Becker Hewes: We have the Project Optimus philosophy in mind as we look at the doses and we intend to have a very close relationship with the FDA with respect to making sure that we’ve covered the basis that they’re looking as to understand the right single agent and combination dose so that as we go into bigger trials, we’re not having to do a lot of dose finding beyond this initial trial. So Project Optimus is really the lens that we look at all of our programs through at this point.
Peter Lawson: Great. Thanks so much.
Operator: Our next question comes from David Lebowitz from Citi. Your line is now open.
David Lebowitz: Thank you very much for taking my question. I got one on ASM and one on ISM. On ASM, I guess, to start, there was – we talked last quarter about specifically the adoption and the associated hematological neoplasm group. And I know you had data at ASH, a lot of it focused on that specific group. I guess my thoughts are what – how are things looking now? And how do you think that data could help?
Kate Haviland: And then, David, you said you had a second question on ISM, just…
David Lebowitz: You want the ISM upfront? On the ISM, I guess, specifically, you were talking about how different doctors are going to prescribe the therapy in different ways. And my question is, when reporting your data at Quad AI later this month, how deeply will you go into the benefit on each specific symptom within the TSS score? And is there any thoughts as to which symptoms most doctors are emphasizing most in your view?
Kate Haviland: All right. Thanks David for both those questions. I think starting with advanced SM and SMA, I mean as we have talked about, we are the standard of care in the patients who are treated for their advanced SM, which tend to be the patients who have MCL and aggressive SM and that it’s the SM, AHN patients where they’re just a very complex clinical presentation. And that’s the group of patients that we have worked through that very compelling data, as you mentioned, that we saw at ASH. We’re looking at monotherapy impact of AYVAKIT both on response rate, symptoms and overall survival. It is certainly fueled conversations with prescribers. And in that group of patients, we’re changing practice, right? And they’re very complex clinical patients.
And so that’s where we’ll continue to see that work as we expand the overall size of the SM market, which is why the growth has moderated a bit there. As you think about the ISM presentation at PIONEER, we’re going to show kind of the totality of data, including the impact on patients across all symptoms within the TFS. In terms of – as Christy was mentioning, different specialties have different context for clinical trial data. PROs are commonly used in the allergy immunology space, not as much in hematology. Other measures are more common to hematology. And so what is great about this data set is that we see compelling and consistent impact across all of these measures. And so that is – it’s something that can appeal to all of our potential prescribers.
And so I think we’re really looking forward to getting that out. In terms of the symptomatology that physicians are most focused on, it’s really what impacts the patient the most. It’s not that they want to see one or the other, they want their patient’s quality of life to improve. And so that is, again, why we design the PRO to look at a array of symptoms because one given patient may have predominantly neuro cog symptoms and very – not much in other domains. Another given patient may have predominant skin symptoms and not on other domains. And so it’s a very heterogeneic disease presentation. And that’s exactly why we designed the PRO’s we did and we’ll be showing all of that data.
