And in terms of timing, we are actively working to file an IND next year with this one.
Carly Kenselaar: Thank you.
Operator: [Operator Instructions] Our next question comes from Arthur He with H.C. Wainwright. Please go ahead.
Arthur He: Hi, everyone. This is Arthur on for RK. Thanks for taking my question. So I just wonder for the 579 data at ASH. Could you give us more color on the safety side, especially for that grade 4 neutropenia. Could you give us more color on that?
Mondher Mahjoubi: So I’m not sure I’m getting the question right. So far, actually, based on the abstract the safety profile of SAR’579 or IPH6101 was reported as favorable. There were 1 grade for neutropenia, but we don’t have details more than what is in the abstract. So clearly, something to ask when the data we’ll present at ASH in a couple of days. But a reminder, those are heavily pretreated patients, median number of prior line of therapy most of the patients received venetoclax a significant number went through stem cell transplantation. And this is, of course, interesting to better understand the reason of this grade 4 neutropenia, whether it is disease related or drug related.
Arthur He: Thanks for that. My second question is I’m just curious when you are evaluating different binder, which is suitable for the ANKET or versus the ADC platform, what kind of criteria or selection preference for each side? Just curious from your perspective. Thanks.
Mondher Mahjoubi: I’m going to hand over to Yannis to give you a more detailed answer. But as we explained in the past, of course, some of the binders are more suitable for ANKET the ones that internalize actually are by design, favorable candidates for the ADC. But Yannis can give you more color on our thinking on how we select those binders.
Yannis Morel: Yes, it’s – but it’s obviously a target-by-target discussion because you know that some targets do have this property to internalize and some do not. And depending on this property of the target, the structure and the ability to generate binders that are hitting the target at different epitope. We can generate binder that rather staying at the sales pace and are a pretty good candidate for ANKET molecule and others that do internalized. And this we are screening that in vitro with pretty classical methods that are widely used by people developing ADCs. And we are checking the ability to induce the direct killing based on the expression level of the target. So there are also many more parameters that we are taking into account like the medical need, the development path and the potential opportunity for this molecule. But in terms of antibody characteristic, this is really when we are using in one of our early filters.
Arthur He: Thanks for taking my questions.
Operator: Our next question comes from the line of Lisa Bayko with Evercore ISI. Please go ahead.
Jingming Chen: Hi. This is Jingming on for Lisa. Thanks for taking our questions. So I have two questions. So one is again maybe I missed that in the prepared remarks, but can you give us an update on your clinical hold for lacutamab? And then my second question is for your PTCL update at ASH. What should be – what will be an appropriate benchmark for this data? Thank you.
Mondher Mahjoubi: The first question is about lacutamab clinical hold, you said, I think, and probably it’s time an opportunity for Sonia to provide an update on the partial clinical hold for lacutamab. And then I’ll take the question on PTCL.
Sonia Quaratino: Certainly. As mentioned before, the FDA placed the partial clinical hold due to one case of HLH that was reported in one subject. We, of course, intend to lift the partial hold as soon as possible once the FDA request that all been satisfied. However, this clinical hold or partial hole does not impact the TELLOMAK time lines because the recruitment in both mycosis fungoides and Sezary have been completed and the final data are imminent. And for the PTCL, we have also recruited the let’s say, first cohort of patients, and we are making an interim analysis of the data. And I have to remind that this HLH case that has been highlighted in the TELLOMAK trial is indeed related to transformation of the Sezary into a larger cell lymphoma. And as you probably know, HLH is commonly reported as a complication of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma.
Mondher Mahjoubi: Thank you, Sonia. So for the second question, so let me first maybe go back a few years ago when we finished Phase 1, at that time, we didn’t have data outside Sezary syndrome. Most, if not all the patients included in the Phase 1 program had Sezary syndrome and of course, the obvious question, we are excited and we are still excited by the signal we’ve seen in Sezary patient. But the main question was to see whether there is activity outside Sezary. And the logic next step was to go in cutaneous T-cell lymphoma outside Sezary and test the drug in mycosis fungoides. That was the priority number two, and that’s what we will be communicating at the end of the year. As we said, we are on track to have the final data in-house in mycosis fungoides.
