Great. Thanks so much for joining us, everybody. Really pleased to be here hosting Gilead. Before we get started, please see the Morgan Stanley research disclosure website at www.morganstanley.com/researchdisclosures. If you have any questions, please reach out to your Morgan Stanley sales representative. I'm Terence Flynn, the U.S. biopharma analyst here at Morgan Stanley, and we're very pleased to have Dan O'Day with us. Dan is Chairman and CEO, and Andy Dickinson, who is the company's CFO. Thank you both for taking time out of your day to join us today.
Pleasure.
I thought maybe we'd start off, you know, high level. Obviously, diversification has been a key part of the Gilead story and part of your mandate, Dan, as you came in as CEO. So maybe give us an update in kind of the progress that you've made with the team in terms of diversifying the company away from HIV and also what's left to be done as you look out over the next several years here.
Yeah. First of all, Terence, thanks for having us and for hosting the conference. I'm delighted to be here with Andy, and we'll tag team on this, and thank you all for your interest in joining. Yeah, I think we've made tremendous progress. If you asked me if we would have been in this position when I took over four and a half years ago, I would have said, "I can't imagine we'd be this far along." So, we've just made... And I think on two fronts. One, in the commercial front, which I think is punctuated by, you know, seven quarters of consecutive growth, really strong growth, excluding VEKLURY.
And then secondly, the organization that Andy and I and the team have built around execution on the portfolio, and I think the metric on that is, you know, 21 phase III trials, and I'll get into that a little bit. But on the commercial front, I mean, it's largely in two different areas. One is virology continues to perform really, really well. I mean, just using the last quarter as an example, we had that 9% growth in our core HIV business, which is incredibly strong. BIKTARVY is now a $10 billion, you know, asset in our portfolio, and that's juxtaposed with the progress we made in oncology.
You know, at the end of the day, we're very confident about our ability to meet our target of more than a third of our revenue coming from our oncology business by 2030. The reason for that is the following: I mean, last year, we had around $2 billion in business on our oncology business. Through the first half of this year, we're now on a $3 billion run rate. Our cell therapy business is growing at 27%. TRODELVY is growing at 63%. So we've got great confidence around the commercial execution in our programs, and that's supplemented on the transformation side by the depth of that portfolio. Those 21 phase III trials, you know, are playing out in across our therapeutic areas.
I mean, for HIV, just to talk a little bit about it, we've got now more than nine potential combinations with long-acting treatments. Importantly, and I know we'll get back to this, but on the PrEP side with lenacapavir, you know, we have four trials, and those are gonna be reading out. The two first trials will be reading out towards the end of next year, beginning of the following year, with lenacapavir for PrEP, which we think will really transform the HIV PrEP market and eventually the treatment market. We've got COVID trials underway with VEKLURY. This year marked a third indication for TRODELVY and hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, and we're coming fresh off.
In fact, I was just in Singapore at the World Lung Cancer Conference on the EVOKE-02 data, where we saw some really promising data for, you know, TRODELVY and lung cancer, first-line lung cancer, where we have the ongoing work in second-line lung cancer. That, combined with the fact that, you know, we more than doubled the portfolio with 64 programs across, you know, the entirety of the portfolio, but in particularly in oncology, HIV, cell therapy, which is growing really nicely and strongly from the portfolio perspective. So I would say we are far from done, and again, Andy and I would not be declaring that we're in any way in pause mode.
We're gonna continue to execute, and very importantly, we're gonna continue now because we've gone through a really important build over the past several years. The organization is a very different organization it was, and we significantly increased our investment in R&D, for instance. But we're now at a phase where we are at a stage where we're investing, I think, appropriately overall in the range of where we want to be with R&D. So managing expenses, managing our ability to make sure we focus on the operating margin and also on our EPS is something that Andy and I are both very committed to on the course of this transformation journey over the next several years.
Okay, great. I guess in terms of just on the BD front, maybe we'll just segue there, Andy. It sounds like we should expect more kind of partnerships, more collaborations, more kind of normal course type stuff, as opposed to anything kind of, you know, mid-cap in size.
Yeah, I think, I think that's exactly right. We've been consistent for the last couple of years, and we did what we needed to do to diversify the business, to have the anchor asset in TRODELVY and oncology. Obviously, the cell therapy acquisition was incredibly important, and you're seeing this in the business performance that Dan highlighted. I mean, we have above median growth in our base business, which I think, you know, the market tends to underappreciate today, given where Gilead was historically. So we have this incredible momentum in the base business. We have a very strong portfolio, as Dan highlighted, much broader. We're gonna continue to build it out, but what, what you see over the next couple of years is more likely to be what you saw in 2022, what you've seen this year so far.
A lot of important early-stage licensing deals, smaller acquisitions. I think our belief is that any healthy company will continue to look broadly at external assets and to bring in external assets, but our focus is really on late-stage preclinical, early-stage clinical assets. That's the part of our portfolio today that we'd like to build out further. Again, that will drive robust growth, you know, above and beyond where we are today.
We don't talk about, though, but Andy and the team have built up a really interesting early inflammation portfolio, too, both within our own research and externally. And that's kind of the third leg of the transformation journey that will come in the 2030s. But we think, you know, we think in generations, kind of in terms of how we're gonna approach the portfolio and how we expand that out. And so that will continue to be.
Yeah, yeah.
Very eventually coming across for all of oncology and inflammation.
Yeah, absolutely. I mean, we, the other thing that's worth mentioning, when you, when you look at oncology, and you just step back in terms of... We hear this consistently from the outside advisors and KOLs. You know, broadly, I think people believe that there are four big areas of growth and real potential to change patients' lives over the next decade or so. One is cell therapy, the other area is antibody drug conjugates, in particular, the Trop-2, maybe, maybe the HER2 as well. TIGIT is another area, and then some of the targeted oncology therapies. We are clearly, today, a leader in three of those four, and we have some early-stage programs against targets like PRMT5 and KRAS G12D that we're excited about that should enter the clinic.
So, you know, from an internal perspective, I think our belief is we very purposefully and systematically looked at where is the oncology world going, where is the immunology world going, to Dan's point, and then we've slowly and, and kind of methodically built out a portfolio that we expect the street to gain much greater appreciation for over the coming years, similar to what you saw in the, the TRODELVY EVOKE-02 data, which I think people are fully starting to appreciate now and will continue to appreciate over the coming weeks and months. So really good progress.
Great. Well, maybe I had a couple follow-ups on that. I guess first is, Dan, on your comment on you're committed to to EPS growth here. So maybe just help us think about the margin opportunity here back. Have you talked about kind of the top-line growth objectives, but how do you think about kind of the margin trajectory from here, when you think about commitment to that EPS growth that you.
Yeah, I'll start, and then Andy can add a little color. I think. You know, at the macro level, you know, we had underinvested, I think, on the R&D side for a long time at Gilead. So we had a lot of catching up to do over the past several years, and we did that both through capital allocation and M&A that we've talked a little bit about, but also in building, you know, the nature of our business internally. But now we're at a stage where we're roughly in the low 20% of R&D spend versus sales, and we think for a healthy company that's firmly focused on innovation, that's a good range to be in.
And we're also at a stage where we can expect to see, you know, again, we doubled the portfolio from probably 30 programs in the portfolio to 64. And it's not just about the numbers, I think also the quality, the nature of our portfolio, the risk-reward profile. And I think we're now gonna be at more of a steady state, where we'll start to see these 21 phase III trials that we're executing on now, which is pretty extraordinary when one thinks about what we've built up, particularly the new muscles in oncology, which are different than executing on trials in virology, as all of you know. But now we'll see trials naturally, as one would think, in a more mature company relative to investment, trials rolling off and new trials starting.
So you start to get much more of a steady state in the R&D. We've done the same thing in the commercial organization by building up, you know, in both cell therapy and outside of cell therapy, a strong commercial execution organization that will have leverage as we put new indications into that over the future. So I think with those as kind of key drivers, too, and we're very focused, Andy, leading in this on the G&A side, to make sure that we're constantly looking and optimizing and bringing, if you like, Gilead into the forefront. In many ways, we can leapfrog because of, you know, the investments, perhaps the underinvestment we had in the past on systems, but leapfrogging in terms of efficiency and being effective around G&A.
So, you know, I mean, I'll let Andy comment on, you know, obviously, we're not guiding this stage to particular EPS and sales lines, but-
No, I mean.
Yeah.
Maybe to step back, we moved from this growth, where Dan highlighted that we underinvested significantly, I think, in R&D historically. You've known the company for a long time. We made up for a lot of that. We've, you know, almost doubled our spending overall. We needed to. Even with that, we have incredibly strong operating margins today. So we still have one of the, you know, a top operating margin in the industry. And as Dan said, we're kind of moving from that growth and execution phase to what I would call an execution and optimization phase. And there's a lot of room to optimize the business over the coming years.
You're gonna see the switch from expenses, you know, even though I mentioned earlier that the base business growth was incredibly strong over the last couple of years, it has been, and we don't expect that to change. You know, the expense growth will moderate, and that will cross over in the foreseeable future. So to Dan's point, we don't provide long-term guidance on this, but in the foreseeable future, you're gonna see that expense growth cross over. It'll be less than your, what we expect to be our base business revenue growth, and then you'll see the leverage in the model. We are still a very small company relative to many of our peers. We have less than 20,000 employees globally.
We are agile, and there's a lot of room in the model that when you drive the top-line growth that we've seen and that we expect to kind of increase over time and the expense discipline, you're gonna see a lot of that fall to the bottom line. Not that different than Gilead historically. It's just, again, it was a very different business model. So, we're getting to that point where we expect a crossover, and we have a lot of it. Back to your portfolio comment, we have an incredibly strong portfolio, not only in oncology, but also in virology, with areas like PrEP, that should drive that outsized growth, all of which should fall to the bottom line here in the foreseeable future.
Okay. Okay, great. The other, kind of related question, based on some of your comments, Dan, was obviously, you know, we're gonna enter a post-IRA world, you know, back half of the decade that does have implications for cancer drugs, I think most specifically small molecule cancer drugs. So as you think about investing in innovation and this, you know, diversification to cancer, how does this new IRA world impact some of those decisions you're making and prioritizing spend? You mentioned inflammation as another area where probably it would be less of an impact. So maybe just speak through, like, what is Gilead as a company doing to navigate the post-IRA world?
Yeah, you know, I think there's a lot yet to be understood about the post-IRA world. So I think the two things that we do understand well in IRA are the inflation rebates and the Part D reform, both of which I think are clearly manageable within our portfolio. And I believe they eventually help—I mean, they do help patients out-of-pocket costs. So we were really a proponent of things like the Part D reform. It's really the negotiation piece, which is obviously the piece that I think is damaging for the entire industry. When I put that towards the Gilead portfolio, and make it specific for us, I think we're in a slightly different position than other companies.
First of all, we don't have really any major patent expiries at all on our prices. It's a relatively useful portfolio when one looks at both the HIV side and clearly the oncology side, because we just got into this four and half years ago. So presently, you know, I'm one that wants to make sure we wait and see a little bit about how this is gonna play out in terms of the longer-term portfolio. We haven't made major, major shifts to our portfolio for the reasons I just mentioned, the usefulness of it and where we're going. I also believe that some common sense will come back into some of the IRA at some point in time, and we have to continue to do what's right for patients. So we want to leverage our small molecule business.
We want to continue to leverage all the innovation we have in all the modalities, cell therapy and also biologics. We'll, you know, we'll see where we go. But on the negotiation side, we're, you know, you know, we don't expect any impact on our business for the next several years. We'll have to see how that impacts, and it would impact probably a small portion of our portfolio in that period of time. And you combine that with the growth drivers that Andy was talking about, and let's just take the HIV business. We are confident that we'll be able to drive a CAGR, positive CAGR well through the end of this decade and beyond, with the introduction of, first of all, BIKTARVY continuing to make progress as the standard of care and treatment.
Descovy continuing to do well in prevention, and then lenacapavir in all of its forms, opening up the prevention market, which today in the United States, and probably still undercounted, is only around 20% penetrated. And the ability for a long-acting, we think, can more than double, at least more than double that market by the end of the decade. So we've got growth drivers that underlie this uncertainty, if you like, around the IRA. And then you put on top of that the oncology portfolio that really, because it's so useful, will not be affected by the IRA. Don't get me wrong, I'll continue with my multiple hats to work with policymakers to take away as much as possible the, what I think are the perverse incentives in the IRA that are not good for patients and diseases.
But I'm just speaking really about how it impacts Gilead.
Okay, understood. Maybe going back to oncology, you mentioned you were in Singapore for World Lung. So maybe just give us the highlights of the EVOKE-2 data and what that means for kind of next steps and how the paradigm could evolve here in first-line lung.
Yeah, it's really exciting, and Andy started to tee it up in terms of what I also saw at World Lung, which is this concept, in particular in lung cancer, of having the era of Trop-2 ADCs, and TIGIT kind of coming together. Now, the real highlight at World Lung was specifically related to Trop-2 ADCs. And for us, I think, remember now we've got three indications with TRODELVY, more than 20,000 patient experience with TRODELVY. And we're now taking that up in lines of therapy and in breast cancer and in some new therapies like lung cancer. Look, I think the EVOKE-02 data was tremendous.
It was really even beyond our expectations in certain terms of what we might see in early stage data. I think it speaks really well for the future of patients with lung cancer, what we might be able to do to help them. Specifically, what EVOKE-02 does is, in my mind, it de-risks the ongoing EVOKE-03 trial, which is now recruiting patients for PD-L1 high because of this 69%. Well, two major aspects of the EVOKE-02 data. One is the response rate, second is the durability, and third is the tolerability profile.
But as we looked, and the thought leaders that I met with at Singapore looked at the data, they saw that 69% overall response rate in the PD-L1 high, compared to, and the appropriate comparison here is really to look at KEYTRUDA monotherapy, because that is the standard of care, which has a response rate of somewhere around 39%-45%. So that's one piece of the puzzle. But we know that OS is what counts in lung cancer. So then you have to combine the durability, where we're seeing patients go, you know, 88% of patients are still on therapy after six months.
Whereas we know even in those patients, and it's less than the majority of patients that are treated with a chemo combo in that frontline setting, really, four cycles is really the maximum that people can tolerate platinum. So if you combine the response rate with the longer durability, that's what gives us confidence in those curves being able to continue to separate and potentially, we think, have great confidence around showing the OS and PFS data that's to come in about three. And then, of course, in the PD-L1 low population, that same durability is occurring as well. Combine that with a tolerability profile that has been manageable in breast cancer and bladder cancer, you know, manageable toxicity effects like temporary diarrhea associated with you know, the beginning of injections and neutropenia, the physicians know how to handle.
I think in comparison to other Trop-2 ADCs, where there are other side effects like ILD and stomatitis, we feel like we're in a really good position with Trop-2 ADC as we go into both first and second-line lung cancer. Combine that with the TIGIT data that we exposed on ARC-7, and the opportunity to potentially look at, you know, seeing those curves continue to separate, and we have ongoing trials there. I think it gives us optionality in our frontline setting, depending on how the data reads out from both an efficacy standpoint and a tolerability standpoint. So we're you know, I was very encouraged by what I heard at World Lung from the thought leaders there on this data.
What... And I guess, you know, big picture, does this—I mean, my view is that this could become a more fragmented market. Again, you hear, you think about, you know, biomarkers, et cetera. You already have PD-L1. Again, there's some talk from the Merck side, more so of looking at Trop-2 expression. So do you think that's the likely path we're going down, or do you think it's gonna be kind of best regimen, winner-take-all market in, in first line lung, like we have now with, with KEYTRUDA ?
Well, I think it will remain to be seen. I mean, it was interesting, every presentation that I saw at World Lung, we are, the community, is looking for biomarkers. So far, there's been no compelling evidence to suggest, particularly with Trop-2, which is more than 80% expressed in most tumor types, by the way, not just lung cancer. You know, that doesn't bode well, necessarily, at least in our hands, with the data that we've seen so far, to have a patient subset. Particularly, I think, and one has to look not only at the class, but also as your, your particular molecule, because our molecule is different than other Trop-2 ADCs.
It has a linker that's, you know, been purposely designed to kind of allow the target to diffuse in the tumor microenvironment as well, which may mean that you need even less Trop-2 expression to get a better. So I think it would be great. I mean, I come from a history of 30 years of looking for personalized medicine, and I'm a big believer in that.
Right.
I think what we're seeing so far in our Trop-2, in TRODELVY, in our hands, is an all-comer medicine because of the way that's expressed.
Yeah.
So, we'll continue to look, not for want, that lack of learning, but I think largely in the first-line setting and the second-line setting in lung, we think at this stage, it's likely an all-comer strategy.
Okay, great. Maybe one other related question. Along we were talking about TIGIT, your, you know, former colleagues, they had some data that leaked out related to TIGIT. What are the implications of that data for your TIGIT program, and what does it mean in terms of how you think about, you know, your phase III program that-
Yeah, I'll start, and I want Andy to add into this, but I'll just say again, back to my experience at World Lung. I think, you know, the interesting thing about, you know, the recent data from Roche, perhaps unintentionally available to everybody, is that the curves continue to separate. There'll be a lot of debate around the statistical analysis and, you know, how or what alpha was spent on the interim versus the end. But I think what everybody is encouraged by is the continued separation of the curves. And that I speak more specifically to our ARC-7 data, that in our own hands, where we see a curve that has the potential to also differentiate and discriminate. So I'll get Andy involved here.
Yeah, look, I think.
I'm an expert here.
Yeah. I like nothing better than to speak to the science.
That's the Merdad. You're playing your Merdad.
Exactly.
He doesn't know what Merdad is.
Right.
It works really well.
We believe, based just on our ARC-7 data, that we've demonstrated that TIGIT is active and additive to PD-1 therapy. The Roche data just further validates that from our perspective. The question that has to be answered, that we think is fair, is the magnitude of the benefit. But you see a very clear benefit in our data. You see a clear benefit in their data, regardless of whether they hit statistical significance. That has more to do with the sizing and powering of their trial, how they use their statistical alpha. So you know, we're moving full speed ahead with Arcus. We have a tremendous amount of confidence. We've highlighted many times our TIGIT, Dan mentioned this earlier, is a little bit different, especially in terms of the Fc engineering.
We have an Fc-null TIGIT that we think helps, certainly in the side effect profile with injection site reactions. It also should. There's the potential for the Fc-competent TIGITs to deplete T-regs in the periphery, which we think can be problematic from the side effect profile. So we really like the program. We're very enthusiastic. And maybe when you fast-forward, again, to your question in World Lung, you know, there's possibility where you have PD-1 plus TIGIT, PD-1 plus TRODELVY. There's also a possibility, five years from now, that the standard of care, at least in certain parts of the first-line non-small cell lung cancer, is a triplet of TRODELVY plus our TIGIT plus PD-1. So we're pretty excited. I mean, again, it's early days.
There will be a lot of data that we and others, you know, are able to develop over the coming years. But again, our overall belief is that TIGIT is additive to PD-1, and this just further reinforces that.
Okay, great.
You know, having a foot in both camps as this data develops, I think, really gives us... We're the only company with, you know, those two molecules at an advanced stage, where I think we can be able to learn from data, not only our data, but competitive data and pivot our programs appropriately. So it gives us a lot of flexibility.
For sure. The one we get on the commercial side is, as we think about, you know, Roche has a TIGIT, Merck, you guys. Merck is working on a co-formulation. You guys know this well from HIV. Does that represent a disadvantage in any way from a commercial perspective, as you think about the future of the market, if there is, let's say, a biosimilar PD-1, but Merck has a co-formulation of a TIGIT, a PD-1? So how does that tie into what we were just talking about, where you guys have lots of different.
Sure
Pieces as well?
Yeah, we don't see it as a disadvantage. I mean, we follow closely what Merck and others are doing in this space. I think the world that we see down the road is that, you know, the PD-1 should be fungible at the end of the day. Obviously, we're doing studies, the Arcus studies are with pembrolizumab. We're doing a lot of studies with pembro. One of the studies with Arcus has a pembro reference arm. But our vision of the future is that the PD-1s likely become fungible, and then you're really thinking about it kind of from a pricing perspective and a commercial perspective. But, you know, we don't believe that we're at a disadvantage by not co-formulating.
In fact, it's probably the opposite in our mind, that by, by having the best TIGIT to compare with any PD-1, we think we're gonna be in a, in a very strong position down the line.
Yeah, and maybe Andy already mentioned this, but one thinks about triplets.
Right.
You know, I think having the flexibility to adjust dose and schedule, you know, for different molecules, we think is a potential advantage.
Right.
Okay, great. Maybe moving on to the cell therapy franchise, obviously another important growth driver, as you talked about, Dan. As we look ahead here, maybe just give us an update on kind of key drivers. I'm sure second line is one of those, and again, anything else as we think about the forward opportunity set here for, for second line, and, YESCARTA in general.
Yeah, look, I think it's that Andy and I like to say we're in the first or second inning of cell therapy and hematology alone, let alone the other potential indications. But we're very excited about where we stand right now, where, you know, we're able to fulfill, you know, on the manufacturing side, more than 95% of the patient need and patient, you know, per patient. So I think we've got lots of capacity and lots of ability to follow this. We're at the beginning.
So in the third line setting, where arguably, you know, every patient should be offered that, only about 30 patients are offered it today, and get to the stage to benefit from now, after five years, you know, 50% of patients are essentially in a relatively curative state. And we're just beginning, probably 10% penetrated in the second line setting. So, you know, like any new technology and new therapy, you know, you go back to transplant, you know, years ago, it does take some years to change the behaviors of physicians that are used to a particular modality.
But the way we're increasing the authorized treatment centers in this country and around the world, working with community oncologists to get them to refer and really working the model out here in the United States so that the referrals can potentially be within these large community oncology networks, is really important. Obviously, moving up in lines of therapy, expanding geographically in hematology. And then I think, you know, we're just beginning to kind of tap into the potential. With our deal with Arcus, we'll be looking forward to getting into the BCMA multiple myeloma area, in the next several years. And then beyond that, we think, more broadly in terms of the role of CD19 mediated inflammatory diseases.
You know, I think as a major player in cell therapy, we think there's a lot of opportunity, but there's also a responsibility to make sure that, you know, as these technologies advance, that we bring them onto, if you like, the platform, and that's the concept. So it's not that we're going to do everything ourselves. We have a tremendous ecosystem of talented companies out there and biotech that are working on different targets. They come to us, they want to talk to us about how can they get their systems on our platform. And I think that's a really good position to be in, is that we can continue to evolve the science and all the potential benefits of cell therapy.
Is there enough capacity out there right now at centers, or what is go ahead doing to try to help bolster capacity? Or is this more of a move to kind of like outpatient? What's ultimately the plan?
Well, I think both will be the case. I mean, and you can feed in here, but, you know, we're rapidly expanding our authorized treatment centers. You know, we were at the end of last year around, you know, high 200s.
Six, yeah.
And now we're into 350. So we're expanding that. And more importantly than just the number of authorized treatment centers, it's making sure they're in the right places that can allow those community referrals to occur. But beyond that, of course, we're looking into, you know, expanding outpatient as people get more comfortable with this. And we want to make sure that in certain therapeutic areas where allogeneic will come to fruition, that we're in a position to do that. But the reality is, with autologous, we're now down to a stage where we've really significantly reduced the vein to vein time in a very reliable way. As I said before, more than 95% of patients are fulfilled.
So I think, yeah, you know, and the benefit, of course, of having autologous, as you know, that's been demonstrated over the years, too. Andy, do you want to.
Yeah, I'll just say financially, again, just step back. When we acquired Kite, whatever it was, 6 years ago, our vision, and it still is today, that cell therapy is going to be a major treatment modality that will develop over 20 or 30 years. It's always going to be slow and steady. So fast-forward to where we are today, six years later, we have roughly, give or take, $2 billion in sales this year. We've become more efficient in terms of manufacturing. We've brought our cost of goods down substantially over the last five or six years. We're more efficient in manufacturing. We can manufacture quicker. That's still changing, but this is just the very beginning.
So a $2 billion business, and Dan highlighted earlier, in the core markets where you're showing in DLBCL, take third line plus, 46% of the patients appear to be cured, still, you know, five years out or six years out. And there's still a massive number of patients, I think 15% of the patients over second and third line plus are getting cell therapy today. Fast forward years from now, just in DLBCL and multiple myeloma, you can see the scale of a business that you can grow. That's like in my, in my mind, Cel gene-like, right? And then you add on top of that, immunology, in terms of what that can do with some of the incredible data. So it's very early days, but we're really proud of where we are.
We have a great team, we have a great set of products and a great pipeline, and it's just the beginning. I think, again, we believe, like our broader oncology business, the world will come to appreciate the growth and the long-term potential of the business more and more over the coming years. But it's really exciting to see where it's come so far.
So is that Celgene, I think, was doing $15 billion in myeloma revenue, so is that guidance for you?
Yeah. Again, I'm very bullish on cell therapy. So we, we've said this, I mean, the cell therapy market overall is much, much larger than I think people appreciate. Even today, in fact, the cell therapy market, from a dollar standpoint, is bigger than people appreciate, because unlike Kite, where you have a 96% success rate, many of the competitors have a much lower success rate in manufacturing, yet the products are used, they just don't get reimbursed for them. So you know, I'm not going to provide long-term guidance, but rest assured, we see this as the very beginning. And for any large company operating across cell therapy, you know, being substantially larger in terms of revenue than where we are today is reasonable from our perspective and frankly, expected. So, more to come.
Great. Well, thank you so much, both. Really appreciate your time.
Thank you, Terence. Appreciate it.
Thank you.
Appreciate it.