Garry Menzel: Yes. I guess I’ll take that one. This is Garry speaking. So first of all, I think the guidance is similar to what we provided before in the case of ovarian cancer, where we have a readout at the end of the year for that particular cohort. On 510, the same. The difference, I think, is in the new guidance provided today is that in the middle of the year, we intend to showcase the mesothelioma patients that we treated in the Phase II trial before we narrowed the focus to ovarian cancer. If you recall, we did let people know that if there was any excess manufacturing capacity, we would devote it to mesothelioma patients, and we now intend to release some of that clinical data, including key translational data that speaks to the impact of checkpoint inhibitors in the middle of the year.
So that’s in terms of guidance. In terms of where there are synergies going forward, I think there are a number because we have several overlapping clinical sites between the two companies. We also have some unique clinical sites between the two. We have an ability since both of us are focused on ovarian cancer to co-screen for MAGE-A4 and mesothelin, which makes us a little more attractive to physicians who know that they’ll get a cell therapy treatment for their patients if they work with us. And so I see synergies there, which may help us as we go into next year, move things along a little faster. 510 is more constrained because of the design. Remember, it’s dose escalating. You have to move in a steady fashion cohort-by-cohort as you move up each screening.
So, I don’t think we can move that along much faster than we’re doing already.
Mara Goldstein: Okay. Thanks so much.
Adrian Rawcliffe: Thanks.
Operator: Our next question comes from Tony Butler of EF Hutton. Please go ahead.
Tony Butler: Thanks very much. Adrian, two questions. One is on the CD8 program in ovarian cancer. I just wanted to – while in – the other cancers of head and neck and bladder, they were first and second-line patients. Are these later line patients in ovarian cancer that will be treated? That’s question one. And question two, there was some statements about expanding the clean room space in the Navy Yard of vis-Ã -vis manufacturing. I assume that is not necessarily a component of what is required to complete the CMC components, et cetera, as it relates to afami-cell. And even though the expansion would allow for more afami-cell to be created, I just wondered if you could provide a few words on that rationale. Thank you.
Adrian Rawcliffe: Thanks, Tony. So you are correct, whilst the cohorts that we are initiating in the SURPASS trial in head and neck cancer and bladder cancer are designed to be in earlier lines of first and second line, roughly in conjunction with standard of care pembrolizumab, the patients in SURPASS-3 and the population where we believe we can develop that towards a registration is in the platinum-resistant setting. And again, I just want to touch on the – that trial has two arms to it, both monotherapy with cells alone and combination with pembrolizumab, both independently designed against historic controls, giving us potentially sort of two shots on goal there. And that’s based on – and this is important because I think what we’re doing now is we’re transitioning out from and we have been for some time in sarcoma from the proof of principle of a technology into actually developing products in specific indications, taking account of the treatment paradigms in those indications, and that’s why this makes sense in that ovarian setting.
