My name is Natalia Neparitse. I'm from Yale Cancer Center. I specialize in multiple myeloma and hematology, and I'm excited to report that at this ASH we are presenting data from our real-world study comparing outcomes among patients with relapse refractory myeloma who have received either CAR T cell therapies or bispecific T cell engager therapies. In clinical trials, which are run either by academic institutions or collaborative groups or industry studies, typically patients need to meet very strict eligibility criteria for the study. And this by nature of its design excludes many of our real-life patients who need care on a daily basis. And so I think clinical trial literature informs us greatly. However, it may not exactly reflect our real-world patients who we're treating in the clinic on a daily basis. So that's why examining in the form of either retrospective or prospective fashion this sort of real-world practice evidence from our own daily practice in the clinic is very meaningful and important for our patients because that's more perhaps comparable to general population in the U.S. oncology. The reason why we did this study is because the community in myeloma does not really have solid evidence as to how best to sequence these drugs. So do you go first with bispecifics or do you go first with CAR T cells? This is an unanswered question. These products were FDA approved about the same time. So we are just sequencing them based on patient preferences but no real guidelines to refer to. Our study that I currently noted is retrospective, meaning looking back over the past couple of years and examining data and evidence and outcomes of patients treated for the past two years in this case. Whereas prospective would be if we were to establish patients now and follow them over time over the next two to three years. So in this study, this was a retrospective study, total of 92 patients were analyzed treated at Yale Cancer Center. These were patients who were heavily pretreated relapse refractory myeloma and had undergone at least six to eight lines of prior therapy. Medium line of therapy for this patient's head was about six. And in this study, 92 patients were analyzed. 46 of them had received bispecific agents such as mostly Teclistomab or Talquetomab or one of the CAR T products, siltosal or Abecma. And the findings of the study revealed that patients who were selected to receive CAR T cells were obviously younger patients, median age of 62 as opposed to 68 for patients with bispecifics. In terms of overall responses, CAR T was associated with higher response rates on the order of 85, 89% with bispecifics around 65%, which is consistent with the previously trial reported literature. The high response rate with the CAR T was accompanied by a higher toxicity as well, mainly in the form of cytokine release syndrome, neurotoxicity with CAR T's as well as more prolonged hematologic toxicity in the form of prolonged cytopenia. And in terms of progression-free survival, CAR T cell patients enjoyed slightly longer progression-free survival on the order of nine months as compared with around seven months with bispecifics. And overall, we noted that patients fared comparatively well in terms of infectious So infectious rates were similar in both groups. One question we did try to explore in this cohort was the access of patients in the minority groups actually. And I think African-American patients were reasonably well represented in this cohort. And we did not really see significant differences in terms of access to care at C.L. Cancer Center to either one of these therapies. So this was reassuring. So in summary, we see in this study real-world practice patterns among patients with relapse refractory myeloma. CAR T's were used in younger patients. So these were younger, perhaps healthier patients enjoying higher overall response rates at the expense of higher toxicity rates in terms of CRS, neurotoxicity, and hematologic toxicity with a higher progression-free survival observed with a CAR T as compared with bispecific population. Thank you very much for your interest in our study. And please refer to our abstract on proceedings of the meeting at ASH.