Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by and welcome to the First Quarter 2020 Xencor Conference Call. [Operator Instructions] I would now like to hand the conference over to your speaker today, Charles Liles. Thank you, and please go ahead, sir.

Thank you, and good afternoon. Earlier this afternoon, we issued a press release which outlines the topics we plan to discuss today. The press release is available at www.xencor.com. Today on our call, Bassil Dahiyat, President and Chief Executive Officer, will provide updates regarding COVID-19, our portfolio programs and licensing partnerships; John Kuch, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, will review the financial results from the first quarter. Then we will open up the call for your questions, and Allen Yang, Senior Vice President and Chief Medical Officer, will join us for the Q&A. Before we begin, I would like to remind you that during the course of this conference call, Xencor management may make forward-looking statements including statements regarding the company's future financial and operating results, future market conditions, the plans and objectives of management for future operations, the company's partnering efforts, capital requirements, future product offerings, research and development programs and the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on these topics. These forward-looking statements are not historical facts, but rather are based on our current expectations and beliefs and are based on information currently available to us. The outcome of the events described in these forward-looking statements are subject to known, unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the results anticipated by these forward-looking statements, including, but not limited to, those factors contained in the Risk Factors section of our most recently filed annual report on Form 10-K and quarterly report on Form 10-Q. With that, let me pass the call over to Bassil.

Good afternoon. Before we touch on the development portfolio update, I'm going to describe the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on our business. Now despite the numerous challenges, we're fortunate that our clinical trials and research work continue to progress with modest impact on trial enrollment to date and that we continue to enjoy a strong cash position. We're still enrolling patients into a number of clinical studies that are evaluating our bispecific antibodies in oncology. And while clinical studies in oncology are still high priority for patients, their families and their physicians, the planned study initiations later this year for our two hematology programs, plamotamab, our CD20 x CD3 program, and vibecotamab, our CD123 x CD3 program, and the enrollment to our ongoing studies will likely be affected as many clinical sites have delayed starting new trials and others have postponed enrollment. This situation is very fluid and we'll continue to update as appropriate. Within the company, we've implemented a number of measures to protect the health and safety of our employees and our community. These include requiring all non-laboratory employees to work remotely, a reduction of research lab staff density by implementing alternating shifts and reorganizing our facility to further reduce staff density. Now a core part of our business is to complement our internal pipeline development with partnering. We received payments from the licensing of our XmAb technologies, the clinical advancement of eculizumab candidates as well as royalties from sales of approved products. We're monitoring for potential impacts to this partnership revenue. On the other hand, in April, our partners Alexion and Vir Biotechnology each announced plans to initiate clinical studies evaluating antibodies incorporating our Xtend Fc technology to treat patients with COVID-19. Alexion announced that they're initiating a Phase III trial with Ultomiris in treating patients with severe COVID-19 symptoms. Vir, under our expanded partnership to include antibodies targeting the SARS-CoV-2 virus, announced plans to initiate a Phase II study with such an antibody drug candidate. While partnerships like these certainly highlight the plug-and-play nature of the suite of XmAb Fc domains we've created, which have small changes in their structure that we designed, allow us and our partners to engineer nearly any antibody to have improved activity, longer half-life or bispecific structure. This flexibility and portability enable us to take multiple shots on goal simultaneously and generate proof-of-concept data to guide which programs we will independently advance or partner or terminate. We're focusing our R&D on the expansion use of our XmAb bispecific platform to create drug candidates that bind to more different targets simultaneously. We're currently running six Phase I clinical studies evaluating XmAb bispecific antibody. Our plug-and-play approach to engineering enables the rapid design and simplified development of antibodies and other protein structures like cytokines. Bispecific antibodies and cytokines are a rapidly emerging area of therapeutic development, particularly in oncology. In order to sit at the forefront of innovation in this space, we use our engineered heterodimeric Fc domain as a robust scaffold to rapidly develop new candidates that we group into three classes: T-cell engagers, tumor microenvironment activators and cytokines. The first and most advanced class is the T-cell engagers. These are tumor-targeted bispecific antibodies that contain both the tumor antigen binding domain and a cytotoxic T-cell binding domain, specifically a CD3 binding domain. These T-cell engagers, which we also call CD3 bispecifics, activate T-cells at the site of the tumor in order to potently kill malignant cells. Before we review these programs, please note that our first three CD3 bispecific programs targeting CD123, CD20, and somatostatin receptor two have recently received their non-proprietary names, vibecotamab, plamotamab, and Tidutamab, respectively. We will be referring to these with their new names. So vibecotamab is XmAb14045, plamotamab is XmAb13676, and Tidutamab is XmAb18087. Now while we continue to dose patients in our Phase I studies of vibecotamab and plamotamab in hematologic cancers, we're planning to initiate studies of these additional candidates, subject to possible impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic, as mentioned earlier. We also continue to dose patients in the Phase I study of Tidutamab and continue to expect that we will present additional data from this ongoing study in neuroendocrine tumors and gastrointestinal stromal tumors in the second half of this year. Further, we've expanded our CD3 class of bispecifics by developing our XMAB 2+1 bispecific format, which uses the same heterodimeric XmAb Fc domain as in our other bispecific antibodies and cytokines, but it has two identical tumor targeting domains and one CD3 targeting domain. The two tumor targeting binding domains can bind together when more target is present, a property called avidity. This enables higher selectivity for tumor antigen-expressing cells and greater flexibility in tuning the potency and hence, efficacy and tolerability of the molecule. We'll be presenting preclinical data from three internally developed XmAb 2+1 bispecific antibodies targeting solid tumors at the second session of the American Association of Cancer Research Virtual Annual Meeting in late June. The next group of bispecific antibodies are our tumor microenvironment activators. Rather than directly bridging a cytotoxic T cell to a tumor cell, our TME activators, as we call them, seek to more effectively reactivate tumor-reactive T-cells than existing therapies. These antibodies simultaneously engage multiple T cell targets, such as checkpoints or agonists. A key feature of our design is to choose individual binding affinities for each T cell target to give lower binding in T-cells with only one of the two targets on its surface, but they have high binding when both targets are present. This zipping up of multiple handholds is similar to the avidity property in our 2+1 CD3 bispecifics. Now our approach reduces the need for multiple antibodies typically using combination therapy and allows for more selective targeting of T cells that have multiple checkpoint expressions, which are typically found more in the tumor microenvironment than in the periphery. Our three clinical stage TME activators target different checkpoint or co-stimulation combinations and all demonstrate controlling in vitro/in vivo data to support their clinical development. We're conducting Phase I studies evaluating these drug candidates in patients with advanced solid tumors. This study is evaluating XmAb22841, which targets CTLA-4 and LAG-3, and XmAb23104, which targets PD-1 and ICOS, that are enrolling patients in the dose escalation portion of these studies. We've recently opened expansion cohorts in the Phase I study of XmAb20717, which targets PD-1 and CTLA-4. These cohorts are enrolling patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer, renal cell carcinoma, prostate cancer, and other cancers without approved checkpoint therapies. The study continues to enroll patients in additional dose escalation cohorts separately. An expansion cohort for patients with melanoma is fully enrolled. The American Society for Clinical Oncology accepted an abstract containing initial data from the dose escalation cohorts for publication in their virtual scientific program, which will appear online next Wednesday, May 13. We plan to update these data through a press release. Finally, we're developing a suite of cytokines, which are immune-signaling proteins that are built on the XmAb bispecific Fc domain and incorporate our Xtend technology. These are Fc domain and tuning the potencies enables more druggable cytokines and with potentially superior tolerability, slower receptor-mediated clearance, and longer half-life. Our first cytokine program and the lead in our collaboration with Genentech in XmAb24306, which they are denoting as RG6323, is an IL-15/IL-15 receptor-alpha complex fused with our bispecific Fc domain. It targets the expansion and activation of T-cells and natural killer cells. In March, Genentech dosed the first patient in a Phase I dose escalation and expansion study of XmAb24306 as a single-agent and in combination with atezolizumab, their anti-PD-L1 antibody. The study is enrolling patients with locally advanced or metastatic solid tumors. I recall that we can perform our own clinical studies with both our own pipeline assets and non-Genentech agents within this collaboration, subject to some conditions. We look forward to planning a number of these combination studies pending completion of the initial dose escalation study. We look forward to keeping you informed about all of our clinical programs as they progress. Now I'll switch to reviewing some updates from our partnerships. While we have 10 ongoing partnerships for XmAb technology which have resulted so far in one marketed product, one now under review for marketing approval, seven clinical candidates, and more in earlier stages of development, we are only going to update on three today before proceeding to financials. MorphoSys in 2010 licensed tafasitamab from us, which was previously known as MOR208, and before that, XMAB5574. It's an anti-CD19 antibody that we designed and initially developed incorporating our cytotoxic Fc domain for high Fc for high ADCC function. In late February, the FDA accepted MorphoSys' BLA submission for treating patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, for which they received a $12.5 million milestone payment. Their submission was granted priority review and received a PDUFA goal date of August 30, 2020. We're eligible for additional milestones and royalties on sales in the high-single to low double-digit percentage. We've also entered into research collaborations that include the creation of a novel XmAb biospecific antibody to be advanced by partners, for example, AMG 509, Amgen's STEAP1 x CD3, 2+1 bispecific antibody, developed under our collaboration with them. Amgen is developing AMG 509 for patients with prostate cancer and Ewing sarcoma. Preclinical data presented during session one of the AACR virtual annual meeting in April. Amgen is now recruiting patients in a Phase I study of the AMG 509 in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Now the last program is, in January, we entered into a technology license agreement with Gilead who is accessing our extended half-life and cytotoxic Fc technologies for developing and commercializing elipovimab, their first-in-class broadly neutralizing anti-HIV antibody in Phase I clinical development as well as up three additional anti-HIV antibodies. At this time, Gilead has exercised all three options for the additional antibodies. In total, we received $13.5 million under the agreement. Our partnership with Gilead and the expansion of our partnership with Vir in COVID-19, both highlight our strategy to selectively license access to our XmAb technologies in producing and developing antibodies with improved properties which shows broad applicability in areas such as viral infectious disease. The plug-and-play nature of our XmAb technologies enables our partners to advance their programs needing very little resources or effort from us. Now with that, I'm going to turn the call over to John Kuch to review our first quarter 2020 financials.

Thank you, Bassil. Xencor continues to operate from a strong financial position which enables us to support our portfolio of clinical-stage and research-stage specific antibody and cytokine drug programs. Cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities totaled $609.9 million as of March 31, 2020, compared to $601.3 million on December 31, 2019. The increase reflects upfront and milestone payments and royalties related to licensing agreements, net of spending on operations for the first quarter. For the first quarter ended March 31, 2020, revenues were $32.4 million compared to $111.9 million for the same period in 2019. These revenues include milestone revenue recognized for MorphoSys, royalty revenue recognized from Alexion and licensing revenue recognized from our Amgen and Gilead collaborations compared to revenue from the same period in 2019, which were primarily revenue from our Genentech collaboration. Research and development expenditures for the first quarter in 2020 were $33.9 million compared with $28.2 million for the same period in 2019. The increase being primarily due to increased spending on our panitumumab and XmAb2717 programs, partially offset by reduced spending on our obexelimab program. General and administrative expenses for the first quarter of 2020 were $7.2 million compared to $5.5 million in the same period in 2019. The increase primarily being related to greater spending on personnel costs and professional fees. The net loss for the period ended March 31, 2020, was $8.1 million or $0.14 on a fully diluted per share basis for the first quarter compared to net income of $80 million or $1.38 on a fully diluted per share basis for the same period in 2019. The net loss for the first quarter 2020 compared to net income reported for the same period 2019 is primarily due to revenue recognized from the Genentech collaboration in 2019. Non-cash share-based compensation expense for the first quarter of 2020 was $6.5 million compared to $5.9 million for the same period in 2019. Total shares outstanding were $57 million as of March 31, 2020, compared to $56.3 million as of March 31, 2019. Based on current operating plans, we expect to have cash to fund research and development programs and operations into 2024 and to end 2020 with between $500 million and $550 million in cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities. With that, we'd now like to open up the call for your questions.

[Operator Instructions] And our first question comes from the line of Jonathan Chang with SVB Leerink. Your line is now open.

First question, can you help set expectations for the XmAb20717 ASCO publication?

Sure. We expect to be able to report escalation on the already completed dose-escalation cohorts. We're hoping to see the safety and tolerability of the end molecule, which is obviously very important for our product profile to differentiate from the rather toxic regimens that you get with PD-1 CTLA-4 blockade, for example, with ipilimumab and nivolumab combinations. We're going to look for biomarkers to ensure they're moving in the right direction, and we will look to see what efficacy we have from those cohorts. Of course, it's a very heterogeneous patient population with many different tumor types, some with approved checkpoint inhibitors that would make you expect many of the patients would be post-PD-1 therapy and some with different kinds of tumors. So that's the kind of data we'll present, and we've always thought that the way to get at efficacy is by doing expansion cohorts, and that's something we've just recently initiated. Because you can do larger numbers of patients with individual tumor types and really have a better shot at studying them.

And just a follow-up on that, since you mentioned recently opened expansion cohorts in this study, given the heterogeneous nature of a Phase I dose escalation study, can you talk about how you're teasing out signals of activity in the data you're generating and how you're thinking about which indications and settings to pursue further?

Yes. We're considering where checkpoint inhibition can move the needle. The dose-expansion cohorts we've set up give you indications of that. There is a mixture of indications where there's known checkpoint therapy activity where approved checkpoint inhibitors are in use, and likely everybody will receive at least PD-1 therapy prior to advancing to a clinical trial. These will be our non-small cell lung, melanoma, and renal cell carcinoma expansion cohorts. Those are cohorts where we hope to study enough patients in each of those indications to establish whether we have meaningful activity in each of these indications post PD-1 therapy. So looking at the PD-1 relapse and refractory population. Tremendous opportunity, obviously with a very high bar. The other couple of cohorts we are looking at are prostate cancer, where there's recently been significant and meaningful clinical activity from checkpoint inhibitors, but still a pretty heterogeneous multi-line cancer that I think has a lot of opportunity compared to other areas in oncology. We are also interested in a basket of more unusual rare tumors that have various biologies we want to explore. With the basic science surrounding our compound, we can really study what's going on in these expansion cohorts.

And just one last question. It sounds like the COVID-19 impact on your ongoing clinical studies is minimal so far. Can you expand on this? I'm curious because we're hearing varied responses among even our oncology companies.

I'll let Allen Yang, our Chief Medical Officer, address that.

Yes. Thanks, Bassil. Good question. I can't comment on other companies, but at Xencor, what we've been hearing anecdotally is that a lot of sites are closing to new patient enrollment, not because they're being overwhelmed, but because they're preparing for a potential surge of COVID-19 patients. With that said, oncology is a large unmet need, and so these will probably be the patients that need therapy the most. They will be the last ones that would be denied access to care due to preparations for COVID. In addition, most of our studies since they are Phase I are in dose escalation. You need very few patients for dose escalation. So those slots, when they become available to patients, they get filled very quickly by our investigators. Overall, the impact that Bassil alluded to was on new patient studies. One can imagine, instead of an oncology patient who needs therapy, when you have a study and you're setting up that study, it's about contracting, getting the site up to speed, and having them learn about the protocols. This is mainly administrative, and therefore, it can be deprioritized. That's why we haven't seen much disruption.

Yes. It really comes down to the luck of the draw. Different sites have different approaches. Before we go to the next question, I just wanted to comment. There have been on-and-off problems with the Q&A queuing system, which we will continue through, but just bear with us if any issues do arise. I'm ready for the next question.

And our next question comes from the line of Arlinda Lee with Canaccord. Your line is now open.

I was curious about the milestone flow on MorphoSys' 208. The $12.5 million milestone, can you talk about what that's for and what the $25 million upcoming might be? I was also curious. We've been talking a lot about your I-O-I-O bispecifics for a while and how that was a focus. Now that you have this new wave, seems to be the 2:1s. Can you kind of talk about the shift in interest from I-O-I-O to the 2:1?

Sure. Thanks, Arlinda. Yes, we had reported in our 10-K that there were $37.5 million of regulatory milestones related to the compound. We received $12.5 million upon acceptance of the BLA by the FDA, which then got through in January or February. So that's the $12.5 million. The other $25 million relates to additional regulatory approvals related to the compound.

John, do you want to take the I-O-I-O bispecific and 2:1 CD3 comparison?

Sure, Bassil. We go where the scientific hypotheses that we think are going to provide the best chance of having a differentiated drug for patients. With three I-O-I-O bispecifics in the clinic, we're testing three distinct hypotheses that we were excited about, but there’s a lot that can be done particularly when we enable CD3 bispecifics to be more amenable for solid tumors, which often have a heterogeneous target density on healthy versus diseased tissue. The 2:1 approach gives you a nice handhold. It’s more about where does the science give us the best immediate opportunity, and where have we already put a lot of bets down on multiple hypotheses. But it's all expanding into being a broader opportunity within solid tumors as opposed to our earlier work.

Can I also ask a question on the 24306 IL-15 compound in collaboration with Genentech? You guys have talked about having a fairly aggressive program. I'm curious since the trial has already started, has started, I wonder whether that program might have any COVID impact and when we might be able to see data from that.

We've been guiding that there is unlikely to be data from that program this year. That's in the hands of Genentech. They're executing on the trial, and we have to reach an agreement with them on when we do data releases. But I would not expect it this year, given they just dosed the first patient in March. As for COVID-19 impacts, I know they're very committed to the trial. They got a patient going right when COVID was starting to ramp up. We will report any meaningful COVID impact in our next update.

And our next question comes from the line of Peter Lawson with Barclays. Your line is now open.

This is [Waleed] on for Peter. I apologize if I missed anything earlier; I had a difficulty with the conference line. I just wanted to ask a question on XmAb18087. Wondering if you can give us clarity on whether or not that data is still on track for the second half and maybe you can tell us how enrollment is going through the study. Are you seeing any challenges for patients being able to get follow-up? Just an update on that study.

Yes, we reaffirmed earlier on the call that XmAb18087, now called Tidutamab, we expect to give a data update on the Phase I study in the second half of this year. We do continue to enroll. Allen, do you want to touch on the question regarding follow-up visits?

Yes. I just want to remind you that neuroendocrine tumors and gastric stromal tumors are rare tumors. Despite that, we still are enrolling well. In the patients that are in the study, we haven't seen anybody miss key visits, which would include dosing visits or tumor-assessment visits. Overall, I think we're doing pretty well.

What can we expect to see in that update, number of patients and maybe types of data? Can you help set a bar for certain efficacy and safety benchmarks that you may want to meet to consider your results positive?

We aren't guiding on the number of patients. We've been dose escalating through a number of cohorts, which typically ranges from three to six patients per cohort. Without getting into specifics about the upcoming data, in general, these neuroendocrine tumors typically don't respond with a RESIST sort of response; as with the currently approved agents, there typically is around a 5% or 10% response rate. However, what tends to happen is patients can continue on and tolerate therapy well without worsening symptoms. The recent approved agent, for example, which is a radionuclide peptide conjugate, was approved on PFS and OS. That might set your expectation moving forward. On the safety front, it’s a CD3 bispecific against a solid tumor where the antigen is expressed in various neuroendocrine tissues. It will likely vary tissue-by-tissue to confirm patient tolerability. These are advanced NET patients with very few options, so there's some latitude if we see activity.

Our next question comes from the line of Gabriel Fung with Mizuho Securities. Your line is now open.

This is Gabriel, on for Mara. I have a first question regarding the COVID-19 impact. I understand that delays may be felt, but I was wondering if you can quantify the magnitude of the delay, maybe within a quarter or two. As it relates to the trials that are already ongoing, can you also provide details about the timing for the new trials that were expected to start as of last quarter? Have you already enrolled any patients? I have a few more follow-ups after that.

To answer your first question, the studies that we had guided to initiate this year are in the second half, were we announced plans for our plamotamab, our CD20 x CD3 bispecific for the next set of trials. For that, we can't provide guidance right now about what kind of delays might emerge from COVID-19. It seems reasonable to assume there will be delays, but given the timeline, we can't specify further due to the fluid nature of the situation. We had planned by mid-year to open the study for vibecotamab, our CD123 x CD3, but that has felt some impacts from administrative points and some study sites just not wanting to take on new studies while COVID is a concern. I don't know if we can give a specific amount of time. We're hoping to be able to initiate that study somewhat later this part of mid-year but it's uncertain. That answers your first question. Do you have other aspects to your inquiry?

No, that's good. I'll follow up later. I have another question. It's just really much on cash. Given your cash position right now, does it make sense to even look externally for additional assets or technologies?

We are always looking. As a small company, there are some disadvantages, but we're always on the lookout for great new technology or molecules that can fit into our strategy. I wouldn't say we make it a primary corporate goal, but it's always a good idea to explore opportunities outside our existing research. That said, we do have a very rich and busy development team with a lot of ongoing research. But it's something we always keep in mind.

Our next question comes from the line of Ed Tenthoff with Piper Jaffray. Your line is now open.

I have a follow-up on an earlier question regarding IL-15. I'm really trying to understand what are the optimal potential combinations here. How does that mechanism play best, either with checkpoints or other targeted agents? How are you thinking, at a very high level, about developing that candidate with Genentech?

Thanks, Ed. It's great to hear from you. The initial work is with the checkpoint inhibitor, specifically with the atezolizumab PD-L1 molecule from Genentech. It's an approved agent that's showing promise even though it's, I think, the third in the PD-1 PD-L1 space. We hope that this could lead to exciting clinical trials that they can initiate once we move past the initial dose escalation. There are certainlyother checkpoint inhibitors, and we are looking towards our pipeline. If the molecule progresses well through this first trial, we will seek how to synergize with those checkpoint inhibitors. Natural killer cell opportunities also exist. While we don't have specific guidance now, we are actively discussing with Genentech. Once we have tolerability data and understand our dose and, hopefully, see some exciting developments, we'll be able to finalize that. There are many different opportunities. To start, we need to make sure we validate the checkpoint inhibitor first.

Our next question comes from the line of Gregory Renza with RBC Capital Markets. Your line is now open.

I have a few questions. First, what are your disclosures with ongoing monotherapy trials of vibecotomab and plamotamab and 14045 over the year? My second question is, how do you think COVID-19 has shaped your development strategies and can you remind us of your priorities among the early stage programs?

It's quite challenging to hear due to connection issues. I believe your first question was about guidance on any data readouts for plamotamab and vibecotomab for this year. We haven't yet provided that guidance. We'll have to give updates later in the year when we might have data from them. It's prudent for us to ensure we thoroughly understand the COVID impacts before we proceed with guidance. However, as Allen has mentioned earlier comments, thus far our trials have continued to enroll successfully. Some of it has simply been luck at our sites, but we do not know what the future holds. We'll stay vigilant. The impacts thus far have been limited on our ongoing enrollment, but new study starts, particularly for vibecotomab, have certainly been affected since that study was in the advanced stages of planning and prep. Therefore, it's likely to slide from our initial mid-year target, but we are uncertain about the specific extent. Regarding your second question about how COVID-19 has influenced our development strategies, our early-stage programs maintain priority until we can gather meaningful proof-of-concept data from them. At that point, we decide our strategy. We’ve now achieved active doses for vibecotomab and plamotamab, which means we are in a position to initiate new studies. We remain in the initial data-gathering phase, and our objective always is to manage the portfolio so that as we accumulate more data, we can identify and advance the most promising candidates.

I hope you can hear me now.

Yes, a little better.

How do you think COVID-19 has shaped your development strategies?

It's important to manage the portfolio effectively, and while I do believe COVID-19 has influenced some aspects of the industry, particularly with new study starts, at this time, we feel our current strategies remain sound, and we've made adjustments as necessary while continuing to prioritize our clinical development. Our strong cash position allows us to maintain an aggressive focus and to advance our clinical development as planned.

And our last question comes from the line of Etzer Darout with Guggenheim Securities. Your line is now open.

Just one really for me. Obviously, we've gotten some activity data for PD-1 CTLA-4 bispecifics from a couple of different companies, including one that'll come at ASCO. I guess the question is, what do you expect in terms of ultimate differentiation? One area of focus is on post-PD-1 patients in indications with established PD-1 therapy. Is that where you see your assets differentiating in this landscape?

Yes. I think our strategy involves looking at both post-PD-1 patients in indications where PD-1s have established usage and at other indications where a strong biological hypothesis exists, particularly for CTLA-4. We aim to ensure our design effectively targets double-positive cells. These designs also facilitate combination opportunities with other agents, whether those are chemo or targeted agents. The differentiation strategy we've designed is based on targeting effectively and consequently ensuring safety through a well-defined mechanism. That said, the data is still very early, and our expectations will depend on how everything plays out over the next few quarters.

And this does conclude today's question-and-answer session. I would now like to turn the conference call back to Bassil Dahiyat for any closing remarks.

I'd like to thank everyone very much for joining us today, and also for bearing through the multiple technical difficulties, including me being on mute for the first two minutes. It’s always more challenging when we are all remotely located like we are these days during COVID-19. I look forward to catching up again and giving further updates on our progress throughout the year. In the meantime, I hope everybody stays safe. Thank you.

Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today’s conference call. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.