So we would expect that physicians would really be interested in looking at their primary exon 11 patients, of course, and understanding what their secondary mutation profile as they consider them for enrollment in the study. So we have a lot of confidence based on our demonstrated capabilities in this area of running these sorts of studies. And we’re looking forward to getting INSIGHT up and running at the end of this year. Now with respect to practice within the U.S. or globally even there isn’t a need €“ hasn’t been a need up until now for physicians to consider looking at the emergence of secondary mutations post imatinib treatment. But what we know from other analogs, whether it’s looking at lung cancer or other solid tumors, is that these sorts of liquid biopsies, these blood-based diagnostics see very good adoption.
As I noted, these are easy to run. It’s simply a tube of blood that’s sent off to a lab with a five to 10 day turnaround time. So we don’t expect, especially given the nature of the data that we’ve now presented with QINLOCK in this group of patients. We don’t expect adoption of a diagnostic to be a barrier to use at all. In fact, we think there’ll be a considerable amount of enthusiasm among physicians and patients to understand what their secondary mutation status is. So they’ll know whether QINLOCK could be an option for them in the second-line setting.
Eun Yang: Thank you.
Operator: Please stand by for our next question. Our next question comes from Chris Raymond with Piper Sandler. Your line is now open.
Nicole Gabreski: Thanks and good morning. This is Nicole Gabreski on for Chris. Thanks for taking the questions. Maybe just two from us. One, just in terms of using ctDNA as a potential companion diagnostic for patient identification. I guess, can you talk about how that would be integrated if the subset analysis data is included early in NCCN guidelines maybe versus if you get regulatory approval in the second line KIT exon 11, 17, 18 setting. Are there any differences just in the setup? I guess we’re trying to understand if it’s important to have a cleared or approved companion diagnostic in the setting? And then maybe second just around vimseltinib, going back to your ESMO presentation last year, I know that you guys were highlighting that responses deep and over time, but ORR at the 25-week time point for vimseltinib match the pexidartinib label.
And we understand that the safety profile will be the key differentiator, allowing patients to stay on therapy longer. But I guess how will that be effectively captured within the Phase 3 MOTION study and how does that translate into a potential label?
Steve Hoerter: Good questions, Nicole. Thanks for those. So let me take first the ctDNA question. And then I’ll ask Matt just to comment on the MOTION study and the data we’ve presented last year at ESMO and touched on the data we’re collecting as part of MOTION that would then inform a label and the profile of the drug in a commercial setting upon a potential approval. But first for the ctDNA data in just today, and I think your question Nicole was in the present day environment, even absent of regulatory approval for QINLOCK and this patient population, what could physicians do in practice? We know that of course, these source of blood-based panels are already available. So from companies like Foundation Medicine, Guardant Health and the like.
