’re enrolling head and neck and urothelial patients in earlier line setting in SURPASS-1. I was wondering, how many patients do you aim to enroll in those indications? What would be a bar for success? Obviously, you had great data in your previously reported patients. But going forward, what’s your bar for success for the additional patients to be enrolled and when we might be able to see data from those additional patients. Thank you.
Dennis Williams: Yes. Thanks so much. So we haven’t specifically guided to the exact number of patients that we would intend to enroll. I think that we’ve seen small to moderate data sets in head and neck and bladder cancer with four patients having been – four patients in the data set with head and neck and seven with urothelial. And I’d like to see us get closer to the size data sets that we have seen in Phase 1 with ovarian cancer to be able to make the most informed decisions about how to prosecute those two indications going forward. With respect to when you would see that data, it certainly wouldn’t be in the early part of next year, and we haven’t provided specific guidance. But we’re enrolling those patients actively now, and we’ll hope to be able to provide additional information in the future.
Yanan Zhu: Got it. In terms of key metrics for success, would the new data be held to the same kind of level as the few patients reported or where does the bar start in terms of positive signal?
Dennis Williams: Well, I think that for response rate, what we’ve seen in Phase 1 is really quite remarkable in the number of patients that we’ve dosed. I would love to see with a larger data set that, that kind of response rate is maintained. Although, for example, in head and neck cancer if it doesn’t turn out to be 75% responders but something slightly lower than that, I think we’d still be thrilled. The truth is that we’d be ultimately from the standpoint of being able to provide meaningful benefit to patients, I think that response rates in the spaces that we would likely pursue need to be north of 35% or so and durations of response need to be in the – at least in the five to six-month range for us to be able to think about later-stage programs. But we’re incredibly enthusiastic about the data that we’ve seen. And I think that we just need to consolidate that with additional clinical information to move forward.
Yanan Zhu: Great. If I may, sorry, add one question on urothelial cancer here. There was a recently practice-changing data out of the, I think EV-302 trial for the ADC plus PD-1 in frontline setting. Does that have any impact, do you think to the positioning or how you conduct the study for the urothelial patients?
