我爱你。

嘿嘿，嘿耶。

dutter DST is a lovel chok to directed ADC。

and in this year， it's more conference uh， which to evaluate double DST compelled uh double DST with those say， tessl impretreated apppretraated patient with long small and lung cancer。

and the question is。

what advantage does dattle DST has compared to dosetazo in this study？ and what impact will dattto DST？

have on the contininical practice in the advance in the ccer cof，

the one stustuat as most twenty twenty three， and i think， is a very important study， as the goal of the study is to identify potential therapy that can do better therstutium h。

second mine setting is advance medieccor or alangifor standard dose y taxel。

those attacks are ststard ard chemotherapy。

are we do know is association with modest benefit its substantial toxity。

so the hypothesis was the data DXT， which is an anybody drug condrigate。

essentially a directed form of chemotherapy that allows us directly deliver a strong chemotherapy right to tumors， meaning with this therapy would be more afficcations or these better the patients with medithchnomomosle cancer and also better toererated with a patientions with advance memotherns moscle cancer。

um they could have actional joomic alalation ations as easia far， or they did not have to so patients with actional joomic aleration， and they easy of far alcroone， and they have received targeted therapy and than cheo therapy， and they could have received a menthererapbefore before stustupapatience without actional jermic alterations must have received both chemotherapy and mentherery。

and these are the patients that are typically given second line chemotherical also a cancer。

so they animmize one to one to receive those thtaxor or data DXT。

the try was designed with this al crimy and points， meaning that either of these popoints positive， it would be a positive study。

those two dual primary and points， the first of which was uh progression， free survival。

and the second was overall survival。

it's important to know that approximately twenty five percent of patients on both arms。

that study had squin a cell histology and remamaining patients， all nnon squam of histology of the non small。

so on cancer。

uh patients were stable able bramof titicities were able enenroll on trial， approximately seventeen percent of patients had actually al jmmititloriations， the most common of itregiapfr。

when we looked at patient disposition on trial， we saw another important things suggesting the data DXD may be a better therapy than those taxfor for these patience。

first， we saw that uh three times as many patients on the data DXD arm were still on trial， is time of data cut off compared dodoa taxel。

we also saw that more than half of patients treated with those attaxes or were on therapy for three months or less。

this was， in contrast with the patience， ts， the data DXD arm or one in five patients， or twenty percent of the patients were on therapy for great than the nine months， and those a tax alarm that number was less than uh one in ten。

then we turned our attention to the first of the two will do primary points， which was progression for free survival。

and what we found was a statistically significant improvement and progression free survival in favor of data DXD over those setaxel， with with hazerao d ints， seven five， suggesting at twenty five percent reduction in the risk of disease progression or death。

after patients that AD to DXD， we also saw more than doubling in the object response rate for the data DXD treated patients compared to those attaxel， we we saw the patients that responded data DXD had longer ddiation response compared to those attaxel。

however， when we looked at his dology， we saw real。

divergence in this benefit where in the patients that had non p am s pestology， there was a clear PFS benefit in favor of data DXD。

and those patients with squas systolgy did not have APFS benefit。

we also identifiy that the patient population that had the greatest benefit on trial were those patients with actionable lejmof of aulterations， where there is hazarratio point three a in favor of data DXT。

it's important to note， as you probably aware， um if you treat one cancer that the jority of patients that had actional al jmnic cullations had nonsquamiof stotolagy。

and on this trial was all but three of the patients。

when we then looked uh this diichodey in terms of response by histologic closer， we saw some pretty striking things。

so in the nonsquamist patients， we saw a real clear separation， the capitin miyer curves per progression on free survivals， suggesting a benefit for data DXT over those a taxel that has a ratio in the nonsquam， as population was point six three。

there is a medium progression with survival benefit of one point nine months。

reto conresponstrator。

the number of tumors that responded than the data DXT arm was almost three time higher and then those a taxel。

and there was a long aderation response again。

so to reinforcing that， these nonsquam as patients are having a clear benefit from data DXT with respect the PFS compared those taxel。

so to contexalizze， that afficicacy benefit， we saw specifically in the nonsquam as patients， we then turned our attention to safety。

the rate of um rated rase events on trial， ray or higher treman related verevenwas lolower on data DXDM at twenty five percent。

patients come red to one percent of patients ated ated。

those a taxel。

and this lower rate was despite a longer duration of therapies of patients were on dato DXD longer， but they had a lower rate of these significant events。

um with this led to a lower number uh events。

so sociwith those theruation ation。

and those leration。

and with lower rate， the data DXT is better tolerate than the dose taxel。

the toxities that were most common with data。

DXT were muks， sitis and nausia。

and importantly， there were no new safety signals sing with data DXT。

so the overall safety profile certainly favoured data DXT。

that said， the worsusome unique toxiccities for data DXT that i discusted as men i think， are worth noting。

we do know that with on ADC that have the DXD payload， and you may be familiar with a trust tusm abdruxy cancan。

that is a drug that's being used and urtumutated nonsmsl along cancers。

well as breath cancer， ILD can be a problem。

and that's a specific concern in our patients with nonsmsl alung cancer because they alhave cancer， no cancers， because they also have smoking damage often times。

so i looked at that。

and i talk about that lansteruring as mo， um eight perent of patientree with data DXT had an event associated with uh by an independent committee attributed with ILD with data DXT。

three percent of these events were great through your higher。

and there were seven patients on trial that were treated with dato DXD that had grade five um IO。

the event importantly， though， in four of these seven patients with a great five IOD event investigator on site attributed the patients death disease progression。

so in summary， i believe the data DXD has the potential to be a new meaningful therapy for patienence with medicitic non small sole cancer or algiable for second line chemotherapy with nonsway ous histology。

and i'll be excited to see the final overall survival， ananysis say， and contincontinue to see how the data plays out over time。

so that was my uh high level summary of what i discuss that with。

thank you for your comment and the professor in。

could you give your comment in uh？

uh tropian long zero one trial。

and i have a question， could you predict。

the overloss survival outcome in this child because there are doubt primary and point in this child PFS and OS， uh and question too。

that to DSD is available in china。

you will um chose se drug as the preferred uh option uh option uh practice after the probe after the disease progress。

uh temtive erppping uuh mual al repuuh kk。

thank you， professor and and thank you again， for poctor expect uh pressitifor the uh the search of choppting long one。

uh HI think it's really a good result of the choppting long， one study and positive result showed the uh dattle dixt has uh show a long PFS comare with dossitataxand。

uh uh， i think in the future you my clintive practice， i will choose um deattle dix t as a second d rerevement。

for nsqusquare long cancer patients， but really uh as uh because i didn't uh enrolled in this stuaruh as susuby or PI uh in。

so maybe i'm some uh time will worried about the addopaevenespecispecifor patients。

uh， h， you can find in the h in the slide that the great five。

uh LD is h two percent， and especially in the square long cancer patients and the perent is about perpaticent。

so i think for patients with LDI and um i not use this kind of ADC drugs。

so i think uh， you know， there are so many kinds of ADC compounds in the future， uh， such as chop ture， her two or her three。

um i think maybe。

for these cancil patients， the bemarker election， it will be uh will be very important for the patient election in the future。

so um for the right patient， they will got the positive OS result， but for not seatction。

uh， patients the HI think the maybe the data will be problem um， but result will be not like uthe concity。

that's my procluionthank you。

yeah， i'm i'm going to argue。

i think everything that this she said was very reasonable。

um i agree that if i had this available to my patients with nonswam a ststology， i would use it。

and that sounds like she is in the same agreement。

i also agree uh that i ideas concerceruah。

i don't think it's something that will perclude our ability to give the drug as she mentioned， um the rate of great five events was two percent um and i don't think that's a great that that's too e for us to give the pirucercertainly。

we have other drugs like our munity。

therapies that have ILD um so something were familiar with， if something would take very seriously。

and i completely agree with her statement that if a patient that not or history of ILD， this is not a classiththerapy。

i would use that PFC the fuility， but but think think there's a real lot possisense within that， that acact i we think， think will be importortant， but think is a real logic， great down cerunderstly that right now wealready seeing。

it has a ratio point paence for the nonsqurem ous patients。

h。

the confidence interval nonal possisior one so barely crossing one。

and i think there's a real possibility uh that once theget the final overall survival announce is certainly， that's not a prespecified statistically powered analysis。

but i think there's a real possibility that we will see what is a suggestion for an overall survival poenefit in those nonsquremious patients to support that PFS benefit。

and i think further the story that this is a tententinew therapy for our nonscremious population。

so i agree with everything that was said。