Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us. Earlier today, we issued a press release with our first quarter 2026 financial results, which is available in the investor and media section of our website at arvinas.com.

Joining us on the call today, we have Randy Teel, our President and CEO; Noah Berkowitz, our Chief Medical Officer; Angela Cacace, our Chief Scientific Officer; and Andrew Saik, our Chief Financial Officer. Before we begin, I'll remind you that today's discussion contains forward-looking statements that involve risks, uncertainties, and assumptions.

These risks and uncertainties are outlined in today's press release and in the company's recent filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which I urge you to read. Our actual results may differ materially from what is discussed on today's call.

A replay of the call, as well as today's press release and an updated corporate deck, will be available on the investor and media section of our website. Now I'll turn the call over to Randy Teel.

Randy?

Thanks, Jeff. Thank you all for joining us today.

Since stepping into the role as CEO earlier this year, my appreciation for the strength of the Arvinas platform, the talent and execution capability of our team, and our deep and differentiated pipeline has only grown. As the first PROTAC degrader company, we believe we've built unmatched translational expertise in the protein degrader space.

I believe we're in a great position for a highly productive and value-generating 2026. Several months ago, after filing the New Drug Application for vepdegestrant, we announced our intention to identify a third party with the capability to maximize its commercial opportunity.

During this time, we remained confident that vepdegestrant had the potential to become a meaningful treatment option for patients with metastatic breast cancer. Our optimism was validated by the recent FDA approval of vepdeg, now known as Vepenu, and yesterday afternoon, we were pleased to announce that we and Pfizer have entered into a global licensing agreement with Rigel Pharmaceuticals for the commercialization, development, and manufacturing of Vepenu.

I'll begin with the FDA's approval of Vepenu for the treatment of ESR1-mutant, ER-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. This is an important milestone for patients and physicians, and demonstrates the potential of targeted protein degradation to treat disease.

There have been minimal second-line treatment options for these patients, and, as the lead investigator in our Phase 3 trial said, the approval of Vepenu brings renewed hope to patients who need additional options. The approval of Vepenu was the first ever approval of a heterobifunctional PROTAC degrader.

In our industry, few biotechs are successful in bringing a molecule from discovery through approval. Fewer companies still make it onto the very short list of companies, big or small, that have ever been the first to bring a new therapeutic modality from inception to approval.

We believe this achievement fully validates our innovative targeted degrader platform, which Arvinas pioneered more than 10 years ago. It also strengthens our confidence in the breadth and versatility of our exciting Phase 1 pipeline across oncology, neurodegenerative disorders, and neuromuscular diseases.

I am deeply grateful to the team that has worked tirelessly on Vepenu, with the unfaltering belief that it can bring renewed hope to patients who need new treatment options. We are committed to making sure Vepenu is available for patients as soon as possible.

Rigel has a fully established oncology sales team and the infrastructure needed to ensure Vepenu is available soon. They are committed to unlocking the full value of Vepenu, and we are confident that they are the right partner to bring this important treatment to the patients that need it.

At the same time, this agreement allows Arvinas to invest in the next wave of innovation across our pipeline while maintaining a strong and disciplined approach to capital allocation. Indeed, this was the rationale for seeking a new partner for Vepenu, so that patients could receive Vepenu while Arvinas could dedicate itself to our next generation of degraders.

I am fortunate to lead an organization advancing an industry-leading portfolio of degraders. Guided by patient genetics and by identifying the central drivers of disease, we deliberately select targets where protein degradation can deliver transformative impact.

To date, we have dosed more than 2,000 patients and healthy volunteers using our PROTAC technology, and our team has had remarkable success in advancing promising compounds from preclinical studies to clinical programs. As we look ahead, our ambition is clear.

We are not simply advancing molecules to the clinic. We are relentlessly focused on creating differentiated therapies that raise the bar for patients on safety, tolerability, and efficacy.

We are not looking for incremental improvements, but rather working toward fundamentally changing what's possible for patients and clinicians. We are doing it from a position of strength.

With a healthy balance sheet and a deeply committed team, we are well positioned to deliver long-term value for patients, their families, and our shareholders. We are in the promising position of having four Phase 1 clinical programs ongoing, with the capital needed to reach important inflection points for each of the programs that will inform our investment priorities and ongoing development strategies.

Now, I'll turn the call over to Noah and the team. Noah?

Thanks, Randy. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us today.

We have an exciting year ahead at Arvinas, beginning with the recently presented Phase 1 data for our lead program, ARV-102, at AD/PD. These results represent a key milestone and provide strong validation of our approach in neurodegenerative diseases.

ARV-102 is an orally administered PROTAC designed to cross the blood-brain barrier and potently and selectively degrade LRRK2, a multidomain protein that regulates neuroinflammation, lysosomal, and synaptic function. Elevated LRRK2 levels are implicated in disorders including progressive supranuclear palsy, or PSP, and Parkinson's disease.

By degrading the full LRRK2 protein complex, including its scaffolding, GTPase, and kinase functions, ARV-102 addresses multiple disease-relevant pathways, in contrast to kinase inhibitors, which target only a single function. We have shown that ARV-102 penetrates the CNS, produces dose-dependent reductions of LRRK2 in cerebrospinal fluid, and modulates downstream disease-associated proteins.

At AD/PD, Phase 1 data in patients with Parkinson's disease demonstrated approximately 50% or greater reductions in CSF LRRK2 by day 14 across dose levels, sustained through day 28, consistent with our goal of normalizing the approximately twofold LRRK2 elevation observed in Parkinson's disease. Importantly, LRRK2 degradation led to dose-dependent reductions in biomarkers of neuroinflammation and lysosomal stress, including CD68 and GPNMB.

To our knowledge, this degree of biomarker modulation has not been observed with LRRK2 inhibitors. ARV-102 was also generally well tolerated, with no serious adverse events through 28 days of dosing.

These findings support advancement into PSP, our immediate clinical focus. PSP is a rapidly progressive tauopathy driven by 4R tau accumulation, with a typical survival of 5 to 7 years and no disease-modifying therapies.

In patients with PSP, elevated LRRK2 expression is associated with accelerated and clinically meaningful progression within 1 year. Preclinically, we have shown that ARV-102 impacts neuroinflammation, enhances endolysosomal function, and most importantly, reduces tau pathology in multiple relevant disease models, aligning with our clinical observations of improved endolysosomal function and reduced neuroinflammation.

Together, these data reinforce our view that LRRK2 degradation offers a differentiated disease-modifying approach to the treatment of PSP, a devastating fatal disease without available therapy, which affects 25,000 patients in the US. I also want to provide an update on the timeline for initiating our Phase 1b clinical trial with ARV-102 in patients with progressive supranuclear palsy.

We submitted an IND earlier this year with the intention of initiating the trial in the US during the first half of the year. Following the 30-day review period, the FDA requested final data from our chronic tox studies in nonhuman primates prior to authorizing the initiation of the Phase 1b in the US in patients with PSP.

Given this requirement, while no patients in the US have been treated, the planned trial is on clinical hold and will not begin until we provide these data, which we expect will be available in mid-2026. We anticipate the US trial will begin by the end of 2026.

We do not anticipate this will impact our plans for trials in the EU, there's no change in our guidance on the start of the Phase 2 study, which we are planning as a global study. Turning now to oncology, I'll begin with ARV-806, our KRAS G12D degrader.

KRAS G12D is a well-characterized oncogenic driver associated with poor outcomes and resistance to standard therapies across multiple tumor types, including pancreatic, colorectal, and non-small cell lung cancers. ARV-806 is designed to potently and selectively eliminate both on and off forms of KRAS G12D, a key differentiator for a challenging target in solid tumors.

Our confidence in ARV-806 is supported by compelling preclinical results, which demonstrated approximately 25- to 40-fold greater potency than clinical-stage KRAS G12D inhibitors and degraders. These data also showed durable degradation greater than 90% for 7 days after a single dose, with efficacy responses across pancreatic, colorectal, and lung cancer models.

As we shared on our prior call, we completed enrollment of the dose escalation for once-weekly administration in our ongoing Phase 1 trial well ahead of schedule. We view this rapid enrollment as a strong indicator of investigator enthusiasm and unmet medical need in KRAS-driven cancers.

We believe the initial data we show later this year will be the first step in showcasing ARV-806's potential as a differentiated and clinically meaningful treatment option for patients with KRAS-driven cancers. Finally, turning to ARV-393, our PROTAC BCL6 degrader, we continue progressing through the Phase 1 monotherapy dose escalation trial for patients with both B-cell and T-cell lymphomas who have received multiple prior therapies.

We are particularly encouraged by early responses observed across both populations, including responses at exposure levels below what we predicted to be efficacious. We have also observed robust BCL6 degradation, a notable finding given that BCL6 is rapidly resynthesized.

We look forward to sharing additional clinical data from our ongoing Phase 1 monotherapy trial in patients with relapsed or refractory non-Hodgkin's lymphoma later this year. In parallel to enrolling the monotherapy cohort, we've initiated a combination trial with glofitamab in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, an important next step as we look to expand the potential opportunity with ARV-393.

With that, I'll now turn the call over to Angela. Angela?

Thanks, Noah, and good morning, everyone. I'll begin by talking about the patients with spinal and bulbar muscular atrophy, also known as SBMA or Kennedy's disease.

These patients are living with a progressive neuromuscular disorder that steadily robs them of muscle strength and endurance. It's an X-linked disease caused by a CAG repeat expansion in the androgen receptor gene, which leads to the buildup of a toxic form of the protein, polyglutamine-expanded AR, or polyQ AR, in skeletal muscle.

That accumulation disrupts normal muscle function, drives atrophy, and over time, significantly impacts the quality of life. In other words, polyQ AR is the root cause of the disease, and there are currently no approved disease-modifying therapies for these patients.

With ARV-027, we've designed a PROTAC degrader specifically to eliminate the toxic polyQ AR protein from muscle cells. By removing the driver of pathology, rather than just managing symptoms, we aim to preserve muscle function and alter the course of the disease.

We've now enrolled the first three cohorts in our Phase 1 single-ascending dose study in healthy volunteers, which is an important step forward for the program. Given our extensive experience with AR degraders, we feel confident in our ability to translate this approach into clinical benefit.

Earlier this year at the Kennedy's Disease Association Conference, we shared preclinical data in an aggressive SBMA mouse model, showing that our oral ARV-027 degraded polyQ AR in muscle, led to meaningful functional improvements, and extended survival. As a reminder, we have a terrific track record in developing AR degraders.

Our first clinical candidate was an AR degrader, and luxdeglutamide, which we out-licensed to Novartis in 2024, is progressing through multiple Phase 2 trials in hormone-sensitive and castration-resistant prostate cancer. We are excited about the potential of ARV-027 to become the first disease-modifying therapy for patients with SBMA.

Now, let me turn to the discovery pipeline as we move closer to the clinic. First, ARV-6723, our oral immuno-oncology PROTAC degrader for solid tumors.

The target is HPK1, which acts as a brake on the immune system. It dampens T-cell signaling and suppresses both innate and adaptive antitumor responses.

What makes the HPK1 target especially challenging is that it works in two ways, not just through its kinase activity, but also as a signaling scaffold. Inhibition alone doesn't fully shut it down; degradation does.

That's exactly what we see with ARV-6723: deep, sustained removal of the protein and both of its functions. In preclinical models, the data are very compelling.

We see strong single-agent antitumor activity across multiple tumor types, including both high and low immunogenic settings. In fact, ARV-6723 showed greater tumor growth inhibition, outperforming both an HPK1 inhibitor and anti-PD-1.

Even more importantly, in seven checkpoint-resistant models, ARV-6723 showed activity as a single agent, while the inhibitor and anti-PD-1 were inactive. Mechanistically, this isn't just about T cells.

We're seeing reversal of the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment, as we just showed at the American Association for Cancer Research Conference. ARV-6723 induces a meaningful impact on the myeloid compartment, which you typically don't see with standard checkpoint therapies.

Stepping back, we believe this program has the potential to really change the treatment paradigm in immuno-oncology landscape. We're on track to enter the clinic later this year.

Finally, let me touch on our oral pan-KRAS PROTAC program. Three key points to frame it.

First, we're seeing broad degradation of KRAS across multiple alterations, including wild-type amplified KRAS, with selectivity over other RAS isoforms. Importantly, this works on both the on and the off signaling states.

Second, what matters biologically, by degrading the protein and removing the oncoprotein rather than just inhibiting it, we are seeing stronger antiproliferative and proapoptotic effects, along with greater tumor growth inhibition. Third, in preclinical models, this approach shows enhanced activity, especially in combination with anti-PD-1, compared to the investigational pan-RAS on inhibitor.

That gives us confidence in a differentiated pan-KRAS degradation strategy that also complements our KRAS G12D program. We'll be sharing more updates later this year.

With that, I'll turn the call over to Andrew to review our quarterly financial results. Andrew?

Thanks, Angela, and good morning, everyone. I'm pleased to provide financial highlights for the first quarter and full year ended March 31st, 2026.

As a reminder, detailed financial results for the first quarter are included in the press release we just issued this morning. Reiterating the team's sentiment, we have much to look forward to later this year and are pleased with our strong financial position that will allow us to continue to advance our pipeline into the second half of 2028.

At the end of the first quarter, we had $614.9 million in cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities on the balance sheet, compared with $685.4 million at the end of 2025. With our healthy balance sheet and focus on our early pipeline, we are well positioned to continue to develop our promising oncology and neurology programs.

Turning to our first quarter 2026 financial highlights: Revenue for the three months ended March 31st, 2026, totaled $15.6 million, compared to $188.8 million in revenue for the same period in 2025. The decrease of $173.2 million was due to decreased revenue recognized from the vepdegestrant collaborative agreement with Pfizer, driven by changes to the estimated remaining program costs.

General and administrative expenses were $19.1 million for the first quarter, compared to $26.6 million for the same period of 2025. The decrease of $7.5 million was primarily due to a decrease in professional fees of $5.3 million.

Research and development expenses were $60.3 million in the first quarter, compared to $90.8 million for the same period of 2025. The decrease of $30.5 million was primarily driven by a decrease in compensation and related personal expenses of $15.6 million and a decrease in program-specific expenses of $9.5 million.

Our cost reduction programs initiated last year and finishing out mid-year 2026 continue to materially reduce our expenses. Non-GAAP R&D was down $25 million compared to the same period last year, representing a reduction of 32%.

Non-GAAP G&A came down by $10.1 million, or 44%, compared to prior year. Total non-GAAP expenses of $67.3 million is down $35.1 million from the same period last year and is representative of our new cost structure for 2026.

We continue to maintain our cash runway guidance into the second half of 2028. In doing so, we will be able to fund operations through key data milestones over the coming months and continue to support our differentiated programs that have the potential to meaningfully improve patients' lives.

Additionally, our cash position will benefit from an approval milestone related to the approval of Vepenu, which we expect to receive later in the year, and the upfront and near-term milestones from our out-licensing agreement with Rigel. With that, I'll turn the call over to Randy for closing remarks.

Randy?

Over the past 10 years, Arvinas has proven itself a leader in making potent, selective, orally bioavailable, and brain-penetrant PROTACs with differentiated profiles. We've now successfully developed the first PROTAC to receive FDA approval, an accomplishment we believe further validates our technology and promising pipeline.

Out-licensing Vepenu to Rigel Pharmaceuticals allows us to focus on our Phase 1 clinical programs, each of which were advanced based on very differentiated preclinical data. We believe these programs have the potential to transform treatment paradigms across oncology and neurology.

We are positioned to deliver multiple clinical updates across our portfolio, including both ARV-806 and ARV-393 later this year. We expect to bring our HPK1 degrader, ARV-6723, into the clinic in the coming months.

For ARV-102, we are working diligently to provide additional data needed to enable the initiation of the Phase 1b trial in patients with PSP. We anticipate beginning this trial and potentially a registrational trial in the second half of the year.

This is a defining year for Arvinas. It is a year of focused execution, clinical progress, and multiple shots on goal, all powered by a healthy balance sheet and a team deeply committed to advancing differentiated first-in-class therapies.

We believe the work we're doing has the potential to fundamentally change treatment paradigms and deliver meaningful impact for patients with serious unmet needs. With that, I'll turn the call back to Jeff to begin the Q&A.

Jeff?

Thanks, Randy. As a reminder for everyone, we're available to take questions offline if you aren't able to join the queue.

For now, I'm going to ask the operator to open up the line for Q&A. Operator?

Hi. This is Anna on for Kripa.

Thanks so much for taking our question. Just two quick questions on the Rigel partnership.

Congrats on that. Could you talk a little bit about the economics associated with Rigel sublicensing the drug outside of the US, and kind of how Arvinas and Pfizer may split the percentage of the sublicensing revenue?

Remind us what the ongoing development activities are that Rigel is expected to contribute that $40 million towards. Thanks so much.

Thank you very much for the question, and I just want to start by saying how happy we are to get that done, right? It's been really important to us to make sure that Vepenu gets to patients as quickly as possible now that it's approved as the first ever PROTAC degrader to get approved.

We really chose Rigel as a partner because we were confident in their ability to really maximize the value of the drug and get it to patients quickly and efficiently. It's been a great process with them and we're grateful to them for that.

In terms of the economics around it, maybe I'll turn over to Andrew to talk about that.

Thanks, Randy. Thanks for the question.

The way to think about our out-license and our deal with Pfizer, Pfizer and us both have a 50/50 interest. When you read things like milestones and royalties, think about Pfizer and us splitting those right down the middle for the duration of the out-license, okay?

The economics that we put in the press release this morning largely pertained to the US. That's where we have our current approval.

Rigel has global rights. As you may know, Rigel is mainly focused in the US, they would need to find partners to launch it internationally.

There would also be a royalty coming back to Pfizer and us, but we did not disclose that number in the press release, as we only have a US approval at this time.

Hi, this is Luke on for Etai. Thanks for taking my question.

For 806, the KRAS G12D, can you talk about the scope of the data that we'll get later this year around the number of patients, follow-up time, etc., and what you're viewing as the bar of success for advancing it to future development? Then for 027, how translatable is the mouse model into humans, and what are the relevant biomarkers that we can look for from the healthy volunteer study, or is this really just going to be a safety assessment?

Great. Thanks for the questions, and we can take them maybe in turn, and I'll look for Noah and Angela to jump in here, too.

On 806, those data will be coming out this year. As we're in a Phase 1 dose escalation, which has been going on since last year.

Obviously, that's a space that's been evolving pretty rapidly over the past few months, and a space that we're pretty excited about having a PROTAC degrader for G12D. We've said the data will be coming in 2026.

We haven't been exactly specific on where and when. We will be sharing safety, PK, PD, and some initial response rate data.

Clearly, the later in the year that we get those data out, the more durability data we'll look to have, which is obviously what we think is going to be some of the most important information for comparison. That's the story for 806.

Maybe for 027, Angela, the question on translatability of models.

Sure. For ARV-027, we know that we're targeting the polyglutamine repeat androgen receptor.

This is the only form of androgen receptor that's expressed in SBMA. It's the root cause of the disease, and that's exactly what we're going after, right?

We have a lot of experience with androgen receptor degraders. We've put many of them into the clinic, and we know that we degrade the androgen receptor clinically.

What we're hoping to achieve clinically is just that in muscle, right? We've designed this androgen receptor degrader to degrade the polyglutamine repeat androgen receptor in muscle.

We've proven that in this aggressive mouse model, where we've shown not only very nice dose-dependent degradation of the polyglutamine repeat androgen receptor in muscle, we've also shown that we've rescued two endophenotypes that are very important for the disease: endurance and strength, right? Our goal is to translate that ultimately into the disease, but first, we need to show pharmacodynamically that we impact the target in muscle, and that's our goal with the Phase 1 trial in healthy volunteers.

Luke, if I could— Yeah.

Hi, this is Caroline on for Yigal. Thanks for taking our question.

Can you tell us what are the average levels of LRRK2 in PSP patients, and would the 50% knockdown seen in Parkinson's be enough to bring PSP patients back into normal physiologic range? Thanks.

That is exactly our thinking. In terms of patients with Parkinson's and other neurodegenerative diseases where LRRK2 is playing a role, it's generally double.

That is the thinking there. Anything else you'd like to add, Noah?

Sure. We can speak towards the levels that we see with the assay that we have.

I think it's important to recognize that LRRK2 is an evolving area, and different folks in clinical trials and in just general kind of Phase 0 studies just doing assessments of CSF have different measurements. We recognize that healthy volunteers—think of it roughly as healthy volunteers having a little below 10 picograms per mL as their median LRRK2 level, and patients with Parkinson's disease having about twice that.

As you said, I think you hit it spot-on, our goal would be to reduce the Parkinson's disease patient levels towards what's seen in healthy comparators.

The good news there is that that's exactly what we have seen in our studies to date, right? In the studies that we showed at AD/PD in our Phase 1s, if you compare the healthy volunteers to the patients with PD, we do, in fact, see that the patients have somewhere on the order of double the LRRK2.

In addition to that, we're able to show that after treatment with ARV-102, that we then knock down and reduce that level of LRRK2 by at least 50%, depending on the dose that we get. We feel like we certainly have a path to get there.

Just to add to that, in postmortem brain, we know from published results that there's twofold elevation in microglia in the brain as well, and that by normalizing that, we feel that will normalize neuroinflammation as well, and the biomarkers that Noah and his team have shown we move, we hope will alter the course of the disease. That's PSP.

Great. Just to clarify, you expect the same for PSP patients as the Parkinson's patients?

Could you say that again, ask the question?

You seem to respond in terms of Parkinson's patients, and I was just clarifying that you'd expect the same 50% knockdown in PSP patients.

Right. We've shared all their data that have been published by others demonstrating an association of LRRK2 with PSP.

We understand that in general, in these neurodegenerative diseases, when the LRRK2 protein is mutated, but also when it's expressed at higher levels, it's leading to endolysosomal dysfunction, which can drive the accumulation of pathological proteins. PSP fits into that perfectly.

It has the genetic association with LRRK2. There is accumulation of pathological tau, and our expectation is that we will see reductions of LRRK2 in the PSP patients, which would lead to an improvement in the tau deposition or reduction in it.

To add to what Noah said, there's elevated LRRK2 in peripheral monocytes. Biomarkers are elevated.

LRRK2 is elevated in PSP, and this is correlated with more rapid progression clinically within a year in that already progressive disease. That indicates to us that reducing LRRK2 could move the needle in that disease.

That's PSP.

Thank you.

Thanks for having me on, and congrats on the Vepenu approval and the Rigel deal. The first question I wanted to have was on vepdeg program for any future clinical trial developments or any ongoing trial developments, is how is that going to be structured in the way that you or Rigel or Pfizer will be managing it?

Then secondly, wanted to ask if there's any combinations with the ARV-806 for the KRAS G12D degrader, if there's any combination options, as you're looking at the different solid tumor indications you're going after. Thanks.

Thanks for the questions. On Vepenu, the ongoing trials, as are being run by us and Pfizer.

As we talked about this morning in the releases, Rigel will provide some cost offsets for some of those ongoing development plans. For future development work, the economics then would fall to Rigel.

However, it will make sense to wait a little bit for us to get through the appropriate reviews and get that transaction fully closed before talking about that. Really, the questions on the development will go to Rigel.

We're pretty excited with where we are right now in terms of what we've created for development plan for vep, and getting that to patients. In terms of 806 combos, Noah, would you like to join in?

Oh, sure. We have shared some data previously and are continuing to share about combinations of 806.

You can look at upcoming congresses to see what happens, for example, when you combine with chemotherapy. We're obviously doing work to look at other combinations internally.

Right now, our guidance is simply towards sharing the results of our dose escalation.

And— Just to add that we know that we are combinable from a degrader perspective with anti-PD-1. This is something that we've shared, and it looks different than Daraxon Ras's.

We've also shown functionally that we don't inhibit T-cell receptor function, which is different than Daraxon. We feel that we have opportunities there as well.

Hey, guys. Good morning.

Thanks for taking my questions. Maybe one on the BCL6 program.

Could you comment on potential for differentiation from the Bristol CELMoD program, and just help us understand what you're doing in the Phase 1 study, the monotherapy study? Is that in all-comers, are patients selected in any way, and how should we think about the efficacy bar in B and T-cell lymphomas?

Thanks for the question, Michael. Right, ARV-393, our BCL6 degrader, it's a program in our Phase 1 dose escalation as of now.

That's a program that when we began, it really was considered undruggable. We've been gratified to see some of that early data from BMS around response rates in B-cell tumors.

As we reminded folks this morning, while that Phase 1 is ongoing for us, we mentioned last fall that we have seen some early responses in both B and T-cell lymphomas. In terms of the potential for differentiation, Noah, would you like to speak?

Sure. I just want to clarify, though.

The question was differentiating us from, you said the CELMoD?

The Bristol, yeah.

Golcadomide or their BCL6? I just wanted to be clear in my response.

The BCL6, I'm sorry. Oh,

the BCL6. Okay.

The BCL6 degrader that they've published on demonstrates activity in follicular and large B-cell lymphomas. We're obviously looking at that.

A way that we've differentiated our dose escalation study is that we've cued in on AITL as well. This population, angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma, represents about 3% of all NHLs.

There is tremendous unmet medical need because after first-line CHOP, where patients will progress pretty rapidly, on average, in about a year or less, there really isn't a good standard of care. We've described that we've enrolled such patients in our study.

We've seen responses. It becomes an important area of differentiation in terms of the development plan for us.

In terms of efficacy bars, there becomes a difference between efficacy bars in T-cell malignancies and B-cell malignancies. I described AITL to you.

If we shift to B-cell malignancies and look at the two major ones, follicular, there's diminishing unmet medical need because patients have very long progression-free survivals with current first, second, and third-line therapies. In large B-cell lymphoma, which we've hinted at, or not even hint, I guess we've stated that that's an area of more interest to us, there is also diminishing unmet medical need, but still a significant enough one in second and third-line, where even though you have drugs like CAR-T that can be curative and you have tremendous responses with bispecifics, fundamentally patients are still progressing.

We envision a future where we will be combining with bispecifics and impacting large B-cell lymphoma. We already shared today that we started dosing patients in a large B-cell lymphoma dose escalation, where we combine with glofitamab.

That becomes an important part of our program.

Hey. Hi, team.

Good morning, and thanks for giving me the opportunity. I have two questions, one on KRAS and one on the LRRK2 degrader.

Maybe start with the KRAS. The AACR 2026 had pretty good disclosure-rich data on how the competitive landscape for KRAS inhibitors/degraders look like.

My question is, what were the learnings from the AACR data reads with respect to tolerability, efficacy, the efficacy bar, and resistance aspect of the KRAS problem?

Thanks for the question. Yes, look, on KRAS in general, and I'll pass to Noah here in a moment.

I think you're absolutely right to point out the space is evolving quickly. We were pleased to see the RevMed data come out both earlier, a month or so ago, and then the recent publication, which helps clarify even some of the sort of different levels of data and efficacy that we've seen in different populations.

It's certainly a space that we're watching very carefully, both as we move the programs forward and plan our own data disclosures. I would say that's true for both our G12D program, which is in the clinic now, as well as our pan-KRAS program, which is still preclinical.

Like other companies, we think that it's going to be quite helpful to have multiple assets in this space, both a more specific mutant degrader and then as well as the pan. Noah, please chime in on this space.

Thanks, Randy. There definitely have been great learnings both at scientific conferences and obviously with RevMed's announcements.

This is an area of active development, intense development, because of the potential impact for patients. I think all of us recognize the transformative nature of the first pan-RAS inhibitor.

At least by what's been presented for the impact as monotherapy in second-line PDAC. What we also recognize is that with that tremendous efficacy, doubling overall survival, there's also toxicity burdens, right?

It's an amazing drug, but patients also are experiencing a lot of toxicity, and maybe this is because of the broad targeting beyond KRAS, of NRAS and HRAS as well. This opens the door for folks that are looking at more targeted therapy, whether that means looking at G12D, which represents about 40% of that patient population in PDAC, and also about 10% to 15% in CRC, and several percent in non-small cell lung cancer, or if you're looking at a pan-KRAS.

That's why we've chosen to discover and develop drugs in this direction. Now, there's an opportunity for differentiation by more targeting, but also if you can reduce the toxicity that's seen, particularly the skin tox that's seen with the pan-RAS, then that also creates the opportunity for broader combinability.

We recognize that there may be opportunities to combine a pan-KRAS or a G12D targeting agent that doesn't have much skin toxicity with EGFR receptors, which can move you in the CRC direction, and there are opportunities potentially to combine with chemotherapy and use higher doses than a pan-RAS can use. We recognize that.

We recognize the intense competition in the G12D space. That's why we're just keeping our heads down, charging forward, and look forward to sharing data later this year on our G12D program.

Great. Thanks.

Maybe if I have time, can I ask one question on the LRRK2 LRRK2 program?

Please.

Okay. Thanks.

Given the data which you disclosed at the AD/PD, it would be important to know kind of the factors which drove the decision to look at the PSP trial from whether it is a mechanistic point of view, whether it is from the biomarker point of view, whether it is from the indication point of view, which might lead to a faster registrational trial. Just wanted to understand what were the thoughts, the strategic thoughts that went inside that decision.

Absolutely. I'll pass to Noah on the design and thinking about PSP as an indication.

On those AD/PD data, just to reiterate that, and we talked about it in the prepared remarks, but I really think that what we're doing there is pretty unique, right? What we've been able to show there in terms of both reduction of LRRK2 and also the downstream disease-relevant biomarkers, we think really stands apart from what others have shown, both preclinically and in the clinic, right?

We're moving downstream biomarkers that we know are important for neuroinflammation and driving the disease in a way that we think you need a degrader to hit all the functions of LRRK2, which could ultimately be relevant in PSP as well as other diseases. On PSP specific, please, Noah.

Thanks for the question. Thanks, Randy.

I think for all the reasons you highlighted or all the general areas: indication, mechanism, biomarkers. All of that supports the focus on PSP.

Let me be very clear: there's no pivot here. We did a study in Parkinson's disease because those patients are readily available, because it is a disease of interest to us and we could see a long-term opportunity to develop the drug in that space as well.

We chose that initially because it was the most informative next step after a healthy volunteer study to prove some of the biomarker points that are applicable to PSP. The PSP program has been long in planning.

It's a disease of incredible unmet medical need that's rapidly progressive, and allows you to identify a more homogeneous population of patients that have rapid progression, significant changes in the PSP rating scale on an annual basis, which means that you can run a study with fewer patients and see the effect of your drug. From an indication point of view, less unmet medical need, less competition, more homogeneous, and quite a significant indication in its own right, because as we said, it's a rare disease, but at the same time, there are 30,000 patients in the US.

You can make similar estimates for Europe, obviously, and Asia. That's the indication side.

Mechanistically, same fundamental issue. You have endolysosomal dysfunction, you have degeneration of synapses and circuits in the brain that underlie the disease.

In this particular disease, it's a tau pathology that, rather than something like alpha-synuclein, where I think there's more heterogeneity there, less certainty in the community about how that works to drive disease. There's understanding that the 4R tau in PSP is a driver of this disease, it's something that we're going to be able to measure as well.

Then from a biomarker point of view, we've done the lifting so far now in PD, and that's transferable, we know that the drug can degrade LRRK2 in the brain in a predictable way. We know that we can drive decrease in biomarkers that are associated with that endolysosomal dysfunction that I described earlier that's driving the 4R tau accumulation, and so that allowed us to choose a dose range that we can bring forward for our Phase 1b and our registrational Phase 2 program.

Great. Thanks, guys.

Sure.

Hi, guys. Thanks very much for taking my question, and congrats on all the progress.

I'd like to focus on the RAS programs as well. You're moving into the expansion cohorts, Phase 2 expansion cohorts.

I noticed for the G12D, it seems to be specifically in pancreatic, and I was curious what led to that decision. Obviously, PDAC is arguably the most competitive of the RAS-relevant spaces, and I know that the landscape is evolving rapidly there.

What drove you into PDAC specifically? Have you considered doing expansion cohorts in other RAS-relevant indications, and when could we hear more about some of those combo approaches that you mentioned in previous answers?

Then on the pan-KRAS side, I was really interested to hear and to see the recent publication of the improved synergy, apparent improved synergy with the anti-PD-1s, and I was curious what your thoughts on the mechanism there was, why the pan-KRAS would have a better or a degrader would have a better synergy with PD-1 than pan-RAS agents.

John, thanks for the questions. We'll do that in three parts.

I'll start, then pass to Noah for PDAC, and then Angela can probably speak best to the pan and the PD-1. Look, I think it bears repeating, right?

As this space evolves, we're clearly looking at what's changing. What hasn't changed is our preclinical data, right?

Our preclinical data gave us reason to believe, based on the data in our hands, that we could be more potent in terms of tumor growth inhibition versus the clinical-stage inhibitors and degraders. That's what we're relying on to think that we could be better.

Now, that better could result in durability, preventing resistance. There's also opportunities, as Noah spoke about before, around combinability and tolerability.

I think we'll be looking at all of those things. The other thing that I would say before I pass to you on pancreatic is that when you have a program come along like RevMed has and is going to change the space, it isn't only going to be about can you win head-to-head.

There are going to be new opportunities that are created in that space as the whole treatment paradigm changes in the years to come. Maybe Noah on PDAC and combos, and Angela on pan.

Thank you, John, for the question. Building on Randy's point about the potency which we saw preclinically.

Now that we look at the data from other competitors in the space, we recognize that that potency could be a big deal. We know that Astellas' degrader wasn't able to achieve its originally intended maximal dosing because of DLTs in their Phase 1 study.

We know that when Daraxon Rasib combined with Gem-Abraxane for their first-line PDAC study, they had to do a dose reduction, right? All of those types of signals suggest that if you have a drug that can be more potent, you might be able to achieve the target engagement and avoid some of the toxicities that one accumulates when you have to use really high doses.

With that said, we're doing the practical thing. We did our dose escalation.

One needs for Project Optimus to choose a recommended Phase 2 or Phase 3 dose, however you want to describe it. That requires some expansion.

When you do that, and PDAC makes the most sense because it's a monotherapy space, the patients are accessible, the need is there, and I think that's been borne out by the pace of our study so far. Those are the steps that we're guided to, I don't want to go beyond that and start talking about other combinations and other indications.

The focus now is to understand what's the best dose as monotherapy, and then from there, once we've disclosed that, we can get into a discussion about other directions we can go. I'll turn it to Angela for the KRAS piece.

Sure. Thanks, John.

Thanks for highlighting our oral pan-KRAS poster at AACR. What we did show that we had differential impact versus Daraxon in terms of the tumor microenvironment, where we saw Daraxon was inhibiting the T-cell function by three different measures, right, functionally.

In the T-cell microenvironment, we know that not only are we recruiting T cells, but we're recruiting other cells to the tumor. We are seeing greater complete responses because of that alteration that we're seeing in the microenvironment.

We did show that we were inducing MHC, we are inducing antigenicity of the tumor, and stay tuned for more mechanistic information on what's going on in the tumor microenvironment. It's an exciting time for the degrader.

Thanks so much. Angela, just to clarify, it sounded like what you were suggesting is that this is a pan-KRAS effect, where sparing some of the broader activity of Daraxon might be the key here, rather than a degrader effect?

I'm just curious if it's possible to tease those two things out at this point.

Just so I understand the question and clarifying. Right, we believe that through degradation, right, through both G12D with 806 or through a pan-KRAS mechanism, that the degrader has a differential effect relative to the KRAS on inhibitor in the tumor microenvironment, and that's exactly what we showed in our mechanistic study looking at the tumors themselves in terms of seeing that we're actually recruiting more of a T-cell signal, but we're also seeing that we are inducing the antigenicity of the tumors.

We're recruiting more immune cells to the tumor microenvironment, and we are seeing greater complete responses. In addition, we also showed the difference between the impact of our molecule, our degrader, in a dose response relative to the KRAS on clinical inhibitor in three different T-cell functional assays.

We're not inhibiting the T-cell function, whereas Daraxon is.

Great. Thanks so much.

Hi. Good morning, and thanks for taking our questions, and congrats on all the progress.

I want to turn back for a moment to 027 and the spinobulbar Kennedy's disease program, and just curious if you can maybe provide some context on how it compares to the 766 program for prostate cancer since both degrade androgen receptors, and just sort of its potency and sort of what level of effect may be necessary to get to a clinically meaningful benefit here in your opinion? That's my first question.

My second question is on Vepenu, and just what the latest status or plans are for European and other global filings, and just thinking about how we should model that on the forward here given it's now partnered to Rigel. Thank you.

Great. Thanks.

For 027 for SBMA, that program began earlier in the year, and you're right to remind of the luxdeglutamide deal we did with Novartis a few years ago for prostate cancer. The key difference between the molecules is that while both degrade AR, 027 was specifically selected for its ability to degrade AR in muscle.

It really gets into muscle well, which is really important as that's the site where we'd like it to be active for the neuromuscular disease of SBMA, not the case for 766 or luxdeglutamide, the one that's for prostate cancer with Novartis. In terms of vep and going forward, obviously, we have the US approval.

Further regulatory work will be done by Rigel, the new partner. Certainly, we've got an HSR period to get through.

After that point, probably makes sense to connect with Rigel on all questions regarding future development. We're certainly excited for them to take it over for both commercialization and the potential further development of vep.

Great. Thank you very much.

Morning. This is Jacob on for Derek.

Thanks for taking our question. Just wanted to clarify, did you say the ARV-102 is on hold in the US, but still going ahead ex-US?

Effectively, yeah, that's correct. For 102, right, as Noah said, after filing that IND, you get to the 30-day period, and the FDA essentially has two options: either to move forward or to put it on hold.

While that trial has not yet begun in the US, we have not dosed any patients in the US, technically, yes, it's on hold. The trials that have been going on outside the US are not affected, and the thinking is that as we move forward, speaking with both the FDA and ex-US regulatory authorities, we'll consider down both paths in parallel.

I see. What are the gaining factors there for starting in the US versus ex-US?

Noah,

you'll chime in. Essentially, a couple of years ago, before we started this program, we met with the FDA, and we described or we asked them what would be necessary to start in the US.

At the time, we'd already made a strategic decision to run the healthy volunteer and eventually do the Parkinson's disease study in Europe to get the program started, very common in neuro drug development. They had outlined us for chronic treatment, you need to provide the following information.

We provided that information, and now they were asking for more than had originally been requested. We have to get it in order.

We'll share it with them. The conversation will continue.

Okay. Thanks for the color.

Hey, thanks for taking the question. Just coming back to PSP as an indication, can you remind us how these patients are diagnosed, and where they're frequently treated?

Are they concentrated at certain centers of excellence? Any views so far on what a potential pivotal study could look like in terms of length and primary endpoints?

Thanks.

Thanks for the question, Jeet. Noah, please.

Sure, I think. Thanks, Jeet.

The patients are typically diagnosed after having been mistakenly diagnosed with Parkinson's disease, right, because you have someone that's coming in with tremor, stiffness, instability. These are common presentations for Parkinson's disease, and are also present in PSP.

There's kind of a clinical differentiating feature, which is that they have a vertical gaze problem that leads to falls. There's a clinical management indicator that also drives you in the direction of PSP, which is that patients with Parkinson's disease will be treated with L-dopa of some kind, and they will show some improvement typically, but when you have a PSP patient, they do not respond to that.

Think of it as commonly a misdiagnosis unless they present with falls, when it would be more obvious. Then they have this diagnosis, and unfortunately, it's a rapidly progressive disease and differentiates from Parkinson's disease in that way.

As we said, time from diagnosis to death is 5 to 7 years or so. Now, you asked where are the patients treated?

There definitely are at some centers of excellence, but it's something that is seen broadly. Most all neurologists will see PSP patients at some points.

There are centers that see quite a lot of them. There is a history of running clinical trials at various centers in the US.

Right now, the only other Phase 3 program that is going to be concurrent with this, it looks like, is Novartis's study, because they've announced an ASO targeting tau that's moving into Phase 3, and that involves quarterly intrathecal injections of an ASO. We believe that we'll be able to recruit our patients successfully, because there's a long track record of global recruitment for PSP trials, and we think there may even be a preference for this type of study that we're running.

Oh, and in terms of endpoints and the size of that study, we've said in broad strokes before, it's a few hundred patients. It'll be presumably two-dose levels versus placebo and require a year of treatment.

that satisfactory?

Hey, guys. Thanks very much for taking our question.

This is Nick on for Tyler. Moving back to the LRRK2 program, while you are prioritizing PSP for the reasons that you mentioned before, is there anything that you could see in your PSP data at some point that would affect your decision to move forward in Parkinson's disease, or could the Denali LRRK2 inhibitor Phase 2 data later this year support advancement into Parkinson's disease?

Thanks.

I think the short answer is no, in the way that we think that the data we've generated so far in both healthy volunteers and patients with Parkinson's can be translated to both patients with Parkinson's and PSP. I guess from that perspective, there's certainly we could do in PSP and data we could see that would give us more confidence in our ability to do what we've already started to show, which is have 102 be an orally available brain-penetrant drug that reduces LRRK2 right where we wanted to degrade it in deep brain regions.

When it comes to the Biogen readout, certainly something we're looking at. As a reminder, we're talking about 102 as a degrader here, focused on all three aspects of LRRK2's function, which we think is important for the reasons that we've already outlined on this call.

For that reason, we're certainly hopeful that the trial is positive for patients, and we think that if it is, we think we can show a benefit beyond that with the technology that we have. If it's not, we think that the differentiation that we've already shown both in the clinic with biomarkers, as well as preclinically with things like endolysosomal function, the ability to reduce tau, we think there's a lot of data we've already shared that shows how different we are from that program.

We'll be moving ahead.

Thank you.

This is Manoj on for Akash. Just one from our end on ARV-806.

It seems like you are going with two dose levels randomized into Phase 2 trial of ARV-806 rather than just one dose selected from the escalation portion. Just trying to understand the rational of those two dose levels going randomized into the Phase 2, and also what endpoints will kind of finally decide the final dose selection, like ORR or KRAS degradation, tolerability, or just trying to understand the rationale there.

Thanks.

You're right. As we head into the dose expansion, we are planning to explore two doses, which I think is fairly typical in oncology.

Noah, anything to add on the

latter?

Yep,

all of those factors will go into it, meaning when you do a dose expansion and you're trying to optimize the dose, satisfying for yourself that you have the right dose, but also satisfying the FDA, let's be frank. It's very important for them.

You look at all these factors. You look at the overall response, we'll look at as much degradation data as we can collect, you're looking at the safety, and other indicators of efficacy.

It all goes in there, but I think we're looking at a pretty typical expansion here.

Thanks.

Sure.

Hi, team. This is Daniel Bronner on for Liisa.

Thank you so much for taking our question. How do you view the patient population in the future for your KRAS programs?

I noticed on the KRAS G12D degrader, you have so far, based on ClinicalTrials.gov, excluded any pretreatment with KRAS-targeted agents. Do you think you will be developing it in the same space?

Do you think you will be going after pan-RAS or pan-KRAS, or even targeted KRAS G12D drugs in the future?

I think you're highlighting the answer, right, which is that there's a lot of options here. The most important thing to do first is show that our drug works, right?

We need to show that in the Phase 1, we're able to be competitive, and that's what we're looking to do with both the escalation and the expansion. Beyond that, as your question and others have alluded to, there's options in different indications.

There's options for monotherapy versus combination. You mentioned KRAS pretreatment.

As other programs come onto the market and get used, certainly that's going to create a new opportunity to follow that in other therapies, and we'll have to figure out a way to play in that space. One thing that I've been pretty consistent in saying since taking over the CEO role a few months ago is that we're not interested in producing incremental and me-too sorts of programs.

It's important for us, especially as a company that has four programs in Phase 1 right now, with the fifth entering in the second half of the year, it's really important that we focus Arvinas on where we can play to win and where we can be differentiated. We need to show that we can be, as we create that development plan, we'll move forward if we are.

Again, sort of goes back to saying that look forward to sharing those data this year, and that'll be the point to share a bit more on the development plans beyond the initial stages of monotherapy expansion and escalation.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, everybody, for joining. I probably can't say this enough, but I really couldn't be prouder of the team and where we are.

Just in the past 10 days, 11 days, we've had both the approval of vep, which is the first ever heterobifunctional degrader, PROTAC, to get to the market. As I said earlier, it's a very short list of companies that gets to take a technology all the way from inception to its first approval.

Couldn't be prouder of that. Working with Pfizer to get the program, Vepenu, licensed to Rigel for them to launch, also a huge accomplishment.

As I reiterated a moment ago, we've got four programs in the clinic. We've shared some data for one already this year, have a couple more coming, with some trial starts.

A lot to look forward to, and we look forward to keeping you updated along the way.