Okay, great. Sorry about that false start. Now we can get started. My name is Vikram Purohit. I'm one of the biotech analysts with the Morgan Stanley research team. Happy to have with me Ying Huang from Legend Biotech. Thanks for joining us, Ying. Appreciate it.
Thank you for inviting, Vikram.
Of course. Before we get started, just need to read a brief disclosure statement. For important disclosures, please see the Morgan Stanley Research Disclosure website at www.morganstanley.com/researchdisclosures. With that, Ying, let's go ahead and get into it. Ying, maybe the best place to start is a common question that I know that you've received, that we've also received on BioSecure. Maybe we can just talk about that, and then we can progress to fundamentals and target the specific questions. So on BioSecure, you've mentioned you don't see a direct impact to Legend Biotech. I'd be curious if you could just unpack what kind of work you've been able to do to kind of understand the legislation and how you're thinking about the implications for the business.
Sure, so since the news broke, I think on May 31st, we, as a company, have been engaging with legislators in the D.C. We have also officially retained a lobbyist firm on our behalf, so our interaction with the Hill has been pretty productive, and we explained to the legislators how we operate and how our relationship with J&J is in terms of collaboration on Carvykti and the BCMA franchise, and our roles in this collaboration in the partnership with J&J, and I think at this point, the legislators understand our business model pretty well. They also understand the benefit we bring to the U.S. patients, given the efficacy demonstrated by Carvykti and also in the commercial launch.
Separately, I think you actually can find the draft bill now on the House website, and the bill is likely to go through what we call a floor vote next week in the House. And if you look at the latest version that's published on the House website, you will see that there's no new companies that's been added to the so-called list of company of concerns. So let's see what happens next week, but at this point, we believe that we're not going to see any impact, given the drafted bill and the language contained in the bill. And we continue to work on providing the Carvykti product to the patients who need it.
Great. Great. Okay. With that, let's progress to Carvykti. So for 2Q, you and J&J reported 18% quarter-over-quarter growth. Could you unpack how much of that came from capacity and manufacturing? How much of that came from just raw demand? I know it's not mutually exclusive. I know it's tough to kind of tease apart, but directionally speaking, what drove that growth?
It's really our increase of supply, because as you know, at this point, we're still in a situation where we have a constrained supply, and we cannot satisfy all the demand for Carvykti in both the U.S. and in Europe, so what you have seen in the second quarter revenue of roughly $186 million is that we start to implement the last FDA-approved increase for capacity in the Raritan, New Jersey, supply site, and that implementation was completed in about mid-May, so we did get roughly half of the quarter's benefit in that. Now, you're gonna see the full-blown benefit in the third quarter, because now we're always producing at the most recent, the FDA-approved limit.
Also, I can tell you, given the demand, our Raritan supply site has been running at 100% utilization, essentially for the last few months. So typically, you don't get to see this in a pharmaceutical operation because you always have what we call a safety margin defined by engineers. But given the demand, and also we don't really want to waste any slot, we have been running at 100% capacity all the time in the last few months. We're also very happy to see the demand from the early- line since the FDA approved the second-line indication on April 5th.
I think we have said in the second quarter earnings call that if you look at incoming orders, roughly half of the incoming orders are actually from patients who are in the early- line or second-line to fourth- line indication, versus the old indication, which are fifth- line and beyond. So we and J&J are very encouraged by the early adoption, by the physicians and also by patients in the second- line indication.
Understood. To kind of help us better understand the revenue impact of the label expansion, could you talk a bit about how long it takes from when an order is put in to when that becomes revenue for J&J and yourself? And is it distinct between second- line, third- line versus the later line label?
Yeah, sure. So, CAR-T is, you know, a new modality for treatment, and it does entail slightly different logistics. So first of all, when a patient is prescribed Carvykti, it will be routed to insurance coverage, and then once the insurance approve the coverage, then the form of the order will be entered into our electronic system called Sequence. And from there, we'll have to schedule with the hospital providers. So first, patient will be called in for apheresis, and then after that, the collected blood sample will be shipped to our New Jersey manufacturing site. And from there, we start the processing. Typically, if you look at most recent data we have in-house, you're looking at apheresis to release time of roughly five to, yeah, about five weeks-ish.
And then, of course, based on the real-time information we provide in our system, the hospital will have to schedule the three-day standard lymphodepletion, and then followed by the CAR-T infusion here. So in general, from the prescription of Carvykti by a healthcare provider to the revenue booking, when that batch leaves our New Jersey site and being shipped to the hospital site, you're looking at a roughly maybe 45-day to 50-day lag over here.
Got it. Got it. Okay. And then how would you characterize how much of a benefit you saw in 2Q from the label expansion?
Yeah, there's really minimal contribution from the label expansion. The reason is, even though we are officially approved by FDA on April 5th, so that is actually the date when a physician can actually prescribe Carvykti for second-line use. Typically, as you probably are very familiar, in any hospital, there's a so-called P&T process. So the committee would have to meet, then they decide on the coverage policy for that specific hospitals. I would say in general, some of the first wave of centers would probably go through the P&T committee in a two-week to three-week period after FDA approval. And then the order will come in officially into our system. And then, like I said, from there to the shipment, you're looking at close to 45 days, 50 days.
That is why we really see minimal revenue contribution in the second quarter, but we do expect a pretty significant contribution from the second-line launch in the third quarter.
Got it. Got it. Okay. From a reporting standpoint, do you expect to report out a breakup of second-line, third-line versus fourth-line in any, in any fashion, whether it's sales or scripts or?
So that will be under discussion between Legend and J&J. As you know, we're a 50-50 partner here with J&J. So when J&J reports revenue for third quarter on October 15th, you guys will have to stay tuned on this. But recently we did putting a new field in our ordering system. So for any incoming order, we would actually know whether this order is for a patient that is fifth-line and beyond, or for a patient in early- line, second-line to fourth line. So we'll continue to provide some information for the public and investors about the breakdown.
I think what we said in the second quarter earnings call is that early information from the ordering book suggests that roughly half of the incoming order is actually for early- line, and then the other half remains the fifth- line and beyond late line indication. So that's what we know so far, but we'll continue to monitor that.
Got it. Do you think that that 50-50 or approximately that split, is that a reasonable revenue split to think about near term, call it the next one to three years for Carvykti o r do you think it could skew more heavily towards earlier line?
So first of all, we and our partner, J&J, are very encouraged by the early adoption because this roughly 50% revenue mix from early- line is actually above our internal expectation when we launch. As you know, patients in the second line spectrum of multiple myeloma have many treatment options to choose from. Yet, with this new label, we're already seeing roughly half of the order coming in from early- line. So that's a very encouraging leading indicator, and we do fully believe that in the next couple of years, we should expect more and more revenue coming from early- line or second- line.
Because I'm sure you know that, after demonstrating a significant PFS benefit with a hazard ratio of 0.26 or 74% risk reduction from PFS, we now actually have observed a significant and also clinically meaningful survival benefit. That data will be reported by, I think, September twenty-fifth at the Annual International Myeloma Society meeting. So with that survival benefit, we believe that Carvykti is really well-positioned in the second- line. Because, as you know, for many medications for multiple myeloma treatment, they have PFS on the label, but not necessarily survival benefit. The reason is, for most patients, multiple myeloma remains incurable, which means they keep cycling through different therapies. And that is why sometimes the survival benefit will be masked by following subsequent treatments. So in this case, we're really encouraged.
For the first time, we conduct a formal analysis for survival. We already demonstrated a significant benefit, and we're planning to go to both FDA and the EMA to file for label expansion so that we can promote on the survival benefit. That is why we and J&J have firmly believed that we'll see higher and higher penetration in the second- line based on the survival benefit.
Understood. Understood. Okay. And then when we talk about label expansion, a much bigger patient reach, I think the natural question that comes up is, ability to supply the market. So you put this metric out there that you wanna hit 10,000 annualized doses by year-end 2025. Could you remind us of the different manufacturing sources and the nodes that are going to play into providing those m eeting that target?
So we and our partner, J&J, have mapped out a global supply plan. It's a very well thoughtful, thoughtfully design plan. So our first, and today, the only commercial site is in Raritan, New Jersey, and we and J&J are conducting the physical expansion. The construction should be completed by end of this year, and then, in the next year also, we'll, qualify the suites and train the staff and make sure it's GMP certified. So by end of next year, we are going to, see a very significant expansion for the FDA-approved space in Raritan site. So that will be a big contributor to that capacity expansion next year. That's the first node. Now, on the second node, we're now expecting, approval in Europe for our first facility in Ghent.
It's called Obelisc, which is a standalone building we and J&J leased. Right now, that facility is already producing clinical trial material. But by end of this month, we're hoping to secure European approval for commercial license. So that means starting next quarter, we expect our second commercial site to start to contribute to revenue in Europe. And then we also have retained Novartis as a CDMO for Carvykti franchise. So I'm happy to report that in July, Novartis already received the IND clearance by FDA to start clinical production in the Morris Plains, New Jersey site. And we're expecting that in the first half of 2025, Novartis will also secure the FDA approval to produce commercial Carvykti in the New Jersey site. That's our third node.
And then we and J&J are jointly constructing a brand-new state-of-the-art facility in Ghent called Tech Lane, that is more than 200,000 sq ft in square footage. Right now, we're expecting the physical construction to complete by end of this year. In the first half of next year, that Tech Lane facility will start clinical production. And hopefully, around the year-end next year or beginning of 2026, we can start also commercial production from that facility. If you look at the combined capacity from all four nodes, one in New Jersey from Raritan, and then one from the New Jersey facility of Novartis, plus the two facilities we have in Ghent, Belgium, we are targeting to achieve roughly 10,000 dose per year combined capacity by end of 2025.
Got it. Got it. And I know you previously also mentioned that, there could be an aspiration to try to extend further beyond that post 2025 and work towards potentially twenty thousand doses. How much capital investment would be required to kind of make that step? And how much, additional manufacturing scale beyond your current facilities could be required to kind of get there?
So we and J&J together are working on a very ambitious, roughly $1 billion CapEx. And that will include all four nodes, including the original investment in Raritan, New Jersey, and now the physical expansion, and then the two nodes in Belgium, plus the investment with Novartis at CDMO. So most of the CapEx and capital projects should be completed by end of 2025. That actually is coincident, though, with the timing of 10,000 per year facility. Now, with this $1 billion CapEx in place, we will need just a small incremental investment to get to the next level by end of 2027 to get to, hopefully, about 20,000 doses per year. That's our investment.
Of course, we are working with J&J to look at further supply plan if we believe that the global demand will be higher than 20,000 doses per year, and I think, like I said, we're very encouraged by the recent survival benefit demonstrated in CARTITUDE-4 data, and the second line is a must-win market for us. Because the truth is, in the U.S., most patients will receive D-RVd around transplant. So once a patient is refractory or has relapsed from D-RVd after that, really, there's not a good option in the market today, because they have already gone through transplant. They've already gone through Darzalex, which is the best injectable, and then they've gone through also an oral IMiD and proteasome inhibitor.
So by that time, I think CAR-T offers a great choice, especially, given the data we have demonstrated in the CARTITUDE-4, where compared to DPD, which is Darzalex, Pomalyst, and Dexamethasone, or PVD, we show a significant PFS benefit and now also a significant survival benefit. So I do think that, you know, it really gives the patients a great choice of a second-line therapy after D-RV d.
Got it. Got it. Great. Going back to the topic of second-line, third-line uptake, you have a competitor that also received a broadened label to third line, earlier this year. Are you seeing a stronger competitive push from them in the field? And how is your, what is your latest, share breakdown that you're seeing across Carvykti and Abecma, to the extent that both are available?
Sure. We actually welcome competition here because we believe that the CAR T class share should increase given the clinical data, right? From us and also from our competition. If you look at the current data from the clinical trials, clearly, CAR T as a class offers superiority in both PFS and survival. In fact, this was demonstrated in a recent the Nature publication, where it's coming from the Mayo cohort. They looked at a few hundred patients who have received bispecific and also CAR T targeting BCMA in their center, and the conclusion is that there is a statistically significant superiority here compared to bispecific as a class in terms of PFS and also survival.
So I think that is a very strong evidence in the real world that you do get better benefit in terms of progression-free survival and overall survival for patients who receive CAR T. So I firmly believe that given that data set you should expect wider adoption for CAR T in the treatment of multiple myeloma. And in terms of competition we're very glad that we received a very broad label in the U.S. and also in Europe as a second-line treatment while our competition received a third-line label. So we believe that positions Carvykti really well. And the latest data suggests that in centers where we coexist with our competition Carvykti has 87% market share. So again that's a testament of the safety and efficacy for Carvykti.
Understood. And more broadly on competition, obviously, ourselves, excuse me, Cellectis and Gilead have an NK cell in development. So what is your take on the data that they've shown so far, and what do you think the hurdle is that they have to climb to be able to show real, real differentiation versus Carvykti?
Our belief is that in oncology, efficacy always trumps everything else. Because unfortunately, like I said, myeloma remains incurable cancer for patients. So, we recently found a survey where you ask patients and also physicians, what are the top three factors when you choose a therapy for multiple myeloma? The number one is overall survival, followed by PFS, followed by response rate. So I think across those three metrics, Carvykti is really well-positioned because, like I said, we've already demonstrated a clinical, meaningful, and statistically significant survival benefit, which not many drugs in myeloma has on the label. Secondly, I think our strategy has always been, we want to win this market by leapfrogging our competition.
We were about one year later in terms of FDA approval for CAR T targeting BCMA, yet because of our design in CAR- T 4, we were able to leapfrog our competition. So today, we can promote a second-line label in the U.S. and in Europe, while our competition can do this in the third- line, right? So I think that shows you the thoughtfulness in our clinical trial design when we partnered with J&J, who is a really strong player in myeloma. And I think also the fact that today we're already in second- line, and our other competition may come into the market two years later for fifth- line and beyond. Again, I think you would have to see if there's any differentiation in efficacy.
Like I mentioned, in oncology in general, efficacy always trumps everything else. If efficacy is you know not quite to the par, by the way, Carvykti sets a really high bar because even in late- line, fifth- line beyond indication, right? If you look at CARTITUDE-1, those patients on an average, median prior lines was six, which means we're treat we were treating seventh-line patients, yet we achieved a median PFS of 35 months. And at this point, median survival still has not been reached. Typically, for those triple or penta refractory patients, as you know, if you give them standard therapy, not CAR-T, the PFS is a range of 4 months to 9 months only, yet we were able to demonstrate 3 years, nearly 3-year PFS.
I think that's the bar, which is very high, and we believe that it's gonna be very hard to show a better profile than that. And also, in CAR-T 4, although we have not reached the median PFS or OS, but again, if you look at the hazard ratio compared to control, 90% of the patients in CAR-T 4 chose DPD. That's the best injectable, best oral plus dexamethasone. And we showed a hazard ratio of 0.26. That's 74% risk reduction. So again, those numbers show you a very strong profile here, and that's the numbers they have to beat, I believe.
Understood. Okay. Staying on the topic of label expansion, you have first-line studies underway as well, CARTITUDE-5 and CARTITUDE-6. Just to level set for everyone, could you summarize where those studies stand and when we could expect initial data from those programs?
Yeah. CAR -T5 is a first-line trial. It's a head-to-head trial between Carvykti as a one-time therapy versus RVd. It's Revlimid, Velcade, dexamethasone for patients who are transplant-ineligible or who decide to defer transplant. If you look at the historical literature, RVd historically has a median PFS of 35 months to 40 months range. Like I mentioned, in CAR-T1 , for seventh-line patient, we demonstrated median PFS of nearly three years. We're highly confident that we'll be able to show superiority against RVD in CAR- T5 . We have already completed all global enrollment of more than 650 patients, one-to-one randomized. We believe we can finish dosing very soon for this trial, and then it will be in the follow-up mode.
According to the clinicaltrials.gov disclosure, we put in the primary completion is 2026, so we hope to get data in two years and then file for the front-line approval. CARTITUDE-6 is actually another front-line trial we and J&J are jointly conducting. It's against the gold standard, which is transplant, also D-RVd, as a induction as well. So there, we're also conducting a one-to-one randomized active control trial. The goal is to enroll 750 patients. So far, enrollment is going really well. We actually think that we should be able to finish everything in next year in 2025, even though we just started the first patient enrollment in October in Spain. But we see a lot of demand and, you know, this is enrolled very quickly.
Here the co-primary endpoints are PFS and also MRD negativity. And we will engage with the FDA to talk about potentially using MRD negativity as a registration endpoint, so we can hopefully bring this to a patient population faster than if you are using PFS as the endpoint.
Got it. Got it. And have you communicated a timeline for when you might have those regulatory discussions and try to get?
We have not. But given the most recent ODAC meeting and recommendation by ODAC We do plan to request a meeting with the FDA to talk about MRD negativity as an endpoint in a front-line study.
Got it. You mentioned kind of at the outset of our chat that the second-line, third-line opportunity seems to be bigger than what you had initially expected internally before the launch. Does what you're seeing so far with second- line, third- line, then make you more confident about the opportunity in the first line versus what you had maybe previously thought about that opportunity?
So in our internal forecast, we always thought that second- line is a must-win market because it is a very large market, and also, in the U.S., after patients already have been treated with D-RVd and transplant, there's not a good option there. So we think there's a pretty significant unmet medical need here. Now, with front line, we recognize that transplant plus D-RVd does set a pretty high bar, right? If you look at the most recent approval by FDA for J&J's Darzalex in front line in combination with transplant in PERSEUS, the four-year PFS rate was greater than 85%. So that's the bar here.
Obviously, sitting here, we don't know what the data is for Carvykti, but if we're able to show superiority, because remember, both CAR- T5 and CAR T6 are designed to be superiority trial. So if we can demonstrate superiority, then I think we do have an edge. The other one is survival benefit, right? So, so far, we're seeing survival benefit in second line already in CAR- T4 trial. Now, you probably follow the literature. There's no proof that transplant actually can improve survival. In fact, there's some recent papers showing that transplant could hurt survival, even though it does improve PFS. So I think if we can show PFS superiority against transplant and also coupled with survival benefit, then I think Carvykti has the potential to replace transplant as a gold standard in the frontline treatment.
That's the ambition we have.
Got it. Okay, understood. Maybe we can then switch over to the pipeline. CARTITUDE-2, I know that there are two frontline two cohorts enrolling frontline patients, right? Cohorts E and F. Any update as to how those cohorts are progressing and when initial data might be available from those?
We have enrolled about sixty patients in those two cohorts, cohort E and cohort F in the CARTITUDE-2 trial. We cannot comment whether data will be presented or not this year, because the typical practice for us and J&J as a partner is that we'll only comment on abstract when those are published.
Sure.
But I'll tell you, in general, the way we think about frontline is that, if you have a short follow-up, it's not really meaningful. Because based on our experience in CAR T program, Carvykti is a very unique drug that is very consistent. It doesn't matter which line of setting you testing, it's always very consistent in terms of response rate, CR rate, and durable PFS. So if you have a short follow-up, it's probably not going to be meaningful in terms of differentiation from the current gold standard. We really need to demonstrate the long-term benefits in PFS and ideally eventually survival as well, in order to win in the market share for frontline. That's our view.
Got it. Okay, great. Pivoting outside of Carvykti then. You mentioned a couple of earnings calls ago, maybe two earnings calls ago, that there are some autoimmune pipeline efforts underway, both from an allogeneic perspective and also from an autologous perspective, excuse me. Could you just kind of summarize for us where those programs stand, and what kinds of clinical development programs could you prosecute there come 2025, 2026?
Yeah. I mean, I think, autoimmune indication is emerging as a new field for CAR T therapy, based on some of the academic data generated from the German study. And now there are a few other industry players who are also starting to generate clinical data for CAR T in autoimmune. We think there's certainly potential here, but our in-house view is that we need to understand the biology and the underlying pathology a little bit better. For example, if you look at all the trials in the clinic for autoimmune, most of those constructs use CD19 as a target. We think, yes, CD19 is a very valuable target, but you should also evaluate, for example, BCMA, CD20, and other targets. There are disease that is driven by B cell. There are also disease that's driven by both B cell and T cell.
So there's a lot of underlying biology here we don't quite understand yet. That's why we're still, you know, trying to do some translational work and also preclinical work to help us guide which ones to target and which construct is the best for autoimmune indications. But our first program will be leveraging our existing autologous tri-specific CAR T. So that's targeting CD19, CD20, and CD22. We have done that study in China with about, I think, double-digit patients in lymphoma. So we know the construct is safe. Now, we're going to also dose that in lupus first. I think our first patient will be dosed either this month or next month in China. So we want to understand some of the translational research based on the clinical study we conduct.
Sorry, that's with the tri-specific?
Yes, that's a tri-specific.
Okay.
And then behind that, we also have a few constructs that are custom-made or designed for autoimmune indications. For example, we just put in a clinic in phase I in China, a dual targeting CD19, CD20 construct. That will be tested in lymphoma first, but then if the safety is demonstrated, we intend to push that forward into lupus, for example. And that's an allogeneic chimeric T construct. So we're doing a lot of work in the autoimmune indications, but I think the first and foremost is we would like to understand the underlying biology and pathology better before we decide which target we should pursue. Is it monotargeting? Is it dual targeting? That's why. Secondly, I'm sure you follow some of the safety findings here.
So we're also looking at, for example, can we bypass or titrate the dose for the lymphodepletion? Because as you know, these patients are immunocompromised already, following all years of therapy. So their safety tolerance may be different from the oncology patient population. So there's a lot of factors we're looking into this in the research phase, but we just start our first clinical program, and then we'll learn from that program in terms of biomarker and translational results, and that will guide our further research and development into the field.
Got it. Do you foresee a need for Legend to enter any sort of partnership to kind of complement your understanding of the autoimmune space here? Or do you think for the time being, it's well-served just based on your in-house capabilities?
We're absolutely open to partnership. There are many other players in the field where we think we can leverage each other's strengths, right? We understand BCMA really well, and we have a library of good binders, and others may have enabling technologies that can complement our pipeline, so we're absolutely open to partnership, and we're engaging with multiple potential partners to further the discussion. You know, I don't pretend ever that Legend will have all the tool sets in cell therapy. There's you know, gene editing, there's in vivo CAR T. There's a lot of new breakthroughs that's happening in the field, and we're totally open to a collaboration with other partners.
Got it. Got it. And then outside of autoimmune, there's quite a few earlier-stage programs as well that you're looking into. I know, DLL3, Claudin 18.2. Of all those assets, where do you think analysts and investors should be focused for 2025 and 2026 in terms of you know, progress with those programs, and programs where we could expect to see some sort of outward update?
So we're actually actively enrolling and dosing for Claudin 18.2 program in the U.S. in phase I now under the IND. Our plan is to sort through the safety and efficacy to make the decision. Early next year, we're also planning to look into other indications, for example, pancreatic cancer, which we know in certain pancreas cancer tissues, Claudin 18.2 is overexpressed, and that is a very interesting market because, as you know, after years of experiment, we still don't have great therapies for pancreatic cancer, and that is one area we're interested in. For DLL3, we are also actively enrolling, and we have dosed a few patients. That program is partnered with Novartis, so we're continuing to do the dose escalation.
And, we'll have to talk with our partner, Novartis, in this case, whether to disclose the data next year or not. But both programs are moving forward, and they're going well.
Got it. Okay, and then more broadly, in terms of just R&D productivity, is there an aspiration to add new programs into the earlier-stage pre-pipeline next year o r do you feel like you're now kind of more in an execution mode with Carvykti and then also some of these other programs?
I think in the field of solid tumor, we would like to work on a few partially clinically validated targets. For example, Claudin 18.2, DLL3, GPC3, and GCC for colorectal, and I think we're also working on a product that's preclinical phase that is targeting Claudin 6. These are the solid tumor targets we're working, but we probably won't venture into many other targets because, as you know, there's not a lot of clinical proof of concept for CAR-T in solid tumor indications. We're also putting a lot of effort in allogeneic development, so we're working on all three modalities: alpha- beta T, genetic, and also non-genetic approach, and then gamma- delta T, and then NK. We're working on all three different modalities in allogeneic.
We still think it's worth trying. I know it's not easy, but it's worth trying. And then last one being autoimmune indications here. So we're gonna test both autologous and also allogeneic modality. In this case, the reason is, we don't believe you need durable presence of the CAR T for example, lupus. Because once you have a very clean kill of the B cells that produce those autoantibodies, then you might need, you know, reset the immune system, and that could potentially give you a very durable remission for lupus, right? So, there are a few things we're looking at in terms of the autoimmune indications, but of course, every disease is different. But we believe that in lupus, you don't necessarily need a durable presence of CAR T.
In this case, maybe allogeneic modality actually can work, as long as you achieve very clean and deep kill of those B cells.
Got it.
And that's where, by the way, we think CAR T has one advantage compared to, let's say, bispecific antibodies. Because we know from our trials before that CAR T can get into bone marrow. CAR T can also get into lymph node, right? Instead of only killing those cancer cells in the peripheral blood. I think that's one advantage of CAR T therapy versus bispecific antibodies.
Got it. Got it. With that, we're actually at time. That may be a good place to wrap up, Y ing. T hank you so much for being here. Really appreciate it. Thank you, all.
Thank you, Vikram.