Bassil Dahiyat: I think PSA50 is definitely an indicator that something is happening to the patient. I’m not aware of comprehensive data sets to let you really look at that versus RECIST response. And that’s what I’m assuming your question was. I’m not aware of good data set to let you look at accordance there because it hasn’t been standard to look at RECIST in the clinical trials in that prostate community over the years. Now I think that’s changing, but we’ll wait and see. I just want to emphasize that in accordance with PSA50s are not, that program, xaluritamig saw really outstanding RECIST responses in people with measurable tumors. I do know that just from all of the prostate cancer doctors we’ve worked with and talked to, they view PSA50 as a good thing if it drops, sorry, a good thing if you can achieve it, how it concords with the specifics of in an individual patient, there is not enough data.
Alec Stranahan: Okay. Got it. That’s helpful. And then just one more on the royalty sale. Is the decision to do this versus another financing option that you may have at your disposal, just in terms of the pull forward of the expected economics? What – and how important was it to maintain the upside on the two assets? Just trying to get a sense of your conviction on the opportunity. Thanks.
Bassil Dahiyat: I think it was very important to maintain the upside on the assets because there’s a lot of momentum in certainly Ultomiris sales. And I think there’s a lot of data still coming for Monjuvi as that landscape in lymphoma continues to evolve. And so it was absolutely critically important for us to have the caps for Monjuvi that sort of total overall cap and then the annual caps for Ultomiris. We’re excited by both molecules. I think why we did the deal, I think it’s because the equity cost of capital now in the markets is very challenging. And we’ve got a lot of programs that we want to invest in, particularly around these T-cell engagers. So it made sense to do the royalty deal. We’ve been monitoring the royalty markets now for, gosh, 4 years now since we started and we’re always looking for when the timing is right from both the deal side and our need side, and this was when it all came together.
Alec Stranahan: Great. Thank you.
Operator: Thank you. [Operator Instructions] Our next question comes from the line of Boris Peaker from TD Cowen. Your line is now open.
Unidentified Analyst: Great. Thanks. This is Nick on for Boris. Just a quick one for me. But for XmAb808, I know it’s targeting B7-H3, there are a lot of companies who are now looking at B7-H4 that’s kind of become like an interesting space for our people, I mean, for some docs. So I was just wondering what you guys think about that and like the difference between B7-H3 versus B7-H4 and how B7-H3 could potentially outperform B7-H4. What – just general thoughts on that. Thanks.
Bassil Dahiyat: Yes. I mean they are two really different targets. I mean the reason they’re called B7s is they’re part of the B7 family, which includes CD80, CD86, PD-L1, so on and so forth. But when we look at them in terms – as targets for T-cell engagers or ADCs, they have like kind of some overlap but lots of non-overlaps which histologies that are over-expressed in. I think a B7-H4 as like a cervical cancer, triple-negative cancer marker, whereas I think a B7-H3 as being broadly over-expressed across a much wider range of histologies.
Unidentified Analyst: That’s helpful. Would you ever think about going into B7-H4 then? Or is that like a later down the line…
Bassil Dahiyat: We’ve certainly thought about it. I mean there’s already – there is a B7-H4 CD3 T-cell engager in Phase 1, I believe. And we’re – we would prefer to work on targets that somebody else isn’t already tackling. And we’re making a lot of internal investments on finding novel targets for placing our T-cell engagers.
Unidentified Analyst: Understood. Thanks very much.
Operator: Thank you. [Operator Instructions] Our next question comes from the line of Peter Lawson from Barclays. Your line is now open.
Unidentified Analyst: Hey, good afternoon. This is Alex on for Peter. Thank you for taking our questions. Just on 819, ENPP3 bispecific program. Have you started dosing patients with the subcu formulation? Or are you just – are you still dose escalating with the IV formulation at this point?
Bassil Dahiyat: We expect to have – honestly, I don’t know if as of today, the subcu started, but it’s very imminent. We’ve opened it, and I just don’t know. We’d have to text our medical lead on that one. So it’s up and running and if not today, very, very shortly on the subcu. We’re planning on running them in parallel. We wanted to get the IV going at first just to get a little data, get the ball rolling. And then that way, we could start the subcu with a little bit of knowledge. But no, the boats going to go parallel.
Unidentified Analyst: Okay. Great. And so when you report Phase 1 data, would you anticipate having a recommended Phase 2 dose at that point?
Bassil Dahiyat: I’m sorry, could you repeat? I was distracted for a second.
Unidentified Analyst: No worries. When you report Phase 1 data, would you anticipate having a recommended Phase 2 dose?
Bassil Dahiyat: That’s the idea, yes.
Unidentified Analyst: Okay. Great. Thank you.
Operator: Thank you. [Operator Instructions] Our next question comes from the line of Mara Goldstein from Mizuho. Your line is now open.
Jerry Gong: Hi, this is Jerry Gong on from Mara Goldstein. Thanks for taking our questions. First on XmAb306, could you share when you might expect to be eligible to receive milestones? And for the second question, vudalimab, what are your thoughts on positioning that candidate in renal cell, given competitor PD-1 and CTLA-4 bispecific data in that indication? Thanks.
Bassil Dahiyat: So first, I’ll just touch on the 306. We’re finalizing the details of the contract conversion, and we do have development and we expect to have development and regulatory and commercial milestones and a sort of a standard structure. I couldn’t speculate as to the timing yet, unfortunately. But we’ll, of course, disclose a lot of details commensurate with how we usually disclose for licensing contracts when that amendment is finalized. For vudalimab, if I understood properly, you have – your question is about positioning in RCC.
