Joshua J. Ofman
Thanks, Bob, and hello, everyone. We've spoken in the past about key performance metrics, features and capabilities for multi- cancer early detection tests, which are quite different from those for single cancer screenings. Most critically, any test developer must confirm clinical validation in the intended use population of asymptomatic adults eligible for screening before they introduce those tests into clinical practice. This critical criteria was the reason that GRAIL did not introduce Galleri into clinical practice until we saw the results from the PATHFINDER trial in these screening population. Even test with strong results in observational case- controlled studies, may fail to confirm those results in the actual screening population. Full clinical validation requires demonstration of compelling performance in the intended-use population. It is simply not possible to know the benefits and potential harms of any test before being adequately studied in the intended use population. It is also important to note that any multi-cancer test seeking FDA approval will need to demonstrate this as well. So in terms of performance metrics, we've discussed what we consider to be most clinically important for MCEDs, positive predictive value, or PPV, which tells us among positive test results, how many cancers are found or how many are actually true positives. And the specificity, critically important, which defines the false positive rate, as well as the cancer detection yield when added to standard of care screening and the ability to localize where in the body a cancer signal is coming from. After hundreds of thousands of commercial tests performed, we've now confirmed how essential it is for any MCED test to report a predicted CSO or cancer signal origin to guide an efficient and effective clinical workup. We believe that any other approach, such as relying on whole-body imaging with its radiation exposure, costs and lack of any performance or safety data is simply not practicable. Our first clinical implementation study, PATHFINDER, which was presented at ESMO in 2022, showed that Galleri more than doubled the number of cancers identified when added to standard of care screening. About half of the MCED detected cancers were at early stage. And about 70% of the MCED detected cancers had no recommended screenings at all. The positive predictive value for Galleri in the study population was 43%, which, as you recall, is an order of magnitude higher than leading single cancer screening tests, whose PPVs remain in the single digits. Galleri specificity was 99.5% and its cancer signal of origin accuracy was 88%. We have subsequently undertaken PATHFINDER 2, similarly designed as a prospective multi-center interventional study of Galleri added to standard of care screening designed to assess the performance and safety of Galleri in an even larger and more representative intended-use population. As Bob said, we observed a number of very promising results in the prespecified analysis of the first 25,000 participants enrolled with 12 months follow-up and shared top line results in June. First, adding Galleri to standard of care screening in PATHFINDER 2 demonstrated substantially greater additional cancer detection than that observed in the first PATHFINDER study. That is substantially greater than the more than doubling of the overall number of cancers detected when added to standard of care in the first PATHFINDER study. Second, data showed a substantially higher positive predictive value than that observed in the first PATHFINDER study, which was 43%. Third, specificity and CSO accuracy were consistent with that observed in the first PATHFINDER study. And finally, there were no serious safety concerns reported in PATHFINDER 2. We're enormously pleased with the top line results from both of our registrational studies, PATHFINDER 2 and the NHS Galleri randomized clinical trial. You will recall in May that we completed a review of Galleri test performance results in the intervention arm from the prevalent screening round of the registrational NHS Galleri trial. Data from the prevalence screening round showed a substantially higher positive predictive value than that observed in the first PATHFINDER study. Specificity and CSO accuracy were consistent with that observed in the first PATHFINDER study. And again, there were no serious safety concerns observed in PATHFINDER 2, also consistent with the first PATHFINDER study. These top line findings from NHS Galleri and PATHFINDER 2 confirm and extend what we already know about our multi-cancer early detection technology. The technology has been validated through many robust studies, including intended-use populations and through hundreds of thousands of commercial and clinical study test results showing very consistent results. Data presented at the ASCO Annual Meeting 2025 in May included a 5-year follow-up analysis of The Circulating Cell-free Genome Atlas study, which demonstrated Galleri's preferential detection of aggressive and clinically meaningful cancers. These findings were consistent with earlier analysis assessing the prognostic importance of Galleri's cell-free DNA-based methylation approach. Between case-controlled studies and prospective implementation studies in the intended use population, we have not seen deterioration in the key performance metrics. Many of you will know, this is not always the case. Case-control performance often doesn't carry over into the real world, but we saw no deterioration in specificity, positive predictive value or cancer detection yield. And now we're moving into readouts of much larger registrational studies in the intended use groups as well as analyses performed by large health systems who have actual clinical experience with Galleri, and we're seeing a body of results with substantially improved PPV figures and substantially higher cancer detection numbers while other key figures like specificity and CSO accuracy remain consistent. Earlier in GRAIL's development phase of our MCAD technology, we deployed a very rigorous, unbiased and comprehensive discovery approach to identify the effective genomic features for early cancer screening. Out of those approaches evaluated, methylation patterns exhibited the strongest performance for both sensitive and specific cancer signal detection and accurate prediction of the cancer signal origin. Adding other analytes or DNA features did not improve the performance. What we are seeing today from our growing data set strengthens our conviction in our targeted methylation approach, which is focused on highly informative and low-noise methylation regions known to be informative for cancer. Through hundreds of thousands of samples run in both clinical studies and commercially, we're seeing very strong positive predictive values in cancer detection rates and a highly accurate cancer signal aversion prediction, all of which critically is achieved at a very low false positive rate of 0.5%, which befits population scale testing. Remember, if another test developer is operating at a lower specificity, a difference in specificity of 99.5% to 98.5% is actually 3x higher false positive rate. That's really important to remember. We reported top line results from PATHFINDER 2 in order to preserve detailed results for a major medical meeting, and we hope to present the full data set at ESMO in October. We look forward to discussing detailed results from PATHFINDER 2 with you potentially very soon. I'll now hand off to Aaron for a review of the financials.