Michael Morrissey: Yes. Thanks for the question, Chris. Yes, I would not certainly assume those two activities are mutually exclusive. We have plenty of cash. We’re generating free cash every quarter. We’ve been profitable for years. I think we have the appetite to do both. As Chris and others — we’ve all talked about previously, the share buyback between last year and this year will be $1 billion. The idea that we want to add additional late-stage assets to our portfolio, certainly makes sense in the context of growing the business in terms of both top line and bottom line growth by having a diversified offering of products that we can use in the context of our development and commercialization platform to move the needle for patients and shareholders.
So we are certainly very excited about the options we have ahead of us. Getting beyond getting certainty with the ANDA is the first priority. Once we have that in place then I think the next steps are relatively straightforward with how we want to maneuver the business. So thanks for the question and happy to follow up at a later time if you want.
Operator: Thank you. Please standby for our next question. Our next question comes from the line of Derek Archila with Wells Fargo. Your line is open.
Derek Archila: Hey, guys. Thanks for taking the question. So just, I guess one from us, how do you envision the Cabo approvals in both prostate and neuroendocrine tumors, how does that change the volume growth profile of Cabo relative today? How much acceleration could we potentially see in the future? Thanks.
P.J. Haley: Yes. Derek, this is P.J. So certainly, we don’t want to give guidance beyond this year, specifically on revenue or volume. I guess, I’d kind of reiterate some of my earlier comments with regards to NET obviously and CRPC, for that matter, both significant areas of unmet medical need. As I mentioned, NET is 8,000 patients in the second line plus setting and more broadly, we have the potential to be really have a broad opportunity in that marketplace. CRPC is obviously a really large market, again, ultimately with limited treatment options with regards to primary treatment options being chemo, NHT, radioligand therapy, but you’re talking about tens of thousands of patients. So we’re very excited about the opportunities. And should we have the opportunity to bring them to market and help patients, we think there’ll be really significant opportunity for growth.
Operator: Thank you. Please standby for our next question. Our next question comes from the line of Silvan Tuerkcan with Citizens JMP. Your line is open.
Silvan Tuerkcan: Yeah, thank you. Congrats on the quarter and thanks for taking my question. I just want to ask about the overlap in sales force and call points between RCC and a potential sales force for prostate cancer. And basically, what I’m trying to get to, is, can you tell us what’s kind of the incremental cost for potentially launching NET in prostate cancer?
Michael Morrissey: Yes. Silvan, thanks for the question, P.J., why don’t you address both in terms of prostate RCC and then on the GI side, NET and HCC.
P.J. Haley: Yes, happy to, Mike. Thanks for the question, Silvan. So I’ll start with RCC. We see really significant overlap in terms of GU oncologists, right? So whether it’s in the community setting or even an academia in particular, GU-onc focus are really treating the majority of these GU indications. So again, significant overlap there, which is potentially great for a number of reasons. One, we really, as I mentioned in my prepared remarks, we can leverage our existing RCC infrastructure. So without having to invest significantly to build that for a potential prostate cancer launch. And two, these are physicians who are very familiar with Cabozantinib in RCC managing side effects, et cetera. So that could be certainly something that would be in our favor as well.
With regards to NET, a lot of these is 50% plus really 60% plus are GI related. We have another sort of sleeve of our team, if you will, is GI-focused, and there’s a heavy overlap there as well with our call points, both in the community as well as, again, in academia, who are — physicians who are treating NET as well as those GI tumors. So again, it’s a really nice potential for us to leverage our existing infrastructure as well as launch into a market where a lot of the prescribers have existing comfort and familiarity and frankly, positive experiences according to all our market [Technical Difficulty] tumors whether it’s HCC, thyroid cancer, DTC or in many different settings in renal cell carcinoma. So that’s certainly something we look forward to.
Operator: Thank you. Please standby for our next question. Our next question comes from the line of David Lebowitz with Citi. Your line is open.
David Lebowitz: Thank you very much for taking my question. When you discussed the strategy Zanza versus Cabo going forward, it seems it’s clearly an effort to focus on different overall indications. Does that strategy evolve in the event of an unfavorable MSN2 ruling?
Michael Morrissey: Yes, David, thanks for the question. Yes, I wouldn’t want to — we wouldn’t want to speculate on that right now. So I think we’ve made the commitment to evolve the overall approach in terms of how we’re developing TKIs, VEGFR are targeting TKIs over to Zanza, and that’s still the plan going forward. We think we have what looks like to be an emerging improvement in overall activity and safety, the totality of data. It’s still early. We would suggest that. So we’re all in on Zanza and there’s a lot of excitement there in the community. And we’re having, I think, a lot of very interesting productive discussions about how we might combine with Zanza. So lots of opportunity, a lot to do there. So stay tuned.
Operator: Thank you. Please standby for our next question. Our next question comes from the line of Jeff Hung with Morgan Stanley. Your line is open.
Jeffrey Hung: Thanks for taking my question. Following up on the neuroendocrine tumor prevalent population. Given heterogeneity of tumors, are you planning to stratify the prevalent population to focus on specific subgroups initially? I appreciate any details you can provide. Thanks.
