Allogene Therapeutics, Inc. (ALLO) September 9, 2026 Conference Transcript

All right. Good morning. I'm Sam Semenko, one of the senior biotech analysts here at Citi, and it's my pleasure to be hosting Allogene Therapeutics at Citi's 2026 Biopharma Back to School Summit. I'm joined this morning with Zach Roberts, president and CEO of Allogene. Zach, welcome, and thank you so much for being here.

Thank you very much, Sam. Great to be here.

So why don't we just start a little bit high level on the business? You've made a ton of progress this year on the pipeline. Could you just level set for the audience where the company stands today and what we can expect throughout the rest of the year.

Yeah, so it's been a very productive year in 2026 so far. Beginning with our leading program, we released some data in April from an interim futility analysis. We also are moving very briskly through enrollment in our phase one program, which is a novel therapeutic CAR T-cell product in autoimmune disease indications. And we'll have some data from that program later this year at an upcoming conference. And that's setting us up for a very exciting, busy year of Catalyst in 2027.

Yeah, absolutely. And so you recently stepped into that CEO role. Congratulations. I'm wondering how you're thinking about the business from that perspective. What do you bring from the company in this new seat? And how should we think about how you're going to drive the business going forward, particularly through busy 2027 and also 28?

Yeah, so I took over as CEO on July 1st of this year. Before that, I spent three and a half years as the head of R&D and chief medical officer. So the programs that we'll discuss today are programs that I launched, designed and launched as the head of R&D. So it's quite a natural transition for me to step into the CEO role. So I have a very clear mandate from our board and shareholders, and internally the plan is to continue to execute on our main programs, the pivotal semisal program in Alpha 3, and then the resolution study with ALO 329. And really those are going to be the focus for the coming months and years. We also have a very exciting preclinical pipeline. We've shared a little bit of data here and there at medical conferences this year. We've got some more coming up. So really, it's a focus on delivering on the lead programs and then continuing to build out the pipeline.

Perfect. Well, so then let's just dive right in on Semicel and Alpha 3. You had impressive MRD clearance data earlier this year where you demonstrated Semicel as having that measurable effect on residual disease. And we know that MRD clearance is heavily predictive of EFS benefit. So how should that inform our thinking as we near the EFS analysis next year, as you mentioned, and then the final EFS analysis the year thereafter?

Yeah, so the study itself is a randomized trial of Semicel, which is an off-the-shelf anti-CD19 CAR T-cell, and the study is designed in a novel way where we are looking to see whether patients who have completed first-line treatment for their non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, B-cell-related non-Hodgkin lymphoma, but remain positive for minimal residual disease using an ultrasensitive MRD test at the end of first-line therapy. Those patients who are MRD positive come into the study, and then they are randomized either to a dose of Semicel, which is an off-the-shelf CAR T-cell, or the standard of care, which is just observation, a surveillance program. And so the analysis that you just alluded to occurred in April. It was a pre-planned safety and futility analysis, where we looked at 12 patients in each of these two arms. And rather than looking at the primary endpoint of the study, which is EFS, we looked at the ability for semicell to eradicate the residual disease. So patients, everyone who comes into the study is MRD positive, and who went from MRD positive to MRD negative. So as you mentioned, we did have a positive outcome there. We saw about a 42% differential between the two arms, seven out of 12 patients in the MRD arm, sorry, in the semicell arm cleared their MRD, and two out of 12 in the observation arm cleared. So when we revealed these data and we were internally examining them, we asked ourselves the same question that you just asked. What does this mean for the potential EFS analyses that are upcoming? So in 2027, we have a planned interim event-free survival analysis, and then in 2028 is the primary. Overall, the study is designed to detect a 50 percent reduction in risk of EFS events and so we have to allocate the alpha spend between the 27 and the 28 analyses so we actually have a very small amount of alpha allocated to the interim analysis in mid-27 and the majority of the alpha is reserved for the primary so when we saw this MRD differential back in April first of all we were overjoyed with the the amount of signal that seemed to be coming from this MSL arm. And it gave us a great deal of confidence that this study was going to be positive when it was completed. As it pertains to the interim EFS analysis next year, that is a TBD, right? Because it is a small amount of alpha, which means the effect size would need to be overwhelmingly positive, probably to a degree that's maybe even a little bit greater than what we saw at the interim futility. And honestly, that is an independent data monitoring committee review of that data. So they have a decision to make whether stop the study for efficacy or continue the study. So we are focused solely on enrolling the trial, ensuring that we have an overall positive outcome, because we believe that that outcome would transform the way medicine is conducted for these patients.

So what is the dyscosia plan for the interim EFS analysis? Is that something that you'll be sharing like that the study will continue or the study will stop? Is that the extent of what we'll probably hear from you?

Again, so there are a few stakeholders here, of course. It's the IDMC is gonna perform the analysis and then also the FDA is going to be watching carefully here. And one of the things that we are committed to doing is ensuring that the data integrity remains fully intact so that we don't get to the end of the trial And there's a problem with bias that could have crept in from early disclosure.

So while the interim EFS analysis will occur, it's really up to the IDMC to make a recommendation on what to do with the study, either continue on as planned or potentially stop the study for efficacy if it turns out that enrolling additional patients would be considered unethical because of such an imbalance in outcomes. and so you know it seems like a really high bar given the minimal alpha spend but you know it's not not a non-zero chance theoretically so i'm wondering if there's any pre-commercial steps if any you're considering as we near that interim analysis in the event that you do have something that is overwhelming success sufficient to stop the study or just you know maybe we could just talk more broadly as well just about any commercial preparations you're already starting to make now Yeah.

So we absolutely are beginning to sort of start thinking about what our commercial launch plan is going to look like. Again, we assume that this study will be positive. We are building it for success. It's a little bit of a different launch than really any other CAR T-cell that's come before because of this being intertwined with the MRD test itself. And that's a very interesting sort of side story to the Alpha 3 program, just how rapidly MRD is becoming part of the standard of care in oncology. So some of that work is being done outside of allergen just by the natural evolution and really high degree of interest in MRD. So the concrete steps that we have taken already is we have hired our first commercial hire. It's someone who is going to be focused on market access and reimbursement, because we think that this is going to be the area that requires the longest prep time. So that person will be on board very shortly, and that person will then begin to kind of figure out exactly what this launch pad would look like. the bulk of the commercial team would come later and really probably over the course of 2027.

Okay. And I guess, you know, if that interim is positive, you have the ability to step up and accelerate any pre-commercial activities at that time.

Yeah. So, I mean, if that interim is positive, of course, then, you know, we would approach the FDA to try to ascertain, you know, know, is this suitable for a BLA on its own? Do we need more follow-up? Those sorts of pre-BLA conversations would begin. And then if a BLA is submitted, of course, then there's a review interval as well. So that's going to push us into 2028. So we will have at least a year, not 18 months of time to build out a commercial team and get ready for launch.

Makes sense. Okay. And so then you did mention the uptake of MRD testing. And if you follow those companies, you know, they're all telling a very similar story where the uptake's just been growing at a very strong pace. So what does that tell you about physicians' overall appetite to adopt MRD testing in, you know, large B-cell lymphoma, but also just more broadly across oncology?

I think we are witnessing nothing short of a revolution in how we think about management of patients with cancer. And we're now, within the last three months, there have been major events from a regulatory approval perspective with MRD. So beginning in May, when we had the approval of the Invigor11 study, which is a tezolizumab study in a completely resected bladder cancer, very analogous to the alpha-3 trial, patients with MRD got a year of a tezolizumab versus placebo, very positive from a disease-free survival and overall survival benefit. Just last week, we saw the Serena 6 dataset approved, which was a little bit of a surprise, a good surprise, because the ODAC that they had had back in April suggested that maybe the FDA would not approve that drug based on the use of the MRD test in that context. So this is, we're absolutely starting to see a sea change in how people are thinking about these molecular tests to to first understand prognosis and then eventually to make treatment decisions and so internally we have heard from our investigators that this is the future and we've heard that since the day we designed alpha 3 and that momentum has grown really consistently almost sort of exponentially actually in the last couple of years and to cap it all off we recently conducted a quantitative market research analysis internally here at allergen and asked many questions, one of which being exactly this, you know, what percentage of your patients are you currently testing for MRD? And in the hypothetical context of a semicell approval, what percentage of your patients would you test? And already it was sort of in that 25 to 30 percent currently being tested, which was a large number. But then if in the context of an approved agent for use in the context of an MRD positive result, that number jumped to about 80%. So we see the world is really building quite an appetite to start to utilize these advanced diagnostics, particularly when it allows them to make a treatment decision for their patients.

Yeah. And that's a measurable already, which I think is a bit surprising based on what maybe you had guided several years ago when you started Alpha3. Can you just talk about like, I mean, is it just excitement around the potential for a therapy that's really driving the use, even though there's nothing to be done for these patients if they're MRD positive right now?

So it's both, Sam. And right now, you're absolutely correct. There is no treatment option for an MRD positive result that doctors can offer their patients. And that's actually really the niche that Semicel will fill eventually. And right now, we're the only one that's really focusing on this area. So that is great for us from a competitive standpoint. But in the current moment, most of the patients with large B-cell lymphoma are cured with their frontline therapy, and about two-thirds or so. So people are ordering these tests now, which are commercially available, because they're hoping to get a negative result, because that does significantly enhance their prognosis. So right now, PET-CT is the standard care. Its false negative rate is quite high. Its false positive rate is even higher. So it gives you a hint about what might happen with your disease. But if you have an MRD test, particularly when it's used in conjunction with a PET CT, that is a much stronger prognostic sign that your disease is cured. And so that is the reason that these tests are starting to take off. It's just a useful tool for prognosis. That will be further accelerated overnight once there's an opportunity to treat in response to an MRD-positive result, which is unfortunately kind of an awkward conversation that doctors have to have with their patients at this point.

Right. Okay. That makes a lot of sense. And so then when you think about, I guess, how the commercial potential for Semicel is in the context of the MRD testing background being quite positive, one of the things that you've made a big push on is moving into community centers for adopting Semicel? Like what feedback have you received from the community physicians and their comfort with prescribing Semicel?

It's been universally positive. And this is coming from primarily the community oncologists who are part of our trial and about 50% of our sites are community centers, many of which don't have CAR-T or transplant or any kind of cell therapy available. So this is their first cellular therapeutic that they're administering in their clinics. and all of them are really overjoyed to have access to CAR-G, some of them for the first time in their career, but even outside the sort of folks who are on the front lines in the trial, we are hearing really quite positive feedback that this would constitute a revolution in how the services that they can offer their patients, the ability to offer these potentially curative therapies when those patients generally are not actually receiving those. So that's one of the biggest conundrums that these community practices face is if they have a patient who relapses, as I said, about one in three will relapse, that's really a difficult moment because many of these patients, frankly, are not interested in being referred to an advanced care center where they can receive CAR-T, even if they live in the same city. So there is such a demand for CAR-T throughout the spectrum of treatment centers. And in a world where only 15% to 20% of patients who could benefit from autologous CAR-T actually receive autologous CAR-T, we are going to bridge that 80% gap, in our view, with this MSL strategy, with the consolidation, the safety profile that we showed at that interim futility, no cases of CRS, no cases of ICANs, fully outpatient regimen. This is really going to allow us to maximize that commercial opportunity, which is, in our estimate, about $2.5 to $3.5 billion annually.

And my understanding is that activating these treatment centers, whether they're community or academic, is a bit simpler than autologous CAR-T. I guess, how do you think about initially choosing which centers to launch in, and how quickly are you capable of expanding from there to really maximize across the country and globally as well?

When I was at Kite and we were completing the Zuma studies and then planning for launch, there was just an awful lot of work, and I understand that work is ongoing, about what are the basic requirements, the training, the facilities, the personnel, the beds that are needed to onboard an autologous CAR-T. And it is an awful lot of work. It's an awful lot of investment by the company, and it's an awful lot of investment by the hospitals. And I think you see that those challenges, financial and logistical, reflected in the restricted access footprint that exists today for autologous products. And there's an accreditation process known as FACT that's also involved. These centers have to be accredited by FACT in order to offer commercial and clinical CAR-T. In Alpha 3 with Semicel, we are currently treating patients at centers that do not have FACT accreditation. They do not have any of the infrastructure build-out that is required for autologous. These are our research personnel, nurses, and physicians who have never given CAR-T, who are thawing our product at the bedside and infusing it in their outpatient infusion centers, and the patients are being sent home. This is the vision that we would want to carry forward into a commercial launch where the onboarding process is straightforward. This is what the product looks like when you receive it. This is how you handle it. This is, if you need to ship it back, this is how you ship it back, right? On-site storage is not something that we envision as being necessary because these products are shipped on liquid nitrogen. This is how you thaw and infuse. So while all those steps are yet to be built out and will be under the purview of the future commercial leader, it is undoubtedly going to be significantly more straightforward than it is for an autologous product. And that really is key to our vision of increasing access to these products.

Right. Okay. That makes sense. And then I think that that's a good segue perhaps into the competition question I have, since it is, you know, maybe easier for an allogeneic CAR-T here. Why? I've heard some concerns about bispecifics also easily moving into the space. I've heard some concerns about, you know, CAR-Ts in the first line setting, taking some of the share that Semicel could have in a consolidation space. I just would love your thoughts on the landscape where it stands today, anything potentially coming down the line, and how you envision maintaining that niche that you are actively building for SEMISA where it has the ability to maintain that market share.

I expect that anybody with a drug or a product that is active in large B-cell lymphoma is going to be strongly considering moving into the MRD space. for many reasons, some of which we touched on earlier, this is just a very natural place for us to be doing drug development, and regulators have clearly signaled that their willingness to use MRD as a treatment decision point. So I think that the desire to get into this space is probably universal. What makes an off-the-shelf one-time infusion like Semicel so attractive is that, is that it's off-the-shelf and it's a one-time infusion, and you can give it right on the heels of the completed six cycles of first-line therapy. This is, we sometimes call it the seventh cycle of treatment. And so in our vision, what will happen is a patient completes their chemo, they come in for their MRD test, and they're at scan on the same day, they get the results the same day, and then a decision is made, do you need Semicel or do you not need Semicel? And if they need Semicel, they can write for it, and the patient can come in literally the next day to get their lymphodepleting chemotherapy, and they can get their cells and they're done. If you look at bispecifics, which have the advantage of being off the shelf so you can prescribe them quickly, there's going to be a treatment interval here, a period of time where these patients are likely going to need multiple infusions that maybe last six months or maybe even 12 months. This is going to be something that clearly is going to need to be thought out. And that is just not going to be, in my view, speaking as an oncologist, very attractive to a patient who's been told from day one that they have a curable malignancy. Perhaps they've been told that they're in a complete pet remission. And then this blood test tells them that they need another six to 12 months of treatment. That is not going to go very well, in my view. On the other hand, on the autologous side, the autologous CAR-T, there are some real challenges there. For example, patients who have just completed six cycles of RCHOP generally don't have a lot of T cells floating around. So manufacturing these products that close to the completion of therapy is going to be probably more difficult than it is in a patient who's got a few months since their last dose of chemo. So I think the manufacturing failure rate is going to take a hit. And then the other problem is that most of the patients are being treated in the community for their frontline, and that would still require a referral to an treatment center to be considered for CAR T. And recent publications from real world data have shown that that often takes three to four months from the time that the patient is referred to the time of CAR T infusion in the real world. That interval of time, we'll see a good third to maybe as many as half of the patients who are MRD positive, their disease will progress during that three to four month interval. So all this to say is, obviously, there is clearly a growing desire to get into this space, but the product profile is going to be really dominant in determining who is the most successful here. And really, Semisell has the best profile.

And you're well in the lead as well.

Yes, at least two years ahead.

Right. Okay. One more MRD question, actually. So you said that the PET scan and the MRD testing can be done on the same day. I mean, have pairs embraced paying for the MRD testing? Has there been any pushback that you can see in your market research there?

We are still somewhat in the early days. I will say that Medicare covers the commercial MRD test for large B-cell lymphoma. So that's been the case for a couple of years now, and we're seeing really impressive growth from Adaptive Biotechnologies, who makes Clonosec. Natera also has a marketed product called Signatera for lymphoma. Both of them report the growth of their MRD business on their quarterly calls, and it's been astonishing how fast these products have grown in market share. So I think the commercial payer story is still evolving, but I think as acceptance of the prognostic value of MRD grows, grows with more and more prospective data sets being published. There was just another paper that came out a few weeks ago with the Signatera showing very prognostic information for the MRD test at the end of therapy. I think incrementally those commercial payers will begin to pick up the cost. And then, of course, when the MRD result is tied to a treatment decision, as would be the case for a semicell approval, I think in that case, you know, as the NCCN, as other guidelines come out with category one recommendations for MRD testing, that will be the real catalyst to make sure that all of those tests are covered. But we're already making strides towards universal coverage now.

Right. Okay. And then, you know, maybe a bigger picture question for you. You're pioneers in leveraging MRD testing. across the business. I think we can all agree that. Is it possible this becomes your niche? Set aside 329, which we're going to talk about in a minute, but could you consider leveraging MRD testing to replicate the success that you've already had with semicell, but in different settings, whether that's other blood cancers or solid tumors, is there an appetite at allergen for that direction?

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, 100% yes. I believe strongly that any opportunity that we have communally, not just allergen, but in general, to treat patients when they have the smallest disease burden that you can measure, whether that's with CAR-T or really anything else, that's what we should be doing. We know outcomes are better. Safety outcomes are better. Efficacy outcomes are better. So at allergen, absolutely. I think we're validating this strategy in alpha-3. There are other non-Hodgkin's lymphoma B cell malignancies where MRD plays a role as well. So those are clear next potential steps for us. But I'm also thinking about it for solid tumors. And we don't talk about it as much anymore, but we recently published the phase one experience from our metastatic renal cell carcinoma trial just in July of this year in JCO, where we showed a 31% durable response rate in patients with metastatic solid tumors using a different CAR, CD70, CAR. There is emerging data now showing that MRD is prognostic in RCC. Very early days for that yet, but that data is out there. So one could easily envision an adjuvant study where patients who undergo a complete resection for early stage RCC, they undergo an MRD test to see if there's residual micrometastatic disease, and then they receive a dose of ALO316 in the adjuvant setting. That's a study that I would love to do. So the short answer is yes. The long answer is we're looking for ways to do that.

Excellent. Looking forward to hearing more about that as we go on. Well, that's a good segue, I think, to start talking about 329. So LO329 is your CD19, CD70 for autoimmune diseases. And I think one of the last updates you gave us with concrete numbers said you had at least nine patients dosed. I think this was in May. And you're guiding in the first interim data readout by the end of this year. What should we be looking for in that data set and recognizing that you'll still be on the dose escalation phase?

Yeah, so with any first-in-human study, you have to be cautious, and first and foremost is to ensure the safety of the product, ensure the safety of the patients that are coming into your trial. And I think with recent events in the news, that has, I think, shown to be a pricent decision and strategy of allergens. And so we started a very low dose, 20 million cells, flat dose, which is really low dose in the world of CAR-T, much lower than the autologous doses that are being given and far lower than those for the allogeneic peer companies. And then we've been quite methodical. And as you may recall, we've got two parallel dose escalations. It's a standard three plus three design, but one is without lymphodepletion and one includes Cytoxan-only lymphodepletion. And then just recently, we added a third arm that was already in the protocol. We just opened it to include flu and psi conditioning for these patients. Now, technically, we have three parallel dose escalation arms, and that decision was primarily made because there was such a backlog of patients waiting to get into our study that this allowed us a third option to kind of decompress that waiting list a little bit. So what that means for us in terms of the Q4 update is that we will have some patients with quite a long amount of follow-up, presuming that they're still being followed in the study. Those were patients with the 20 million cells that dosed towards the end of last year. And then as we have picked up steam over the course of 2027, we have reached 40 million and then 80 million and beyond for a cell dose across those three different LD arms. So we should actually have a reasonable number of patients that we share in Q4 with varying degrees of follow-up, but across all three of these different lymph depletions and up to 80 million cells and probably a dose level higher.

And it's a basket study across a couple of different rheumatology indications. Do you expect that, or looking at the enrollment that you have so far, will we have representation from each of those indications in the basket sufficient that we can start to get a feel for efficacy, again, be it at a dose escalation phase here?

We will have patients from all three indications. Those three indications are systemic sclerosis or scleroderma, inflammatory myopathies, and lupus. So we will have patients across all three. It is a true basket study, meaning it is a first come first serve. There are no targets or quotas or thresholds that we have instituted for individual disease types. So it is expected that we will have, you know, not a perfect balance between those three, but we will have some patients in each of the three arms.

Got it. Okay. And then, you know, you alluded to some of the safety concerns that have been in the headlines recently, specifically IECHS. And you also talked a little bit about 316, which you had some experience, that was your renal cell carcinoma asset, where you had some experience seeing that safety adverse event in that study. And 329 leverages that same CD70 CAR. So how should we think about the safety profile of 329? I know that you started very low and that was on purpose and you're prioritizing safety, but how should we think about the potential safety profile over time as you look for that ideal dose for 329?

When we designed Allo 329, we were sort of well on our way with Allo 316. So we were getting familiar with the toxicity profile that was unique to these Dagger endowed products like Allo 316 and Allo 329. Dagger is our nickname for the cd70 car that drives very robust cell expansion and persistence in an allogeneic setting so we did a couple things from the outset first is we it we modified the cd70 car in all of 329 so we removed its co-stimulatory domain so it is technically a first generation car and the the reason that we did that is we saw a high degree of tonic signaling in vivo and sorry in vitro in, in, as we were designing these different car constructs, which suggested that these, that this product, if both the CD19 and the CD70 car, both had co-stimulatory domains, that it may be an overly hyperactive car. So we tuned back its activity a little bit by removing that co-stimulatory domain that turned out to make a much better product. So from a product design perspective, we've already kind of detuned a little bit from where we were with the CD70 Allo-316. Secondly is we have all the experience that we could have gathered from that Traverse trial with Allo-316. We encountered quite frequent and even high-grade IECHS in that program. We learned very well how to manage that, how to diagnose and manage that on the fly. So we've created customized algorithms for these Dagger products and really very specific management and surveillance for this entity, and then rapid therapy. So those two tools, I think, are putting us in a good place. We train our physicians extensively on IECHS diagnosis and management, and in the wake of the news reports from last week, we pulled together an impromptu kind of refresher on IECHS, which was very well attended. So this is top of mind for everybody. We have not seen any IECHS in the resolution study yet. The safety profile looks pretty good, and we continue to dose escalate, but, you know, we know that, you know, you don't have IECHS until you do. And so we want to be ready for if and when that does occur.

Right. And I think you've also said no high grade CRS or ICANS in the study too. Is that accurate?

In resolution? Yes. Yes. No, no, no high grade CRS, no high grade, no, any IECHS. And yeah, the safety profile is looking pretty good so far. And that's why we continue to go up on the dose.

Exactly. Okay. And then just from a commercial perspective, it's, it's a little bit crowded, maybe a little bit less with some of the pauses and studies, but those could resume. Um, but you know, you have the potential for no lymphodepletion or a reduced lymphodepletion, uh, regimen, which would be a significant advantage commercially. Um, so when you look at the overall landscape, where do you see 329 potentially positioned, um, assuming you require lymphodepletion or none?

That is a very good way to set up that question, Sam. It's kind of a fork in the road. And if no lymphodepletion is the selected regimen, which I hope will be the case, I think that substantially increases the opportunity for us to develop this drug in more indications and also more patients within a given indication. because I think the risk tolerance will, not the risk tolerance, but the risk will actually drop if you're not giving chemotherapy. The appetite for a chemo-free regimen will go up. I think we can make a strong argument to doctors and to regulators that maybe we treat patients earlier in their disease history. Maybe they don't have to fail two regimens. Maybe it's just one. Perhaps we go into indications where chemo is something that would never be considered, like type 1 diabetes, for example, and really start to brainstorm where we could go with a truly no lympho-depleting chemotherapy regimen. So obviously, that's what we're hoping we see, and that's why we're running the experiment the way we are. That said, if we need to use Cytoxan, we've heard from many of our physicians and KOLs who are familiar with the program that that is not really a barrier in patients with treatment-resistant rheumatologic disease. In fact, we are using the very dose of Cytoxan that is used in rheumatology. It's 1,000 milligrams per meter squared times one, so just a single dose. That's given, I wouldn't say routinely, but often in rheumatology clinics. So we did that with rheumatologists in mind. And so in the end, we're going to need to see what the safety is. We're going to need to see what the efficacy is. And I think either path is viable. But really, the promise of DAGGR is to try to get away from the need for chemotherapy-based lymphodepletion.

Right. Well, looking forward to the data later this year. And so, you know, we're almost out of time, Zach. So I'm just wondering if you could just remind us your cash runway, perhaps recap us what we should expect over the next, call it 12 months, and any other closing remarks you wanted to share.

Yeah, so we raised some money back in April on the heels of the futility data from Semicel that we talked about earlier. We reported about a $420 million cash on hand at our last call, and that gets us into 2029, which should cover all of the main catalysts for Semicel, the interim EFS, as well as the primary EFS, and, of course, all of the upcoming catalysts and data releases for Allo 329. So beginning later this year and then throughout 2027, there's going to be opportunities for lots of news flow from Allogene, but on both of our lead programs. And we think that this is going to be a very, very exciting 12 months or so for the company.

Looking forward to it. Well, thank you so much for being here. This has been wonderful. And thank you for your time.

Thanks, Sam.