Thank you for standing by. This is the conference operator. Welcome to Zymeworks First Quarter 2025 Results Conference Call and Webcast. As a reminder, all participants are in listen-only mode and the conference is being recorded. After the presentation, there will be an opportunity to ask questions. [Operator Instructions] I would now like to turn the conference over to Shrinal Inamdar, Senior Director of Investor Relations. Shrinal, please go ahead.

Thank you operator and good afternoon everyone. Thank you for joining our first quarter 2025 results conference call. Before we begin, I would like to remind you that we'll be making a number of forward-looking statements during this call, including, without limitation, those forward-looking statements identified in our slides and the accompanying oral commentary. Forward-looking statements are based upon our current expectations and various assumptions, and are subject to the usual risks and uncertainties associated with companies in our industry and at our stage of development. For a discussion of these risks and uncertainties, we refer you to our latest SEC filings as found on our website and as filed with the SEC. In a moment, I will be handing over to Leone Patterson, our Executive Vice President and Chief Business and Financial Officer. He will be discussing recent business updates along with financial results for our first quarter 2025. Following this, Dr. Paul Moore, our Chief Scientific Officer, will give an overview of our recent R&D developments, including highlights from our poster presentations at the American Association for Cancer Research. At the end of the call, Leone, Paul and Ken Galbraith, our Chair and CEO, will be available for Q&A along with Dr. Sabeen Mekan, our recently appointed Senior Vice President of Clinical Development. As a reminder, the audio and slides for this call will also be available on the Zymeworks website later today. I will now turn the call over to Leone.

Thank you, Shrinal, and thank you all for joining us today. I'm pleased to walk you through our corporate and operational highlights for the first quarter of 2025. I'd like to begin by emphasizing that our performance this quarter reflects the discipline, focus and resilience of business model. In the dynamic environment for innovative biotech companies, we continue to execute against our long-term strategy and deliver meaningful progress across our portfolio. Our programs are moving towards clear, measurable clinical milestones with near-term opportunities to validate our technology platforms and meaningful patient populations globally. Throughout this period of continued progress, we have demonstrated our ability to operate at a high standard and provide value to shareholders while prudently managing our cash burn. We are also able to manage our cash burn going forward through active review and evaluation of our portfolio and development priorities. With this in mind and as previously highlighted by our management team, we are committed to an evidence based approach to pipeline management where decisions on investment in clinical development are tied to clear, clinical and scientific validation. On the research and development front, we are honored to have our wholly-owned pipeline represented at AACR Annual Meeting with six posters on preclinical data presented across our antibody drug conjugate and T-cell engager pipeline. Paul will be taking us through key highlights from these posters later on today's call. We are also looking forward to presenting more preclinical data on our wholly-owned pipeline at several upcoming medical conferences in the second quarter, including the American Thoracic Society Annual Meeting where an abstract has been accepted for ZW1528, our novel IL-4 IL-33 bispecific molecule. We will also be attending ASCO and ESMO Gynecological Cancer Annual Meetings, where we will be presenting trial and progress posters on ZW171 and ZW191…

Thanks, Leone, and good afternoon everyone. As previously mentioned, we are pleased to have attended yet another productive AACR for Zymeworks this year with six posters presented by our team. The breadth of preclinical data presented across both our innovative multi-specific antibodies and ADC programs highlights not just scientific progress, but the thoughtful diversification of our R&D strategy. Among the highlights, we are especially encouraged by the preclinical data presented on ZW209, our most recent IND nominated oncology candidate with a planned IND submission in the first half of 2026. ZW209 is a trispecific T cell engager targeting DLL3, a protein expressed on the cell surface of small cell lung cancer and other aggressive neuroendocrine tumors. This trispecific T cell engager incorporates CD28 co-stimulation and has shown potent antitumor activity in preclinical models including small cell lung cancer. These cancers are notoriously hard to treat and while there's been some success with the approval of tarlatamab in small cell lung cancer, ensuring the benefit of a bispecific approach for solid tumors, there is a clear need for next generation molecules that can improve the standard of care with broader and more durable responses. That's where we believe ZW209 stands out. We've designed 209 using our TriTCE Co-Stim platform combined with our proprietary Azymetric and EFECT technologies to activate T cells in a more controlled and effective way. A key feature of our design is the obligate nature of CD28 engagement. CD28 binding by 209 occurs only in the presence of simultaneous CD3 binding. This is shown clearly in the top left panel where control molecules with either CD3 or CD28 binding knocked out demonstrate that CD28's contribution is conditional on CD3 engagement. This obligate co-stimulation limits potential for unwanted T cell cross linking, or Fratricide, an important safety and specificity…

Thank you, Paul, and good afternoon everyone. We hope that from the remarks made on today's call, it's very clear that our R&D organization continues to deliver on its core mandate, advancing a pipeline rooted in translational science and focused on meaningful clinical outcomes while providing multiple near-term catalysts for potential shareholder value creation. The six poster presentations at AACR this year reflect the depth of that work spanning early and mid-stage candidates across multiple modalities. This includes our multi-specific and ADC platforms, which are enabling us to target a diverse set of tumor antigens with increasingly refined approaches. We remain on track to submit our IND for ZW251 by mid-2025, an important milestone for that program and for our broader strategy of building a portfolio with the potential to address unmet needs across oncology and immunology. Our focus on execution also extends to leadership. In April, we welcomed Dr. Sabeen Mekan as our Senior Vice President of Clinical Development. Her experience across hematology and oncology in both academic and industry settings with Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo and Bristol-Myers Squibb will support our clinical stage candidates that help to shape our global development and regulatory strategy. Dr. Jeff Smith, who joined Zymeworks in 2023, will continue to serve as Executive VP and CMO, where he leads our emerging R&D portfolio in autoimmune and inflammatory diseases as well as our global clinical development operations. In addition, Barbara Schaeffler, who joined Zymeworks in 2024, has been promoted to Senior Vice President of Clinical Development Operations. Together they will play a pivotal role in shaping the clinical development strategy for our portfolio to support our advancing pipeline. Financially, we remain well capitalized with $321.6 million in cash and equivalents at the end of the first quarter and projected runway into the second half of…

Hello everyone. Thanks for the call, the updates and for the questions. Great to hear the emphasis, the continued emphasis on cash burden discipline, maybe my first question here. As you look towards prioritizing assets and indications for development across your broad preclinical and early clinical pipeline perhaps what are some of your base case assumptions with respect to back end milestone royalty revenues that you may receive from assets with, let's call it a possible wide range of outcomes like zanidatamab across some of these indications over at your partners? And how do they factor into your prioritizations in terms of like scenario analysis? Thank you.

Yes, thank you for the question, Charles. And I guess, as I said in my closing remarks, I think capital allocation is an important biotech skill to have going along with clinical execution and great science. And we will practice appropriate capital allocation with our board as we put ourselves in position to receive additional capital and whether it's milestones or from any other source. Obviously, zanidatamab, we're quite excited about the progress being made by Jazz and BeiGene. We're as anxious and excited to see the HERIZON-GEA-01 data results later this year as well as continuing to see the progress on the additional clinical studies that Jazz and BeiGene have underway. And certainly, there'll be a financial important -- an important financial piece for us in that progress. And I think we'll have to act with capital allocation properly along the way with our board as I said. In addition to that we're now seeing some of the technology partnerships that we started many years ago starting to push forward really interesting clinical stage assets. Obviously, we're really looking forward to the ASCO presentation by Johnson & Johnson of their KLK2 CD3 T cell engager in prostate cancer, which again was made in collaboration with us with our Azymetric platform. And so therefore we have a financial interest in the ultimate success of that product as well as hoping it makes a big leap forward for patients. And so I think as we continue to think about that funding that may come in at a later stage, we'll make the appropriate decisions to allocate capital to continue to build our R&D portfolio where it deserves it and clinical data usually sorts that out as well as make the right decisions as we did last year about returning capital to shareholders where we found ourselves in a position to do that and believe that that would boost total shareholder return. So I think we're well situated right now with the board that I have and internal discipline inside the company to make those appropriate capital allocation decisions as they're necessary. And I think we've already shown the ability to do that with our capital allocation last year back to shareholders as well as some of the changes we've made in R&D priorities even last quarter. So I feel very comfortable we'll make those appropriate decisions for shareholders as they're necessary.

Got it. Great to hear. Thanks for that. And my second question on much, much narrower in scope. But Paul, thank you very much for walking us through each of those preclinical assets. Maybe very quickly on ZW209, the DLL3 T cell engager that you guys have, especially as -- like tarlatamab continue to move into earlier and earlier lines of small cell lung cancer. And we all know the profile of tarlatamab. Could you also remind us about some of the cytokine induction data that you've, I guess, produced with your DLL3? And what are some of the implications there with things like cytokine release syndrome? Thank you.

Yes, thanks, Charles. Yes, so what we've done, just as a reminder, is we've designed a molecule that can engage CD3 and CD28 and DLL3. And the engagement of CD28 only happens when you've engaged CD3. So we think that profile is a very favorable profile compared to other approaches where you would combine a CD28 bispecific, say with a CD3 bispecific, where there you may have to be more broad in your CD28 activation, hit more T cells, which can actually then trigger more broad cytokine profile, okay, across a broader number of T cells. What we are doing is really only engaging the CD3, the CD28 when you've engaged CD3. So a more limited T cell will be activated when you've engaged DLL3. And we think that -- while that generates a cytokine response that will incorporate co-stimulation which will be addition to what you get with just simply CD3 activation that will be a more localized activation of T cells. And we think the benefit of -- the therapeutic benefit will actually really play out well in increasing the therapeutic index that we see with the balanced limited localized impact on T cells. And that's going to reflect then in our non-human primate studies where we've done various studies and we've also done studies in fully humanized mice that are used as models for CD28 activation. And we really see a limited off target profile there. So that's kind of an important thing to bear in mind when you think about our molecule that's quite different than say other approaches others have used. And we definitely are thinking about limiting that cytokine release to where it's needed. And yes.

Great. Thanks for taking the questions and congrats again on all the progress.

Thanks.

Thank you. One moment for our next question. And our next question comes from the line of Brian Cheng of JPM. Your line is now open.

Hi, guys. Thanks for taking our questions this afternoon. Maybe first, just quickly on zanidatamab, as we glean from the subset analysis of KEYNOTE-811 that focused on Asian versus non-Asian efficacy, we're just curious what your thoughts are on how ex-US patients in the Phase 3 HERIZON-GEA could impact the powering and the outcome on PFS and OS? Do you think the trial is derisk on both endpoints? And I have a quick follow up. Thank you.

Yes, thanks Brian. I think one of our KOLs addressed this even at our R&D Day in December. And we continued to explore this with KOLs from the time that we started that study. And I think in general what they've seen across multiple studies is in the main -- not really a significant difference in efficacy across ethnicities of patients overall. I know as we're starting to see additional sub-analysis from the KEYNOTE-811 study now that they do have to produce some of that data for various pricing and reimbursement purposes. There is a slight difference in that study between Asian and non-Asian subjects. If you look at it, I think on the Asian subject components of the ITT, which is about 200 patients, we saw Asian subjects on that study do better on both arms of the study than non-Asian subjects. I'm not sure we know what to make of that. Whether that's the smaller size of that subpopulation at 200 or other anomalies, I'm not sure, but it is a little unusual to see that. I think if you look at all the other studies and look at them on a combined basis, our KOL suggested there not -- there shouldn't really be much difference in the end in efficacy across a wide set of patients. Obviously HERIZON-GEA-01 has well more than 300 clinical trial sites, very diverse globally, very diverse from an ethnicity standpoint. Although prevalence of GEA, as you know, is much higher in Asian markets, we will have inclusion in those markets as well. But I'm not sure what to make of the subpopulation -- we didn't execute that study and we don't have enough details to really understand why Asian subjects did better on both arms of that study compared to non-Asian subjects. So we'll have to let the KOL to publish that study, explain maybe some of that data.

Got it. And maybe just one quick follow up. Just going back to the JNJ assets, the KLK2 bispecific with CD3, what's the expectation on the prostate update at ASCO? And I recall that there is a plan to move forward into a later stage study. Can you maybe remind us how the partnership works from a dialogue perspective? Thank you.

Yes. Our technology partnership with JNJ I think is outlined publicly. It wasn't our target, but they brought that to our Azymetric platform because they didn't have a way to build a bispecific against KLK2. So we did that using Azymetric, which is obviously the same platform we use the zanidatamab and some of our other T cell engagers. And from what I saw as a teaser at AACR, it looks quite interesting and we're looking forward to that data. Our further financial interest in this program is we are entitled to other milestones based on progression of development stage. So we're interested to see what happens beyond the Phase 1 data they'll publish at ASCO and what their intentions are and we'll listen to that. In addition, we have a mid single digit royalty on sales of KLK2 to CD3. And I think with positive data, I think that they seem very encouraged from the public comments I've seen from JNJ and this could be a very significant product for them and a significant improvement in standard of care for patients. And so we'll follow that very closely. Obviously, the value of the remaining royalties and milestones would be very interesting for us as this program progresses beyond the Phase 1 stage.

Great. Thank you, Ken.

Yes.

Thank you. One moment for our next question. Our next question comes from the line of Stephen Willey of Stifel. Your line is now open.

Yes, good afternoon. Thanks for taking the questions. I know you've been a little bit hesitant to give guidance around when we might see 171 and 191 data. I know it's not included in the list of catalyst that you guys have itemized in the slide and I understand that you guys have kind of pointed to a desire to present more fulsome data at peer-reviewed settings. But just curious if you're intending to provide some level of communication with respect to reaching certain dose escalation or dose expansion milestones. And I guess I asked the question because there's a lot of interest around the progress being made on 191. Just giving the same novel linker payload is being leveraged across a variety of different wholly-owned programs.

Yes, thank you. It's not that we're hesitant to provide guidance. We just don't think it's appropriate at this stage. Obviously, these programs are still early. We're very encouraged so far by the speed of our Phase 1 studies. We had this idea of building up a larger, globally diversified footprint of clinical sites, so that we could find quality patients quickly in the dose estimation stage. And so far that's working as well as we could have ever hoped to do. I think we're encouraged by the early data. We've seen it's early. So, so far we've had no surprises in translation from our preclinical hypothesis and clinical studies. That being said, it's still early in that process. I think we do want to make sure that when, as we prepare for some peer-reviewed -- some data to be presented at peer-reviewed forum, that's the appropriate time and we can make some conclusions that are important to share. And I think the guidance we gave before is still what holds. I think as soon as we think that's appropriate, we'll file for an abstract to be presented at a meeting. And once that abstract title made public that will be the guidance. And I'm sorry we won't give more than that, but I think that's the appropriate thing to do. We don't want to do that at an IR event or a corporate event. We think the peer-reviewed section is the way to do that. But again, don't let that think that we're not really encouraged by our progress today, excited that it's going apace. Again as there are changes to be made on ClinicalTrials.gov in those process, you'll be able to see those as they're made in clinical trials. And the guidance we'll give is just to look forward to an abstract title with the appropriate timeframe when it's accepted and then we're happy to talk about it at that point. But until then, I just -- we just don't. Inside the company think it's appropriate to get too far ahead of yourself in early Phase 1 studies. And so you'll just have to wait for any time of guidance or timing for that.

Okay, that's fair. And then just -- I know you've talked about having a finite amount of clinical development capacity in house for the wholly-owned programs, and that kind of forces you to make certain capital allocation and strategic decisions with respect to each of these programs. But is the clinical development infrastructure or capacity, is that something that you're willing to flex outwards depending upon the success of zani and the triggering of specific milestones from Jazz? Is there a situation where you are enamored with your wholly-owned portfolio beyond the capacity that you have, and some of those additional funds can trigger an expansion of that infrastructure to accommodate the growing pipeline. Thanks.

Yes, good question. I mean, right now we're really happy with what we rebuilt at Zymeworks to execute these Phase 1 programs. And so far they're going as quickly as they possibly could, really encouraged with the way that we decided to do this. We built that, as you saw on our slide deck, a pretty large number of clinical sites in a significant number of countries or a dose escalation, but that's just to allow us then to move quickly and follow data to the next step. And I think for ZW171, ZW191, those programs are moving very quickly. And we want to make sure that we have resources available to move quickly to follow data where it tells us to go. And I think we're well situated to do that. We're obviously putting ZW251 into the clinic coming up here pretty shortly. And I feel comfortable with our ability to execute that program in the same fast way with good quality investigators in a large footprint the way we have with ZW171 and ZW191. So, far that's not an issue. I think our execution has been really good operationally. And that clinical excuse is an important skill a biotech has to have, and I think we have that right now. Don't want to mess too much with that in terms of diluting talent or changing the way that we're doing that. But I think as we have other agents which are able to move into clinic, I don't think it'll be a limiting factor right now the way that we've designed it. So I feel really comfortable with the capital putting against it, the resource we have against the speed we have, the clarity, and our ability to move quickly to the next stage in clinical development for those programs when the data suggests to us that it's time to do that. So, so far, I don't need more capital to do that. If we needed that, then we'll make the appropriate capital allocation decision around the investment criteria we have inside the company about where to allocate that. So far, I feel really happy about where we are and our execution and we'll continue to be able to do that without putting additional capital at risk to build a bigger infrastructure.

All right, thanks for taking the questions.

Thank you.

Thank you. One minute for our next question. And our next question comes from the line of Jonathan Miller of Evercore ISI. Your line is now open.

Great. Thanks so much for taking the question, guys. And congrats on the progress, May be just building on that previous question a little bit, obviously you've got a large internal pipeline and as we heard more about at AACR and again today, a lot of potential programs that you could add to either development collaborations or your internal pipeline if and when the time comes. How many -- I know we've discussed this obliquely in the past, but how many programs can you support early development for internally and what is the gating factor on external collaborations? I know those take work for Zymeworks as well. How many molecules could you have across the portfolio, whether they are internal and external? Trying to get a sense for when those things we heard about at AACR could become more relevant to the story.

Yes. No, great question, Jon. I think in building out our clinical infrastructure we built it in a way that we believe we could handle with the existing build out. We have now probably around five internal programs ourselves through Phase 1, so that we're kind of within that bandwidth now with the currently declared candidates. I think on a preclinical basis if you look at us translating molecules to the clinic, we could probably handle about ten at any one time, including the clinical candidates. So that’s pretty reasonable bandwidth to handle the portfolio. We obviously have a substantial amount of substrates in our preclinical programs of really interesting molecules that we think are all different. We make the choices which we hope improves the quality of the clinical portfolio that we have. To date we’ve been doing this all on our own and keeping all of those assets unencumbered. We do evaluate partnerships on a regular basis and look at where collaborations might allow us to go more quickly, provide some funding, provide some clinical resources, which means we don’t have to utilize the original resources and we’ll keep making those decisions. So I think for some of those newer disclosures you can make, we’re evaluating whether we could do that internally, we’re evaluating whether a collaborative approach might allow us to do that. So far we’ve not had a cushion in our portfolio that we paused [indiscernible] IND just to make sure we weren’t taking on too much. So I think right now feel comfortable with the pace of our clinical development nominations to be something that we can execute on in a proper way. And we’re doing that now for ZW171 and ZW171, expect ZW251 to go as quickly when it transitions to the clinic and we'll evaluate some collaborative opportunities that might put us in a position to be able to advance some of those other programs without requiring capital investment for ourselves and without acquiring, taking up some of the time of our internal resources to move things forward either through IND or in early clinical studies. That’s the thing we evaluate on a regular basis and as we make decisions about collaborations that became public, then I think we’ll be able to discuss more about that. Hope that answers your question, Jon.

Yes, sure. Absolutely. Thanks so much.

Yes, you are welcome.

Thank you. One moment for our next question. And our next question comes from the line of Andrew Berens of Leerink Partners. Your line is now open.

Hi, everyone. This is Amanda on Andy Berens. Thanks for taking our question. May be just one from us at AACR. You had a poster on a relatively new ADC target, the Ly6E. And it looks like at least one other ADC with this target has had initial Phase 1 data publicly disclosed. I just wanted to get a little bit more color on what gives you confidence in this target and in your asset over the others out there. Thanks.

Welcome. Yes, no, thanks for asking that question. Yes, you’re absolutely right, there had been a priority program against that target, and that clinical data had been reported against Ly6E. There the payload was different and the antibody was very different. So, one of the things that we realized, or our team realized with that target was the opportunity to really optimize both antibody and the payload. And so what we’re deploying on the payload side is a different payload, it’s a TOPO payload in the field that has kind of gained a lot of momentum. And we think that is this target and the expression profile of that target we think there’s room there for a TOPO payload module. And of course, we have our payload that we’ve got that’s been selected for optimal properties that we believe are needed. And then equally important for this target, the antibody selectivity and getting an antibody, we spent a lot of time, our team was focused on getting an antibody that’s really significantly better at payload delivery and internalization. And that was kind of described in the poster. And that’s benchmarked against that prior molecule. So we think that will give us an advantage on this performance. And what was encouraging, though, from the original pre-clinical data was there was evidence of clinical responses. They weren’t optimal. But also the target seemed to be relatively safe target for an ADC. And with our enhanced antibody and with our preferred payload, when we’ve modeled that in cynomolgus monkeys, we also see a very favorable tolerability profile. So that kind of, together with the efficacy that’s significantly better and the tolerability we just think is a nice recipe for a real game-changer, best-in-class molecule against this target.

Got it. Thanks so much.

Thank you. One moment for our next question. And our next question comes from the line of Akash Tewari of Jefferies. Your line is now open.

Hi, this is TV [ph] on for Akash. In your preclinical models with [indiscernible] ADCs you’re able to get to max doses which are meaningfully higher than what you’ve seen with HER2. Is there any concern that your toxins could potentially not be potent enough? And additionally if you could provide any color on what your go-forward doses are for ZW191 and ZW251, that’d be great?

Sure. Yes, no, good question. And we’ve actually done a lot of benchmarking of our payload within HER2 payload or [indiscernible] and we see actually in preclinical models very comparable efficacy profile both along a lot of in vitro data and then also in in vivo xenograft models. So I think we’re very confident based on the pre-clinical models that we have the necessary efficacy that’s in the same range as the based payloads. What was the second question?

Any color on go-forward doses for ZW191 and ZW251?

Yes. No, we can’t at least specify those. But as you alluded to the fact that we have this very high tolerability dose in non-human primates that enables us to guide or start with a higher starting dose in patients. And that would be the typical approach anyone developing ADC would do and we can assume that we would be consistent with that.

Got it, thank you.

Thanks.

Thank you. One moment for our next question. Our next question comes from the line of Yigal Nochomovitz of Citigroup. Your line is not open.

Yes, hi, thank you. Paul I see you did the comp analysis versus the Amgen molecule for your DLL3. Did you also look at how ZW209 performs against some of the DLL3 ADCs out there of which there are a few.

Yes, we haven’t done that. I mean the models are a little bit different for that. So, in this case for that we tend to compare against similar modalities. We certainly are aware of the attraction of ADC approaches also for tumors. So that’s why we’re doing ADCs and there, we are aware of what the competitive space is there. In this case for small cell lung cancer we felt on the backs of -- the encourage the data from Amgen and the ability to get these more durable responses. That really was an attraction here for us focusing on the T cell engager approach. But we certainly keep ourselves aware of the ADC approaches there too. But doing the head-to-head comparisons, is not so easy to do those in the same models. It’s different kind of models.

Okay, what’s your sort of more general view though, in terms of the strategy of the T cell engager versus the ADC for this particular target?

Yes, I think here in this particular target, we really like this as a target to evaluate with our co-stim platform. And so we have the tarlatamab proof-of-concept for T cell engager. So that was partly why we went there with a T cell approach. We certainly have -- we could have done ADC, but in this case we felt this type of tumor type and this target, the weighted data made more sense to go with a T cell approach. And then of course we tried, we did our preclinical studies and the data that we’ve seen with the preclinical data studies just really encourages us to continue on that path towards the clinic. So that was a driver there. Certainly when we think about a therapeutic indication, we will evaluate both an ADC and the T cell engager and we will -- we do see benefit perhaps sometimes in having both approaches available. But we think in this case for DLL3, this is a very obvious target to do the T cell engager with the CD28 co-stimulation.

Okay, thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. One moment for our next question. Our next question comes from the line of Derek Achila of Wells Fargo. Your line is now open.

Hi, this is Eva on for Derek. Thanks for taking our question. A quick one from us. So are there any learnings from ZW171 or ZW191 development that could be applied to optimize or expedite the development of your other ADC or T cell engager candidates? Thanks.

Yes, go ahead, Paul.

Yes. No, definitely, for sure. I mean, I think, we put a lot of learnings into the clinical design. We are able to leverage learnings from other ADCs and other T cell engagers. And certainly as we move forward, other ADCs and T cell engagers will learn from what we’ve done ourselves. So we’re always layering in that kind of knowledge base. We’ll start to reveal more in the trials in progress posters this year that are already scheduled to be presented. And you’ll see there we can give you a little more color on that and you can then maybe see from that how we might also continue these types of strategies in other programs, but can’t really see much more than that just now.

Great, thanks.

Thank you. One moment for our next question. [Operator Instructions] And our next question comes from the line of Robert Burns of H.C. Wainwright. Your line is now open.

Hey guys, thanks for taking my questions and congrats on the data that you presented at AACR. Just two for me, if I may. Given the repeat challenge assay data for ZW209 as well as the in vivo data and factoring in IMDELLTRA’s move into the frontline -- frontline setting for SCLC in combination with AstraZeneca and IMFINZI. I was curious to get your thoughts as to how you see the impact of earlier utilization of IMDELLTRA on the efficacy of ZW209 in the later phase scenario.

Go ahead Paul.

Yes. I think definitely when we’ve been thinking about the design of our molecules, obviously we need to stage our clinical testing. But we do see the ability of a T cell engager strategy to really move the needle in small cell lung cancer. And we think that the Amgen data, the tarlatamab data bodes well. But I think then in the design of your molecule, if you can enhance the efficacy, enhance the durability of response, potentially broaden the response rate, that’s what you’re trying to do with this next generation molecule that we’ve developed. And I think that, as well as the efficacy, we are very careful on tolerability, you’ve seen that in our ADC approach, I think, you’ve seen that in our ZW171 approach and that’s also reflected in ZW209, where we really think about tolerability so that we can ultimately combine it with potentially standard-of-care once you’ve established monotherapy data. So heading towards that getting the best benefit for patients is kind of wired into our thinking on the design of all our molecules.

Awesome. Thank you for that. And one more question. So the PTK7 targeted agent, obviously we saw the comparator in vivo data that you presented was one of those compounds, one of the comparative pre-clinical compounds, one of the ones that Whitehawk Therapeutics is advancing. And if not, how do you view that competitive agent, that competitor agent relative to your PTK7 targeted ADC. Thank you.

Yes, we use cofetuzumab as the comparator, that was the prior clinical benchmark. And there what we were really trying to demonstrate was the improvement you could get with a biparatopic, we also had our own lead monoclonal antibody or monoparatopic antibody, we also benchmarked. But whatever we’ve seen for this particular target, we really think biparatopic can push things for other targets, it’s not always the case. But in this case, whatever monoparatopic antibody we’ve looked at, either we’ve developed or the sort of benchmark clinical that we had available, we outperformed. So, that to us bodes well. We think we’re really doing something different with the biparatopic that can’t be achieved. We will continue to monitor that as other competitor molecules come across. But our real drive here was really to see what we could do with the biparatopic and we can leverage that capability. Obviously we did it for zani and it really move the needle there. In this case, we’re applying it to see what we can do on PTK7, a target that seems applicable for this type of approach and we’ll continue to monitor that as we’re doing our pre-clinical work and consider benchmarks as appropriate.

Awesome. Thank you guys.

Thank you, Robert.

Thank you. I’m showing all further questions at this time. I’ll now turn it back to Ken Galbraith for closing remarks.

Yes, thank you, operator. Thank you everyone for your time listening to us. We’re always available for questions afterwards if you didn’t get a chance to ask additional questions or something else. And in the meantime, please stay tuned for further developments and we thank our shareholders for their continued support. Thank you.

Thank you for your participation in today’s conference. This does conclude the program. You may now disconnect.