Michael Vasconcelles: Yes. So this is Mike. Regarding your second question, it’s important in that subset analysis to look at the demographics of the patient population when the MIRASOL data set is parsed by prior exposure to PARP inhibitor or not. We tried to point that out in the presentation, and I’d encourage you to go back and look at that. But the long and short of it is, there are some differences that are more apparent in the PARP-naive population. And generally, in terms of outcomes, it’s not surprising necessarily that we see slightly better outcomes in patients that are appropriate based on the molecular profiling for PARP inhibitors. And with respect to the first question, yes, so this is an interim assessment. It was a planned interim assessment following full enrollment.
And these data are confirmed. The one caveat I’ll say, and I think Mark mentioned this as well, is that this is an ongoing trial, right, with patients — a number of patients that are still receiving therapy. And so in the parlance of a clinical researcher, we confirm the data when we share something like this. But of course, we need to reserve the caveat that when the full data are presented mid next year that in the process of providing those full data, there could be minor shifts in the data, and that’s why we’re really clear to talk about an objective response rate of at least 48%.
Unidentified Analyst: Okay. No, that makes sense. And so you are seeing kind of durability increase over time. It sounds like you’re based on how long people have been on treatment but just confirming that.
Michael Vasconcelles: Yes. I mean the issue of the maturity of the duration of response is exactly why we’re providing some guidance today that we would expect the full data in 2024.
Operator: Our next question coming from the line of Peter Lawson with Barclays.
Peter Lawson: Just going back to your comments around CDH ADC. Just curious on what you thought of the data and if kind of that response rate and durability kind of holds up kind of how you think physicians will make a pick between molecule and your molecule? And then on PICCOLO, if I could just go back to that. Does the 48% mean there’s kind of unconfirmed there and should get to above 48% or are at 48%. So any details around that kind of find a detailed commentary you made, would be great.
Michael Vasconcelles: Yes. Well, I’ll say to the second point, which kind of relates to the prior question is that we do see late responses in our data sets generally. And as I mentioned, there are a number of patients that remain on mirvetuximab. So at this interim assessment, we can confidently say that we see an objective response rate of 48%, but we just need to be cognizant of those number of patients that remain on therapy. So could the objective response rate at the final day to be higher Yes, it could be higher. With respect to your first question, it’s so conjectural. I mean, like you said, we’ve got a Phase I molecule that has a really interesting early signal. Like I said earlier, looks like to me, we’re trying to figure out dose that I think there were some grade 5 interstitial lung disease-related deaths.
So gosh, I hope for patients that were able to work through that and it becomes potentially someday a meaningful therapy in ovarian cancer. But I think it’s a little premature from where I sit to try to hypothesize about how physicians are going to make treatment choices compared to a medicine that has demonstrated survival benefit in platinum-resistant ovarian cancer.
Peter Lawson: Perfect additional detail. What’s the overlap between FR alpha and CDH?
Michael Vasconcelles: Yes. We’re looking hard to understand that. I can’t give you any numbers today. But when we have a better understanding of that, of course, we’ll be able to share that.
Operator: Our next question coming from the line of Dingding Shi with Jefferies.
Dingding Shi: Congrats on another great quarter. I have two. Firstly, on the regulatory approval, would you be able to share your launch of strategy in Europe at the moment? And also, how should we consider the cost associated with the launch? And another question regarding the Adam9 program. So for the upcoming update in non-small cell lung cancer, could you share what interim analysis? Is it based on is — is it a response rate or the durability of response?
