And so we await as you do any potential updates to the guidelines, difficult for us to predict in what shape or form or timing that might be in. So we’ll stay tuned for that and see if there are any updates. Dan?
Dan Martin: Yes. Thanks, Eun, for the question regarding average duration of therapy. It’s a really important dynamic that was key in driving the really solid growth that we saw year-over-year. As I noted in my remarks €“ prepared remarks, we demonstrated about 20% growth year-over-year with 97 million in the U.S. in 2022. And that was driven by a number of factors, but importantly by volume growth. And the volume growth was driven principally by this increasing average duration of therapy that we see. And the driver for that is really just a maturing of the real world persistency curve, or said another way maturing of the real world sort of prevalent treated pool that now more fully reflects patients who have had extended and prolonged benefit from QINLOCK which just pulls the average duration of therapy up now beyond the median PFS that we saw in the INVICTUS study.
And that’s really important because we expect that to continue to be a gradual growth driver over time. We had noted €“ we expect that could potentially reach eight to eight and a half months, and there’s a number of proof points for that which I could certainly go into, but we feel confident that ultimately eight to eight and a half month average duration of therapy is very achievable. However, we have noted that’s a gradual phenomenon. That’s a gradual trend that we will expect to see develop over time. So it’s hard to predict exactly what timetable that will develop in, but that’s why we underscored, we see that as a peak average duration of therapy. And we don’t expect that to be something that changes dramatically quarter-to-quarter, so likely something that we will share additional color on sort of as warranted over time.
Eun Yang: Thank you. Can I ask you some follow-up questions?
Steve Hoerter: Please do Eun. Go ahead.
Eun Yang: Yes. So a question on the INSIGHT trial. So based on the sub-group analysis that you’ve done from the INTRIGUE. It looks like you may need to screen about 400 patients to 500 patients. So question number one is how long do you think it would take to enroll about 54 patients? And secondly, in the currently in practice, is this a mutational analysis after imatinib done routinely? Thank you.
Steve Hoerter: Yes, Eun. Thanks for the two questions. Good questions. So I’ll take both of those. So first with respect to the INSIGHT study, you’re right. Our sites will need to screen patients for eligibility for enrollment in this study. We €“ from our experience with INTRIGUE, which we ran as a large global study, multiple sites, we have the capability of course, and have demonstrated the capability to run these large studies to open multiple sites and to find patients for enrollment. At the site level of course, we know that physicians will be using an easy liquid diagnostics or a liquid biopsy where they simply draw blood and there’s a five to 10 day turnaround time to identify patients. And furthermore, sites will know generally the primary mutation status for their patients already from their time of diagnosis.
