So I think it’s encouraging now that we’ve got the progression-free survival and overall survival to back up that response rate and durability of response. And I do think there are differences in this setting between IHC 3+ and 2+, which is something we’ve also seen in other settings as well. And that, if you like, establishes the differentiation from the standard of care. I also think it should you say, though, that there are patients beyond the IHC3+ that are clearly benefiting beyond what you might expect from that 1 of the care chemotherapy. So what I would say is that a conversation with regulatory authorities, including the FDA, are ongoing. As I said, initial discussions are encouraging. And as those develop, we can provide more details.
Pascal Soriot: Thanks, Susan. Next question is from Richard Parkes of Exane. Richard, over to you.
Richard Parkes : Hi. Thanks, Pascal. Yes, just a couple of questions. Firstly, just to push a little bit more on TL01 just to help me understand the difference and level of optimism at the time of the press release and what you’re communicating now, because as you’ll know, your mission of the words clinically meaningful is what’s caused nervousness. But clearly, given the decision to buy your optimism today, you do see the overall benefit as me. So can you just help us understand a little better the context that contradiction somewhat in the communication? Is it additional doses to readout? Or was there some other reason why you thought you couldn’t include that word in the press release? Second question, simple just could you update us on progress for us to make to Phase 3, I know we’re waiting for the durability of response data at the lower dose to be presented. And I just wonder, will that be an ESMO or worldwide? Thank you.
Pascal Soriot: Susan?
Susan Galbraith : So the definition of clinically meaningful in terms of what clinicians are looking for will take into account not only the difference in medium, but shape of the KM curves. Obviously, the hazard ratio, which is what the trial is often designed to power together with the response rate, durability response and the safety profile as well as the patient population that’s included. So I think — what I would just reiterate really is that when we look at the data, and we find out now that it’s encouraging, and we’ve had discussions with the FDA and on the basis of encouraging response we are proceeding to file. I can’t go into more details today, but we’d be happy to have more conversations when we’ve actually been the opportunity to present the data as an upcoming medical congress.
With regards to your question on volume, the program is advancing at pace we have indicated that we’ve got a number of Phase 2 trials in planning. We’re proceeding again at pace with those. And as we initiate those and as we have more mature data, we will share those data, but not necessarily on the time lines that you’re asking for. So at the appropriate time, we will share the data in the public Congress.
Pascal Soriot: Thank you, Susan. I mean, Richard, just to add, I mean, our partner, Daiichi Sankyo and us, actually, we have a policy of only disclosing high-level results, as you know, and not the details. So what you saw is the announcement relative to the high level results. What we have seen is the detailed results and not probably also explain some of the discrepancies, but you’ll understand better when you see the results of future Congress. And the next question is from Christopher Uhde at SEB.
