Based on the interim data presented at ASCO 2024, can you elaborate on the clinical activity and safety profile of MCLA-145 as a monotherapy in treating advanced solid tumors? How do these results compare with existing treatments?

Considering that the patients involved in the study were heavily pre-treated, with a median of three prior therapies, what does the observed partial response rate suggest about the potential of MCLA-145 in this patient population?

The study reported partial responses in several tumor types including glioblastoma, sarcoma, cervical, anal, and gastric cancer. Can you discuss the implications of these findings for the broader application of MCLA-145 across different cancer types?

The data showed that patients with an evaluable baseline tumor CD8 T-cell density of ≥ 250 cells/mm2 had a higher response rate. How significant is this biomarker in predicting patient responses to MCLA-145 treatment, and what does this mean for future patient selection?

In combination with pembrolizumab, MCLA-145 demonstrated both partial and complete responses in various tumors. How does the combination therapy enhance the efficacy compared to MCLA-145 monotherapy, and what are the potential mechanisms behind this synergy?

The study observed a reduction in Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events when shifting from Q2W to Q3W dosing. What are the possible reasons for this reduction, and how might this influence future dosing strategies for MCLA-145?

Liver toxicity, a common CD137 related adverse event, was controlled with no Grade 4 events observed at Q3W dosing. What strategies were employed to manage liver toxicity, and what do these results indicate about the overall safety of MCLA-145?

With the planned initiation of phase 3 trials for petosemtamab and potential collaborations for MCLA-145, what are the next steps for Merus in advancing the clinical development of MCLA-145? How do you envision its role in the future landscape of cancer immunotherapy?