Unidentified Analyst: Okay. Got it. And then maybe one on MGD024, I guess can you remind us what you would view as an acceptable CRS profile for this program? And then maybe on the efficacy side, what you would see as a worthwhile complete response rate in the Phase 1 dose escalations that have been in the move into expansion of Phase 2? Thanks.
Scott Koenig: Well, as you know, this is a study, as we pointed out, that has to-date with Gilead. So, I can’t speak to them in terms of what their bar for the study. But we have described historically in late-line patients with the enoblituzumab that the precursor of this molecule. We were seeing at that [Technical Difficulty] in the primary induction value population north of 20% response rates of the control arm [ph]. Clearly, we would like to see higher rates. As now, we think that we have both a basis on the reduced CRS profile and as well as the ability to get this dosing on an intermittent basis and intermittent infusion. With regard to the specific tolerance for safety profile, clearly in kind of the absence or markedly reduced low-grade CRS and limiting it to intently initial dosing and later dosing would be, I think a favorable profile that allows the use both in early line and late line patients.
But again, this is a decision that Gilead would make based on their expectations.
Unidentified Analyst: Okay. Got it. And then last one for me, just a very high level. We are just wondering if you received a lot of inbounds for potential partnerships on with Vobra Duo. And if so, maybe when you entertain partnerships, would that be more around the Phase 3, or is that something you would rather do sooner rather – sooner rather than later?
Scott Koenig: So, the answer is we have had very encouraging discussions historically about Vobra Duo with many large companies, both pharma and biotech companies. What we have described to them is our interest in getting additional data in the TAMARACK study before we would engage in further discussions on potential partnerships. Back to the point I was making earlier because of the efficacy here for Vobra Duo to treat many, many different tumors that is something we as MacroGenics did ourselves. And so at the appropriate time, I would envision if development continue to iterate in aerosols which would both expand the opportunity not only in prostate cancer, but other tumor types as well with a partner who has the resources and capabilities to support it along with us.
Unidentified Analyst: Got it. Very helpful. Thanks very much.
Operator: [Operator Instructions] Our next question comes from Stephen Willey with Stifel. Your line is open.
Stephen Willey: Yes. Good afternoon. Thanks for taking the questions. Maybe just a quick one on the next-gen ADC efforts, and Scott, I know you are not going to be disclosing target antigens anytime soon. But just wondering philosophically how you are kind of thinking about selecting target antigens for this next round of ADCs that you put into the clinic? And I guess how far out on the risk curve are you willing to step considering you are tethering a novel linker and payload to these things? And I guess when you declare the target for the first candidate, the first half of next year, is this something that we should expect to fall into kind of the highly competitive buckets of ADC antigens that we have seen across the landscape or is this thing going to be kind of maybe a little bit more differentiated and unique? Thanks.
Scott Koenig: Thanks Steve. And we put a lot of discussion in the selection of both the targets as well as the linker payloads. Clearly, there is lots of competition or we want to be thoughtful in the selection of both. We feel that [Technical Difficulty] given what Synaffix has already shown with regard to what we believe is superior platform, the ability of using a DART in this case, close to four [indiscernible] exatecan in various configurations and our own preclinical data showing the favorable aspects of this. With regard to the specific targets, I think what you will be pleased to see is, I would say, a mixture of markets that are validated to some degree, but not necessarily have any approved products in the market, where we can be very competitive.
There is opportunities for clearly novel targets that will help in pursuing. And in some cases where there is some scanty data and we nowhere pursued, but have been disappointing, which could be described due to the design of the particular molecules that have been tested. So, I think over the first half or the next six months, you will certainly see the first look at some of these targets of presentations at scientific meetings. And then later in ‘24 and going on in ‘25, we will be adding on more of these targets. And I think that the pace we are at right now is a quite favorable where we are pushing the team to be able to have a new IND on an annual or a slightly longer basis. So, that would provide both opportunities for organic growth, but also given the importance of bringing in non-dilutive capital, the opportunity for partnerships there.
I should also point out that because Synaffix also has partnerships with other companies, they are going to using their linker toxins. So, having that validation of early – later this year Stage 4 from other molecules as well as our own will give a lot more encouragement for the value of that.
Stephen Willey: Great. Thanks for taking the question.
Operator: [Operator Instructions] And I am not showing any further questions at this time. I would like to turn the call back over to Scott for any closing remarks.
Scott Koenig: Well, thank you, operator, and thank you all for joining today. We look forward to providing updates in 2024, both on our clinical and preclinical studies. I hope you have a good day.
Operator: Ladies and gentlemen, this does conclude today’s presentation. You may now disconnect and have a wonderful day.
