Welcome to BioNTech's Third Quarter 2024 Earnings Call. I would like to hand the call over to Michael Horowicz, Director of Investor Relations. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Good morning and good afternoon. Thank you for joining BioNTech's third quarter 2024 earnings call. As a reminder, the slides we will be using during this call and the corresponding press release we issued this morning can be found in the Investor Relations section of our website. On the next slide, you will see our forward-looking statements disclaimer. Additional information about these statements and other risks are described in our filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Forward-looking statements in this call are subject to significant risks and uncertainties and speak only as of the date of this conference call. We undertake no obligation to update or revise any of these statements. On Slide 3, you can find the agenda for today's call. Today, I am joined by the following members of BioNTech's management team: Ugur Sahin, Chief Executive Officer and Co-Founder; Özlem Türeci, Chief Medical Officer and Co-Founder; Jens Holstein, Chief Financial Officer; and Ryan Richardson, Chief Strategy Officer. With this, I would like to hand over to Ugur.

Thank you, Michael. Welcome to all those joining us today. I will be keeping my introduction very brief today. We made significant achievements during the third quarter, including advancements across our oncology pipeline and a strong start to the season for our COVID-19 vaccine franchise. Our progress in this quarter builds on what has already been an impactful year. I would like to highlight achievements in three areas. First, with regard to our COVID-19 vaccine leadership, we have successfully launched updated vaccines targeting the latest variant. Distribution is now underway in multiple regions globally. In oncology, we have presented our progress in two strategic priority areas, namely our bispecific immunomodulator BNT327, partnered with Biotheus, and our mRNA cancer vaccine portfolio. As part of our pipeline progress, we shared numerous clinical updates across our oncology pipeline at the ESMO Congress. We and our partner, Biotheus, have kicked off the broad global development of BNT327, our bispecific antibody targeting PD-L1 and VEGF-A. The datasets presented at ESMO and at conferences earlier this year support the cancer potential of this priority asset and support our clinical development plans that we will touch on today and discuss in greater detail at our Innovation Series next week. We took significant steps forward in the execution of our clinical development plan this quarter and dosed the first patients in two optimization studies in small-cell lung cancer and triple-negative breast cancer to inform that pivotal studies in both indications. With regard to our mRNA vaccine portfolio, we announced earlier in the quarter that our off-the-shelf FixVac mRNA cancer vaccine candidate BNT111 met the primary endpoint in the ongoing randomized trial, evaluating BNT111 in combination with Regeneron's anti-PD-1 agent cemiplimab in patients with Stage III and Stage IV cutaneous melanoma. This preliminary result underscores our belief in the transformative potential of our proprietary mRNA vaccine technology, which is a key pillar of our oncology strategy. Moreover, we have taken another step to broaden our personalized mRNA cancer vaccine development program. We and our partner Genentech have initiated a new randomized controlled Phase II clinical trial, evaluating our personalized cancer vaccine candidate in patients with bladder cancer in the adjuvant setting in combination with immune checkpoint inhibition. Our personalized vaccine program now includes four ongoing Phase 2 clinical trials. In addition, during Q3, we had our inaugural AI Day, where we highlighted our in-house AI company, InstaDeep, and provided an overview of BioNTech's collective AI capabilities. This was an exciting event, where we showcased our commitment to building state-of-the-art AI. Before turning over to Özlem for more detailed coverage of these achievements, let me remind you of our overarching strategy for oncology. BioNTech was established with the ambition to revolutionize cancer treatment through the development of mRNA-based immunotherapies, particularly personalized cancer vaccines. This approach remains at the forefront of our efforts to pioneer the next wave of cancer treatment, aiming to tailor therapies to the individual genetic makeup of each patient's tumor. Building on this foundation, we have systematically assessed next-generation immune modulators with a focus on bispecific molecules that can engage more than one target. BNT327, our bispecific antibody targeting PD-L1 and VEGF-A, has emerged as a key molecule in our pipeline. We believe that BNT327 has the potential to serve as a foundational component in treatment regimens for multiple cancer types, enhancing the effectiveness of our therapeutic mRNA cancer vaccines and other therapies through its dual targeting mechanism. Complementing these mechanisms of action, we have recently expanded our portfolio to include targeted immunotherapies, such as antibody drug conjugates and CAR T cell therapies. These modalities offer precise mechanisms for attacking cancers, providing new avenues for combination therapies, particularly for fighting large metastatic tumors. Our integrated long-term approach will combine these synergistic therapeutic platforms to optimize cancer treatment. Our strategy aims not only to address the existing challenges in cancer care but also to significantly improve long-term survival rates even in patients with advanced disease states. By continually evaluating the effectiveness of individual compounds and innovative combinations, we can better identify the most promising treatment strategies for specific patient populations. Today, Özlem will discuss in more detail our progress on BNT327 and our expanding efforts in our therapeutic mRNA cancer vaccine front, two proprietary key pillars of our strategy. Before handing over, I would like to thank you all for your ongoing support as we enter this truly exciting period for BioNTech and progress towards our founding vision. Thank you.

Thank you, Ugur. Glad to be speaking with everyone today. I will begin with our COVID-19 franchise. Ahead of this vaccination season, regulatory and public health authorities advise vaccine manufacturers to revise the antigen composition for the authorized COVID-19 vaccines in line with the latest epidemiological data. The continuous evolution of SARS‑CoV‑2 and the emergence of variants have led to regionally different recommendations for this year's vaccine strain selection. We have been able to rapidly meet these different requirements due to the flexibility of our mRNA technology, which enables us to adapt our construct on relatively short notice. In Europe, less than three weeks after the regulatory authority recommended the use of a JN.1 spike antigen in the COVID-19 vaccine for the 2024-2025 season, we were able to submit our application to the European regulator and we began rolling out our updated vaccine shortly after approval in early July. Anticipating the regional differences, we followed up with the development and submission for our KP.2-adapted vaccine. In the UK, the regulator approved our JN.1-adapted COVID-19 vaccine in July and our KP.2-adapted COVID-19 vaccine in early October. In the United States and Canada, regulatory authorities recommended the use of KP.2 as a preferred lineage for the present season. Less than two weeks after recommendation, we initiated our rolling submission with the US FDA and received approval of our KP.2-adapted vaccine in August. In Japan, we received our JF.1 approval in early August. These early strain recommendations and approvals have allowed for the timely delivery and early availability of vaccines for the fall vaccination campaign. Execution at such speed was enabled by our continued surveillance and analysis of areas of concern by the strength of our mRNA technology, which allows for scalable rapid production, and by our expertise in navigating the regulatory landscape on a global scale. We will continue to monitor the evolving epidemiology of COVID-19 and remain prepared to develop vaccines with adapted antigenic compositions in line with regulatory recommendations. COVID-19 transitions to an endemic infection pattern. Data on weekly new hospital admissions due to infections caused by a variant of CoV-2 and by influenza show different patterns of seasonality. This past season, like in the prior year, COVID-19 disease-related hospitalization had two prominent peaks, one in the winter and an additional one in summer. In contrast, for influenza, we predominantly see increases in hospitalizations in the winter. The emergence of new variants coupled with the waning of both vaccine and infection-induced immunity indicates that susceptibility to COVID-19 infection remains a concern after the winter vaccination season. These different patterns of seasonality of influenza and COVID-19 may have an impact on regulatory guidelines to facilitate protection throughout the year. Recently, US authorities recommended older and immunocompromised individuals receive an additional COVID-19 vaccine dose. Administration of additional doses later in this season could contribute to improved vaccine coverage over time, mitigating the risks associated with evolving COVID-19 variants. Given our current understanding of COVID-19 seasonality and its burden on healthcare systems, we are proud that our vaccine can contribute to mitigating severe infection and protecting people around the world from COVID-19 related hospitalizations and deaths. Turning now to our oncology pipeline. Our multi-platform immune oncology clinical pipeline is continuing to advance and is a rich source for strategically planned novel combinations that we consider a key pillar of our vision for oncology. As you can see, two of our modalities, namely mRNA and immunomodulators, are dominantly represented in our pipeline and particularly so in the advanced clinical stages. This is a testament to our drive towards mid- to late-stage trials as part of our ambition to achieve multiple product launches in oncology by 2030. As Ugur pointed out, we have a special focus on our mRNA cancer vaccine portfolio and our BNT327 setup clinical development program, with the latter becoming our platform for unique combinations with several of our other assets, in particular, our ADC. BNT327 is a bispecific antibody candidate that targets both PD-L1 and VEGF-A, thus combining two complementary functions. The binding of BNT327 to PD-L1 in tumors restores effector T cell killing of tumor cells and enriches VEGF-A neutralization within the tumor microenvironment to create a cycle of vascular normalization, improve blood flow, and reduce hypoxia within the tumor. BNT327 also reverses the negative effect of VEGF-A signaling on infiltration and activation of immune cells in the tumor microenvironment. By co-localizing the blockade of PD-L1 and VEGF-A signaling in the tumor, BNT327 is designed to deliver superior anti-tumor effects compared to individual targeting of PD-L1 and VEGF-A with the potential to minimize the worst events associated with systemic anti-VEGF-A therapy. With the anti-PD-L1 and VEGF-A antagonistic mechanisms being validated across numerous tumor types and, in some cases, in combination, we have a roadmap for the development of BNT327. We and our partner Biotheus have treated over 700 patients in clinical trials across a wide range of clinical indications with BNT327 either as monotherapy or in combination with various standard of care treatments. In these early studies, BNT327 demonstrated encouraging activity as mono and combo therapy with a favorable safety profile that was shown to be generally well manageable and in line with adverse events and immune-related adverse events observed with other therapies targeting PD-L1. The data also indicate robust single-agent activity for BNT327 and in combination with standard of care chemotherapy across tumor types and treatment plans. This extensive data collection provides us with a solid foundation for making data-driven decisions on potential indications and patient cohorts for future registrational studies. One of the indications we have selected for further development is triple-negative breast cancer, or TNBC, the type of breast cancer with the poorest outcomes. In first-line metastatic TNBC, we have observed a high objective response rate with encouraging responses and long progression-free survival for BNT327 in combination with nab-paclitaxel. As noted here, we presented updated efficacy and safety findings from the ongoing Phase 1/2 study. In this indication, across the intent-to-treat population of 42 patients, we observed a confirmed objective response rate of 74%. Importantly, responses were shown to be clinically meaningful irrespective of PD-L1 status. In patients with PD-L1 combined positive scores, or CPS, smaller than 1, the confirmed objective response rate was 76.9%; in patients with PD-L1 CPS between 1 and 10, the confirmed objective response was 56%; and in patients with PD-L1 CPS higher than 10, the confirmed objective response rate was 100%. We also observed record tumor shrinkage with a median time to response of 1.9 months and an encouraging median duration of response of 11.7 months in the intent-to-treat population. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or above occurred in 57% of patients, leading to treatment discontinuation in 4.8%. In summary, we are encouraged by the potential of BNT327 in combination with chemotherapy to offer clinically meaningful anti-tumor activity regardless of PD-L1 status and by its manageable toxicity. We have prioritized the planning of global trials in TNBC where unmatched need remains high, particularly for those with PD-L1 negative tumors that are not eligible for current anti-PD-1 treatment. We will be presenting additional data in first-line TNBC at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Conference next month. We believe that BNT327 and this drug class at large are showing an increasingly validated mechanism of action. The dose optimization trials in the US initiated recently allow us to create a robust scientific data package to inform the global development of this asset and tick off three waves of focused development. We plan to execute quickly and move broadly into three ways. First, we are investigating the BNT327 combination with standard of care chemotherapies as an intended path to market approach. The data generated by our partner Biotheus have driven our decision to prioritize the planning of registrational trials in small-cell lung cancer, TNBC, and non-small-cell lung cancer, which are due to start in the next few months. Second, we plan to evaluate BNT327 with our ADCs and some of these tumor types as additional key indications. The first exploratory trial evaluating novel BNT327 combination was started earlier this year with our proprietary TROP-2 ADC BNT325. These novel combinations may open up new areas of activity for BNT327. We plan to initiate additional trials evaluating novel proprietary combinations of BNT327 with ADCs before the year-end and over the next 12 months. Lastly, we aim to expand with standard of care chemotherapy and novel combinations beyond ADCs across further indications and treatment settings. It is a strategic goal for us to explore BNT327 as part of novel-novel combinations. Given our experienced clinical development team, which has an increasingly global footprint, our strong financial position, and unique pipeline, we are confident that we are well positioned to efficiently execute on this comprehensive clinical development strategy. Now, to the other cornerstone of our oncology portfolio, our mRNA cancer vaccine platform, iNeST and FixVac. iNeST targets neoantigens derived from somatic mutations in cancer cells that are unique to an individual's tumor. iNeST vaccines are investigational vaccines that are being co-developed with our partner Genentech and are manufactured on-demand and personalized to the individual patient. FixVac vaccines target multiple non-mutated tumor antigens shared by a majority of patients with a given tumor type and are also shared cancer vaccine candidates. The computational approaches to discovering and selecting these two different types of target antigens are one of our core competencies. iNeST and FixVac both use the same vaccine and delivery technology, namely our proprietary mRNA-LPX platform. Today, we have ongoing trials in multiple disease settings and indications across both vaccine platforms. We have reported translation and clinical data over the last couple of years, and future data updates from multiple trials, shown on this slide, are planned. Aggregate data that we have reported in the past across iNeST and FixVac trials indicate that uridine mRNA-LPX-based vaccines have a manageable and largely mild safety profile as a single agent in combination with anti-PD-1/PD-L1 compound and in combination with chemotherapy. Our data also indicate that our uridine mRNA-LPX-based vaccine platform is highly proficient in inducing and expanding high magnitude functional and long-lasting T cell responses in the majority of patients, which is a prerequisite for clinical activity. Furthermore, our data from small sample size patient cohorts indicates clinical activity alone and in combination with anti-PD1/PD-L1 treatment. In our FixVac program, I would like to highlight two vaccine candidates for which we had important updates during the quarter. For BNT113, our mRNA vaccine candidate against HPV16 positive cancer, we presented data from two trials at the ESMO conference. One data set was from the safety run-in cohort of our potentially registrational Phase 2 randomized trial that evaluates BNT113 in combination with pembrolizumab versus pembrolizumab alone in first-line HPV16 positive PD-L1 positive head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. The data supports the tolerability of BNT113 and clinical activity in combination with pembrolizumab and the induction of high magnitude de novo T cell responses against HPV16 antigens encoded in this vaccine. In summary, we are encouraged by the data of a safety cohort. The second data set from investigator-initiated Phase 1/2 trials exploring BNT113 as a single agent in patients with localized and metastatic head and neck, cervical, and other HPV16-driven carcinomas further confirmed positive safety and immunogenicity findings. We reported top-line findings for BNT111, which is being investigated in patients with anti-PD-1 relapsed or refractory melanoma. BNT111 encodes four melanoma-associated antigens, which collectively cover more than 90% of melanoma patients and are highly immunogenic. In the randomized Phase 2 clinical trial conducted in collaboration with Regeneron, BNT111 is being evaluated in combination with their anti-PD-1 compound cemiplimab. The trial enrolled 184 patients with PD-L1 refractory unresectable stage 3 or 4 melanoma and comprises three arms, of which one evaluates the combination and the other two measure the activity of BNT111 alone and cemiplimab. The trial met its primary endpoint, achieving a statistically significant improvement in objective response rate in the BNT111 cemiplimab combination arm as compared to a historical control of anti-PD-1 monotherapy in a relapsed/refractory patient based on multiple late-stage clinical trials that established the expected objective response rate for monotherapy checkpoint inhibitors in this setting for this patient population. The results we saw in the Phase 2 study are consistent with results seen in the preceding Phase 1/2 trial in patients with advanced melanoma who had exhausted treatment options. BNT111 alone or in combination with an anti-PD-1 compound induced high-magnitude T cell responses against at least one targeted tumor-associated antigen in all analyzed patients, most of which were not detectable prior to using the vaccine. We plan to present the full data from the primary analysis at a medical conference. The various FixVac data updates provided in Q3 are proof of concept in three dimensions. Firstly, for our mRNA cancer vaccine technology that uses uridine mRNA chemistry, a non-coding backbone that is engineered for optimal translation performance and our proprietary lipoplex formulation for systemic delivery, which we are using in both iNeST and FixVac vaccines. Secondly, for our computational approaches for selecting suitable tumor antigens and targets for our indication-specific FixVac program candidate. Lastly, a proof of concept for our strategy to combine synergistic modalities in the case of BNT111 and BNT113 with established immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment. Moving to autogene cevumeran, also known as BNT122, our individualized mRNA cancer vaccine candidate based on our iNeST platform in development with our partner Genentech. We consider individualized cancer vaccines as a potential medical breakthrough in addressing the high unmet medical need of resectable cancers and in adjuvant or minimal residual disease treatment settings. We have demonstrated that our individualized vaccine candidate used in patients with adjuvant pancreatic cancer can induce de novo T cell responses that are specific to the individual mutant tumor neoantigens and that the risk of recurrence of cancer for patients with vaccine-induced immune responses was reduced over a three-year follow-up period. We have two active randomized Phase 2 trials evaluating our individualized cancer vaccine in the adjuvant setting, namely in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and in colorectal cancer. The five-year survival rate in PDAC after resection is 10% and up to 75% of patients with PDAC relapse even though they appear tumor-free within five years after adjuvant treatment. For high-risk colorectal cancer, about 35% of patients relapse within five years after resection and adjuvant therapy. So to summarize, we aim to bring individualized cancer vaccines into the adjuvant treatment setting in tumor types where the unmet medical need is high. As such, we have expanded into a new indication with the start of a Phase 2 trial evaluating our individualized cancer vaccine candidate in the adjuvant treatment of muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma, which has started screening patients. The current treatment includes neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by cystectomy, and for eligible patients, this is followed by adjuvant treatment with an immune checkpoint inhibitor. The five-year survival among patients with metastatic urothelial cancer is about 8%. Adjuvant treatment of muscle invasive disease is an important opportunity to potentially avoid recurrence metastasis and improve overall survival. The randomized double-blind, multi-site Phase 2 clinical trial aims to evaluate autogene cevumeran as an adjuvant treatment with the immune checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab in patients with high-risk disease. The trial is expected to enroll about 360 patients to evaluate the efficacy of BNT122 in combination with nivolumab compared to nivolumab alone, the standard of care for this indication in the US. The primary endpoint for this study is investigator-assessed disease-free survival; secondary objectives include overall survival and safety. Lastly, as a final note, I would like to invite you to our upcoming Innovation Series Day next week, where we will share additional details on recent other programs in our immunotherapy pipeline. With that, I will now pass the presentation to our CFO, Jens Holstein.

Thank you, Özlem, and a warm welcome to everyone who has dialed into today's call. Let me start by reviewing our financial results for the three months ended September 30, 2024. The total revenues reported for the period were approximately €1.245 billion, mostly recorded in September, compared to approximately €895 million for the third quarter of 2023. The increase compared to the same period last year can be largely attributed to earlier approvals of our variant-adapted COVID-19 vaccines this year versus last year. Moving to cost of sales. Cost of sales amounted to approximately €179 million for the third quarter of 2024 compared to approximately €162 million for the comparative prior-year period. Research and development expenses were approximately €550 million for the third quarter of 2024 compared to approximately €498 million for the comparative prior-year period. These expenses were mainly influenced by progressing clinical trials for our late-stage oncology pipeline candidates. Sales, general and administrative expenses amounted to approximately €151 million for the third quarter of 2024 compared to about €154 million for the comparative prior-year period. SG&A expenses were primarily driven by personnel expenses. The company's other operating results amounted to approximately negative €355 million in the third quarter of 2024 compared to negative €9 million for the comparative prior-year period. The other operating result was primarily influenced by accruals for contractual disputes. Income taxes were realized with an amount of about €39 million in the third quarter of 2024 compared to approximately €67 million of accrued tax expenses for the comparative prior-year period. For the third quarter of 2024, we reported a net income of approximately €198 million compared to about €161 million for the comparative prior-year period. Our diluted earnings per share for the third quarter of 2024 amounted to €0.81 compared to €0.66 for the comparative prior-year period. As of September 30, 2024, our cash and cash equivalents plus security investments reached approximately €17.8 billion. Our strong balance sheet allows us to invest in future value creation. Consequently, we will continue to invest in maintaining a leading cash-generative COVID-19 vaccine business, in the development of our individualized therapies, and in our core capabilities to support additional late-stage trials and potential commercialization of our most encouraging oncology assets. We will continue to assume a rigorous go/no-go decision-making process across all development stages as part of our portfolio prioritization strategy. This allows us to maintain our focus on materializing the value in our pipeline. Turning to the next slide, where you see our financial guidance for the full year of 2024. We saw a strong quarter in terms of revenues, which included certain revenues that we previously anticipated in the last quarter of 2024. With this, we expect full 2024 financial year revenues to be at the low end of the guidance range provided in our outlook. Our guidance reflects some risk of write-downs and other charges by our collaboration partner Pfizer, which we estimate to be approximately 10% of company revenues. We will continue to monitor the risk of potential write-downs to determine the full scope of charges related to the 2024-2025 vaccination season. In line with our disclosure earlier in the year, we expect to report a loss for the 2024 financial year as we continue to invest in our most differentiating assets and technologies. We are committed to responsible and sustainable growth. And with this, updating our full 2024 financial year expenses guidance to indicate a decrease in estimated SG&A expenses and capital expenditures. Reflecting our focus on continued investment in our pipeline, we're maintaining our R&D expense guidance. We have lowered the initial full 2024 financial year SG&A expense guidance by €100 million from €700 million to €800 million to now €600 million to €700 million. We also reduced our capital expenditures guidance by €100 million from the initial 2024 guidance range of between €400 million and €500 million to between €300 million and €400 million. Please note that these guidance updates for SG&A expenses and CapEx do not reflect any M&A, collaboration, or licensing transactions that we may enter into in the future, nor any potential payments resulting from the outcomes of ongoing and/or future legal disputes or related activities, such as judgments or settlements or other extraordinary items, all of which may have a material effect on our results of operations and/or cash flows. In summary, we remain focused on executing the company's strategy highlighted by the progress across our pipeline. We have advanced and started new dose optimization and potentially registrational trials and have shared encouraging data that demonstrate the potential of our product candidates. In our oncology portfolio, our focus remains on investing in our innovative technologies that we believe can have the greatest impact on medical practice while progressing our late-stage programs efficiently towards potential approvals. Our cash position and financial discipline allow us to continue to invest in those assets with the highest disruptive potential and focus on generating value for patients and our shareholders. With that, I would like to turn the call over to our Chief Strategy Officer, Ryan Richardson, for our strategic outlook and concluding remarks. Thank you.

Thank you, Jens. Starting with COVID-19, we continue to execute on our successful launch of this season's JN.1 and KP.2 variant-adapted vaccines in more than 40 countries and regions around the world. In September, we began distribution of our KP.2 variant-adapted vaccine in Europe following the initial rollout of JN.1 vaccines in July. We expect additional markets, including the UK, that received initial shipments of JN.1 vaccine to transition to KP.2 deliveries in November. In the United States, we continue to expect vaccination rates this year that are generally comparable to last year, with the potential for slightly higher volumes due in part to the earlier approval and rollout of vaccines and supported by ACIP's recommendation in October for a second dose of COVID-19 vaccine for individuals who are 65 or older or immunocompromised. Internationally, we have seen the opening up of several private markets in countries like the UK, Japan, Switzerland, Australia, South Korea, Singapore, and Brazil. This year, we have also increased our supply of prefilled syringes in a number of international markets. The epidemiology of COVID-19 over the last two years and the associated global demand for vaccination continue to support our view that COVID-19 vaccines will be a sustainable market for the foreseeable future. We expect to maintain or even gain market share in a number of key markets this year versus last year and believe that we are likely to enter a period with improved visibility into vaccine demand. One of the unique features of our COVID-19 vaccine business is its lean cost structure. Our partnership with Pfizer allows us to leverage its manufacturing infrastructure and global commercial capabilities, which we expect will continue to enable us to limit the operating expenses flowing through our P&L. These features create the potential for us to generate significant cash flow from our COVID-19 business, a feature we expect to benefit from in the future. Turning to the next slide. We are entering a catalyst-rich period for our company, in particular for our oncology portfolio. Today, we have more than 10 Phase 2 and 3 trials ongoing across multiple tumor types. In the next 18 months, we expect multiple clinical data updates from these trials and will initiate several additional trials with registrational potential. Data is expected in 2025 from both our mRNA cancer vaccine platforms, FixVac and iNeST. We also expect data updates for BNT327, our anti-PD-L1 VEGF bispecific antibody, and BNT323, our HER2 ADC. Before we conclude our planned remarks, I would like to invite everyone to watch our annual Innovation Series event on November 14. This event will include a deeper dive into our oncology strategy, including plans for BNT327 and our mRNA cancer vaccine candidates. We look forward to engaging with you later this month to share more on our plans to create value for patients, society, and shareholders. With that, we would like to open the floor for questions.

Thank you. We will now take the first question from Tazeen Ahmad at Bank of America Securities. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Good morning, and appreciate your time. I wanted to ask you about one of the data catalysts that you mentioned that's upcoming in 2025. Perhaps you'll talk about this more in detail next week, but for 323 specifically, I believe you've got data coming for endometrial cancer. Can you talk about the level of data you expect to show next year for that program and what you're looking for in order to move forward? Thanks.

Tazeen, thank you for this question. The question was about our endometrial cancer data with BNT323. And what I can tell you about that is that in 2025, we expect to share data from our single-arm trial in second-line endometrial cancer. We will be able to show efficacy data and safety data across different HER2 positivity populations, and this will be presented at one of the major cancer conferences.

And, also, what would be positive data in your mind for that program?

Positive data?

Yeah. What would...

What would justify continuing with the compound is a strong clinical activity profile and favorable safety. We see this in the data across different HER2 expression levels.

Hi. Thank you for the question. I have one on the VEGF PD-L1 BNT327. I think we're all aware of a similar bispecific that has a PD-1 side whereas you have a PD-L1 side. And in small trials, in similar indications like triple-negative breast cancer, the two bispecifics look to have similar outcomes. Was that expected? And what does that tell you about the mechanism? And do you believe BNT327 could be differentiated in any indications? Thank you.

Hi Daina, thanks for the question. This is indeed a good inquiry. By the end of today, both bispecifics connect the functions of neutralizing VEGF and neutralizing PD-1/PD-L1 interaction; they share this feature. The main distinction is that BNT327 targets PD-L1, which may offer the benefit of being more prevalent in the tumor microenvironment due to its binding with PD-1 or vice versa, thus enhancing or complementing the binding of VEGF in that environment. Based on our current data, there are overlapping clinical trials, as you pointed out, that appear similar. We need to determine if this potential mechanistic difference can lead to improved response rates and durability, especially in PD-L1 positive tumors. There seems to be a slight trend in this direction, but it's still too early to confirm.

Hi. This is Kathy on for Akash. So, for your VEGF PD-L1 bispecific BNT327, when do the AEs and reductions in dose for hypertension and proteinuria show up in comparison to what we've seen historically for VEGF PD-L1 when co-administered as two separate drugs? And additionally, why aren't you going forward with it to first line NSCLC in all-comers population? And what's the rationale for going as a biomarker-selected population? Thank you.

I will address both parts of your question. First, regarding the historical safety profile comparison, we have treated over 700 patients either with the mono compound or in combination. The comparison indicates a lower incidence of key concerning side effects associated with bevacizumab, such as bleeding, hypertension, and the formation of fistulas. We have not noticed any significant rise in bleeding cases in this group compared to what is typically seen, for instance, with PD-1 antibodies. The rate of hypertension is also considerably lower than that associated with bevacizumab historically. While the reason behind this can only be speculated, it is thought that linking the antibody with the VEGF part to PD-L1 makes the anti-VEGF effect more targeted to tumor sites and less active in areas negative for PD-L1. This is certainly encouraging and adds to the already observed increased clinical activity for this class of compounds. As for the second part of your question regarding our choice to pursue an all-comer population, our bispecific has demonstrated clinical activity not only in PD-L1 positive and low populations but also in those that do not express PD-L1 or CPS. I would point to our data from triple-negative breast cancer, where the objective response rate is looking very promising. We observe similar clinical activity in the PD-L1 negative group within the second-line non-small-cell lung cancer population. Our working hypothesis is that this bispecific antibody overcomes the limitations of pure clinical activity found in PD-L1 positive tumors, potentially allowing us to combine checkpoint blockade with VEGF activity in tumors that are PD-L1 negative as well. Therefore, the clinical trial in non-small-cell lung cancer is designed as an all-comer trial; we are collecting samples for PD-L1 evaluation and stratifying patients based on their PD-L1 positivity.

Thank you.

Thank you. We will now take the next question from the line of Suzanne van Voorthuizen from VLK. Please go ahead.

Hi, team. This is Suzanne. Thanks for taking my question. Maybe I missed it, but can you clarify what the exact amount is that you have taken as a provision for contractual disputes this year? Is this it, or will there be more? And can you indicate what this relates to, if this is the ongoing patent dispute with other mRNA players on the COVID vaccine, or if there are other contractual disagreements you are dealing with? Thank you.

Yeah. Happy, Suzanne, to take the question. So, as you stated, the other operating result is reflecting these provisions that we have considered for contractual disputes with licensors and collaborators. We, at this point in time, given the legal situation that we're in, cannot give precise messaging on what and for what this is. There are a couple of disputes that are related, as I stated, with some of the players and collaborators that we're working with. In total, we have accrued around about €600 million year-to-date for this, and this is the amount that we feel is accurate at this point in time.

Thank you. We will now take the next question, coming from the line of Terence Flynn from Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead.

Great. Thanks so much for taking the question. I was just wondering if you can tell us what you think the relevant benchmark is for survival for the upcoming BNT327 TNBC data that we're going to see at the San Antonio Conference in December. Thank you. Hi, were you able to hear my question?

Yes. Can you just repeat that? Sorry.

Survival benchmark is for the upcoming BNT327 TNBC data at the San Antonio Conference in December? And then, the second part of the question is, is it reasonable to expect some interim data from your global Phase 2 lung cancer trial next year? Thank you.

Sure, I can address that question. The trial will be compared to the standard chemotherapy treatment. It is designed to evaluate progression-free survival and overall survival. The progression-free survival in this case is expected to be around four to five months. I'm currently unable to recall the overall survival figure.

I believe we have updates scheduled to provide information at the 15 and 18 month overall survival marks regarding the percentage of patients reached. This is becoming increasingly relevant when considering the achievements of pembrolizumab in a similar indication, which has a median overall survival ranging from 15 to 23 months, depending on the specific patient model.

Absolutely. And we have recently reported PFS data in the single-arm trial reaching now above 13 months and still ongoing.

Thank you. We will now take the next question from the line of Yaron Werber from TD Cowen. Please go ahead.

Great. Following up on Terence's question about TNBC, will the Phase 3 trial focus on CPS less than 10 specifically in that group, or will it include all CPS levels? Also, regarding small-cell, will the primary comparison be with chemo to centric or with chemo alone? Thank you.

The first trial is aimed at the patient population with a CPS below 10%, and it will be compared to chemotherapy alone. We are also assessing additional trials for the patient population above 10%.

And can you just repeat the second part of your question?

Yeah. Hey, Ryan. And just switching to small-cell lung cancer, is the Phase 3 going to be head to head against chemo or against chemo to centric? Thank you. In small-cell lung cancer?

Chemo plus the centric.

Thank you. We will now take the next question from the line of Jessica Fye from JPMorgan Chase. Please go ahead.

Hey, guys. Good morning. Thanks for taking my questions. Two. First on guidance. Of the various assumptions factoring into your guidance, what changed to lead you to guide to the low end of the range even though Pfizer, I believe, maintained its COMIRNATY guidance last week? And then, on the pipeline for BNT327, the VEGF PD-L1 bispecific, what do you see as the fastest to market indications? And what's the right way to think about R&D spend as the company expands trials for this product? Thank you.

Certainly, Jessica. I'll address the first part of your question. At the start of the year, we projected €2.5 billion to €3.1 billion based on various scenarios. Year-to-date in Q3 has been quite strong, with most of the revenue coming from high-income countries. However, we've encountered low demand and pricing issues in some low- and middle-income countries within the Pfizer territory, which is why we've adjusted our guidance to the lower end for this year. Now, what was your second question?

I think the second question was speed to market. What would we think would be the fastest to market for 327, is that correct?

Yeah.

So, I think we're going to provide more details at our Innovation Series event next week in terms of the path to market, but I think what we can say now is that we do think that small-cell lung cancer could be one of the leading indications that we're looking at very closely. We initiated a Phase 2 trial and believe that we can start a Phase 3 trial. So, it's a Phase 2/3 effectively, so Phase 3 portion of that trial in the coming months by the first half of next year. So, that could represent one fast path to market, but of course, we're looking at others as well.

Thank you. We will now take the next question from the line of Cory Kasimov from Evercore ISI. Please go ahead.

Hi. Thanks for taking the question. So, your TROP-2 ADC BNT325 looks like an important part of your merging combination strategy with 327. Looking at the clin trial posting shows that you're evaluating a variety of different dosing combinations. So, wondering if you can add some color on the dosing strategies and your confidence level that all three mechanisms together will not compromise safety. Thank you.

Yeah. The current exploration of combination is exactly also directed to explore the safety of the molecule in combination. So, BNT325, the TROP-2 ADC comes with a safety profile that is characterized by a tumor target. And one of the questions that we want to ask is whether the combination with BNT327 would have an additive toxicity effect. That is something that we would like to understand. We do not expect any other overlapping toxicity since BNT327 has a very favorable safety profile. We will start with lower doses and then escalate to higher doses to assess and identify a safe dose profile in the exploratory cohort for also determining the contribution of efficacy.

Thank you. We will now take the next question from the line of Chris Shibutani from Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead.

Hi, this is Kevin on for Chris. Thanks for taking our question. Just wanted to ask another one on the PD-L1 VEGF 327. So, you touched on potential mechanistic differences with bevacizumab earlier. If we can assume that the clinical profiles remain relatively similar, do you believe this is a story more about clinical execution? And if so, how can you differentiate there? Thanks.

Thank you for the question, Kevin. I'll start and then Özlem will add to it. We believe there is significant room for differentiation in our clinical strategy, which is a key focus for us. We see applicability across various tumor types and different patient segments within those types. A unique aspect of our oncology portfolio is the combination agents we can leverage with 327. We have discussed that chemotherapy combinations are likely the quickest path to market initially, and we have indicated a couple of early indications, but our vision is broader. We are considering ADC-327 combinations to follow shortly after. Our current plan is to start those trials in 2025, potentially launching the first combinations in that year instead of waiting to do them one after the other. We will also be looking into additional combinations in the future. This approach gives us a solid differentiation angle that we are well-positioned to take advantage of. Ultimately, it comes down to our combination strategy and clinical execution as key differentiators in the significant opportunity we foresee.

Great. Thank you.

Thank you. We will now take the next question from the line of Etzer Darout from BMO Capital Markets. Please go ahead.

Hi, this is Luke Shumway on for Etzer. Thanks for taking my question. So, what are you learning about overall survival across breast and lung cancer indications that you're looking at? I mean, what's your level of confidence that you can beat standard of care given the importance of that endpoint to regulators?

So, I think we had a little bit of a buzz in the question. I think you were asking about the importance of overall survival. Is that correct?

Yes. So, like what did you learn for overall survival across breast and lung? And like what level of confidence do you have given the importance of that endpoint to regulators?

Yeah. So, we completely understand the rationale of this question, particularly based on disappointing results coming with bevacizumab, which in many indications had an improved PFS, but it did not translate into an OS. And we are, of course, collecting our own in-house data, and we clearly see that this maturing OS data, unpublished OS data, we are getting more and more encouraged that improved PFS is indeed translating also into an OS. I would like to remind you that PFS improvement that we are seeing, for example, in TNBC is more than substantial. So, it's not the pattern that is usually observed with bevacizumab. Usually, bevacizumab added two to three months additional PFS, and then the drop in PFS was steep. This follows the pattern that is observed with chemotherapy alone. We are not seeing this pattern. We are seeing that particularly in indications where we combine BNT327 with chemotherapy that there is a sustained PFS and the PFS does not drop in the pattern like a steep curve, but goes slowly down. And this is the best thing that we have so far, that this can translate to OS. And I think we can definitely answer the question in the next months in which we are, TNBC small-cell lung cancer, and second-line small-cell lung cancer.

Thank you. We will now take the next question from the line of Ellie Merle from UBS. Please go ahead.

Hey, guys. Thanks for taking the question. For the flu-COVID combo program, I guess, what's the latest on this program after the Phase 3 missed one of the endpoints? And what's your latest thinking around the timelines for the second-gen program with the trivalent mRNA flu vaccine, just given Moderna expects to launch its combo next year? Curious the latest on your strategy with your combination. Thanks.

Thank you for your question, Ellie. We are currently collaborating with Pfizer on our next-generation flu-COVID vaccine combination program. It's a bit early to provide a detailed timeline, but we plan to offer updates throughout 2025. This program has the full support of the research and development teams from both Pfizer and BioNTech. We believe that some issues observed in the initial trial can be improved through further optimization, and we have preliminary evidence to back that up. However, before we outline a definitive plan, we want to collect more data and aim to share more insights next year.

Thank you. We will now take the next question from the line of Yifeng Liu from HSBC Bank Plc. Please go ahead.

Hello. Good morning. I appreciate you taking my question. I have one regarding your oncology portfolio. I’m particularly interested in updates on the other assets besides BNT327 and BNT325, especially in the immuno-oncology area. When can we expect to hear more about early and mid-stage assets like BNT312 and BNT314 in the next 12 months? Thank you.

So I think 312, of course, is the CD40x4-1BB program with Genmab, and that's an ongoing trial right now. I think our intention is to bring data forward upon that trial's completion. We don't yet have dates for that, but it's likely going to be next year. And I think the other programs, generally speaking, our intention is to bring data out when we think we have something relevant to share. We tend to do that in our preferred mode of data disclosure, which is in medical meetings. And so, of course, that requires that you've got data in hand that it's cleaned and been analyzed and is accepted by publication. So, we can't always give precise guidance on when every program will read out. But I think those other programs are progressing, and I think we'll plan to update our pipeline disclosure schedule going into early next year.

Thanks a lot.

Thank you. We will now take the next question from the line of Simon Baker from Redburn Atlantic. Please go ahead.

Thank you for taking my question. Another one on BNT327. I'm going back to Terence's question. I just wanted to double check that the comments you made with respect to trial design were related to triple-negative breast cancer rather than the planned non-small-cell lung cancer study. If that is indeed the case, is there anything you can shed on the design of that upcoming first-line study in terms of geography, comparator arm? I think you mentioned stratification already and interim results, but any detail would be much appreciated. Thank you.

Simon, I would like to refer you to our Innovation Day next week, where we will disclose in more detail a couple of study designs and benchmarks we are comparing against, also contextualized to our entire trial, where also questions around BNT327 pivotal trials we are planning will be disclosed.

Hello, thank you very much. Since my question was stolen, basically, I just wanted to ask on your ongoing confidence on your TROP-2 program, but also your iNeST melanoma program as well. Thank you very much.

The first question was about TROP-2 ADC, correct? Our TROP-2 ADC BNT325 is currently in the early testing phase. We see potential in combining it with BNT327, which we have discussed as a platform for different ADC combinations. We have just started exploring combination trials, focusing on safe combination doses and looking into cohorts for triple-negative breast cancer, non-small cell lung cancer, ovarian cancer, and cervical cancer with the TROP-2 and ADC combined with BNT327. The second question was regarding our iNeST, our individualized vaccine platform. We are continuing to expand into the adjuvant space. We have trials ongoing in adjuvant colorectal cancer with an interim analysis expected at the end of next year. We have partnered with Genentech on a trial in the adjuvant setting for pancreatic cancer, which was motivated by promising data from a small Phase 1 trial. Additionally, we have recently initiated a third trial in the adjuvant setting for muscle-invasive urothelial cancer, which is also a potentially pivotal randomized trial. These are the trials currently underway. We are also analyzing our trial in first-line melanoma and will provide more details about that during our upcoming Innovation Day next week.

And I would just add to that, that in summary, we continue to believe that iNeST has disruptive potential, in particular in those adjuvant settings that Özlem mentioned, and we're investing accordingly in the program.

Congrats on the progress, and thank you for providing this update. Can you comment on the approximate level of R&D spending increase you expect in the next few years considering how rapidly you're expanding a number of Phase 3 programs in oncology? And is there an ideal number of Phase 3 trials that would optimize your organizational and financial resources? Thank you.

Thank you for the question. It's a bit early to provide guidance, and we aren't planning to do so in November. We feel confident with the range of €2.4 billion to €2.6 billion that we currently have. While we want to manage costs, we also aim to make smart investments. For instance, considering the potential of 327, it wouldn't be wise to avoid investing in that compound. Rest assured, we will manage our costs moving forward, whether it involves SG&A expenses or R&D expenses.

Yeah. And with regard to the target pipeline, I think it's a very good question. I would just note that with the current level of R&D spend that Jens just alluded to, and we currently have 10 ongoing Phase 2 or 3 trials. Some of those are with partners, and some of those are fully BioNTech self-funded, but I think it already shows you that we've already reached at this current R&D level pretty significant scale in the mid and late stage pipeline.

Thank you. This concludes today's conference call. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.