Arthur He: Sure. No worries. And then my second question is on the SCM program. So congrats on the progress. And so for the data update that we expect for the next year, could you first give some update on the enrollment that for the study? And regarding the update, what kind of data set we could expect?
Jay Short: Well, the remits active across many centers, which we had to roll out across. And so we’re happy that that’s rolling. And I think it fits our timeline, and we should be able to – I don’t know when we’re going to give the first update on that. It will certainly be – we’re just basically would be a little bit similar to how we’re handling CTLA-4, but I don’t think we would give too much insight on the early doses because they’re probably less relevant. But as we start to march up towards, I would say, EC50 where we start seeing efficacy expectations, and I think we’ll communicate more on it. But clearly, we’re on track for next year as everything looks right now. So – and that’s an exciting asset, no question.
Arthur He: Congrats on the progress.
Jay Short: Thank you.
Operator: Thank you. And our next question is from Tony Butler with E.F. Hutton.
Tony Butler: Jay, two questions on 471, please. One is at 700 mg Q3W. — do you — will you have enough durability in the 3 to 6 patients that actually tells you that you need to move forward with whatever 2-ish or 3-ish cohorts you wish to move forward with question one. Number two is, though, you said you’ve done a lot of work on each of those 7 cohorts. The notion that anyone may be better than another, I guess, would you — are you limited to 2 is really what I’m saying, which is what you stated in your corporate presentation.
Jay Short: What do you mean limited to 2 comments?
Tony Butler: That selected the 2 for potential expansion for example, in RCC or whatever.
Jay Short: Okay. Yes. I think we have a lively discussion around that exact point, Tony. I’m kind of glad you asked it. I think the reason we set up that too was because we’re confident we’re doing too. I don’t mean that – and I don’t mean that to say we’re not going to – couldn’t do more than 2. But for now, I think 2 looks pretty solid. And the – there could be a decent argument to consider more. I think with respect to what dose we end up with and durability, I think that remains to be seen, but one’s got to love the fact that you’re at 5 mg per kg with a plus 3 on the PD-1 side and you haven’t got a DLT and now we’re able to at least dose the people and we’ll just see patients and where it goes at the 10-meg with 3 mgs per kg on PD-1.
This it’s close to uncharted territory. You adjust for PK and adjust for a few other things. We really like where this asset is going. And I think it’s going to – I’m hopeful it will highlight what I think is the powerful advantage of CAP technology.
Tony Butler: Within that statement, but the real notion is — is there a — is there any reason to assume, even though you may — for the sake of discussion, we don’t know. Any notion to say that 2x 30.71 dose, 350 to 700, let’s say, really gives you added efficacy despite the fact that the side effect profile…
Jay Short: Well, I think we know it from other…
Tony Butler: Manage [ph]?
